Social Media and Gender Wars: Andrew Tate and the Manosphere’s Influence on Young Men

• Andrew Tate relies upon outdated and harmful gender stereotypes (e.g., men as naturally “dominant,” women as emotionally unstable) to promote his theory that men are victims in a “gender war.”
• Tate’s popularity among teenage boys is traceable to his use of humor and his perceived authenticity and bravery for espousing his controversial opinions.
• Because Tate presents himself as a lone maverick voice, direct critiques of his views on gender relations may backfire. A better approach may be to educate his followers on the ways his business model relies upon exploiting young men’s fears and desires.

Introduction

Last week, YouTube star and proud misogynist Andrew Tate was arrested again in Romania, this time on charges of sexual assault in the U.K.

Tate’s popularity among teenage boys has caused a lot of alarm in recent years. In a recent article published in Social Media + Society, authors Craig Haslop, Jessica Ringrose, Idil Cambazoglu, and Betsy Milne delve into this controversial figure and his method for attracting young men to his particular brand of misogyny.

Read on to learn more about their research into Tate’s methods and appeal, and what they suggest we should do to combat it.

Background

Misogyny, of course, is nothing new. But the advent of digital technology has facilitated new forms of misogyny, making the spread of anti-women and anti-feminist sentiments easier and more pervasive than ever before. This phenomenon is often described as “networked” or “post-truth” misogyny.

Here’s a summary of the ways digital spaces have changed the landscape of gender-based hatred:

• Platform Affordances: Certain features of digital platforms, such as anonymity, visibility, and algorithm-driven content delivery, create environments where misogyny can flourish. These platforms also amplify content that is controversial or polarizing, further spreading misogynistic messages.
• The Manosphere: This term refers to a collection of online communities and spaces known for promoting misogyny. It includes men’s rights activists, pick-up artists, and others who share anti-feminist views. A key aspect of these groups is their belief in “Red Pill” ideology, which claims to reveal the truth about feminism and gender relations.
• Misogyny Influencers: Some individuals in the manosphere have gained significant influence by spreading misogynistic content. They leverage social media’s attention economy to gain followers and monetize their views, often under the guise of offering “truths” about gender relations.
• Emotional and Affective Aspects: The spread and acceptance of misogynistic content online are driven by emotional and affective dynamics. These dynamics include the need for social approval among peers and the use of fear and other emotions to enforce gender norms.

The theory of hegemonic masculinity provides a framework for understanding how gender inequalities are perpetuated through certain masculine practices and attitudes. (See below.) Online, this often translates into homosocial behaviors–that is, behaviors that create a sense of bonding among men–that reinforce traditional gender roles and misogyny.

Hegemonic Masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity is a concept within gender studies that refers to the cultural dynamics by which certain practices and ideals of masculinity are promoted as superior or more desirable within a given society. Originating from the work of sociologist R.W. Connell in the 1980s, the concept helps explain how and why certain masculinities dominate over others, reinforcing gender inequalities. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects of hegemonic masculinity:

• Hegemonic masculinity embodies the idealized standards of masculinity that are most valued and aimed to be emulated within a particular cultural and historical context. These norms often prioritize traits such as physical strength, stoicism, heterosexuality, economic independence, and authority.
• Hegemonic masculinity establishes a hierarchy not only between men and women but also among men themselves. It privileges certain masculinities over others (e.g., white, heterosexual, middle-class masculinity over other forms of masculinity) and marginalizes those who do not or cannot conform to these norms, including gay men, men of color, and men with disabilities.
• Not all men practice hegemonic masculinity, but many benefit from its dominance through what Connell described as “complicit masculinity.” This refers to men who may not embody the hegemonic ideal but still benefit from the patriarchal dividend—the advantages men gain from the overall subordination of women.
• Hegemonic masculinity is not a fixed trait or a static set of characteristics. It varies across cultures, time periods, and social contexts, adapting to maintain dominance in response to changing social conditions and challenges.
• Conversely, “subordinated masculinities” relate to identities and practices that deviate from the hegemonic norm and are often marginalized or oppressed as a result.

Methods

In their study, Haslop et al. aimed to explore how young boys perceive and engage with online content, specifically focusing on Andrew Tate, a figure known for his controversial views on gender and masculinity. The authors identify five research questions that guided their inquiry:

1. What are the key themes of Tate’s online content?
2. How does he incite misogynistic hate?
3. How does Tate’s content appeal to boys?
4. How do boys relate to the affective and emotional aspects of Tate’s content?
5. What can that tell us about how affect and emotion as homosocial currencies work on and off social media to feed into structures of hegemonic masculinity?

Here’s how they went about it:

• They first conducted two semi-structured focus groups with six Year 9 boys (aged 13–14) from a secondary school in North London. These groups were ethnically diverse and were already engaged in workshops on masculinity and gender equality.
• Andrew Tate’s name was mentioned early in the focus groups, sparking interest and leading to discussions about his content. Not all participants were familiar with Tate, so we showed a selected video to ensure everyone could engage in the conversation.
• They used a thematic analysis to dissect the boys’ conversations about Tate, focusing on how they perceive men’s victimhood and other dominant themes in Tate’s content.

To complement their focus group findings, the study authors analyzed Andrew Tate’s YouTube videos from a specific six-month period:

• This involved both discourse analysis to understand the content’s themes and content analysis to quantify these themes.
• Their analysis went beyond traditional methods by incorporating affective-discursive perspectives. This means they looked at how emotions and affect are used and transmitted through Tate’s content and how they relate to broader gender and social norms.
• They continuously compared the analysis of Tate’s videos with the focus group discussions to understand how the boys use Tate’s content to navigate conversations around gender equality and masculinity, with special attention to how Tate’s emotional and affective messages resonate with the boys and contribute to the reinforcement of hegemonic masculinity through homosocial interactions.

Findings

Haslop et al. identified four major themes from their content analysis of Andrew Tate’s digital footprint:

1. Men’s “Natural” Dominance: Predominantly, Tate’s videos propagate the idea that men are inherently dominant over women and other men, a concept aligning with traditional patriarchal and hegemonic masculinity norms. This notion was explicitly or implicitly endorsed in nearly half of the videos analyzed.
2. Women as Subservient: A significant number of Tate’s videos advocate for women’s subservience to men, suggesting that women should obey and be dependent on men. This reinforces outdated and harmful gender dynamics, promoting a skewed vision of family and societal roles.
3. Gender Stereotypes: Tate often employs sexist stereotypes, portraying women as passive, emotionally unstable, and confined to traditional roles. These stereotypes not only demean women but also serve to legitimize male dominance and aggression.
4. Male Victimhood: Tate crafts a narrative of male victimhood, suggesting that men face greater hardships in areas like dating and economic success. He utilizes popular culture references like “The Matrix” to argue that men are trapped by societal norms and can achieve freedom and success by embracing his worldview.

Beyond mere discourse, Tate’s content plays into the emotional and affective economies of social media, leveraging opinions and controversial statements to provoke reactions and foster a sense of authenticity. This strategy taps into young men’s fears about masculinity, competitiveness, and societal expectations, suggesting that adherence to Tate’s ideology can lead to financial success and personal fulfillment.

This comprehensive examination of Tate’s content reveals a deliberate effort to manipulate emotional and social dynamics to promote gender inequality and exploit societal fears, particularly among young men.

The focus group thematic analysis revealed three major themes:

1. Tate as an “Authentic” and “Reasonable” Voice

• Perceived Authenticity: Some participants viewed Tate as embodying an authentic masculinity, valuing his disregard for public opinion and aligning his behavior with traditional masculine ideals of bravery and dominance.
• Rationalizing Gender Roles: Despite not fully agreeing with all his views, some boys considered Tate a rational voice in discussions on gender roles, specifically around the division of domestic labor, reflecting an acceptance of gendered responsibilities predicated on economic contribution.

2. Gender (Un)Fairness and Men’s Victimhood

• Challenge to Gender Equality: The discourse frequently centered around perceived injustices towards men stemming from gender equality efforts, with some participants feeling that initiatives to combat gender stereotypes were unnatural and forced, echoing Tate’s and the broader manosphere’s sentiments on biological essentialism and traditional gender roles.
• Fear of Losing Ground: Among the boys, there was a palpable concern that men’s status is being undermined by gender inclusivity and equality movements, suggesting an influence of manosphere ideologies that view gender relations as zero-sum games where men’s losses are women’s gains.

3. Tate’s Performance and Humor as Homosocial Currencies

• Humor as a Mask for Misogyny: Participants rationalized Tate’s misogynistic stereotypes and controversial statements as humorous or performative acts meant to generate income, indicating an understanding of his persona as partly contrived for entertainment and financial gain.
• Humor, Shock, and Masculinity: Tate’s content, characterized by surreal humor and shock value, resonated with some boys through its alignment with “lad culture,” where banter serves as a means to affirm masculine bonds and hierarchies. This suggests that Tate’s appeal among young men may be partly due to his exploitation of these dynamics, offering content that thrives on controversy and the ability to shock.

These insights from the focus groups illustrate how Tate’s influence extends beyond his specific content, tapping into broader discussions about masculinity, authenticity, and the gendered dynamics of humor and power. The findings also underscore the complexities of young boys’ navigation through modern masculinity, influenced by digital cultures that simultaneously challenge and reinforce traditional gender norms.

What Can You Do?

Somewhat unusually for a scholarly article, Haslop et al. make a direct argument regarding how best to combat the spread of gender hate and disinformation:

“Attacking Tate’s views and messages is likely to be counter-productive, potentially adding fuel to the fire of the maverick and victim identities he, and other manosphere influencers, like to foster. Instead, we argue that we should offer young people critical education, which offers positive alternative versions of masculinity and highlights the damage that harmful aspects of hegemonic masculinity can do to cisgender heterosexual boys and men, girls, women, and LGBTQ+ people…Helping young people understand how misogyny influencers operate and profit through their content and how they propagate forms of gendered and sexual disinformation can help undermine their business models which are built on the spread of hate.“

Here are some additional actions that can help:

1. Engage in Constructive Dialogue: Have open and respectful conversations with friends, family, and peers about gender equality and the dangers of hate speech and disinformation. Listening and sharing perspectives can foster understanding and change.
2. Support Gender-Inclusive Education: Advocate for education systems that include comprehensive sex and relationship education, emphasizing respect, consent, and gender diversity to challenge stereotypes from a young age.
3. Boost Voices of Equality: Amplify the voices of activists, organizations, and content creators who promote gender equality and counteract hate speech. Sharing their messages can broaden their reach and impact.
4. Challenge Sexism Online and Offline: Stand up against sexist comments, jokes, and narratives in your daily life and on social media. Use these moments as opportunities to educate others about the impact of their words and actions.
5. Report Hate Speech and Disinformation: Utilize reporting features on social media platforms to flag content that spreads hate or false information about gender issues.
6. Support Organizations Fighting Gender Hate: Donate to or volunteer with organizations that work to combat gender-based violence, promote equality, and educate the public about gender issues.
7. Participate in Campaigns and Movements: Join campaigns or movements dedicated to ending gender hate and disinformation. Collective action can lead to social and policy changes.

By taking these steps, individuals can contribute to building a more equitable society that values and respects gender diversity, challenges harmful norms, and combats the spread of disinformation.

Have you had any encounters or experiences with anyone influenced by Andrew Tate? If so, how did you handle it? Share your experiences in the comments below.

Stay informed and inspired! Subscribe to our newsletter, “Society This Week,” and get a free copy of our exclusive report, “Peaceful, Powerful: 225 Nonviolent Tactics for Impactful Activism!”