Andrew Tate Archives

Recent media and public discourse in Australia and globally are replete with concerns about young men’s online behaviours, from Andrew Tate to schoolboys circulating AI deep fake pornography of their female classmates and teachers, revenge porn and the sending of unsolicited ‘dick picks’ to anxieties about the manosphere radicalising young men into misogyny.

These concerns have led to renewed scrutiny on boys and masculinity. Research finds that ‘manfluencers’ like self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate (who is facing charges of rape and human trafficking) have become popular with boys, have resurrected sexism and have legitimised, stabilised and reinvigorated a regressive ‘male supremacy’. In this current landscape, understanding the online experiences of young men has become increasingly important – especially given their voices tend to be absent from these debates.

There are few studies, for example, that specifically focus on the gendered impacts of social media on young men.

Our recent Australian study provides a comprehensive account of how young men are engaging with online spaces. It was led by researchers from Deakin University and The Queensland University of Technology and funded by the eSafety Commission. The study involved two-hour focus group interviews with 117 young men (aged 16-21) from diverse backgrounds.

Our research highlights the need for more nuanced discussion of the gendered impacts of social media on adolescent boys. This is consistent with similar international research. Certainly, there is cause for concern about the harms arising from the wide availability of misogynistic content online. But there are also reasons to be optimistic given the variety of ways in which young men engage with and experience online spaces.

A very encouraging finding from our study was that many young men are critical of the gendered content they encounter online – from Andrew Tate videos and the sharing of intimate images to online pornography.

Young men have a critical engagement with Andrew Tate

Our study highlighted that some young men viewed Tate as an important source of inspiration for general self-improvement and manhood, as a good advocate for men and as someone who is unfairly represented as a bad guy in the media. But others rejected his misogynistic views, his arrogance and pursuit of wealth. This is consistent with previous research on the impacts of Andrew Tate as a role model for boys.

In our study, it was encouraging to hear some of the young men’s critical reflection on Andrew Tate in relation to his perpetuation of sexist ideologies and his ‘shit stirring’ for attention and ‘likes’. Here are some comments they made:

Tate’s justifications for cheating on his partners as not ‘cheating’ but ‘exercise’, his focus on how much money he’s got and how many girls he’s been with, and his alleged trafficking. I don’t really wanna consume his content (Jase, aged 20, heterosexual, CALD)

[H]e really wants to be a loving father and he really respects the women in his life, but [he] also runs a freaking [human] trafficking ring … [H]e’s going on about how he doesn’t own anybody, but he’s getting arrested for literally owning and stealing money off of webcam models (Lionel, aged 20, heterosexual)

It’s just gross and it’s for attention

Specific people and personalities – so, influencers – kind of stir shit and act out and say outrageous things to get attention. People like Andrew Tate – perfect example … The things he says make me so uncomfortable. It’s just gross, and it’s for attention and it gets the attention of the media (Felix, aged 20, bisexual)

[B]y [being] all controversial and saying things that usually people don’t say, you will stir up the pot, you will get lots of views, likes, comments … Tate’s not just doing this for fun. I mean, he has something to sell his audience. So, of course, he’s gonna be controversial, get people on. And eventually get more sales (Tariq, aged 19, heterosexual)

In contrast with some of the research on young men’s carelessness with sharing intimate images online, the young men in our study spoke of the importance of trust, intimacy and in-person connection when sharing intimate images with others online.

Lucas (aged 18, heterosexual) commented for example, “obviously trust plays a big part of it … I’m hesitant to do it [until I] definitely know I can trust that person.”

Toby (aged 16, heterosexual) noted the importance of choosing the right person and the strength of the relationship when sharing intimate images: “I just think you have to be really careful when you do that… the type of relationship you have with that person, and can you really trust them” to not spread the photos around?

Lleyton (aged 16, heterosexual) similarly, stated, “…you just gotta be really careful … cause it’s so easy to spread these days”.

Ari (aged 19, heterosexual, CALD) expressed discomfort about “sending intimate photos” before meeting in person, stating, it’s “not something I agree with, and I just feel like … there’s no like genuine like connection there to do that kind of stuff … I just feel as though you’re not connected physically so why should you physically show yourself online?”

Jamie (aged 16, First Nations) questioned the rationale behind unsolicited sharing:

“There’s definitely a sort of a judgment, I guess, to someone sending that sort of stuff unsolicited because like you’re not just gonna be in the middle of a conversation with someone and whip your tits out in the middle of the street. So why do you do it in the middle of a conversation on Instagram?”

Young men and online pornography

Similar to their reflections on sharing intimate images, the young men in our study expressed views about online pornography that are more nuanced, considered and complex than the stereotypes about young men and their online expressions of sexuality would suggest. The young men were highly critical of online pornography – its pervasive presence in their online experiences and its negative impacts on their lives in terms of desensitisation, addiction and their views on intimacy.

Lucas (aged 18, heterosexual) for example, described how explicit content infiltrates everyday online activities like scrolling through TikTok or Instagram. It often appears unexpectedly, potentially pushing individuals toward consuming more adult content. Several of the young men spoke of how their access to online pornography at an early age had affected them negatively, including narratives of addiction.

Life shouldn’t be that

Jamie (aged 16, First Nations), who first encountered pornography at 11 years old, noted how this exposure and the saturation of adult content online more broadly, is desensitising and can lead to struggles with “addiction”:

“I wanted to talk more about porn specifically and how that plays a role in the desensitisation because a lot of people nowadays … have struggles with porn addiction and I feel like that itself has a big impact on the way we perceive content. And yeah, there’s a lot of unsolicited stuff that you see scrolling through which is mostly just advertising and all the main pages that post photos of like these chicks … I guess definitely desensitising … it’s so accessible and it’s such a common subject when it really isn’t that important. Life shouldn’t be that.”

Kieran (aged 19, heterosexual) also described his relationship with pornography as an addiction. He shared his personal battle with this addiction from age 13, emphasising the negative impact it had on his perception of girls and his ability to maintain healthy relationships. He explained online pornography as “negative” and as leading to feelings of shame.

Several of the young men commented on how pornography had led to negative views about girls and women. Ibrahim (aged 18, heterosexual, CALD) stated:

That’s what appeals to a lot of guys

“In my experience, [it’s] very toxic [in] how you view women … [because women are] obviously made to look liked it’s forced and that’s what appeals to a lot of guys who do watch porn, like is someone who’s submissive.”

Benito (aged 20, heterosexual, CALD) noted how pornography “twisted with reality” and “changes their perspective on women or certain situations” while Nico (aged 18, heterosexual, disabled, CALD) described online pornography as “definitely toxic” in how you view women “more as a sexual object than a human being”.

Critical digital literacy

An encouraging finding in our research is young men’s critical engagement with the gendered harms that arise in online spaces. While, to be sure, some of the young men perpetuated gender harms, others showed a robust critique of these. It is important to pay attention to and strengthen these positive narratives going forward. This is not easy work, as research in the space of gender justice and activist pedagogy has attested for many years, but young men’s critical engagement with online content in the ways foregrounded here is perhaps the most important resource for helping them to navigate the current digital landscape in ethical, caring, safe and just ways.

This research was supported by the Australian government through the eSafety Commission. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian government.

Amanda Keddie is a professor of education at Deakin University. Michael Flood is a professor of sociology at QUT. Josh Roose is an associate professor of politics at Deakin University.

Andrew Tate, sent to trial overnight, is a hugely popular influencer whose extreme misogynistic views are infiltrating classrooms and playgrounds across the world. His impact on classroom behaviour has been reported in popular media and include teachers overhearing jokes about sexual violence and children writing misogynistic essays. Wescott and Roberts recently published insights on their study of Australian classroom experiences with the manosphere. Their study ‘illuminates the presence of rampant disrespect towards teachers, sexual harassment of teachers and girls, physical intimidation and blatant disregard for women’.

My own experience with the ‘manosphere’ has been through my own child being called names so horrible it took my breath away. How does a child in primary school even know those words? What does a teacher or parent even say to that? I’ve taught in pretty rough schools in my time: been sworn at, even emailed pornography. But I kinda thought for a long time that ‘feminism had done its job’ by now. We just simply don’t speak to each other this way! Let alone eleven-year-olds. I know that’s naïve but there is nothing quite like the blind hope of a mother.

Maybe it’s because I research social media and education, but I have also had a number of people ask me about ‘what should we say about Andrew Tate’? Many parents and teachers are concerned. He’s not really on my research radar but online democracy is. So I turned my 25 years of Civics and Citizenship teacher skills to the problem of ‘Talking about Andrew Tate and the manosphere’.

The first thing to get straight is that it is pretty much impossible to ban Andrew Tate, despite what he says. He is hugely popular, even after Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook banned him.

Suddenly people began to wonder who this person was, and his name got more clicks. Nearly every news outlet reported bans, bringing him into the sphere of older people who might not have heard of him before. If we are thinking in democratic terms, since 2016 we have seen underground extremist groups collectivise, radicalise and come to dominate political decision-making in the US, the UK and even in Australia. Indeed, reactionary approaches to extremism are more likely to send kids underground. Collectivised underground groups provide a sense of community a lonely teenager will most likely value and fight hard to keep. What we need is to be responsive and use well-worn democracy tools to help shift kids’ thinking.

The following advice can be applied to any influencer you find in the dark parts of the Internet. All you have to do is remember PLUTO. Yes, PLUTO the mythical god of the underworld and the poor, hard-done-by dwarf planet. Yes, it’s a planet again.

PLUTO stands for: Partnership, Listening, Understanding, Talk with purpose, and be Organised.

Partnership

When speaking to kids about someone like Andrew Tate you must be a partner in the conversation. Do not pretend that you know more than the kids. You don’t. You will never catch up to them, especially if they have been down the rabbit hole for a while. Besides, Andrew Tate has already given them all the comebacks.

What you do need to know about is what it means to be a part of a fair and just society, what the laws are about hate speech and defamation, and what it means to be an active and informed citizen. You can use these tools to speak with the kids about whether misogyny progresses a good society or sends it backwards.

Listening

Listen. Don’t judge the words that come out of their mouths. Andrew Tate has given language that does not necessarily match their development. Ask them to think deeply about the meaning of the words they are using and how that might make others feel. How that makes them look to others. Do some detective work. Ask them what the evidence is that they would use those words to describe another person. Let them know that freedom of speech only applies when it’s true.

Understanding

The goal is to achieve a collective understanding of what is going on with your classroom or family when a member is listening to Andrew Tate. How is that affecting the dynamic?

All of these conversations need to happen with a trusted adult. A school inviting ‘an expert’ to speak about the manosphere on assembly is only going to alienate people and probably bring in parental complaints. You don’t want strangers talking to them about Andrew Tate. The same thing goes for a package bought and implemented in a life skills lesson. A package will speak at the young people, not with them. There needs to be a skilled classroom teacher for those kids. Someone who has built a relationship of trust who can work in partnership with the kids, not tell them what to do.

Talk with purpose

Too often conversations about misogyny happen on the fly. Maybe driving in the car or when it comes up in class. When speaking to kids who have potentially been radicalized, these occasions are not the time to try and shift thinking. When, where and with whom the conversation occurs needs to be well planned. It also needs to have a purpose. Be well designed in its resourcing and intention. Reactionary conversations are most likely going to be ‘won’ by someone who the manosphere has already given all the answers to.

Be Organised

You, as the teacher (or parent) need to demonstrate a rigorous decision-making process. You need to educate yourself about what it means to live in a fair and just liberal democracy. The discipline area in the Australian curriculum most suited to these conversations is Humanities and Social Sciences, specifically the Civics and Citizenship strand. This, often overlooked, cousin of History and Geography has all the tools needed for talking about how misogynistic views affect our democracy and ultimately society. Civics and Citizenship, as a part of the HaSS suit has purposeful, structured inquiry embedded in its pedagogy and has since Socrates. It also has decades of resourcing about what it means to be an active and informed citizen.

So, remember PLUTO when you need to talk about Andrew Tate, or any of the people and ideas in the dark, reactionary, radicalizing areas of the Internet. PLUTO: Partnership, Listening, Understanding, Talk with purpose, be Organised.

This is an extrapolation of a lightning talk I gave on a panel ‘Talking about Andrew Tate and the manosphere with boys and young men’ at the Centre for Justice research group at QUT. You can find a recording of all the speakers here. The licence for the header image is to be found here.

Dr Naomi Barnes is a senior lecturer at QUT and is interested in how crisis influences education politics, specifically the effect of moral panics. She also considers how the curriculum relates to nationalism, identity, and democracy. Naomi lectures future teachers in Modern History, Civics and Citizenship and Writing Studies. She has worked for Education Queensland as a Senior Writer and has worked as a Secondary Humanities and Social Science teacher in the government, Catholic and Independent schooling sectors.

Promising news: how young men think about Andrew Tate and what he sells