Communikarma Discussion: The Andrew Tate effect. Part 1

We talked about the report that made a link between following misogynist influencers like Tate and mainstream extremist thinking. In the first episode we talked about the attraction of Tate.

For those not versed in his rhetoric, Tom reads out part of the Tate manifesto of women needing to spend all day making themselves ‘pretty’ and ‘always smiling’ without troubling themselves with anything significant because that ‘causes them enormous distress’. We then discussed these and other points.

There are two types of Tate follower: the incel type who blame women (bitches) for their plight and the successful money guy who sees life in terms of power, including over women. For these men, attractive women are an extension of their power and they use wealth and other forms of power (e.g.‘passport bros’) to transact.

For some guys, talking to women in any context is difficult; these men find solace in the online company of other people in misogynist groups. Vulnerable (including autistic) men may be targeted in this way). People in this group can easily go down online rabbit holes and be introduced to other forms of extremism such as racism which similarly blame others for personal or social situations.

Does Tate actually believe his own hype, or did he just stumble upon a theme that brought him fame and fortune and ran with that? To his followers it probably doesn’t matter either way.

‘Trad wives’ is becoming more of a thing. Is this a reaction to women now being able to have good careers but still have the expectations of maintaining their traditional roles? Is it to do with a rejection of the reality of economic problems?

Men paying for meals: is this ever justified if people both have incomes? Is going along with this partly encouraging misogyny?

Watch out for the rest of the discussion in Part 2.