It seems that to destroy virility, we harvest Andrew Tate. It is our undeniable propensity to celebrate men with blue hair and fuchsia nails that would explain the dazzling popularity of this misogynistic influencer among boys across the planet.
The theory is popular in reactionary circles. I read somewhere that Andrew Tate, a British-American ex-kickboxer accused of rape and human trafficking in Romania, is nothing other than “the unexpected child of neo-feminism and gender theory”.
In other words, it would be the fault of woke and feminists confused if hundreds of thousands of young men around the world are now convinced that women must stay in their kitchen, not drive, satisfy the sexual needs of their alpha male on demand, smile and, above all, keep quiet .
Forgive me, but I don’t want to be silent. I have had enough of this whining speech, always the same, that we have been recycling for decades to suit current tastes.
Enough of me saying that if phallocrats exist, it is still and always because of women who push things too far.
Really ? Are we holding “neofeminism” responsible for the popularity of an influencer who unflinchingly proclaims that women are partly responsible for the sexual assaults of which they are victims? Really. We are there. It’s properly… lunar.
We are told that to fight against the Andrew Tates of this world, it will be necessary to rebuild a strong masculinity, that of the man “knowing how to hold back his tears and not believing that it is by expressing himself publicly that he will be authentic” , I read in the edition of a newspaper which did not date from 1953. We are told that we will have to reconstruct the figure of the gentleman, who assumes his natural role of protector of women.
But who protects women, anyway, from the worshipers of Andrew Tate? I’m talking about women like British MP Alex Davies-Jones, who was bombarded with death and rape threats for having the audacity to criticize the odious figure.
I’m talking about women like the journalist from The Press Léa Carrier, who has never received so many sexist comments as after the publication of her file on the enthusiasm of Quebec students for Andrew Tate, a week ago1. An avalanche which proves through absurdity the relevance of its reporting. “Poor little…” “Article from a pretentious and self-righteous little woke girl. ” ” Shut your mouth ! A man didn’t get the job because you got it. »
Let’s get the facts straight: Léa Carrier embodies the excellence of the next generation of journalists in Quebec. She writes rigorously on all kinds of subjects. I have in mind his report on text messages to 911, which could save the lives of women victims of domestic violence by allowing them to discreetly send a message of distress2. When The Press published it last January, the project was bogged down.
Barely two months later, Quebec announced that it would be possible to text 911 by March 2025. Léa Carrier’s report undoubtedly contributed to moving the government.
We call it impact journalism. Journalism that serves a purpose. Not ideological bla-bla filled with empty calories.
Speaking of real journalism, in the UK, the BBC and The Observer wondered how a man whose biggest claim to fame was getting kicked off reality TV Big Brother was able to become, two years later, one of the most Googled celebrities on the planet.
Their investigations showed that Andrew Tate’s virality was no coincidence. Nothing to do, either, with our neurotic celebration of blue-haired brats.
To recruit an exponential number of TikTok subscribers, Andrew Tate instead actively encouraged Internet users to flood social media with his most controversial videos. When a subscriber registered at his online school (with the hope of learning how to get rich with a few easy tricks) recruited another, the influencer paid him half of the registration fees.
This is how Andrew Tate created his own promotional army. He advised his virtual soldiers to stir up controversy to increase the virality of their online posts. “You want arguments, you want war,” he wrote in a guide, quoted by The Observer3.
His cynical clickbait made him millions – and had real, offline impacts. Suddenly, parents no longer recognized their son. Teachers lost control of their classroom. Teenage girls found themselves with an aggressive and controlling boyfriend…
In October, 33 U.S. states launched a megalawsuit against Meta, accusing it of deliberately getting children addicted to Facebook and Instagram. They allege that the algorithms of these platforms were designed to suck young people into toxic black holes.
As Big Tobacco has done so for years, Meta has chosen to maximize its profits at the expense of public health, they denounce.
This is the real danger: these algorithms which smoke out the minds of young people and which radicalize them, one by one, behind their screens. Not men’s nail polish, much less their tears.
Note: Léa Carrier will be at Everybody talks about it this Sunday evening to discuss the rise of misogynistic discourse in Quebec schools.