"If you’ve interacted with social media recently you have most likely heard of or seen Andrew Tate. Even if now he has been banned on most platforms, he spent most of his social media presence -which had picked up quite a following of 4.7 million followers on instagram- harassing women, making it clear he has a large distaste for them, and that on top of his previous proven history of domestic violence is inevitably going to incite violence against women. He, however, isn’t the first man to use social media to do so, and he certainly won't be the last." --Lola Christ, 8th grade
Andrew Tate’s complicated presence in the media began when he was on Big Brother 17 (UK) in the summer of 2016. He was banned from the game because a clip of him beating a women surfaced, and even though he claims it was consensual it still got him kicked off the show. This is one of many instances that support the claim he has a troubled and violent history with women, but his following only took off in recent years essentially handing an aggressive man preaching propaganda a megaphone.
Tate spent years online preaching ridiculous beliefs, ones such as how women belong to men and how if a woman cheats you're entitled to acting out violently towards her, which align with his attitude towards women and how he’s treated them. Despite these being proof enough of his radical ideas, they are the tamest of his comments. Worse though, is that they reflect his actions.
“Deadliest violence against women is the silent kind, incited instead of inflicted” says Jaqueline Rose in the article Damage: the silent forms of violence against women. When does freedom of speech stop becoming free and instead become violent? Where is the line drawn? The right to freedom of speech generally ends when someone is inciting imminent lawless action, which usually occurs when someone is preaching hate speech. "that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.” How do you prove that this is what Tate’s doing? The definition of hate speech is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. In our case the particular group is women, and the prejudiced language is very obviously a part of his comments.
Tate’s inherently problematic presence online has blasted his ideas throughout the internet, creating waves of problems along with it. He has given a platform for men who feel similarly to him to express so. This on its own can seem harmless, until you bring into account the way he himself has acted. Idolizing someone whose beat women on camera is only going to encourage followers of him to behave similarly. The guy with 4.7 million followers told you if your wife cheats you should kill her? Then so be it, he’s your idol after all, and someone with such a large audience wouldn’t steer you wrong. If you're already swayed to agree with his opinions, you might as well imitate his actions as well, especially when he uses language that uplifts you, calling you an alpha male and the man of the house.
It’s related to how we as followers create parasocial relationships with our favorite content creators, it’s why influencers are paid to sell you products: because their entire persona is selling you things. They're selling you an idea of themselves: “Influencers may inspire minors to behave pro-socially or more healthy, but they may also show bad examples”. This doesn’t just include minors- the reason product placement and brand deals have gone on the rise is because they have an influence on everyone. Creating an entirely new market, using their influencer title to do exactly what's in the name- influence.
Maybe some viewers are educated enough to understand these actions are wrong, but separating the artist from the art becomes a slippery slope, especially when the artist is an abuser who not only promotes the idea that women are less than men but is constantly acting on those beliefs.
Even if this is just one example of a man who promotes gross ideas and retains loyal teen boy followers desperate for approval and praise that he provides, other men are doing similar things with the internet constantly. Misogynistic abusive men are constantly becoming popular and committing horrific acts while in the public eye, and in most cases it’s overlooked, and in the rest it's imitated by their fans.
Chris Brown very publicly beat Rihanna, nearly to death. To this day though he’s faced zero repercussions and was even able to use the popularity to bounce back from it, the situation probably allowed him an even larger platform than he had before doing so. He allowed other men who beat women to feel a relation to him, which is how the patriarchy is able to infect the internet and how men are able to continue to retain platforms despite disgusting behavior towards women. They bury i t under the rug, but loyal fans will remember and probably respect them more for that behavior. Ike Turner spent a decade abusing Tina Turner and was only held accountable years later. R Kelly was charged with several counts of child pornography before ever being indighted and nobody blinked an eye until it was ridiculed and brought to light.
The environment aforementioned people -and others unmentioned- have created on platforms such as Instagram, Spotify, and news in general allows easily influenced youth to think these sorts of behaviors towards women are okay and it also creates a place for people who already act this way to feel safe to do so. How have all of us participated in allowing this to happen? How could we as a collective allow men to preach their ideas, make political statements with intentions of harm against women, to maintain relevance after committing violent crimes towards women? The reason is we are all too privileged to care, and especially men have the luxury of the american dream these same men in the media have. Which is just that if you have something between your legs you’ll barely ever receive repercussions for your actions, and if we can’t wake up, that won't change anytime soon.
Tate spent years online preaching ridiculous beliefs, ones such as how women belong to men and how if a woman cheats you're entitled to acting out violently towards her, which align with his attitude towards women and how he’s treated them. Despite these being proof enough of his radical ideas, they are the tamest of his comments. Worse though, is that they reflect his actions.
“Deadliest violence against women is the silent kind, incited instead of inflicted” says Jaqueline Rose in the article Damage: the silent forms of violence against women. When does freedom of speech stop becoming free and instead become violent? Where is the line drawn? The right to freedom of speech generally ends when someone is inciting imminent lawless action, which usually occurs when someone is preaching hate speech. "that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.” How do you prove that this is what Tate’s doing? The definition of hate speech is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. In our case the particular group is women, and the prejudiced language is very obviously a part of his comments.
Tate’s inherently problematic presence online has blasted his ideas throughout the internet, creating waves of problems along with it. He has given a platform for men who feel similarly to him to express so. This on its own can seem harmless, until you bring into account the way he himself has acted. Idolizing someone whose beat women on camera is only going to encourage followers of him to behave similarly. The guy with 4.7 million followers told you if your wife cheats you should kill her? Then so be it, he’s your idol after all, and someone with such a large audience wouldn’t steer you wrong. If you're already swayed to agree with his opinions, you might as well imitate his actions as well, especially when he uses language that uplifts you, calling you an alpha male and the man of the house.
It’s related to how we as followers create parasocial relationships with our favorite content creators, it’s why influencers are paid to sell you products: because their entire persona is selling you things. They're selling you an idea of themselves: “Influencers may inspire minors to behave pro-socially or more healthy, but they may also show bad examples”. This doesn’t just include minors- the reason product placement and brand deals have gone on the rise is because they have an influence on everyone. Creating an entirely new market, using their influencer title to do exactly what's in the name- influence.
Maybe some viewers are educated enough to understand these actions are wrong, but separating the artist from the art becomes a slippery slope, especially when the artist is an abuser who not only promotes the idea that women are less than men but is constantly acting on those beliefs.
Even if this is just one example of a man who promotes gross ideas and retains loyal teen boy followers desperate for approval and praise that he provides, other men are doing similar things with the internet constantly. Misogynistic abusive men are constantly becoming popular and committing horrific acts while in the public eye, and in most cases it’s overlooked, and in the rest it's imitated by their fans.
Chris Brown very publicly beat Rihanna, nearly to death. To this day though he’s faced zero repercussions and was even able to use the popularity to bounce back from it, the situation probably allowed him an even larger platform than he had before doing so. He allowed other men who beat women to feel a relation to him, which is how the patriarchy is able to infect the internet and how men are able to continue to retain platforms despite disgusting behavior towards women. They bury i t under the rug, but loyal fans will remember and probably respect them more for that behavior. Ike Turner spent a decade abusing Tina Turner and was only held accountable years later. R Kelly was charged with several counts of child pornography before ever being indighted and nobody blinked an eye until it was ridiculed and brought to light.
The environment aforementioned people -and others unmentioned- have created on platforms such as Instagram, Spotify, and news in general allows easily influenced youth to think these sorts of behaviors towards women are okay and it also creates a place for people who already act this way to feel safe to do so. How have all of us participated in allowing this to happen? How could we as a collective allow men to preach their ideas, make political statements with intentions of harm against women, to maintain relevance after committing violent crimes towards women? The reason is we are all too privileged to care, and especially men have the luxury of the american dream these same men in the media have. Which is just that if you have something between your legs you’ll barely ever receive repercussions for your actions, and if we can’t wake up, that won't change anytime soon.
