'Online misogyny is like a cult and the Tate Brothers are trying to sell it'

Daily Mirror

2 days ago

Social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate were charged in Britain for offences including human trafficking. Critic Aimee Walsh argues their brand of online misogyny is akin to a cult
Misogynist influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate were this week charged in Britain for offences against three women. You would have to be living under a rock - or at least without internet access - not to have heard of this pair. Andrew has over 10million followers on X, while his brother Tristan, is a second fiddle, at just 3million followers.
For our sins, Andrew is a household name. Recently, he was name-dropped on the Netflix global hit-show Adolescence. The series depicts a broader societal issue and the fatal effects of weaponised misogyny. Andrew is mentioned in relation to his online presence as a, in his words, 'misogynist'.
‌
Technology has, to my mind, enabled the worst of humanity to find an audience. Social media platforms can connect people worldwide with a community of like-minded thinkers, sometimes completely anonymously. This has opened new avenues for hatred to bubble over unabated. Let me be clear: we are in the midst of a wave of heightened misogyny that we have never witnessed before.
‌
The popularity of the Tate brothers is a testament to that. Whether through morbid fascination or genuine interest, people are watching, following, listening in their millions. From the depictions of a lavish lifestyle - of cars and money - there is more than a whiff of cult-status about the manosphere.
Cults by their very nature sell an ideal that is detrimental to their followers, giving them a false set of beliefs to rigidly live their lives by. The Tate brothers' videos do not hide claims that you, dear reader, can have what the misogynist influencers are selling, from online courses to Talisman tequila - which Tristan sells for $69 (£51) a bottle.
‌
A sleight of hand of both marketing and cults alike convinces the target audience that what is being sold will grant access to a lifestyle otherwise unachievable. Millions are buying it, if not in cash but in their attention spans and through digital capital - by clicking 'follow'.
But what exactly are Tate's followers watching? On May 28, Andrew shared a video released on X which on the surface appears as a response to the British charges, cloaked in the claim of 'censorship'. At time of writing, the video had been viewed 255,000 times on X. In the video, Andrew is seen garbling words as if he is a toddler speaking circles around a point.
It is nearly a parody: a man sat at a Big Desk saying Big Words, his hands clasped in front of him, exuding a performance of confidence. Sentences are over pronounced, as if to make room for the words to settle into a reality that is not forthcoming.
‌
Earlier this year, I interviewed a person who had been involved in a far-right group. They described an ultra-conservatism that hated women, but any reprimand by police or media was repackaged to followers as censorship - further promoting their cause.
This performative victimhood is utilised as a mask for the hatred of minority groups. They said that this was a particular tactic of theirs: 'Everything that you saw in the news you'd find it recycled on these websites painted in a very conspiratorial way… anything that happened they would recycle to fit their [far-right] narrative.'
‌
Here lies the paradox of justice to misogynist groups: if the media or justice calls out bad behaviour, it is in a warped reality a form of proof not that the misogynist has done wrong and been caught out, but rather the opposite: the misogynist figure-heads claim that they are being censored precisely because they are right.
Andrew says in the video posted on May 28: 'They censor me because I'm telling the truth. If I was lying to you they would allow me to speak… The fact is, time never proves me as a liar. Time proves me as a man who knows exactly what is going to happen.'
Setting aside the issue of Andrew's soothsayer credentials, I wonder how somebody with 10million followers can claim censorship? Entertaining this line of thought is to collectively lose our grip on the meaning of the word. This is not censorship; this is throwing toys out of the pram in response to the fact that the justice system exists, that it is there to test the claims and allegations put forward.
Beyond this, the video descends into a glorified advert for Tate's so-called Hustlers University. The online-education program claims to have 220,000 users, who can learn Tate's approach to fitness, business mindset, or, for some reason, copywriting. Tate says of 'financial education' that 'there is only one place you can learn it - Hustler's University.' I'm sure Harvard Business School is shaking in their boots.
To point out, with reasoned arguments, the absurdity at play in both the online misogyny cult and the influence of the Tate brothers is to let logic erode away. Here, they have media space, despite their claims of being censored. No doubt, that won't matter an iota. But how to reason with a form of thought that thinks of me, a woman, as less than? There is no way, but this is what I must do, as to not pass comment or push back is to allow these views to go by unchecked, as they have been on social media.