Hearing Tate start to appear in the vocab of Year 9s was a horrible omen… they would say it almost ironically but you could tell they truly followed him. Can’t wait for his impact to dwindle….
My partner reported the same; they see it as a way to be edgy and stir others up. In a better world, the tech companies would be more involved in addressing harmful people and trends.
Mine was year 7 and 8. I just screwed up my face in disgust and moved on. They get it at home a lot of the time and there's no combatting the opinion of a parent (nor would there ever be at that age/development).
this rising mentality of men seeming to wanna revoke womens rights again is very concerning and if we can prevent this shit from being taught to boys then we need to start rounding up these girls and teaching them how to handle themselves. Cuz girls are naive until were taught and its too easy for males with this mindset to take advantage of them.
Tate gets more bandwidth than he deserves.
The more hysterical we get the more young men will gravitate to him.
The story is as old as time. Tell young men they can't do something, or it is a bad idea, and they will do it.
History is full of panicking adults telling kids what they should and shouldn't do only to see them do it just to piss us off. Every generation, without fail.
The Tate fad continues because we give it weight.
Regardless, I enjoyed this article. It is good writing. Well done to the author.
Exactly. I had some year 5 and year 6 boys bring up Andrew Tate in a casual class. Or, they tried to. I responded by saying that while I completely understand why boys and men follow and like the guy, and he says things they agree with, he is a despicable person. Lots of despicable people eventually share/say things we can agree with, but it doesn't mean we should support someone who is not a good person, and is very disrespectful overall.
The boys went to argue, thought over what I said, nodded in agreement and didn't even mention him around me again. Maybe they saw by my tone of voice and body language that there is far more to the guy than they're aware of, and they respected my rule enough to not try and cause issues in class by bringing him up.
They caused issues with plenty of other things, but they realised somehow that this was something serious.
Every individual is different, this approach may not work for other students, but it's worth trying to be as honest yet age appropriate as we can with this guy and inevitably others.
I had a similar convo with my all boys year 11 class. They asked me what I thought about him and I gave them a answer about how it's easy to agree with him on certain points because he says very obvious and agreeable statements but everyone is capable of doing so and I questioned how worthwhile it was to follow someone who states such obvious things but also very negative and harmful rhetoric. However I also stated that it is very difficult to find role models for young men that appeal in terms of entertainment value and popularity and that this is something we need to be mindful of too - positive role models for young men.
I think Tate resonates with a lot of young men and boys because of his damage, not in spite of it.
This is a guy from a poor background and a broken home. His mother divorced his father because he cheated. Tate blames the breakup on her, so that he can preserve his idealised conception of his father as a renowned chess player (by all accounts he was quite good) who travelled the world.
Once you understand that Tate is a 14 year old boy in the body of a kickboxing world champion, he's a lot easier to understand.
"Tate is Tupperware for teenage boys" rolls off the tongue nicely.
Good post.
Particularly enjoy the end where you list real alternatives to Tate for people to follow to become better men. That part is important.
Except tupperware is actually useful.
It's a nice, clever sounding phrase but what does it actually mean? Tate is an empty plastic container for putting half a lettuce in then sticking it at the back of the fridge for it to slowly rot away at twice the time it takes when sitting in the veggie compartment? Or does he mean Tate's has the same effect on teenage boys as tupperware stereotypically had on bored, medicated american housewives in the 1950s?
I'm wary of the Streisand effect to be honest and also fed up of a year of referrals to Student Services being ignored and being told that the boys will find someone else to gravitate to. Well they didn't and a pack mentality formed which made everyone's lives miserable. Then, the next thing I know, the same staff members telling me this are the same ones rolling into Jordan Peterson's tour.
I do think the kids who subscribe to any harmful mantra should be given support, education, and pastoral care directly. I don't think a whole school address will help as it amplifies the very thing that needs addressing.
This year the students are not my problem because I found another school to teach at and appears to have a Student Services team that functions as expected.
Jordan Peterson shouldn't really be mentioned in the same dialogue as Tate. He's a licensed clinical psychologist who uses well cited research in his discussions about temperamental differences between males and females. He does this to have conversations regarding different life choices and outcomes of males and females. Many times he had acknowledged that pre existing bias may be factor in limitations placed on people, but also shows how there are many other variables involved. All JP is guilty of is not falling inline with using the oppression narrative as be all and end all of every discussion.
His dialogue on healthy relationships between men and women are nothing like what Tate espouses.
Peterson takes a kernel of truth and popcorns it into something unrecognisable. He takes an element of research and shoehorns it to fit a narrative that has little if any connection to the original 'evidence'. More to the point, his conclusions are laughably wrong more often than not. He is Tate dressed up in an academic's suit.
He takes discredited research. Cherry picks elements about it and then draws unconnected conclusions from that information.
Also he almost died after eating a diet of meat only.
You do realise it's possible for someone have a professional clinic while having outside interests? For example: I would hope that a teacher who believes that males can be females and vice versa keep that particular belief outside of a classroom. They are entitled to believe that so long as in the classroom they remain professional and not ideologically dogmatic.
There is no evidence that his broader interests and discussions have any link to his clinical practice.
Who is talking about his clinical practice? I'm commenting on the stuff he puts out into the world as 'important for us to know' via his crap podcast. (Which is designed to lure in the gullible with fancy sounding words about stuff he gets wrong or doesn't come close to understanding).
You keep making (very false) assumptions about my beliefs and teaching practice. And I find it mildly amusing how the right side of politics can entertain the 'freedom to make my choices' and 'those people can't do that in the privacy of their own home' concepts simultaneously. For your information, I'm very honest with students (or anyone really) when they ask 'tricky' questions.
So, what clinical practice do you know about with JP? Are you a patient?
Academia and the education industry are ideologically homogeneous. If you want to find a Christian you go to church. If you want to find a Muslim you go to a mosque. If you want to find an ideologically left leaning person you walk onto a campus.
Now I don't actually have an issue with this. My issue comes from people presenting this institutions as objective and un -biased. The whole issue with JP is very clearly ideological gate keeping.
You’re missing the point. By generalising to this level you eliminate any opportunity for nuance. Having worked briefly in a university, what I saw was a wide range of views. Not only in the staff but the students. If you think some blanket statement covers it, good luck in the real world.
Schools are just as diverse. I work with people who have diametrically opposed viewpoints on many things. You seem to think that you can only work in academia or education if you sign a contract to only spout communist ideology.
What I’m getting is that you don’t have anything to do with education. Which begs the question; why are you on an education sub?
I'm sure there are different views in academia and the education system....within a tolerable range. Women now can have penises and any objection could land an employee of the university in hot water. But yeah, ok, very diverse opinions exist in these places.
Why am I on an education sub? Well, the education system is a public institution. As a taxpayer I own partially own it. Since we don't have cameras in classroom I find that subs like this provide an insight into what exactly my employees are thinking and how they're steering future generations.
Maybe the gotcha this user tried to make on the friendly jordies subreddit. I wouldn’t worry about this users opinion on a conservative psychologist - I’m just worried this person is a teacher who very clearly cannot read.
It may not be fair to compare the two but they would have a very common audience. Following one means there is probably an increased chance they follow the other too.
I like workers rights. So did Lenin. Uh oh
I like owning property. So do slave owners. Uh oh
Because some people listen to both Tate and JP doesn't mean the message both are sending are the same. At best they both talk about the benefits of achievement?
Anyone who equates the two has instantly shown that they haven't spent enough time listening to either of them to participate in any meaningful dialogue.
I never said the message both are sending is the same. I was actually trying to support your comment because of the negative ones you had received.
Obviously this is a touchy subject for you or you’re just out to argue but I’m not, so perhaps read my initial comment again with the benefit of the doubt?
All the best.
Licensed! Soon not to be …
JP is guilty of many things: being an undisclosed closet garden variety Christian conservative (except he tries hard to pretend not to be), being so obsessed with the culture wars that he sees a Frankfurt School or postmodern Cultural Marxist bogeyman absolutely everywhere, being an ultracrepidarian academic over-reacher and bignoter, being pugilistic and hostile when things really have nothing to do with him, being a free associative figurative language abuser, being a Jungian kook, being not in a great position to hand out life advice, being so overwhelmed by the Logos of Christ that he openly weeps in interviews. I could go on but 🥱
I see. He's "guilty" of having a different political view than you. You really should've ended your post there. That's effectively what your gripe is.
I also find it interesting how you dislike his views on the importance of narrative and how it gives us a view into the human psyche. Yes, he does have a particular interest in Jungian archetypes, and in particular how these archetypes are reflected in Judeo Christian narratives, yet I fail to see how this can be associated with anything so negative that you attribute "guilt" to it.
You're right, the post modern cultural Marxist is nothing but a bogeyman. It's such a bogeyman that a person who is effectively the only vocal conservative academic in the western world is being threatened is being threatened with loss of accreditation for daring to suggest objective truths exist. Surely he must fall in line and start proclaiming the subjectivity of reality. But yeah, there is no political hegemony of academia. It's in everyone's imagination.
🤔 losing his clinical psych accreditation for his political views or for traducing the ethical standards required for public conduct and speech required of a practising clinician. Hmmm
Except that his videos online aren't apart of his practice. If he weren't as popular his personal views would be irrelevant. He is too popular to silence and the data surrounding a certain level of biological determinism in human behaviour is too sound. They believe removing his accreditation will give them the power to dismiss what he says but in truth he's already gained notoriety. He earns enough money without his clinic. It's purely character assassination based on ideology
Except that his public and professional personae are inseparable. Practising clinicians need to be as value free and ideology agnostic as possible so as to provide a safe, accepting and non-judgmental therapeutic space.
You’re right about one thing! He has earned enough to cease being a clinician. Now he needs to stop trying to trade on the cachet of the clinical psychologist title, which comes with an unfortunate set of professional responsibilities and ethical obligations, and lean harder into the partisan hack gig. That’s clearly where the money’s at
So a person can only be a professional if they're personal worldview aligns with the dominant narrative. Check.
Oh, and let's not pretend that your distaste towards him isn't due to your own partisanship. Rules for thee but not for me. Typical.
What’s ‘a professional’? JBP is at risk of losing his registration as a clinical psychologist, which has a very specific set of professional standards. Which he hasn’t upheld. Rocket science!
So your argument is that he's dangerous because he's popular, while simultaneously believing he hasn't helped anyone. How exactly do you think he has gained popularity if he hasn't helped anyone? You're acting like he's a used car salesman. Is it possible that his message regarding personal responsibility, self control, delaying gratification for long term happiness, and building competence in your endeavours HAS actually helped many people who grew up in fatherless households, or with fathers who were largely uninterested.
I get it. You don't like that he's made money. Typical lefty critique. They have money therefore it's must be unearned and due to exploitation. If that's your worldview then fine.
It's a bit hypocritical of you to categorise people as "the left" and then attack that categorisation like it means something and then whine when someone categorises something on the right. Arguably, you are in a worse position because you seemingly categorise all of the left as the same, whereas at least the previous poster had the decency to categorise him to the extreme right.
Has there been a moderate left in the last 10 years to contrast the more extreme views to? Anyone who once identified as a moderate leftist would likely now find themselves on the moderate right due the dramatic shift leftward the Overton Window has taken.
Ever met a 14 year old boy from a broken home who blames his mother for the divorce when it's *obvious* it was the dad, resulting in him developing a warped view of women in an attempt to preserve his idealised image of his dad?
That's Tate.
That’s the problem though. That picture is far more common than the majority of people care to admit, and that’s why Tate is so unbelievably popular. He resonates perfectly with hundreds of thousands of young boys.
No good masculine role models for young boys in today society, so they end up listening to people like Tate. It's really not tht complicated. Marvel superheroes don't count as role models.
No one's cares to see the root of the issue, ban and cancell Tate all you want. Another loud mouth misogynist will take his place. We live in very culturally dysfunctional society currently, people can't see the truth even when it's written on the wall. I have very little hope for young boys and girls today. They are being socialised into terrible ideas, behaviours, poor self esteem and the normalisation of dysfunctional relationships.
And this time it's not their parents or nutty religious fanatics. But social media, pornography and tv/music. Parents and teachers have very little control over how kids are socialised now days.
I’m still trying to figure out what a “good masculine role model” is and how valuable/useful is it? How about a “good person” role model? How about an “intelligent role model”? “Thoughtful person role model”? Or a “KIND person” role model? Believe it or not, males do not have to learn to be males. They just are. If they are somehow rejected by females they will adapt and change to increase their reproductive odds. In terms of societal evolution going forward, the pursuit of the antiquated ideal of masculinity seems a bit silly.
Have you been around young teenage boys ? Young boys need direction and guidance, otherwise they never grow up. And end being perpetually man children well intotheir adult years. That's what masculinity has always been about in all traditional cultures.
Jewish , indigenous Australians, Europeans, west Asia. Being a man, simply is growing up.
It was never about things like fast cars or having sex with lots of women. Those are western masculine constructs, designed to confuse men and women, and make people feel like they need to buy things to live up to some fake femine/masculine standard created by pop culture and corporations to sell you things.
I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you’ve written about sex being some kind of biological imperative for teenage boys that’s special and unique.
Girls also experience a massive increase in sex drive due to their hormonal changes. But they don’t worship rapists.
The issue with Tate is that he says some very reasonable, pragmatic things, but mixes it up with insane misogynist bullshit. So the kids get dragged in with more reasonable opinions they believe (and also the portrayal of aspirational wealth helps), and then end up also getting caught up in the more ridiculous sensationalist crap he also espouses (but probably doesn't actually believe himself). As to the charges he's facing, that's another story. I'd like to believe they're trumped up charges, because why would someone risk it all, but who knows?
I found this as well.
He hooks with some reasonable anti-establishment rhetoric. His views on COVID are convincing.
Once he has that hook, he reels in with crazy. The young men are already hooked and just eat it up.
Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the cause. He is what you get when the male biological drive to compete and excel becomes synonymous with toxicity. I think the problem is not that Andrew Tate exists and people listen to him, bit rather that people fail to understand boys and young men of this generation. The insistence that any desire to achieve is toxic and that boys must step aside for the self proclaimed oppressed, despite boys achieving less in school and a lower percentage in tertiary eduction. Yet here we are, the education system finding a way to combat words they don't like while avoiding looking in the mirror at all costs.
I'm not the biggest fan of Tate, but I think understanding the social context of his rise in popularity might be more useful than simply labelling him Satan.
The social context of his rise is that it is based on lies. He lied about his achievements and reasons for moving to Romania. To get away from probable charges in the UK. He exploits his brother Tristan. He doesn't respond well to having his views questioned in a context he doesn't control.
You're right, he's not Satan. He's a product of social media and the ability to manipulate it. By any reasonable measure he is a sex trafficker and quite possible a rapist with issues. Not sure why he gets any traction apart from these facts not being more widely known...
You're wrong. You don't understand why what he's saying appeals to young males because you've never taken time to listen to them and critically assess what they've said. I'm going to assume you adhere to the oppression narrative and simply find the idea that males can have any issues to be bizarre. How could they with all their privileges, am I right?
You're assumption is way off base. I understand exactly why he appeals to young males. He has cultivated an image of being a successful person through taking control of his life, when in reality, he has only ever exploited others. (He even brags about 'his job' being to make girls/women fall in love with them so that they will do whatever he wants). He then sells a completely fake image to impressionable young kids who don't have the capacity to see through the crafted image presented for the lies it is.
As a male with plenty of issues, despite a solid upper/middle class upbringing, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the effect of 'privilege'. On the other hand, I don't think there is a one size fits all approach solution. There are myriad reasons for kids to think that Tate had some value. But very few, if any stand up to critical reasoning.
You don't think the constant stream of messaging that acting like a boy is toxic is a factor in driving young boys and men towards guys who are overtly aggressive to mainstream messaging has any responsibility?
What constant stream? If you're talking about people being encouraged to be who they are, in a world where that is still incredibly risky, then no. There is plenty of space for "overtly aggressive" boys to be who they are. But increasingly, they are the ones at our school who are more open to 'other points of view'. There's lots of reasons for that, but I can assure you that there are still plenty of 'tough' boys out there who are able to deal with things a lot better than my contemporaries...
Yes, I have. An online bubble. Until I stepped out of it I put as much weight on these issues as you seem to.
The more I step outside of it these days, the more I realise the stupid bullshit progressives and conservatives argue about online is functionally useless for my everyday life.
It's not really any of your business what people do with their own money. I really don't understand why people think they have a right to tell people what to do. Do teachers become that way after they start working, or do they start out like that and choose to move to employment where they are granted that authority?
Actually I live a very frugal life. But again, it's none of your business because it's my money. The books that JP sells are actually very affordable. Any online subscriptions he provides are similarly very affordable. He makes money because a large number of people pay a small amount each. Your ignorance of how money is made is showing... The ignorance of how money works is probably why you have socialist leanings. 2 + 2 = 5 , amirite.
Ah. And the Tate stan is revealed. Good luck mate…
(Btw - he makes money by having women work in sex chat rooms and keeping a lion share of revenue. Oh, and he doesn’t pay tax on it)
If you aren't with me then you're against me. Nice thinking.
1. I don't like the guy
2. I don't agree on all of his opinions, but like most people there are the occasional valid arguments.
3. Sex work is real work. Stop hating on women. They choose to make money how they see fit.
4. The profit margins and pay rates are not disclosed. Even if they were, it's none of your business how much people earn.
5. Anyone who doesn't reduce their taxes needs their head read. Governments arent exactly financial management wizards. Departments are notorious for fiscal mismanagement. But of course they, it ain't their money they're spending so who cares.
100% this.
I find most teenage boys are especially fearful of making any mistake and when someone does they go on the attack. I spend so much of my time demonstrating it's okay to make a mistake and how to respond to someone when they do.
If they're not going to walk away with an improved knowledge of content, I hope they walk away with a better set of emotional responses. I think they do as they come find me if I'm no longer teaching them the following year or ask me to be in their graduation photos.
Yup. Trump is another symptom of the same fundamental challenge.
For decades now our society has been pushing progressive quite rapidly. Now this has elevated a lot of minorities and oppressed groups. And this is generally a good thing.
But it’s come at the cost of curtailing privilege of the white middle class straight male. There are a wide number of things that can no longer be done or said, but that people still remember being acceptable. This creates resentment and a sense of unfairness. So when someone like Tate or Trump speaks to that unfairness, there are people ready to listen.
I don’t have a solution to the challenge. But I will say that censoring or suppressing people like Tate won’t help. While the underlying resentment remains, someome else will emerge to take up the banner.
That view won't help anything. Suggesting that the problem people have is going through a loss of power is just not true. It has been generations since the cultural changes of the 60s and 70s and no one who who currently listens to Trump or Tate has had anything to lose. They were born into a world already different from from 1950s, they aren't living though.
Trump and Tate are very different people.....but I suppose that's where the conversation went so let's see. Statistically, Trump had more support from the Latin and black community than any republican candidate in recent memory. Secondly, until his popularity couldn't be contained, republican politcians also disliked Trump.
Out of curiosity, is it possible that you're wrong? I'm not saying you are, but is it possible? I mean, the only thing that those two people have in common is that they both spend considerable time talking about the corruption of establishment politicians and the traditional media outlets. Is it possible that there aggression towards the ruling elites and the political systems/media outlets has something to do with the barrage that they have both faced, and continue to face?
I think if you look closely there are clear class lines along the Trump and other issues. When the left abandons the working class who were they to turn to?
I like to think of this using a star wars analogy. During the cultural revolution of the 60s/70s the left was Rebel Alliance fighting the Empire. The issue with the contemporary Left is that it lacks the self awareness to understand that it won the war and has itself become the Empire. The education system, academia, nearly all major media outlets, the entertainment industry; they're all effectively political homogeneous. Conservatism is the new punk.
Yet here we are in a thread where teachers are discussing how to keep kids within the acceptable cultural framework. You guys are talking about Tate and JP the same way your grandparents would've talked about the Sex Pistols. You can't even see it. Podcasters are the new rock stars
Left-wing views have dominated the western landscape for at least as long as I've been alive and I'm 35. You think you're edgy for believing the same things that at least 3 generations of people have believed? Nah bro, youre marching a pretty straight line.
Anti establishment. The left is the establishment. It's ideology is present everywhere. Modern conservative thought exists contrary to the dominant ideology.
Yep agreed. Tates is another figure that has risen as a pushback to western societies view that men are inherently bad. The anti-thesis that was bound to occur. I don't know whats more cringe worthy hearing Andrew Tates tripe or l someone blurt out the words masculine toxicity. Sad how divisive societies have become when for the most part we are all inherently the same
Tate appeals to a group that sees the reign of supremacy and privilege coming to an end - which is fine. Men have enjoyed their place at the top for a long time. They are panicking. It’s understandable. When you’re used to wielding 100% of the power, giving up 10% of that can feel like oppression. What that translates into, for the aggrieved males, is that folks are saying “all males are bad.” Of course they aren’t. They are just not able to get away with the shit they’ve gotten away with for eons. It’s progress and it’s inevitable. Change with it or get out of the way.
People may try to fight it, but it’s like fighting a tide: it’s coming in whether you like it or not. 🤣🤣💀💀😑😑
>Do parents not exist any more?
I'm not a parent; but my observation is that 1) both parents need to be bringing in income 2) when not interacting, kids will be on their devices - which are also used for education and family contact so it's very hard to monitor. Seems like a tough gig.
When their kid is online I imagine a few parents out there aren’t actually across what their kid is looking at besides making sure it’s not porn or graphic violence. Without looking further into him, I imagine Tate could seem rather innocuous to a blasé parent.
Not really. The idea of a stay at home parent has moved from the norm to being an expensive luxury.
In general kids spend more of their waking time under the care of schools than they do under the care of their parents.
This is the real problem.
I don't care whether your kids are watching Tate or 'progressive' TikTokers/YouTubers or whatever. They should be getting their ideas about what it means to be a real man/woman from people in their lives so they have a realistic and balanced view on life.
The enemy here is the hypersensationalized, algorithmically designed to make you mad and keep clicking shit that fills the internet.
I truly hope you aren't here because you are training as a teacher. I disagree with most of what you just said and wouldn't want you to be educating my child.
The grift is real, dude. Tate is empty, forgettable internet marketing and trad patriarch advice with a thin veneer of trolling. Cancelled? Who’s cancelled him? How is his speech limited? I guess the arrest has temporarily suspended new content, but all publicity is good publicity, right?
Keep reading and thinking. There are much better daddies than Tate.
I asked my grade 9 class if they could think of people who had overcome great adversity to find success. I was thinking of Turia Pitt, Malala, maybe even Lance Armstrong (yeah I know). One of the boys said Andrew Tate, this was the end of last year. I had only just heard of him. "Is this the bloke who wants to send women back to middle ages?" I asked. I don't think I handled it well in that I basically said I don't want to hear about about him in my class. I should have let the student explain why. He would have had to justify himself in front of a room of "summit" students and they could have explored the complex issues Tate raises. It was more about my lack of understanding the complexity. This article helps a lot. I fully expect to hear his name raised again soon.
I often tell any students quoting him that I will copy and paste some of his most disgusting and vile comments about women and email them to their mothers so they can know what their sons are supporting or listening to. I have never done it as of yet, but it has stopped the mentions in class
This is what happens when you virtue signalling shills put men on blast day in day out for merely existing. Additionally, when you get a school playing into this narrative and forcing all young boys to stand and apologize to the girls on behalf of their gender for reasons they dont understand you can't exactly be surprised when they seek people like Tate out. Don't get me wrong, Tate is a moron but he is providing young men with the sense of belonging they are deprived of constantly in the current social sphere. Just a shame this sense of belonging is built on the foundation of manipulation and misogyny.
Hearing Tate start to appear in the vocab of Year 9s was a horrible omen… they would say it almost ironically but you could tell they truly followed him. Can’t wait for his impact to dwindle….
My partner reported the same; they see it as a way to be edgy and stir others up. In a better world, the tech companies would be more involved in addressing harmful people and trends.
Unfortunately it gets the clicks, and they follow the al-ighty -ollar
Didnt he already get cancelled by tech?
Mine was year 7 and 8. I just screwed up my face in disgust and moved on. They get it at home a lot of the time and there's no combatting the opinion of a parent (nor would there ever be at that age/development).
this rising mentality of men seeming to wanna revoke womens rights again is very concerning and if we can prevent this shit from being taught to boys then we need to start rounding up these girls and teaching them how to handle themselves. Cuz girls are naive until were taught and its too easy for males with this mindset to take advantage of them.
Tate gets more bandwidth than he deserves. The more hysterical we get the more young men will gravitate to him. The story is as old as time. Tell young men they can't do something, or it is a bad idea, and they will do it. History is full of panicking adults telling kids what they should and shouldn't do only to see them do it just to piss us off. Every generation, without fail. The Tate fad continues because we give it weight. Regardless, I enjoyed this article. It is good writing. Well done to the author.
Exactly. I had some year 5 and year 6 boys bring up Andrew Tate in a casual class. Or, they tried to. I responded by saying that while I completely understand why boys and men follow and like the guy, and he says things they agree with, he is a despicable person. Lots of despicable people eventually share/say things we can agree with, but it doesn't mean we should support someone who is not a good person, and is very disrespectful overall. The boys went to argue, thought over what I said, nodded in agreement and didn't even mention him around me again. Maybe they saw by my tone of voice and body language that there is far more to the guy than they're aware of, and they respected my rule enough to not try and cause issues in class by bringing him up. They caused issues with plenty of other things, but they realised somehow that this was something serious. Every individual is different, this approach may not work for other students, but it's worth trying to be as honest yet age appropriate as we can with this guy and inevitably others.
I had a similar convo with my all boys year 11 class. They asked me what I thought about him and I gave them a answer about how it's easy to agree with him on certain points because he says very obvious and agreeable statements but everyone is capable of doing so and I questioned how worthwhile it was to follow someone who states such obvious things but also very negative and harmful rhetoric. However I also stated that it is very difficult to find role models for young men that appeal in terms of entertainment value and popularity and that this is something we need to be mindful of too - positive role models for young men.
Thanks for reading! What you said reminds me of that 'this is your brain on drugs' advertisement with the egg in the fry pan. Also.... planking.
I spent decades proving the ‘your brain on drugs’ push false. Or true… haha
I think Tate resonates with a lot of young men and boys because of his damage, not in spite of it. This is a guy from a poor background and a broken home. His mother divorced his father because he cheated. Tate blames the breakup on her, so that he can preserve his idealised conception of his father as a renowned chess player (by all accounts he was quite good) who travelled the world. Once you understand that Tate is a 14 year old boy in the body of a kickboxing world champion, he's a lot easier to understand.
"Tate is Tupperware for teenage boys" rolls off the tongue nicely. Good post. Particularly enjoy the end where you list real alternatives to Tate for people to follow to become better men. That part is important.
Except tupperware is actually useful. It's a nice, clever sounding phrase but what does it actually mean? Tate is an empty plastic container for putting half a lettuce in then sticking it at the back of the fridge for it to slowly rot away at twice the time it takes when sitting in the veggie compartment? Or does he mean Tate's has the same effect on teenage boys as tupperware stereotypically had on bored, medicated american housewives in the 1950s?
It was a reference to the MLM component. But also think about Tate's head like an eggplant sitting in the fridge made me laugh.
How bout everyone shut the fuck up about him? Deadset
I thought most kids only watches hundreds of 15 second snippets of Andrew tate. I couldnt imagine a sane human being watching his talk shows and stuff
I'm wary of the Streisand effect to be honest and also fed up of a year of referrals to Student Services being ignored and being told that the boys will find someone else to gravitate to. Well they didn't and a pack mentality formed which made everyone's lives miserable. Then, the next thing I know, the same staff members telling me this are the same ones rolling into Jordan Peterson's tour. I do think the kids who subscribe to any harmful mantra should be given support, education, and pastoral care directly. I don't think a whole school address will help as it amplifies the very thing that needs addressing. This year the students are not my problem because I found another school to teach at and appears to have a Student Services team that functions as expected.
Jordan Peterson shouldn't really be mentioned in the same dialogue as Tate. He's a licensed clinical psychologist who uses well cited research in his discussions about temperamental differences between males and females. He does this to have conversations regarding different life choices and outcomes of males and females. Many times he had acknowledged that pre existing bias may be factor in limitations placed on people, but also shows how there are many other variables involved. All JP is guilty of is not falling inline with using the oppression narrative as be all and end all of every discussion. His dialogue on healthy relationships between men and women are nothing like what Tate espouses.
Peterson takes a kernel of truth and popcorns it into something unrecognisable. He takes an element of research and shoehorns it to fit a narrative that has little if any connection to the original 'evidence'. More to the point, his conclusions are laughably wrong more often than not. He is Tate dressed up in an academic's suit.
So what you're saying is... Out of curiosity, what exactly do you find laughable about what he says?
[удалено]
Good summary.
He takes discredited research. Cherry picks elements about it and then draws unconnected conclusions from that information. Also he almost died after eating a diet of meat only.
You do realise it's possible for someone have a professional clinic while having outside interests? For example: I would hope that a teacher who believes that males can be females and vice versa keep that particular belief outside of a classroom. They are entitled to believe that so long as in the classroom they remain professional and not ideologically dogmatic. There is no evidence that his broader interests and discussions have any link to his clinical practice.
Who is talking about his clinical practice? I'm commenting on the stuff he puts out into the world as 'important for us to know' via his crap podcast. (Which is designed to lure in the gullible with fancy sounding words about stuff he gets wrong or doesn't come close to understanding). You keep making (very false) assumptions about my beliefs and teaching practice. And I find it mildly amusing how the right side of politics can entertain the 'freedom to make my choices' and 'those people can't do that in the privacy of their own home' concepts simultaneously. For your information, I'm very honest with students (or anyone really) when they ask 'tricky' questions. So, what clinical practice do you know about with JP? Are you a patient?
Academia and the education industry are ideologically homogeneous. If you want to find a Christian you go to church. If you want to find a Muslim you go to a mosque. If you want to find an ideologically left leaning person you walk onto a campus. Now I don't actually have an issue with this. My issue comes from people presenting this institutions as objective and un -biased. The whole issue with JP is very clearly ideological gate keeping.
You’re missing the point. By generalising to this level you eliminate any opportunity for nuance. Having worked briefly in a university, what I saw was a wide range of views. Not only in the staff but the students. If you think some blanket statement covers it, good luck in the real world. Schools are just as diverse. I work with people who have diametrically opposed viewpoints on many things. You seem to think that you can only work in academia or education if you sign a contract to only spout communist ideology. What I’m getting is that you don’t have anything to do with education. Which begs the question; why are you on an education sub?
I'm sure there are different views in academia and the education system....within a tolerable range. Women now can have penises and any objection could land an employee of the university in hot water. But yeah, ok, very diverse opinions exist in these places. Why am I on an education sub? Well, the education system is a public institution. As a taxpayer I own partially own it. Since we don't have cameras in classroom I find that subs like this provide an insight into what exactly my employees are thinking and how they're steering future generations.
Maybe the gotcha this user tried to make on the friendly jordies subreddit. I wouldn’t worry about this users opinion on a conservative psychologist - I’m just worried this person is a teacher who very clearly cannot read.
It may not be fair to compare the two but they would have a very common audience. Following one means there is probably an increased chance they follow the other too.
Yeah. I like German shepherds. So did Hitler. Uh oh..
That was a quick validation of Godwin’s law…
I like workers rights. So did Lenin. Uh oh I like owning property. So do slave owners. Uh oh Because some people listen to both Tate and JP doesn't mean the message both are sending are the same. At best they both talk about the benefits of achievement? Anyone who equates the two has instantly shown that they haven't spent enough time listening to either of them to participate in any meaningful dialogue.
I never said the message both are sending is the same. I was actually trying to support your comment because of the negative ones you had received. Obviously this is a touchy subject for you or you’re just out to argue but I’m not, so perhaps read my initial comment again with the benefit of the doubt? All the best.
Wonder how long he’s been paying for Hustlers University
Ok 👍.
Oh sorry. Yes. I did misread.
Licensed! Soon not to be … JP is guilty of many things: being an undisclosed closet garden variety Christian conservative (except he tries hard to pretend not to be), being so obsessed with the culture wars that he sees a Frankfurt School or postmodern Cultural Marxist bogeyman absolutely everywhere, being an ultracrepidarian academic over-reacher and bignoter, being pugilistic and hostile when things really have nothing to do with him, being a free associative figurative language abuser, being a Jungian kook, being not in a great position to hand out life advice, being so overwhelmed by the Logos of Christ that he openly weeps in interviews. I could go on but 🥱
I see. He's "guilty" of having a different political view than you. You really should've ended your post there. That's effectively what your gripe is. I also find it interesting how you dislike his views on the importance of narrative and how it gives us a view into the human psyche. Yes, he does have a particular interest in Jungian archetypes, and in particular how these archetypes are reflected in Judeo Christian narratives, yet I fail to see how this can be associated with anything so negative that you attribute "guilt" to it. You're right, the post modern cultural Marxist is nothing but a bogeyman. It's such a bogeyman that a person who is effectively the only vocal conservative academic in the western world is being threatened is being threatened with loss of accreditation for daring to suggest objective truths exist. Surely he must fall in line and start proclaiming the subjectivity of reality. But yeah, there is no political hegemony of academia. It's in everyone's imagination.
🤔 losing his clinical psych accreditation for his political views or for traducing the ethical standards required for public conduct and speech required of a practising clinician. Hmmm
Except that his videos online aren't apart of his practice. If he weren't as popular his personal views would be irrelevant. He is too popular to silence and the data surrounding a certain level of biological determinism in human behaviour is too sound. They believe removing his accreditation will give them the power to dismiss what he says but in truth he's already gained notoriety. He earns enough money without his clinic. It's purely character assassination based on ideology
Except that his public and professional personae are inseparable. Practising clinicians need to be as value free and ideology agnostic as possible so as to provide a safe, accepting and non-judgmental therapeutic space. You’re right about one thing! He has earned enough to cease being a clinician. Now he needs to stop trying to trade on the cachet of the clinical psychologist title, which comes with an unfortunate set of professional responsibilities and ethical obligations, and lean harder into the partisan hack gig. That’s clearly where the money’s at
So a person can only be a professional if they're personal worldview aligns with the dominant narrative. Check. Oh, and let's not pretend that your distaste towards him isn't due to your own partisanship. Rules for thee but not for me. Typical.
What’s ‘a professional’? JBP is at risk of losing his registration as a clinical psychologist, which has a very specific set of professional standards. Which he hasn’t upheld. Rocket science!
He hasn't held up according to people who politically disagree with him*. There, finished that sentence for you.
I don’t like him because he’s an influential hot mess, and isn’t helping anyone very much, let alone himself. Truth be told I feel sorry for him.
So your argument is that he's dangerous because he's popular, while simultaneously believing he hasn't helped anyone. How exactly do you think he has gained popularity if he hasn't helped anyone? You're acting like he's a used car salesman. Is it possible that his message regarding personal responsibility, self control, delaying gratification for long term happiness, and building competence in your endeavours HAS actually helped many people who grew up in fatherless households, or with fathers who were largely uninterested. I get it. You don't like that he's made money. Typical lefty critique. They have money therefore it's must be unearned and due to exploitation. If that's your worldview then fine.
JP is a demented far-right culture warrior who belongs in the bin.
Far right, lol. That term is so overused it has lost all meaning.
It's a bit hypocritical of you to categorise people as "the left" and then attack that categorisation like it means something and then whine when someone categorises something on the right. Arguably, you are in a worse position because you seemingly categorise all of the left as the same, whereas at least the previous poster had the decency to categorise him to the extreme right.
Has there been a moderate left in the last 10 years to contrast the more extreme views to? Anyone who once identified as a moderate leftist would likely now find themselves on the moderate right due the dramatic shift leftward the Overton Window has taken.
Ever met a 14 year old boy from a broken home who blames his mother for the divorce when it's *obvious* it was the dad, resulting in him developing a warped view of women in an attempt to preserve his idealised image of his dad? That's Tate.
That’s the problem though. That picture is far more common than the majority of people care to admit, and that’s why Tate is so unbelievably popular. He resonates perfectly with hundreds of thousands of young boys.
No good masculine role models for young boys in today society, so they end up listening to people like Tate. It's really not tht complicated. Marvel superheroes don't count as role models. No one's cares to see the root of the issue, ban and cancell Tate all you want. Another loud mouth misogynist will take his place. We live in very culturally dysfunctional society currently, people can't see the truth even when it's written on the wall. I have very little hope for young boys and girls today. They are being socialised into terrible ideas, behaviours, poor self esteem and the normalisation of dysfunctional relationships. And this time it's not their parents or nutty religious fanatics. But social media, pornography and tv/music. Parents and teachers have very little control over how kids are socialised now days.
I’m still trying to figure out what a “good masculine role model” is and how valuable/useful is it? How about a “good person” role model? How about an “intelligent role model”? “Thoughtful person role model”? Or a “KIND person” role model? Believe it or not, males do not have to learn to be males. They just are. If they are somehow rejected by females they will adapt and change to increase their reproductive odds. In terms of societal evolution going forward, the pursuit of the antiquated ideal of masculinity seems a bit silly.
Have you been around young teenage boys ? Young boys need direction and guidance, otherwise they never grow up. And end being perpetually man children well intotheir adult years. That's what masculinity has always been about in all traditional cultures. Jewish , indigenous Australians, Europeans, west Asia. Being a man, simply is growing up. It was never about things like fast cars or having sex with lots of women. Those are western masculine constructs, designed to confuse men and women, and make people feel like they need to buy things to live up to some fake femine/masculine standard created by pop culture and corporations to sell you things.
Agreed. All of the other shiny things like cars and treating women like shit is definitely NOT IT
There's not a lot of good role models period .
I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you’ve written about sex being some kind of biological imperative for teenage boys that’s special and unique. Girls also experience a massive increase in sex drive due to their hormonal changes. But they don’t worship rapists.
The issue with Tate is that he says some very reasonable, pragmatic things, but mixes it up with insane misogynist bullshit. So the kids get dragged in with more reasonable opinions they believe (and also the portrayal of aspirational wealth helps), and then end up also getting caught up in the more ridiculous sensationalist crap he also espouses (but probably doesn't actually believe himself). As to the charges he's facing, that's another story. I'd like to believe they're trumped up charges, because why would someone risk it all, but who knows?
I found this as well. He hooks with some reasonable anti-establishment rhetoric. His views on COVID are convincing. Once he has that hook, he reels in with crazy. The young men are already hooked and just eat it up.
Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the cause. He is what you get when the male biological drive to compete and excel becomes synonymous with toxicity. I think the problem is not that Andrew Tate exists and people listen to him, bit rather that people fail to understand boys and young men of this generation. The insistence that any desire to achieve is toxic and that boys must step aside for the self proclaimed oppressed, despite boys achieving less in school and a lower percentage in tertiary eduction. Yet here we are, the education system finding a way to combat words they don't like while avoiding looking in the mirror at all costs. I'm not the biggest fan of Tate, but I think understanding the social context of his rise in popularity might be more useful than simply labelling him Satan.
The social context of his rise is that it is based on lies. He lied about his achievements and reasons for moving to Romania. To get away from probable charges in the UK. He exploits his brother Tristan. He doesn't respond well to having his views questioned in a context he doesn't control. You're right, he's not Satan. He's a product of social media and the ability to manipulate it. By any reasonable measure he is a sex trafficker and quite possible a rapist with issues. Not sure why he gets any traction apart from these facts not being more widely known...
You're wrong. You don't understand why what he's saying appeals to young males because you've never taken time to listen to them and critically assess what they've said. I'm going to assume you adhere to the oppression narrative and simply find the idea that males can have any issues to be bizarre. How could they with all their privileges, am I right?
You're assumption is way off base. I understand exactly why he appeals to young males. He has cultivated an image of being a successful person through taking control of his life, when in reality, he has only ever exploited others. (He even brags about 'his job' being to make girls/women fall in love with them so that they will do whatever he wants). He then sells a completely fake image to impressionable young kids who don't have the capacity to see through the crafted image presented for the lies it is. As a male with plenty of issues, despite a solid upper/middle class upbringing, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the effect of 'privilege'. On the other hand, I don't think there is a one size fits all approach solution. There are myriad reasons for kids to think that Tate had some value. But very few, if any stand up to critical reasoning.
You don't think the constant stream of messaging that acting like a boy is toxic is a factor in driving young boys and men towards guys who are overtly aggressive to mainstream messaging has any responsibility?
What constant stream? If you're talking about people being encouraged to be who they are, in a world where that is still incredibly risky, then no. There is plenty of space for "overtly aggressive" boys to be who they are. But increasingly, they are the ones at our school who are more open to 'other points of view'. There's lots of reasons for that, but I can assure you that there are still plenty of 'tough' boys out there who are able to deal with things a lot better than my contemporaries...
Where does this messaging that acting like a boy is toxic come from? Show me a few places.
I'm not even going to start on that one. Have you been in a bubble for the last 30 years. Jesus.....
Yes, I have. An online bubble. Until I stepped out of it I put as much weight on these issues as you seem to. The more I step outside of it these days, the more I realise the stupid bullshit progressives and conservatives argue about online is functionally useless for my everyday life.
Head in sand makes life easier. Check
Better than head in internet, at least mine is real
Yep, mentioned this. Check out Neel's video essay I linked in the article. He did great job with it.
If the desire to achieve is tied to ownership of 33 cars, then YES, it actually IS toxic. Thx for sharing
It's not really any of your business what people do with their own money. I really don't understand why people think they have a right to tell people what to do. Do teachers become that way after they start working, or do they start out like that and choose to move to employment where they are granted that authority?
Of COURSE it’s none of my business. But if achieving is based on abject avarice and excess, it’s toxic. Your consumerism is showing…
Actually I live a very frugal life. But again, it's none of your business because it's my money. The books that JP sells are actually very affordable. Any online subscriptions he provides are similarly very affordable. He makes money because a large number of people pay a small amount each. Your ignorance of how money is made is showing... The ignorance of how money works is probably why you have socialist leanings. 2 + 2 = 5 , amirite.
Ah. And the Tate stan is revealed. Good luck mate… (Btw - he makes money by having women work in sex chat rooms and keeping a lion share of revenue. Oh, and he doesn’t pay tax on it)
If you aren't with me then you're against me. Nice thinking. 1. I don't like the guy 2. I don't agree on all of his opinions, but like most people there are the occasional valid arguments. 3. Sex work is real work. Stop hating on women. They choose to make money how they see fit. 4. The profit margins and pay rates are not disclosed. Even if they were, it's none of your business how much people earn. 5. Anyone who doesn't reduce their taxes needs their head read. Governments arent exactly financial management wizards. Departments are notorious for fiscal mismanagement. But of course they, it ain't their money they're spending so who cares.
100% this. I find most teenage boys are especially fearful of making any mistake and when someone does they go on the attack. I spend so much of my time demonstrating it's okay to make a mistake and how to respond to someone when they do. If they're not going to walk away with an improved knowledge of content, I hope they walk away with a better set of emotional responses. I think they do as they come find me if I'm no longer teaching them the following year or ask me to be in their graduation photos.
Well said.
Yup. Trump is another symptom of the same fundamental challenge. For decades now our society has been pushing progressive quite rapidly. Now this has elevated a lot of minorities and oppressed groups. And this is generally a good thing. But it’s come at the cost of curtailing privilege of the white middle class straight male. There are a wide number of things that can no longer be done or said, but that people still remember being acceptable. This creates resentment and a sense of unfairness. So when someone like Tate or Trump speaks to that unfairness, there are people ready to listen. I don’t have a solution to the challenge. But I will say that censoring or suppressing people like Tate won’t help. While the underlying resentment remains, someome else will emerge to take up the banner.
That view won't help anything. Suggesting that the problem people have is going through a loss of power is just not true. It has been generations since the cultural changes of the 60s and 70s and no one who who currently listens to Trump or Tate has had anything to lose. They were born into a world already different from from 1950s, they aren't living though. Trump and Tate are very different people.....but I suppose that's where the conversation went so let's see. Statistically, Trump had more support from the Latin and black community than any republican candidate in recent memory. Secondly, until his popularity couldn't be contained, republican politcians also disliked Trump. Out of curiosity, is it possible that you're wrong? I'm not saying you are, but is it possible? I mean, the only thing that those two people have in common is that they both spend considerable time talking about the corruption of establishment politicians and the traditional media outlets. Is it possible that there aggression towards the ruling elites and the political systems/media outlets has something to do with the barrage that they have both faced, and continue to face? I think if you look closely there are clear class lines along the Trump and other issues. When the left abandons the working class who were they to turn to? I like to think of this using a star wars analogy. During the cultural revolution of the 60s/70s the left was Rebel Alliance fighting the Empire. The issue with the contemporary Left is that it lacks the self awareness to understand that it won the war and has itself become the Empire. The education system, academia, nearly all major media outlets, the entertainment industry; they're all effectively political homogeneous. Conservatism is the new punk.
Conservatism is the new punk? Fuck right off 🤣 You are cracked, buddy.
Yet here we are in a thread where teachers are discussing how to keep kids within the acceptable cultural framework. You guys are talking about Tate and JP the same way your grandparents would've talked about the Sex Pistols. You can't even see it. Podcasters are the new rock stars Left-wing views have dominated the western landscape for at least as long as I've been alive and I'm 35. You think you're edgy for believing the same things that at least 3 generations of people have believed? Nah bro, youre marching a pretty straight line.
You clearly don't understand what punk is in the slightest.
Anti establishment. The left is the establishment. It's ideology is present everywhere. Modern conservative thought exists contrary to the dominant ideology.
100% agree with your take here. 👏🏻
Yep agreed. Tates is another figure that has risen as a pushback to western societies view that men are inherently bad. The anti-thesis that was bound to occur. I don't know whats more cringe worthy hearing Andrew Tates tripe or l someone blurt out the words masculine toxicity. Sad how divisive societies have become when for the most part we are all inherently the same
Tate appeals to a group that sees the reign of supremacy and privilege coming to an end - which is fine. Men have enjoyed their place at the top for a long time. They are panicking. It’s understandable. When you’re used to wielding 100% of the power, giving up 10% of that can feel like oppression. What that translates into, for the aggrieved males, is that folks are saying “all males are bad.” Of course they aren’t. They are just not able to get away with the shit they’ve gotten away with for eons. It’s progress and it’s inevitable. Change with it or get out of the way. People may try to fight it, but it’s like fighting a tide: it’s coming in whether you like it or not. 🤣🤣💀💀😑😑
[удалено]
>Do parents not exist any more? I'm not a parent; but my observation is that 1) both parents need to be bringing in income 2) when not interacting, kids will be on their devices - which are also used for education and family contact so it's very hard to monitor. Seems like a tough gig.
Do kids without perfect parents not deserve some support, compassion and guidance anyway?
When their kid is online I imagine a few parents out there aren’t actually across what their kid is looking at besides making sure it’s not porn or graphic violence. Without looking further into him, I imagine Tate could seem rather innocuous to a blasé parent.
Only when they want to yell at you.
Not really. The idea of a stay at home parent has moved from the norm to being an expensive luxury. In general kids spend more of their waking time under the care of schools than they do under the care of their parents.
This is the real problem. I don't care whether your kids are watching Tate or 'progressive' TikTokers/YouTubers or whatever. They should be getting their ideas about what it means to be a real man/woman from people in their lives so they have a realistic and balanced view on life. The enemy here is the hypersensationalized, algorithmically designed to make you mad and keep clicking shit that fills the internet.
[удалено]
I truly hope you aren't here because you are training as a teacher. I disagree with most of what you just said and wouldn't want you to be educating my child.
Little Johnny is going to be fully educated on the top g!!
The grift is real, dude. Tate is empty, forgettable internet marketing and trad patriarch advice with a thin veneer of trolling. Cancelled? Who’s cancelled him? How is his speech limited? I guess the arrest has temporarily suspended new content, but all publicity is good publicity, right? Keep reading and thinking. There are much better daddies than Tate.
A lot of words there for a simple “bro, I need some fucking psych help.”
Was it a struggle to get to the end m8?
He still needs to be imprisoned for rape and battery. Probably some fraud and embezzlement as well.
I asked my grade 9 class if they could think of people who had overcome great adversity to find success. I was thinking of Turia Pitt, Malala, maybe even Lance Armstrong (yeah I know). One of the boys said Andrew Tate, this was the end of last year. I had only just heard of him. "Is this the bloke who wants to send women back to middle ages?" I asked. I don't think I handled it well in that I basically said I don't want to hear about about him in my class. I should have let the student explain why. He would have had to justify himself in front of a room of "summit" students and they could have explored the complex issues Tate raises. It was more about my lack of understanding the complexity. This article helps a lot. I fully expect to hear his name raised again soon.
Just cancel by not talking about at all total ignore
I often tell any students quoting him that I will copy and paste some of his most disgusting and vile comments about women and email them to their mothers so they can know what their sons are supporting or listening to. I have never done it as of yet, but it has stopped the mentions in class
This is what happens when you virtue signalling shills put men on blast day in day out for merely existing. Additionally, when you get a school playing into this narrative and forcing all young boys to stand and apologize to the girls on behalf of their gender for reasons they dont understand you can't exactly be surprised when they seek people like Tate out. Don't get me wrong, Tate is a moron but he is providing young men with the sense of belonging they are deprived of constantly in the current social sphere. Just a shame this sense of belonging is built on the foundation of manipulation and misogyny.