I wouldn't build a platform to have Andrew Tate, but I understand your point that it is what makes Substack into Substack. Furthermore, we should, above all of this, build healthier paths for boys to deal with their problems and struggles.
Perhaps, as well, the algorithm of this social media should reward more constructive criticism and conversations? I don't know how this could be achieved, but it seems necessary for sanity.
One of the cleaner voices in a discussion that has mostly produced more noise than argument. The platform governance case is well-constructed, and the point about the manosphere's transgressive allure being partly manufactured by exclusion is one that almost nobody on the pro-ban side is willing to sit with.
One place where I'd push the argument further: the "misandry isn't real" position you handle carefully but doesn't quite follow to its conclusion. The framework that makes misandry "not real" — folding prejudice into systemic power, so that contempt only counts when it flows from dominant to subordinate — is the same framework that makes misogyny only conditionally real. Dependent on accepting structural premises that are genuinely contested. If your condemnation of misogyny requires the other person to first accept a specific sociological model of power, you've built your moral argument on ground that shifts the moment someone disputes the model.
The stronger position — and the more defensible one — is that contempt for people based on their sex or their skin colour is wrong in both directions, full stop. The systemic power analysis is interesting sociology. It is a poor substitute for basic ethics.
I’ve just been removed from Threads for actions incommensurate with their community values. They do not feel any obligation to tell me what posts of mine caused them to do so. It may be because I called someone a fucking racist moron for trying to appropriate Jewish suffering by referencing “ICE concentration camps”, it could be when I replied FOAD to one of Boy George’s pile-ons to Jo Rowling, or it could be because I’d taken to calling Labour/ Lib Dems/ Greens/ SNP/ Plaid Cymru the ladydick Left. Either way, this is what we are proposing for Substack when we call for the banning of the one simple, indisputable rule they have - no calling for direct violence.
Gosh Helen I am thinking of the old wise saying “what a complicated web we weave when first we learn to deceive” I know little of Tate but what I have gleaned from what is said and what I have read is that he is a complicated individual but not one who is intentionally deceptive I am sure there is no way to guard vulnerable readers from misinterpretation and insult regarding his rhetoric as is there in our lives in being human I am one who is focused on human rights and justice and the only way I am able to judge others and who they are is by their actions and the results of them How much have they done to bring unity and peace to lives or to destroy I am finding as I age only too fast there are no borders to learning and to finding new ways of thinking and doing as long as it helps me in helping others
Unfortunately under the social media hegemony we live in, the only options are:
a) banning Tate
b) allowing him go viral
Really we should have the option of
c) shoving his stuff into a cold dark corner
because his views are stupid, weird and odious, far outside the mainstream, damaging to men and women alike. But that's not an option because even here on Substack, extremes pump the algo, and the algo sells.
"Misogyny is therefore much more likely to result in real physical damage to female humans than misandry is to do any physical harm to male ones. This is true."
It strikes me odd that you would express such frank certainty that "this is true." The truth of this idea depends on how we sketch the dimensions of misandry throughout history and in current social reality. Let's say, for example, that misandry--a view that men are relatively disposable--inspired the history of millions of men involuntarily dying in war because they are men. Or misandry might be the general obliviousness to the fact that men are 92% of workplace fatalities in the U.S., and nobody seems to care. Might those be examples of "real physical damage" via misandry?
And, how are we counting "real physical damage" that is specifically due to misogyny? Feminists have a habit of gendering everything, such that they theorize crimes committed against women as generally gendered, thus inspired by misogyny. This gross ideological exaggeration of misogyny as a social problem might also be tainting your certitude?
Yes, if you define misandry that broadly, you could say that these problems are physical harm that come from it. I wasn’t, though. I was referring to actions taken by individual women as a result of their hatred of men vs actions taken by individual men as a result of their hatred of women and I think this was clear in the context.
You could redefine misandry away from hatred of men and into systematic assumptions and biases rooted in evolved psychological sex differences in the same way that Kate Manne redefines misogyny away from hatred of women and into systematic assumptions and biases rooted in evolved psychological sex differences in Down Girl. I don’t think that’s a very good idea, though.
Yes, it was "clear in the context" that you were framing misandry and misogyny in a particular way. I was responding to that clarity.
As far as "redefining" misandry, why would the starting point be "actions taken by individual women as a result of their hatred of men," such that changes of this definition are "expanding" the concept problematically? I think you have a false starting point, and it problematically shifts the Overton window in conversation. Feminists regularly contemplate misogyny as systemic/structural, far beyond individual acts of violence by men. And I'm not saying we should "redefine misandry away from hatred of men." I'm saying the "hatred of men" can take different forms beyond individual acts of violence by women.
"Feminists regularly contemplate misogyny as systemic/structural, far beyond individual acts of violence by men."
Yes, and I regularly oppose them doing so. I am consistently a liberal individualist and object to analyses positing systemic and structural explanations for things rooted in identity/demographic group.
I don't think its true to say that male expendability is rooted in hatred of men and certainly not in women's hatred of men. I think it's much more likely to be rooted in cognitive mechanisms created by evolutionary pressures in which offspring are more likely to survive when their fathers risk themselves to protect their mothers. Evolution favoured the genes of men who think like this and women who choose men who think like this. We can be concerned about byproducts of this and challenge our own thinking when they arise in assumptions and expectations and actively work to mitigate this so that men are not treated as expendable. If, instead, we create male victim narratives and theories of gynecocracy, this will just blame 'women' as a group and not do anything to address the problem. It's the same problem when women blame 'patriarchy' and 'misogyny' for everything from violent sex offenders existing to the earnings gap. It brings some sense of a simple, structural and socially constructed enemy to fight which can be comforting, but in reality, we are always working with evolved human nature and psychological sex differences and societal narratives placed down on top of those. We need to be more granular, precise and empirical to genuinely mitigate and reduce harmful results of all this.
"I think it's much more likely to be rooted in cognitive mechanisms created by evolutionary pressures in which offspring are more likely to survive when their fathers risk themselves to protect their mothers."
I agree completely. I'm not arguing that male disposability is "rooted in" hatred for men. I'm saying that hatred for men is rooted in the natural dynamic of male disposability. The natural dynamic serves to socially ratify relative indifference toward men's gendered suffering b/c they are disposable. This is what the systemic contempt for men looks like.
And if you want to limit the definitions of "hatred" only to individual instances of conscious visceral animosity toward another, that's fine. But it was not clear from context that this is what you were doing, hence my response.
"If, instead, we create male victim narratives and theories of gynecocracy, this will just blame 'women' as a group and not do anything to address the problem."
This is a bit of a strawman. Recognizing systemic misandry does not necessarily entail a "theory of gynecocracy" or "blaming women as a group." Both of these things sound ridiculous to me: I blame mostly MEN for men's situation (though women play a meaningful role), and I don't think we live in an anti-male matriarchy.
"It's the same problem when women blame 'patriarchy' and 'misogyny' for everything from violent sex offenders existing to the earnings gap."
Why exactly is this the "same problem"? Certainly, one argument reminds us of another, but assuming both arguments have equal merit because of superficial similarities is a mistake. Could it be that when men complain about systemic misandry, their arguments have more merit that when women blame patriarchy for the pay gap?
One thing you didn't cover, is that most of Tate's misogynistic views on women are actually pretty mainstream in much of the world. For example, his views on the inferiority and rightful subjugation of women are fairly mainstream tradition Islam; and in fact a lot of his views are in tune with traditional Islam, which is exactly why he converted to Islam in 2022 when he became infatuated with Dubai and its culture.
So, the usual suspects who are calling for him to be banned from Substack - are they calling for mainstream and conservative Islamic writers to be banned from Substack for the same behaviour? There's debate about the meaning of An-Nisa 34 (the paragraph dealing with the treatment of "disobedient" wives, that is the Koranic basis of striking a wife "as a third and final step") - presumably anyone who concludes the traditional view here should be banned from Substack? Are they calling for that? Well, I think we all know the answer to that. The usual suspects are doing their tedious thing of holding all their favoured in-groups to much lower standards than their out-groups...
Yes, I have not gone into that and you see this when the survey which found a quarter of young men to think Tate had some good ideas down into ethnic and religious groups. That is a piece for another day though and including it in that one would be falling into the ‘whataboutism’ which gets in the way of discussing this specific issue specifically.
Thanks! I appreciate your clear thinking and writing very much, Helen!
I posit the best way to handle Tate is to relentlessly dunk on him. It's not a high bar to clear.
I wouldn't build a platform to have Andrew Tate, but I understand your point that it is what makes Substack into Substack. Furthermore, we should, above all of this, build healthier paths for boys to deal with their problems and struggles.
Perhaps, as well, the algorithm of this social media should reward more constructive criticism and conversations? I don't know how this could be achieved, but it seems necessary for sanity.
One of the cleaner voices in a discussion that has mostly produced more noise than argument. The platform governance case is well-constructed, and the point about the manosphere's transgressive allure being partly manufactured by exclusion is one that almost nobody on the pro-ban side is willing to sit with.
One place where I'd push the argument further: the "misandry isn't real" position you handle carefully but doesn't quite follow to its conclusion. The framework that makes misandry "not real" — folding prejudice into systemic power, so that contempt only counts when it flows from dominant to subordinate — is the same framework that makes misogyny only conditionally real. Dependent on accepting structural premises that are genuinely contested. If your condemnation of misogyny requires the other person to first accept a specific sociological model of power, you've built your moral argument on ground that shifts the moment someone disputes the model.
The stronger position — and the more defensible one — is that contempt for people based on their sex or their skin colour is wrong in both directions, full stop. The systemic power analysis is interesting sociology. It is a poor substitute for basic ethics.
I’ve just been removed from Threads for actions incommensurate with their community values. They do not feel any obligation to tell me what posts of mine caused them to do so. It may be because I called someone a fucking racist moron for trying to appropriate Jewish suffering by referencing “ICE concentration camps”, it could be when I replied FOAD to one of Boy George’s pile-ons to Jo Rowling, or it could be because I’d taken to calling Labour/ Lib Dems/ Greens/ SNP/ Plaid Cymru the ladydick Left. Either way, this is what we are proposing for Substack when we call for the banning of the one simple, indisputable rule they have - no calling for direct violence.
Gosh Helen I am thinking of the old wise saying “what a complicated web we weave when first we learn to deceive” I know little of Tate but what I have gleaned from what is said and what I have read is that he is a complicated individual but not one who is intentionally deceptive I am sure there is no way to guard vulnerable readers from misinterpretation and insult regarding his rhetoric as is there in our lives in being human I am one who is focused on human rights and justice and the only way I am able to judge others and who they are is by their actions and the results of them How much have they done to bring unity and peace to lives or to destroy I am finding as I age only too fast there are no borders to learning and to finding new ways of thinking and doing as long as it helps me in helping others
Unfortunately under the social media hegemony we live in, the only options are:
a) banning Tate
b) allowing him go viral
Really we should have the option of
c) shoving his stuff into a cold dark corner
because his views are stupid, weird and odious, far outside the mainstream, damaging to men and women alike. But that's not an option because even here on Substack, extremes pump the algo, and the algo sells.
"Misogyny is therefore much more likely to result in real physical damage to female humans than misandry is to do any physical harm to male ones. This is true."
It strikes me odd that you would express such frank certainty that "this is true." The truth of this idea depends on how we sketch the dimensions of misandry throughout history and in current social reality. Let's say, for example, that misandry--a view that men are relatively disposable--inspired the history of millions of men involuntarily dying in war because they are men. Or misandry might be the general obliviousness to the fact that men are 92% of workplace fatalities in the U.S., and nobody seems to care. Might those be examples of "real physical damage" via misandry?
And, how are we counting "real physical damage" that is specifically due to misogyny? Feminists have a habit of gendering everything, such that they theorize crimes committed against women as generally gendered, thus inspired by misogyny. This gross ideological exaggeration of misogyny as a social problem might also be tainting your certitude?
Yes, if you define misandry that broadly, you could say that these problems are physical harm that come from it. I wasn’t, though. I was referring to actions taken by individual women as a result of their hatred of men vs actions taken by individual men as a result of their hatred of women and I think this was clear in the context.
You could redefine misandry away from hatred of men and into systematic assumptions and biases rooted in evolved psychological sex differences in the same way that Kate Manne redefines misogyny away from hatred of women and into systematic assumptions and biases rooted in evolved psychological sex differences in Down Girl. I don’t think that’s a very good idea, though.
Yes, it was "clear in the context" that you were framing misandry and misogyny in a particular way. I was responding to that clarity.
As far as "redefining" misandry, why would the starting point be "actions taken by individual women as a result of their hatred of men," such that changes of this definition are "expanding" the concept problematically? I think you have a false starting point, and it problematically shifts the Overton window in conversation. Feminists regularly contemplate misogyny as systemic/structural, far beyond individual acts of violence by men. And I'm not saying we should "redefine misandry away from hatred of men." I'm saying the "hatred of men" can take different forms beyond individual acts of violence by women.
"Feminists regularly contemplate misogyny as systemic/structural, far beyond individual acts of violence by men."
Yes, and I regularly oppose them doing so. I am consistently a liberal individualist and object to analyses positing systemic and structural explanations for things rooted in identity/demographic group.
I don't think its true to say that male expendability is rooted in hatred of men and certainly not in women's hatred of men. I think it's much more likely to be rooted in cognitive mechanisms created by evolutionary pressures in which offspring are more likely to survive when their fathers risk themselves to protect their mothers. Evolution favoured the genes of men who think like this and women who choose men who think like this. We can be concerned about byproducts of this and challenge our own thinking when they arise in assumptions and expectations and actively work to mitigate this so that men are not treated as expendable. If, instead, we create male victim narratives and theories of gynecocracy, this will just blame 'women' as a group and not do anything to address the problem. It's the same problem when women blame 'patriarchy' and 'misogyny' for everything from violent sex offenders existing to the earnings gap. It brings some sense of a simple, structural and socially constructed enemy to fight which can be comforting, but in reality, we are always working with evolved human nature and psychological sex differences and societal narratives placed down on top of those. We need to be more granular, precise and empirical to genuinely mitigate and reduce harmful results of all this.
"I think it's much more likely to be rooted in cognitive mechanisms created by evolutionary pressures in which offspring are more likely to survive when their fathers risk themselves to protect their mothers."
I agree completely. I'm not arguing that male disposability is "rooted in" hatred for men. I'm saying that hatred for men is rooted in the natural dynamic of male disposability. The natural dynamic serves to socially ratify relative indifference toward men's gendered suffering b/c they are disposable. This is what the systemic contempt for men looks like.
And if you want to limit the definitions of "hatred" only to individual instances of conscious visceral animosity toward another, that's fine. But it was not clear from context that this is what you were doing, hence my response.
"If, instead, we create male victim narratives and theories of gynecocracy, this will just blame 'women' as a group and not do anything to address the problem."
This is a bit of a strawman. Recognizing systemic misandry does not necessarily entail a "theory of gynecocracy" or "blaming women as a group." Both of these things sound ridiculous to me: I blame mostly MEN for men's situation (though women play a meaningful role), and I don't think we live in an anti-male matriarchy.
"It's the same problem when women blame 'patriarchy' and 'misogyny' for everything from violent sex offenders existing to the earnings gap."
Why exactly is this the "same problem"? Certainly, one argument reminds us of another, but assuming both arguments have equal merit because of superficial similarities is a mistake. Could it be that when men complain about systemic misandry, their arguments have more merit that when women blame patriarchy for the pay gap?
Good post, as usual.
One thing you didn't cover, is that most of Tate's misogynistic views on women are actually pretty mainstream in much of the world. For example, his views on the inferiority and rightful subjugation of women are fairly mainstream tradition Islam; and in fact a lot of his views are in tune with traditional Islam, which is exactly why he converted to Islam in 2022 when he became infatuated with Dubai and its culture.
So, the usual suspects who are calling for him to be banned from Substack - are they calling for mainstream and conservative Islamic writers to be banned from Substack for the same behaviour? There's debate about the meaning of An-Nisa 34 (the paragraph dealing with the treatment of "disobedient" wives, that is the Koranic basis of striking a wife "as a third and final step") - presumably anyone who concludes the traditional view here should be banned from Substack? Are they calling for that? Well, I think we all know the answer to that. The usual suspects are doing their tedious thing of holding all their favoured in-groups to much lower standards than their out-groups...
Yes, I have not gone into that and you see this when the survey which found a quarter of young men to think Tate had some good ideas down into ethnic and religious groups. That is a piece for another day though and including it in that one would be falling into the ‘whataboutism’ which gets in the way of discussing this specific issue specifically.
I hope the Substack team read this. (I'd tag them if I knew how.)