Andrew Tate’s Toxic Fame: Misogyny, Monetization, and Manipulation

Written by: Mira 

Edited by: Noor 

Visual by: Gabrielle

Andrew Tate is well known for all the wrong reasons. Once a professional kickboxer and contestant on the reality TV show Big Brother, Tate experienced a meteoric rise to online fame. Specifically, Tate did so by making controversial and misogynistic comments including how depression “isn’t real”, “[women] are given to the man and belong to the man”, and sexually assaulted women are partially responsible for what happened to them. 

To further boost his popularity, Tate began utilizing various methods to attract more followers, appearing on podcasts, pushing advice about talking to women, and manipulating social media algorithms by frequently having his videos reposted to fill explore pages and suggested videos for users. Through these tactics, Tate has amassed enormous online engagement, with 740,000 subscribers on Youtube, 4.6 million followers on Instagram, and over 11 billion views on TikTok (Holpuch). 

However, two weeks ago signaled Tate’s downfall after social media giants Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube banned him for violating community guidelines. While this action was a valiant attempt to prevent further harm that Tate’s online activities would cause, Tate has unfortunately already fully benefited from a platform he did not deserve—especially in regard to money. 

Because of his massive fanbase, Tate has earned millions of dollars through his pyramid scheme, the affiliate program Hustler’s University. Disguised as a membership program, Hustler’s University offered various online courses advertised to help its viewers become millionaires, including stocks and e-commerce. But what members did not realize was that most of the program’s information was available online and that Tate was running a vicious cycle of exploitation. In fact, most of Hustler’s University’s revenue came from when individuals were referred to the program rather than the trainings they received. 

Nevertheless, despite the consistent evidence of his deceptions, Tate seems more popular than ever. His social media suspension has led him to appear all over American news stations, mass media companies, independent online newspapers, and international news websites including NBC News, the New York Times, Insider, Vox, Daily Mail, Forbes, and the Guardian. Furthermore, after releasing a Vimeo video titled “Final Message”, now at 1.5 million views (as of September 4, 2022), his fans—predominantly males who crave validation or are insecure about their masculinity—began criticizing the ban, insisting on how it unjustly took away Tate’s right to free speech. This consequently begs the question: is Tate’s suspension appropriate? And why is it important to take his online presence so seriously? 

Tate’s trademark hyper-toxic masculinity has been primarily distributed by his videos that offer advice from a guiding “alpha male”. And while his advice might seem too radical for those who are not his fans, the extent to which his content is acted upon has already proven insidious in real-world contexts. For example, at an all-boys secondary school in New Zealand, two female educators expressed their worries about Tate’s influence manifesting in their students; listening to misogynistic views, some boys began seeing Tate as a role model for the embodiment of a successful man. They began to think “success [was] synonymous with abusing women” (The Spinoff), joked about rape, and made greater use of derogatory language to verbally assault their female peers. Similarly, there was a rise in sexual assault cases in private schools across Melbourne that have been linked to the embracement of misogynistic behavior encouraged by Tate (Abbott). On various social media platforms including Discord and Snapchat, there have been multiple complaints from female students describing how male peers who watch Tate’s content have sexualized them. Clearly, these situations highlight why Tate’s online presence must be taken so seriously—because of the direct threats he causes to people all over the globe and ultimately the future generation; as his content proliferates on younger adolescents’ social media pages, more individuals are becoming numb to the use of violence and sexist language against others, normalizing their actions through Tate’s glorification of misogyny.

By right, there is nothing wrong with Tate expressing his opinions freely. The issue lies in that he purposefully influences younger, more vulnerable individuals who are unsure what to believe and who to look up to for monetary purposes. And while doing so, Tate is apathetic toward how he meddles with his audiences’ minds. In his Vimeo video, Tate dismissed his misogynistic quotes, claiming his words lacked context and contributed to his portrayal of a “comedic character” (Fletcher) which indirectly illustrates Tate might not believe in what he posts but acts like he does for the sake of earning money. Furthermore, the topics of Tate’s content combined with the delivery of his words—bold and unwaveringly confident—is the most problematic as it falsely convinces his followers he is telling the truth so that they are unaware of the danger behind his advice. Thus, Tate’s suspension is fully justified as it protects more people from being targeted and prevents Tate from preying on others’ insecurities on a massive scale. 

Although Tate bears the most responsibility for the destruction his actions have caused, the social media platforms that he is active on are also to blame for not quickly taking down his accounts. While a social media ban at the beginning of Tate’s career might have been effective, the social media companies’ lack of punctuality allowed Tate to gain so much fame that his social media presence will live on indefinitely. Especially in our modern technological climate, algorithms have become more powerful in choosing content to keep an individual engaged, and the advancement of the internet has heightened the speed at which content can be disseminated, making it even harder for accounts to be permanently removed. In Tate’s case, he has amassed such a large fanbase that there are now over 10,000 accounts that still repost his videos. Though there is no way for this to be fixed, Tate’s situation is ultimately a reminder that social media companies must monitor the content that is being reposted on their algorithms more closely, or put a clear disclaimer when such offensive content does appear on an individual’s explore page, no matter the age of the user. 

Ultimately, considering the continuous damage Tate’s ideals have created, his social media suspension brings a wave of much-needed relief. Yet, it is also worth noting that even after Tate’s absence from social media, thousands of similar accounts still thrive on manipulation and spreading toxic, immoral ideals for fame. Thus, Andrew Tate’s situation’s outcomes shed light on two important aspects. Firstly, social media influencers have a significant influence and can cause real-life ramifications from their content. Consequently, the dangers of this are why social media companies must take action to stop the proliferation of hateful and false information on their platforms before it gets popular to minimize the implementation of the ideals in real life. But as members of the online community, we also must acknowledge the impacts of online influences in our real lives, and hence be vigilant of the implications of the people we platform. 

Works Consulted

Abbott, Rebecca. “Toxic “Christian” Influencer Andrew Tate Banned, but Is It Too Late? – Eternity News.”, 24 Aug. 2022, Accessed 4 Sept. 2022.

“Andrew Tate Is a New Virus in Our Schools.” The Spinoff, 20 Aug. 2022, Accessed 29 Aug. 2022.

Bhattacharya, Richik. “What Is Hustlers University? Taking a Deep Dive into Andrew Tate’s Controversial Course.”, Aug. 2022, Accessed 1 Sept. 2022.

Das, Shanti. “Inside the Violent, Misogynistic World of Tiktok’s New Star, Andrew Tate.” The Guardian, 6 Aug. 2022, Accessed 29 Aug. 2022.

Fletcher, Harry. “8 Things We Learnt from Andrew Tate’s “Final Message.”” Indy100, 24 Aug. 2022, Accessed 29 Aug. 2022.

Holpuch, Amanda. “Why Social Media Sites Are Removing Andrew Tate’s Accounts.” The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2022, Accessed 29 Aug. 2022.