The ugly truth about the appeal of the ‘manosphere’

Despite facing charges for rape and human trafficking in Romania, the self-professed misogynist and social media masculinity influencer Andrew Tate – along with his brother Tristan – has arrived in the US after having his travel ban lifted.

There’s a suggestion some pressure from Trump administration representatives has influenced the decision of Romanian authorities to let the Tates leave the country.

On the flip side, they are also facing a criminal probe in Florida.

There will certainly be discussion of the overlaps between Trump’s policy positions and the views that Tate promotes. There’s an unmistakable alignment of their shared penchant for right-wing populism, anti-immigration outlooks, the revival of “strong man” masculinity hierarchies and sensationalised digital culture warfare.

There will also be talk of the way that figures of this network resonate in particular with disaffected young men. While this is certainly the case, it’s a chance to step back to analyse the idea of who the disaffected are and what that definition might cloud.

The economic disadvantage narrative

It’s become almost instinctive to assume that the young men drawn to Andrew Tate and the broader manosphere are primarily from working class or economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

This narrative, often pushed by well-intentioned commentators, suggests economic hardship explains the appeal of these hyper-masculine spaces.

It also assumes that threats from...

Read more