Today’s post is the second in a series on the “manosphere’s” impact on the classroom. Many young male students are being influenced by Andrew Tate and others to view female classmates and teachers through a sexist lens.
‘The Preening Self-Mythologizing of Andrew Tate’
Tom Rademacher is an author and educator living in Minnesota. You can find him at www.mrtomrad.com:
Whether it’s the pseudo-intellectualism of Jordan Peterson, the preening self-mythologizing of Andrew Tate, or the overcompensating insecurity of Ben Shapiro, it’s the same message, the same appeal.
In a really insightful article on Andrew Tate’s appeal to young men, professors Steven Roberts and Stephanie Wescott explain:
By manipulatively framing the phrase “toxic masculinity” as an attack on men rather than a critique of harmful practices, figures like Tate exploit genuine feelings of alienation and defensiveness.
They present themselves as defenders of masculinity under siege, offering a space where boys and men can feel valued without having to confront or unlearn damaging behaviors.
Working through bad feelings is hard. Way harder than letting Andrew Tate tell you that you only feel bad because other people are wrong and you are right, that the phrase “toxic masculinity” means someone is calling all men toxic, which seems wrong.
And so you listen to Tate or whomever the next version of him is, and they tell you that you never need to feel bad for being a man, and that seems like a pretty good deal, and so you listen to all the other things they have to say about being a man, about how to feel and talk and treat people who aren’t part of the in group like you are. And you’re told that people will “get triggered” if you say these things in public, and then you do, and then they do.
So, how do we include our boys into the community without being all “boys will be boys” when there’s damage being done?
What we can do:
“They aren’t done.”
This was the mantra of one of the best middle school teachers I ever worked with. Kids make mistakes, big ones sometimes. Kids try on lots of different perspectives and personalities. Remembering that they aren’t done, that they will continue to grow and change and are worthy of our care and respect and effort, is crucial. In other words, the boys quoting Andrew Tate aren’t your enemy, aren’t bad people. They may well just be kids who need a little extra attention and encouragement.
Help see humans
There’s plenty of evidence (NIH, Nature) that exposure to different people reduces personal prejudice. While I maintain that it’s not our job to change the minds of our students, it is our job to expose them to parts and people of the world they may not otherwise see. In the texts we read, topics we study, sports we play, the art we art, and the math that we math, we can always work to show not just the strength of our diversity but the rich humanity of every individual.
Do No Harm/Allow No Harm
In my frenzy to fix all things, I have used shame and exclusion to address negative behaviors by students. Sometimes, it feels like a natural and appropriate consequence, but surely there’s enough of both already that we don’t need any more. The longer I taught, the longer I got better at taking a moment before addressing an issue that had raised my temperature so I could do so in a productive way.
That said, doing no harm to our students includes interrupting any harm coming their way, even from each other. The Harm Principle (attributed to like 12 different people online in different versions) says, essentially “The right to swing your fist ends where someone else’s face begins.” I use that in my own classroom all the time to explain that yes, everyone has the right to their personal beliefs but not to say or do things that harm other people. In other words, speak up if kids are saying bad things. It can be awkward and tough when we do, but we’ll never build a safe space if kids are getting hurt and we don’t do anything about it.
Addressing Problems Directly: Five Whys
A few weeks ago, I went to a great panel of local teachers. One teacher talked about how she uses the ‘Five whys’ as a way to engage her students on difficult topics. The strategy is exactly what it sounds like—and also the kind of thing you could spend all year rehearsing with students on all kinds of academic or low-impact topics to have ready when you really need it. When the temperature is turned down (the tool is not called “shout why”), take some piece of Tate-garbage that has been repeated as truth and use it as a chance to teach inquiry. We all know that throwing facts and figures does little to tackle misinformation, but having a student reflect, research, and investigate in a supported way can be incredibly powerful.
I talked with a good friend recently who described his recently Tate-pilled nephew: “He is poor, rural, and comes from an abusive and toxic home life. Andrew Tate is the only voice telling him he matters.”
If any young person in our orbit has to go online to hear they matter, then our first step forward is clear.
Thanks to Tom for sharing his thoughts.
Today’s post answered this question:
How is Andrew Tate influencing young male students, and what can teachers and schools do to respond to it?
Mary Beth Hertz kicked off this series with Part One.
Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at lferlazzo@epe.org. When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.
You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo or on Bluesky at @larryferlazzo.bsky.social .
Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email. And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 13 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here.
