Why Feminist Teachers Reveal Their Fear of “Manfluencers”

A Review of "The problem of anti-feminist ‘manfluencer’ Andrew Tate in Australian schools: women teachers’ experiences of resurgent male supremacy"

The walls of excavated Pompeii are brimming with lewd graffiti. A few examples: “Amplicatus, I know that Icarus is buggering you!” and “Restituta, take off your tunic, please, and show us your hairy privates.” Two thousand years later, feminists claim to be oblivious to the nature of boys and men. This article reviews "The Problem of Anti-Feminist Influencer Andrew Tate in Australian Schools”, a research paper that suggests a sinister agenda. Under the guise of protecting girls, they exploit what has always been considered harmless banter, exploration, and coping, to incriminate boys. Not once do they ask—if they truly believe such attitudes are dangerous—why boys come to hold them in the first place.

The research aims to connect boys’ behaviour, influenced by Andrew Tate and similar influencers, to the re-establishment of traditional masculine dominance. They attempt to build this argument within Connell’s hegemonic masculinity framework, a convoluted lens that describes gender power dynamics as dynamic, structural, and yet historically mobile. Such inconsistent academic jargon resembles a game of intellectual catch-me-if-you-can.

“We locate this understanding in Connell’s (Citation 2005) hegemonic masculinity framework, which permits a dynamic understanding of the structural foundations of unequal gender relations and how these are propped up and (re)legitimated through historically mobile configurations of gender practice. That is, as elaborated below, the discourses, attitudes, and actions that Tate (and other ‘manfluencers’) propagate—and which women and girls are on the receiving end of—represent efforts to re-stabilize masculine hegemony through a reassertion of traditional, patriarchal masculine norms.”

In addition to the subpar argumentation and language, the methodology is laughable. The researchers conducted 30 interviews with exclusively female teachers, providing no background information that could indicate credibility. Some interviews—though we’re not told how many—lasted just 30 minutes. No male teachers were consulted for comparison.

Throughout the paper, it becomes obvious that these researchers have minimal knowledge of Tate’s content. His views on cheating, porn, and sex are far from traditional. Their sole "research" seems to be derived from reading Connell's work, as they repeatedly misapply terms like "traditionality," "hegemony," and "masculinity" without understanding their object of critique. The only exposure they have to Tate’s ideas comes from cherry-picked social media clips taken out of context.

“[G]iven that backlash represents the defense of privilege, it may intensify with progress toward gender equality.”

This sentence is infuriating: "If you object to this, you’re a sexist!" Never mind that it’s factually wrong—backlash often stems from sustained encroachment on rights.

“We draw attention to the continuation of long-standing concerns of sexism and highlight the revitalization of pernicious behaviours and attitudes underpinned by a brazen confidence in a logic of assumed male supremacy. This revitalization points to how Tate’s misogyny has shaped—or perhaps calcified—some Australian boys’ ideas around masculinity, power dynamics, and boys’ relationships with women and girls.”

Is it a continuation of sexism? Has it always been a problem? Did it get better and then worse, hence “revitalize”? Or is it now calcified? They provide no comparison, no data on pre-existing sexism, and no graphs detailing its evolution.

At this point in the paper, they’ve referred to sexism in schools eight times without ever defining it. I kept waiting for a definition, but it never came.

Then, in an attempt to structure their "research," they offer this:

“We then explicate our methods and conceptual framework before presenting the data, structured around three (somewhat overlapping, but analytically delineated) strands: (i) Tate’s ideas and tropes and his influence on boys’ behaviour; (ii) persistent and overt displays of ‘male supremacy’ in classrooms; and (iii) sexism towards teachers and girls.”

It’s like saying: We want to prove the baby pooped on the floor! Number two: He pooped on the floor!

They attribute any misbehaviour, like spitting in a teacher’s water, to an underlying hatred toward women. While other reports show disciplinary measures at home and in schools have decreased—understandably leading to increased misbehaviour—the paper hints at a deeper insecurity among feminists. They’re not satisfied with the rules already in place, pushing for more extreme consequences as if to fill a vindictive urge.

As evidence of Tate’s danger, they cite findings that children who view his content are five times more likely to believe it’s acceptable to hurt someone if they apologize. This point serves as a misleading critique of forgiveness, as though the alternative to apologizing should be permanent self-flagellation—a disturbing reflection of feminist ideology's unforgiving nature.

Despite the anecdotes of misbehaviour from the female teachers, the data remains sparse and clearly biased. It’s safe to assume the examples provided are the worst they could find. The paper argues that Tate’s messaging has led to a rise in “brazen, remorseless entitlement” among boys, but it seems far more likely that boys, emboldened to be themselves, are finally being unapologetically so—just as girls have been encouraged to do for decades.

At one point, the authors accidentally hit on a crucial truth: boys do feel disempowered by the feminist movement and social phenomena like #MeToo. But instead of examining this, they dismiss it as extremist rhetoric. These 11-year-old boys, who were 4 or 5 when #MeToo was at its height, are being blamed for the resentment these teachers project onto them. The authors don’t consider that boys' enthusiasm for Tate stems from a desire to reclaim a sense of agency and respect in a society that devalues traditional masculinity.

If they took the time to have a proper conversation with a teenage Andrew Tate fan—and really listened—they’d quickly realize that much of the appeal is the desire for easily earned money, cool cars, and impressing girls, as teenage boys have always wanted. Absent ideological bias, such a conversation would dispel any suspicion of extremism. An adult truly concerned for these boys' well-being would walk away relieved that Tate also talks about responsibility, respect, and self-improvement.

In an ideal world, where boys' well-being matters as much as girls', an adult suspecting dangerous messaging would spend two hours listening to a full interview with Tate, grasping his core message: behave in a way that earns respect from both men and women. Then, that adult—preferably a male teacher—could address specific complaints, like boys spitting in a teacher's water, and ask whether such behaviour aligns with the disciplined, glamorous life Tate claims to have achieved through responsibility and self-respect.

Ultimately, the paper reads as a weak argument against male empowerment, full of faulty premises, flimsy conclusions, and ideological bias. Teasing and bullying have always been a fact of schoolyard life—I was fat-shamed long before Andrew Tate surfaced. The real tragedy is the authors' lack of concern for boys' well-being. Instead of offering solutions like better disciplinary measures or male mentorship, they vaguely call for more research on how boys' behaviour affects girls, ignoring the root of boys' dissatisfaction. If they truly believe the "manfluencer" ideas are dangerous extremism, the conclusion should have at least considered addressing the dissatisfaction and resentment boys feel towards society—emotions that, left unaddressed, may prove far more psychologically harmful than simply being “shushed.”

For decades, girls have been encouraged to embrace confidence and self-expression. Now, when boys receive similar encouragement from influencers like Andrew Tate, feminists react with alarm, eager to criminalize normal male behaviour. There is no concern for boys' well-being, no solutions for their frustration—just a fixation on the supposed negative impact on—wait for it—girls.