toxic masculinity v4.0

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

1. Tate is a social media influencer and a self-described misogynist Andrew Tate is a British-American former kickboxer and reality television star with millions of social media followers – over 10 million on X (formerly Twitter) alone. He uses his platform to cannily deliver his disturbing views on rape, relationships and power. Many in his audience are teenagers who are just beginning to understand their own sexuality. Tate, who says he is “absolutely a misogynist,” teaches his acolytes that women are inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused. This is typical of Pick Up Artists (or PUAs), who are part of the largely online misogynist “manosphere.” Tate posts instructional videos online and directs followers to his paid “Hustler’s University” and “War Room” courses, which run subscribers $50 a month and $8,000 annually, respectively. Among the lessons: If a woman accuses a man of cheating, there’s one appropriate response, according to Tate, who posted the following to his TikTok account: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face, you grip her up by the neck, ‘WHAT’S UP BITCH’...you go fuck her. That’s how it goes, you go slap, slap, grab, choke, ‘shut up bitch,’ sex.” TikTok videos of Tate have been viewed some 11.6 billion times, according to reporting by The Guardian. While some of Tate’s social media accounts have been removed, his content lives on, thanks to reposts and dozens of fan accounts. 2. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Tate has pushed antisemitic, racist, pro-terror content Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Tate has leaned heavily into unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuating Holocaust revisionism, spreading conspiracy theories about Israel, praising Hamas, performing Nazi salutes and encouraging people to embrace and openly engage in racism. A cursory examination of Tate’s X account provides numerous expressions of his hateful language and beliefs. He consistently makes antisemitic and racist comments, including using “Jew” as a pejorative towards his critics (regardless of whether or not they’re Jewish), hurling slurs, and promoting numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories, such as implying that American support for Israel is a psyop by the Mossad and claiming that people who are called racist or antisemitic are actually “realists” with “pattern recognition.” On March 5, 2025, Tate appeared on a livestream of the "Full Send" podcast, where he told host Kyle Forgeard, “This is an interesting conversation because America believes it has free speech. It doesn't. But every single country in the world has things you cannot talk about..... If you speak out against the Jews in America, you're going to get in a lot of trouble." Tate has also expressed support for terrorism on multiple occasions. In November 2023, he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show, where he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and refused to condemn Hamas. He’s also praised the terror group and tied it into his manosphere worldview, describing Hamas as “the masculine spirit of resistance.” In October 2024, following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Tate posted on X: “I can only pray for a death as heroic as Yahya Sinwar. Brave, defiant in the face of evil and dedicated to his lifes [sic] purpose.” He also appears to support an Islamist Great Britain; in July 2023, he responded to the news of a new mosque in London, posting on X: “Allah is the best of planners and I look forward to seeing the Islamic republic [sic] of Great Britistan [sic] in her final form. Alhamdulillah Britain will be fully Islamic soon.” Another recent and concerning trend in Tate’s tweets is his promotion of Holocaust revisionism, which occasionally veers into outright Holocaust denial. He has implied that World War II was a lie on multiple occasions, mocked people who accept the historical consensus on WWII, implied that Jews are purposefully “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement Theory) and in the same tweet encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler. He has also stated that “we should bring the Nazi salute back” then proudly performed the salute in a video and encouraged his followers to embrace it and continue engaging in racism. Tate also associates with other right-wing personalities. On his X account, Tate regularly “jokes” and engages with notorious antisemite Nick Fuentes. Tate has also previously sat down for interviews with Candace Owens – another far-right personality known for her antisemitism and Holocaust denial. 3. In 2023, Tate was indicted on charges of sex trafficking and rape Tate and his brother face multiple charges in Romania, including sex trafficking, rape and forming an organized criminal group. They were arrested in December 2022 and are accused of exploiting seven women from Romania, the U.S. and Britain by seducing them with the promise of a relationship, then holding them against their will, filming them engaging in sex acts and selling the videos. Prosecutors allege that Tate raped at least one of the women repeatedly, controlled them by threatening them with violence and financial ruin and posted pornographic videos to the women’s social media accounts. The Tate brothers claim the June 2023 indictment, which has been submitted to a Romanian judge for further legal action, is a farce, and demonstrates the power of the “matrix,” a term they use to describe the forces putatively allied against them (which include feminism and international law). In August 2023, leaked chats from Tate’s “War Room” appeared to show how subscribers are taught to “manage” women, and in some case groom them for online sex work. Tate and his brother were arrested again on March 11, 2024, in Bucharest, Romania, on warrants issued by the U.K. and tied to allegations of sexual aggression. The Tates will be extradited to face the U.K. charges, brought by four women who accuse Andrew Tate of sexual violence and physical abuse, once their legal proceedings in Romania have concluded. In February 2025, the U.S. lifted its travel ban on the brothers, and the Tates flew to the U.S. They will return to Romania for their trial(s). 4. Tate wields considerable power within the manosphere – and beyond Tate first appeared on the international stage in 2016 as a controversial contestant on the UK’s “Big Brother” series, and was removed from the show after he was accused of assaulting a woman. He translated his reality television notoriety into a social media following comprised of young men who were eager to achieve the lifestyle he was selling: hypermasculinity, sexual and financial success and a lot of fast cars. Today, Tate is a prominent denizen of the manosphere, the toxic online communities where men gather to bemoan their victimhood and blame women for the world’s problems. Some of the groups under this umbrella include involuntary celibates (incels) and so-called Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). The impact of the manosphere’s misogyny shows up in the wreckage of our worst national tragedies: incel language in the manifestos and online footprint of mass shooters, “men’s rights” activists targeting women in shooting sprees across major cities. It’s also reflected in many white supremacist spaces, where men who feel victimized by a changing society target the theoretical beneficiaries of those changes: non-white people and women. These groups attract men and boys who are angry, depressed and/or feel victimized by women and society, and reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinity. Rather than teaching lonely boys and men how to be emotionally resilient, they teach them to lean into their anger, and supplement it with lists of perceived grievances against girls and women. Unfortunately, their impact registers well beyond the manosphere. 5. Tate both personifies and

1. Tate is a social media influencer and a self-described misogynist
Andrew Tate is a British-American former kickboxer and reality television star with millions of social media followers – over 10 million on X (formerly Twitter) alone. He uses his platform to cannily deliver his disturbing views on rape, relationships and power. Many in his audience are teenagers who are just beginning to understand their own sexuality.
Tate, who says he is “absolutely a misogynist,” teaches his acolytes that women are inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused. This is typical of Pick Up Artists (or PUAs), who are part of the largely online misogynist “manosphere.”
Tate posts instructional videos online and directs followers to his paid “Hustler’s University” and “War Room” courses, which run subscribers $50 a month and $8,000 annually, respectively. Among the lessons: If a woman accuses a man of cheating, there’s one appropriate response, according to Tate, who posted the following to his TikTok account: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face, you grip her up by the neck, ‘WHAT’S UP BITCH’...you go fuck her. That’s how it goes, you go slap, slap, grab, choke, ‘shut up bitch,’ sex.” TikTok videos of Tate have been viewed some 11.6 billion times, according to reporting by The Guardian.
While some of Tate’s social media accounts have been removed, his content lives on, thanks to reposts and dozens of fan accounts.
2. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Tate has pushed antisemitic, racist, pro-terror content
Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Tate has leaned heavily into unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuating Holocaust revisionism, spreading conspiracy theories about Israel, praising Hamas, performing Nazi salutes and encouraging people to embrace and openly engage in racism.
A cursory examination of Tate’s X account provides numerous expressions of his hateful language and beliefs. He consistently makes antisemitic and racist comments, including using “Jew” as a pejorative towards his critics (regardless of whether or not they’re Jewish), hurling slurs, and promoting numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories, such as implying that American support for Israel is a psyop by the Mossad and claiming that people who are called racist or antisemitic are actually “realists” with “pattern recognition.”
On March 5, 2025, Tate appeared on a livestream of the "Full Send" podcast, where he told host Kyle Forgeard, “This is an interesting conversation because America believes it has free speech. It doesn't. But every single country in the world has things you cannot talk about..... If you speak out against the Jews in America, you're going to get in a lot of trouble."
Tate has also expressed support for terrorism on multiple occasions. In November 2023, he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show, where he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and refused to condemn Hamas. He’s also praised the terror group and tied it into his manosphere worldview, describing Hamas as “the masculine spirit of resistance.”
In October 2024, following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Tate posted on X: “I can only pray for a death as heroic as Yahya Sinwar. Brave, defiant in the face of evil and dedicated to his lifes [sic] purpose.”
He also appears to support an Islamist Great Britain; in July 2023, he responded to the news of a new mosque in London, posting on X: “Allah is the best of planners and I look forward to seeing the Islamic republic [sic] of Great Britistan [sic] in her final form. Alhamdulillah Britain will be fully Islamic soon.”
Another recent and concerning trend in Tate’s tweets is his promotion of Holocaust revisionism, which occasionally veers into outright Holocaust denial. He has implied that World War II was a lie on multiple occasions, mocked people who accept the historical consensus on WWII, implied that Jews are purposefully “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement Theory) and in the same tweet encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.
He has also stated that “we should bring the Nazi salute back” then proudly performed the salute in a video and encouraged his followers to embrace it and continue engaging in racism.
Tate also associates with other right-wing personalities. On his X account, Tate regularly “jokes” and engages with notorious antisemite Nick Fuentes. Tate has also previously sat down for interviews with Candace Owens – another far-right personality known for her antisemitism and Holocaust denial.
3. In 2023, Tate was indicted on charges of sex trafficking and rape
Tate and his brother face multiple charges in Romania, including sex trafficking, rape and forming an organized criminal group. They were arrested in December 2022 and are accused of exploiting seven women from Romania, the U.S. and Britain by seducing them with the promise of a relationship, then holding them against their will, filming them engaging in sex acts and selling the videos.
Prosecutors allege that Tate raped at least one of the women repeatedly, controlled them by threatening them with violence and financial ruin and posted pornographic videos to the women’s social media accounts.
The Tate brothers claim the June 2023 indictment, which has been submitted to a Romanian judge for further legal action, is a farce, and demonstrates the power of the “matrix,” a term they use to describe the forces putatively allied against them (which include feminism and international law).
In August 2023, leaked chats from Tate’s “War Room” appeared to show how subscribers are taught to “manage” women, and in some case groom them for online sex work.
Tate and his brother were arrested again on March 11, 2024, in Bucharest, Romania, on warrants issued by the U.K. and tied to allegations of sexual aggression. The Tates will be extradited to face the U.K. charges, brought by four women who accuse Andrew Tate of sexual violence and physical abuse, once their legal proceedings in Romania have concluded.
In February 2025, the U.S. lifted its travel ban on the brothers, and the Tates flew to the U.S. They will return to Romania for their trial(s).
4. Tate wields considerable power within the manosphere – and beyond
Tate first appeared on the international stage in 2016 as a controversial contestant on the UK’s “Big Brother” series, and was removed from the show after he was accused of assaulting a woman. He translated his reality television notoriety into a social media following comprised of young men who were eager to achieve the lifestyle he was selling: hypermasculinity, sexual and financial success and a lot of fast cars.
Today, Tate is a prominent denizen of the manosphere, the toxic online communities where men gather to bemoan their victimhood and blame women for the world’s problems. Some of the groups under this umbrella include involuntary celibates (incels) and so-called Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs).
The impact of the manosphere’s misogyny shows up in the wreckage of our worst national tragedies: incel language in the manifestos and online footprint of mass shooters, “men’s rights” activists targeting women in shooting sprees across major cities. It’s also reflected in many white supremacist spaces, where men who feel victimized by a changing society target the theoretical beneficiaries of those changes: non-white people and women.
These groups attract men and boys who are angry, depressed and/or feel victimized by women and society, and reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinity. Rather than teaching lonely boys and men how to be emotionally resilient, they teach them to lean into their anger, and supplement it with lists of perceived grievances against girls and women. Unfortunately, their impact registers well beyond the manosphere.
5. Tate both personifies and 

Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer The controversial British-American influencer Andrew Tate has left Romania, where he was charged with rape, human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. He and his brother are believed to be on a private jet heading to the US, sources told the BBC. Tate was put under house arrest in Romania in August 2024 when prosecutors launched a second criminal investigation against himself and his brother Tristan, as well as four other suspects. They all deny wrongdoing. The brothers have also been accused of tax evasion in the UK. A British court ruled in December 2024 that police could seize more than £2m ($2.4m) from them for failing to pay tax on £21m in revenue from their online businesses. Andrew Tate said the ruling was "not justice" and called it a "co-ordinated attack". Warning: Contains references to sexual violence. Self-proclaimed "misogynist" Andrew Tate first rose to fame after an appearance on the British version of reality TV show Big Brother in 2016. He only lasted six days on the programme, before being removed following the emergence of a video that appeared to show him attacking a woman. He said at the time that the footage had been edited and was "a total lie trying to make me look bad". Now, the 38-year-old former kickboxer boasts more than 10 million followers on X, formerly Twitter - and a worldwide profile. Who is Andrew Tate? Tate - full name Emory Andrew Tate - was born in December 1986. He is named after his father, an American who worked for the US Air Force in Britain, and who was also a chess master. His mother and father met in the UK before moving to America where Tate was raised until his parents divorced. Following the divorce, Tate moved to Luton, England, with his mother. Both Tate and his younger brother Tristan said they experienced poverty in England. In interviews, they recalled going to KFC to save other people's leftover chicken and freezing it for future meals. Tate was a kickboxing world champion four times - but it was online where he found worldwide fame. Tate has appeared in countless videos, flaunting an ultra-luxurious lifestyle of fast cars, private jets, and yachts. Shortly before he was first arrested in December 2022, he engaged in a row with environmental activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter. He claimed to have 33 cars and said he would send her a list of their "respective enormous emissions". On TikTok, videos with the #AndrewTate hashtag have been viewed billions of times. That figure also includes videos made by people criticising the influencer. What has Andrew Tate said about women? In an interview with another YouTuber, he said he was "absolutely a misogynist", and added: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist." In that same video, he described women as "intrinsically lazy" and said there was "no such thing as an independent female". Andrew Tate has been singled out for the effect he has had in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men by authorities in the UK. Speaking at the launch of a report into violence against women and girls in July 2024, Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth said: "We know that some of this is also linked to radicalisation of young people online, we know the influencers, Andrew Tate, the element of influencing of particularly boys, is quite terrifying." The report stated that police were now working with counter-terrorism teams to combat the risks of young men being radicalised. Numerous social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, have banned him - with the latter saying that "misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated". Tate was banned from Twitter for saying women should "bear responsibility" for being sexually assaulted. He has since been reinstated on the platform, now known as X. In a combative interview with the BBC in June 2023, when pushed on whether his controversial views on women harmed young people, the influencer claimed he was a "force for good" and that he was "acting under the instruction of God to do good things". What are Andrew Tate's legal cases? Andrew Tate and his brother face a number of civic and criminal legal cases. Tate was detained alongside his brother Tristan in December 2022 in a suburb of the Romanian capital, Bucharest, as part of an investigation into allegations of human trafficking and rape, which they deny. The pair were charged along with two Romanian female suspects in June 2023. In response to the charges against them, the media team for the Tate brothers said: "While this news is undoubtedly predictable, we embrace the opportunity it presents to demonstrate their innocence and vindicate their reputation." A Romanian court ruled in early July 2024 that Tate and his brother could leave the country but had to stay within the European Union. This decision was opposed by prosecutors, and overturned less than two weeks later by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In March 2024, British police investigating Andrew Tate on allegations of rape and human trafficking were granted a warrant to extradite him and his brother to the UK. Separately, in May 2024, lawyers for four women who claim they were assaulted by Tate and his brother said they were bringing a civil case against him at the High Court in the UK for "damages for injuries they suffered as a result". A representative for the Tate brothers said in response that they "unequivocally deny all allegations". Another legal issue facing the pair in the UK is a civil case brought in July 2024 by Devon and Cornwall Police, in which they are accused of failing to pay any tax on £21m of revenue from their online businesses, including online "wealth creation" platform Hustlers' University. A third person known only as J is also accused as part of the case, with the force seeking to recover about £2.8 million held in seven frozen bank accounts, an application which the defendants are contesting. How does Andrew Tate make his money? Tate has described himself as a "self-made multi-millionaire" and said he earned money through "a little webcam business from my apartment". "I had 75 women working for me in four locations and I was doing $600,000 a month from webcam," he said in a podcast interview. In a now-deleted page on his website, he said he brought women into the "adult entertainment industry". "My job was to meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, test if she's quality, get her to fall in love with me to where she'd do anything I say and then get her on webcam so we could become rich together," he wrote on the page - which was subsequently taken down in February 2022. "I've seen men sell cars, TVs... This guy's gran passed away and they were waiting for the sale of the house. When the house was sold he'd get £20,000 and promised it to [a model], to pay for her fake financial problem," Tristan told the Mirror.

Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer
The controversial British-American influencer Andrew Tate has left Romania, where he was charged with rape, human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women.
He and his brother are believed to be on a private jet heading to the US, sources told the BBC.
Tate was put under house arrest in Romania in August 2024 when prosecutors launched a second criminal investigation against himself and his brother Tristan, as well as four other suspects. They all deny wrongdoing.
The brothers have also been accused of tax evasion in the UK. A British court ruled in December 2024 that police could seize more than £2m ($2.4m) from them for failing to pay tax on £21m in revenue from their online businesses.
Andrew Tate said the ruling was "not justice" and called it a "co-ordinated attack".
Warning: Contains references to sexual violence.
Self-proclaimed "misogynist" Andrew Tate first rose to fame after an appearance on the British version of reality TV show Big Brother in 2016. He only lasted six days on the programme, before being removed following the emergence of a video that appeared to show him attacking a woman.
He said at the time that the footage had been edited and was "a total lie trying to make me look bad".
Now, the 38-year-old former kickboxer boasts more than 10 million followers on X, formerly Twitter - and a worldwide profile.
Who is Andrew Tate?
Tate - full name Emory Andrew Tate - was born in December 1986.
He is named after his father, an American who worked for the US Air Force in Britain, and who was also a chess master. His mother and father met in the UK before moving to America where Tate was raised until his parents divorced.
Following the divorce, Tate moved to Luton, England, with his mother.
Both Tate and his younger brother Tristan said they experienced poverty in England. In interviews, they recalled going to KFC to save other people's leftover chicken and freezing it for future meals.
Tate was a kickboxing world champion four times - but it was online where he found worldwide fame.
Tate has appeared in countless videos, flaunting an ultra-luxurious lifestyle of fast cars, private jets, and yachts.
Shortly before he was first arrested in December 2022, he engaged in a row with environmental activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter.
He claimed to have 33 cars and said he would send her a list of their "respective enormous emissions".
On TikTok, videos with the #AndrewTate hashtag have been viewed billions of times. That figure also includes videos made by people criticising the influencer.
What has Andrew Tate said about women?
In an interview with another YouTuber, he said he was "absolutely a misogynist", and added: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist."
In that same video, he described women as "intrinsically lazy" and said there was "no such thing as an independent female".
Andrew Tate has been singled out for the effect he has had in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men by authorities in the UK.
Speaking at the launch of a report into violence against women and girls in July 2024, Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth said: "We know that some of this is also linked to radicalisation of young people online, we know the influencers, Andrew Tate, the element of influencing of particularly boys, is quite terrifying."
The report stated that police were now working with counter-terrorism teams to combat the risks of young men being radicalised.
Numerous social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, have banned him - with the latter saying that "misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated".
Tate was banned from Twitter for saying women should "bear responsibility" for being sexually assaulted. He has since been reinstated on the platform, now known as X.
In a combative interview with the BBC in June 2023, when pushed on whether his controversial views on women harmed young people, the influencer claimed he was a "force for good" and that he was "acting under the instruction of God to do good things".
What are Andrew Tate's legal cases?
Andrew Tate and his brother face a number of civic and criminal legal cases.
Tate was detained alongside his brother Tristan in December 2022 in a suburb of the Romanian capital, Bucharest, as part of an investigation into allegations of human trafficking and rape, which they deny. The pair were charged along with two Romanian female suspects in June 2023.
In response to the charges against them, the media team for the Tate brothers said: "While this news is undoubtedly predictable, we embrace the opportunity it presents to demonstrate their innocence and vindicate their reputation."
A Romanian court ruled in early July 2024 that Tate and his brother could leave the country but had to stay within the European Union. This decision was opposed by prosecutors, and overturned less than two weeks later by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
In March 2024, British police investigating Andrew Tate on allegations of rape and human trafficking were granted a warrant to extradite him and his brother to the UK.
Separately, in May 2024, lawyers for four women who claim they were assaulted by Tate and his brother said they were bringing a civil case against him at the High Court in the UK for "damages for injuries they suffered as a result".
A representative for the Tate brothers said in response that they "unequivocally deny all allegations".
Another legal issue facing the pair in the UK is a civil case brought in July 2024 by Devon and Cornwall Police, in which they are accused of failing to pay any tax on £21m of revenue from their online businesses, including online "wealth creation" platform Hustlers' University.
A third person known only as J is also accused as part of the case, with the force seeking to recover about £2.8 million held in seven frozen bank accounts, an application which the defendants are contesting.
How does Andrew Tate make his money?
Tate has described himself as a "self-made multi-millionaire" and said he earned money through "a little webcam business from my apartment".
"I had 75 women working for me in four locations and I was doing $600,000 a month from webcam," he said in a podcast interview.
In a now-deleted page on his website, he said he brought women into the "adult entertainment industry".
"My job was to meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, test if she's quality, get her to fall in love with me to where she'd do anything I say and then get her on webcam so we could become rich together," he wrote on the page - which was subsequently taken down in February 2022.
"I've seen men sell cars, TVs... This guy's gran passed away and they were waiting for the sale of the house. When the house was sold he'd get £20,000 and promised it to [a model], to pay for her fake financial problem," Tristan told the Mirror.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

If you don’t recognize the name Andrew Tate, you have (luckily) avoided one of the most significant waves of misogyny on mainstream social media in recent memory. Tate, a pseudo right-wing influencer who espouses deep misogyny, rocketed to fame (and infamy) thanks to clever manipulation of social media algorithms — especially TikTok. Many articles have been written about Tate’s rise to fame and subsequent banning on social media. However, most articles fail to acknowledge that the only thing new or innovative about Tate and his rhetoric was his ability to leverage platform algorithms. Tate’s example highlights how proponents of misogyny are using new technology to amplify their messaging. And while his content is not new, his tactics present an important site of innovation and inquiry. Andrew Tate in the history of misogyny Andrew Tate got famous fast. In July 2022 Google searches for Tate exceeded Donald Trump and Kim Kardashian combined. Over a short period, he was transported from marginal fame to social media stardom. Banned from Twitter in 2017 (for anti #MeToo tweets, among other things), Tate surged into mainstream consciousness on TikTok in 2022 where videos of him have been viewed more than 12 billion times. These videos, which ranged in content from cryptocurrency tips to overt calls for violence against women, were promoted and shared heavily by the platform’s users. Arriving on the TikTok scene at the right time with the right approach worked. Tate has said that his popularity has more to do with the appeal of his message and the desire for “real masculinity” than the outcome of algorithmic manipulation. But examining his rhetoric belies the fact that nothing Tate says is new — not the violence, not the domination, not the body politics, not the cigars, not even the shaved head to hide the changing hairline — none of it. Tate is the newest addition to the lineup of masculinist grifters who have existed since the rise of the men’s movement. His approach works because it is modelled after previous successful masculinist grifts that have sought to attract young men with promises of power. A famous example is Daryush Valizadeh (aka Roosh V), who 20 years ago pivoted from pickup artist persona to anti-feminist and pro-rape notoriety. This fame also resulted in organized resistance and one instance where he and his supporters were challenged to a boxing match by the Newsgirls women’s boxing club in Toronto. Valizadeh was also not the first to leverage these anti-women and pro-sexual violence sentiments. What each of these men tap into is a desire for power over others that is socialized into young men, often subconsciously, through framing boys as protectors, leaders and budding stoics through ideas like “boys don’t cry.” Searching for power and control Tate and those who have come before him adopt these personas to meet a single, personal desire: power. In Tate’s case, his endeavors in the 2020s have been about accessing power through money and (potential) social media influence. Tate’s anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric taps into the latent violent misogyny that underpins most traditional patriarchal social structures. This is a component of what philosophy scholar Kate Manne frames as male entitlement. The desire for power over others is one way that men find self-worth in neoliberal capitalist cultures; and for some, the easiest way is through power over women. We see similar processes occurring in white supremacist and white nationalist spaces where violence against women and the racialized other often occur in tandem. Each version of right-wing masculinity like Tate’s is a re-hashing of the same appeals to supremacist power structures. They are tired and boring, but unfortunately no less engaging to a certain segment of the population. Social media and deplatforming TikTok and other social media had no interest in banning Tate until public outrage over his rhetoric became impossible to ignore. They are, after all, in the business of getting the most users to spend the most time on their platforms. Having someone like Tate get 12 billion views is good for the bottom line, even if it is bad for society. However, deplatforming can address the actions of an individual, or at least take that person out of the spotlight. It is impossible to get all their content off the internet, but social media platforms can cut the revenue streams to individuals and have dramatic effects on how these people finance their lives and lies. Does deplatforming eliminate misogynist or gender-violent rhetoric? No, it doesn’t. But it does pull the rug out from under some of its loudest proponents. Tate has been banned from most mainstream media, but this isn’t because his message had stopped resonating. It is because platforms faced enough pressure and outrage to do the right thing.

If you don’t recognize the name Andrew Tate, you have (luckily) avoided one of the most significant waves of misogyny on mainstream social media in recent memory.
Tate, a pseudo right-wing influencer who espouses deep misogyny, rocketed to fame (and infamy) thanks to clever manipulation of social media algorithms — especially TikTok. Many articles have been written about Tate’s rise to fame and subsequent banning on social media.
However, most articles fail to acknowledge that the only thing new or innovative about Tate and his rhetoric was his ability to leverage platform algorithms. Tate’s example highlights how proponents of misogyny are using new technology to amplify their messaging. And while his content is not new, his tactics present an important site of innovation and inquiry.
Andrew Tate in the history of misogyny
Andrew Tate got famous fast. In July 2022 Google searches for Tate exceeded Donald Trump and Kim Kardashian combined. Over a short period, he was transported from marginal fame to social media stardom.
Banned from Twitter in 2017 (for anti #MeToo tweets, among other things), Tate surged into mainstream consciousness on TikTok in 2022 where videos of him have been viewed more than 12 billion times.
These videos, which ranged in content from cryptocurrency tips to overt calls for violence against women, were promoted and shared heavily by the platform’s users. Arriving on the TikTok scene at the right time with the right approach worked.
Tate has said that his popularity has more to do with the appeal of his message and the desire for “real masculinity” than the outcome of algorithmic manipulation. But examining his rhetoric belies the fact that nothing Tate says is new — not the violence, not the domination, not the body politics, not the cigars, not even the shaved head to hide the changing hairline — none of it.
Tate is the newest addition to the lineup of masculinist grifters who have existed since the rise of the men’s movement. His approach works because it is modelled after previous successful masculinist grifts that have sought to attract young men with promises of power. A famous example is Daryush Valizadeh (aka Roosh V), who 20 years ago pivoted from pickup artist persona to anti-feminist and pro-rape notoriety.
This fame also resulted in organized resistance and one instance where he and his supporters were challenged to a boxing match by the Newsgirls women’s boxing club in Toronto.
Valizadeh was also not the first to leverage these anti-women and pro-sexual violence sentiments. What each of these men tap into is a desire for power over others that is socialized into young men, often subconsciously, through framing boys as protectors, leaders and budding stoics through ideas like “boys don’t cry.”
Searching for power and control
Tate and those who have come before him adopt these personas to meet a single, personal desire: power. In Tate’s case, his endeavors in the 2020s have been about accessing power through money and (potential) social media influence. Tate’s anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric taps into the latent violent misogyny that underpins most traditional patriarchal social structures.
This is a component of what philosophy scholar Kate Manne frames as male entitlement. The desire for power over others is one way that men find self-worth in neoliberal capitalist cultures; and for some, the easiest way is through power over women.
We see similar processes occurring in white supremacist and white nationalist spaces where violence against women and the racialized other often occur in tandem. Each version of right-wing masculinity like Tate’s is a re-hashing of the same appeals to supremacist power structures. They are tired and boring, but unfortunately no less engaging to a certain segment of the population.
Social media and deplatforming
TikTok and other social media had no interest in banning Tate until public outrage over his rhetoric became impossible to ignore. They are, after all, in the business of getting the most users to spend the most time on their platforms. Having someone like Tate get 12 billion views is good for the bottom line, even if it is bad for society.
However, deplatforming can address the actions of an individual, or at least take that person out of the spotlight. It is impossible to get all their content off the internet, but social media platforms can cut the revenue streams to individuals and have dramatic effects on how these people finance their lives and lies.
Does deplatforming eliminate misogynist or gender-violent rhetoric? No, it doesn’t. But it does pull the rug out from under some of its loudest proponents. Tate has been banned from most mainstream media, but this isn’t because his message had stopped resonating. It is because platforms faced enough pressure and outrage to do the right thing.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Latest trend in misogyny, Andrew Tate October 11, 2022 I came across Andrew Tate’s content while scrolling through my TikTok FYP. At first, I brushed his intimidating persona off with the belief that he was nothing more than a loud man with a podcast. He wasn’t a problem, I thought. That is, until I started seeing more of him. His grotesque opinions on women plagued my FYP. I couldn’t scroll more than 10 videos without seeing a video featuring or about him. He became the ever-present figure on TikTok, and people couldn’t get enough. “But,” I wondered, “who is Andrew Tate? Why do people seem so drawn to him, despite his incredibly misogynistic rhetoric?”. So, I dug. A former boxer and millionaire, Tate carries a chauvinistic and ultra masculine personality that appeals to impressionable teenage boys trying to be “man enough.” Targeting this demographic paid off. Tate has shot to the forefront of the public eye in recent months. Tate was one of the most googled people of the year, trumping Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, and Elon Musk. Even if somebody didn’t actively watch Tate, they knew who he was. Tate’s large following paired with his content creates a worrying future for teenage boys. In his posts, Andrew Tate has made it clear that he does not respect women. “If I have responsibility over [my girlfriend], then I must have a degree of authority…You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you,” Tate said on an episode of the podcast “BFFs” published July 13. Tate comparing women to objects is a recurring theme, a problem that I previously thought society had progressed past. In another podcast Tate appeared on June 26 2022, he called his girlfriend a “product”. Tate’s large following of teenage boys consuming this harmful ideology and seeing nothing wrong with it was creating a new generation of sexism. Something had to be done. Twitter was the first social media company to take action against his dangerous remarks and ban him. Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and Twitch followed suit by removing him from their sites August of this year. Though Tate’s ban on most major social media platforms is a step in the right direction, his quick rise to fame is a troubling indication of society’s motion backwards. In the climate of 2022, misogyny has been repackaged as “speaking the truth” and “a needed edgy opinion”. Being a high school student has given me first-hand experiences with teenage boys and this normalized sexism. Boys openly mocking the feminine pitch of my voice during class, somebody presenting on why Tate is the “voice of our generation”, and athletes treating girls sports as less than boys are just some of what I have witnessed. Truth be told, these events scare me. There must be more done to prevent hate speech than just blocking anti-women figureheads. We have to work with teenage boys to reverse the damage done by Tate-like media. Introduce them to strong women role models, teach them about the struggles women go through, and most importantly- call them out when they say something prejudiced. The longer boys go unchecked, the worse misogyny gets.

Latest trend in misogyny, Andrew Tate
October 11, 2022
I came across Andrew Tate’s content while scrolling through my TikTok FYP. At first, I brushed his intimidating persona off with the belief that he was nothing more than a loud man with a podcast. He wasn’t a problem, I thought.
That is, until I started seeing more of him. His grotesque opinions on women plagued my FYP. I couldn’t scroll more than 10 videos without seeing a video featuring or about him. He became the ever-present figure on TikTok, and people couldn’t get enough. “But,” I wondered, “who is Andrew Tate? Why do people seem so drawn to him, despite his incredibly misogynistic rhetoric?”. So, I dug.
A former boxer and millionaire, Tate carries a chauvinistic and ultra masculine personality that appeals to impressionable teenage boys trying to be “man enough.” Targeting this demographic paid off.
Tate has shot to the forefront of the public eye in recent months. Tate was one of the most googled people of the year, trumping Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, and Elon Musk. Even if somebody didn’t actively watch Tate, they knew who he was.
Tate’s large following paired with his content creates a worrying future for teenage boys. In his posts, Andrew Tate has made it clear that he does not respect women. “If I have responsibility over [my girlfriend], then I must have a degree of authority…You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you,” Tate said on an episode of the podcast “BFFs” published July 13. Tate comparing women to objects is a recurring theme, a problem that I previously thought society had progressed past. In another podcast Tate appeared on June 26 2022, he called his girlfriend a “product”.
Tate’s large following of teenage boys consuming this harmful ideology and seeing nothing wrong with it was creating a new generation of sexism. Something had to be done.
Twitter was the first social media company to take action against his dangerous remarks and ban him. Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and Twitch followed suit by removing him from their sites August of this year.
Though Tate’s ban on most major social media platforms is a step in the right direction, his quick rise to fame is a troubling indication of society’s motion backwards. In the climate of 2022, misogyny has been repackaged as “speaking the truth” and “a needed edgy opinion”.
Being a high school student has given me first-hand experiences with teenage boys and this normalized sexism. Boys openly mocking the feminine pitch of my voice during class, somebody presenting on why Tate is the “voice of our generation”, and athletes treating girls sports as less than boys are just some of what I have witnessed.
Truth be told, these events scare me. There must be more done to prevent hate speech than just blocking anti-women figureheads. We have to work with teenage boys to reverse the damage done by Tate-like media. Introduce them to strong women role models, teach them about the struggles women go through, and most importantly- call them out when they say something prejudiced. The longer boys go unchecked, the worse misogyny gets.

Emory Andrew Tate III (born 1 December 1986) is an American and British social media personality, businessman, and former professional kickboxer who gained notoriety for promoting various highly controversial positions in the manosphere.[3] His commentary has resulted in his expulsion from various social media platforms and concern that he promotes misogynistic views to his audience.[4] A divisive influencer,[5] Tate has amassed 9.9 million followers on Twitter as of August 2024 and was the third-most googled person in 2023.[6] He has been dubbed the "king of toxic masculinity",[7] has called himself a misogynist,[8] and is politically described as both right-wing[9] and far-right.[10] As of March 2025, Tate is facing six legal investigations—four criminal and two civil—in Romania, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[11][12][13][14] From 2005, Tate began his kickboxing career in England, winning several kickboxing titles in the late 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, he appeared on the British reality series Big Brother, but was removed, as he was the suspect in an open rape investigation in the United Kingdom. The investigation was later dropped, but Tate was subject to an extradition request for rape charges in 2024.[15] After his kickboxing career, Tate and his brother, Tristan, began operating a webcam model business, then sold online courses. With his audience from his courses, he became prominent as an internet celebrity promoting a hyper-macho view of masculinity.[16][17][18] Tate's courses include Hustler's University, which gained 100,000 subscribers and was later relaunched as The Real World, and the secretive group named The War Room, which the BBC has accused of coercing women into sex work and teaching violence against women.[19] In August 2023, it was estimated that Tate's online ventures generated US$5 million in revenue monthly.[20] In December 2022, Tate and his brother, Tristan, were arrested in Romania, along with two women. In June 2023, all four were charged with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. Soon after, accusers reportedly went into hiding after a campaign of online harassment, and the Tate brothers filed a defamation lawsuit, claiming $5 million in damages. In March 2024, British police obtained an arrest warrant for the Tate brothers. In July 2024, a civil case in the UK was brought against the brothers and a third person for alleged tax evasion. In August 2024, Romanian police raided four properties Tate owns and expanded its investigation to include trafficking minors, sex with a minor, money laundering and attempting to influence witnesses. Tate and his brother have denied all charges and allegations.[21] In May 2025, the United Kingdom Crown Prosecution Service brought multiple charges against Tate and his brother Tristan including for rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.[22] Early life Emory Andrew Tate III was born on 1 December 1986[23][24][25] at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.[26] He is multiracial;[27] his African American father, Emory Tate (1958–2015), was a chess international master,[28] while his White English mother, Eileen Tate, worked as a catering assistant.[29] He has a younger brother, Tristan, and a younger sister, Janine.[30] He was raised in Chicago, Illinois, and Goshen, Indiana.[31][32] In 1997, after his parents divorced, his mother took him and his brother to Luton in Bedfordshire, England.[33][32] They "lived on Marsh Farm, an infamously rough council estate which Tate has described as the 'worst area of the worst town'".[34] He was educated at Halyard High School and Luton Sixth Form College.[35][36] Kickboxing career Tate started practising boxing and other martial arts in 2005, and worked in the television advertising industry to support himself. Tate started his career in Full contact kickboxing and gained recognition after defeating former super cruiserweight British champions Ollie Green and Mo Kargbo which got him ranked the seventh-best light heavyweight kickboxer in the United Kingdom by the International Sport Kickboxing Association (ISKA) in November 2008.[37][38] In 2009, Tate fought and defeated Paul Randall to capture the English ISKA Full Contact Cruiserweight Championship and beat Daniel Hughes for the International Kickboxing Federation Full Contact Cruiserweight British Title receiving the top rank in his division across Europe.[39][40] Tate's kickboxing nickname was "King Cobra".[41][38] In 2010 Tate defeated Jamie Bates by knockout.[42] In 2011, Tate won his first International Sport Kickboxing Association (ISKA) full contact world title in a rematch against Jean-Luc Benoît via knockout, having previously lost to Benoît by decision.[43] The weight was set at light heavyweight 81.5 kg. In August 2011, Tate made his K-1 Rules debut and fought in the Enfusion 3: Trial of the Gladiators tournament to determine the world's Number one kickboxer in the 85 kg category. Tate qualified for the tournament, stopping Sammy Masa by second-round KO and Adnan Omeragić by first-round KO. The tournament was later resumed in December 2012.[38] In November 2011 Tate moved up to 85 kg to challenge Vincent Petitjean for the Nuit des Champions(NDC) full contact title. Tate lost by decision.[44] In 2012 after scoring a knockout win over Joe McCgovan, Tate would get the opportunity to fight Sahak Parparyan for his It's Showtime 85MAX Championship and would lose by unanimous decision.[45][46] On 2 December 2012, Tate returned to the Enfusion 3: Trial of the Gladiators tournament to determine the world's Number one kickboxer in the 85 kg category. Tate managed to score a victory in the semi-finals, knocking out Ritchie Hocking with punches in the first round, but lost in the final via a first-round flying knee KO from Franci Grajš who after the fight got named the best in the 85 Max weight division.[38][1] Before his loss, he was ranked second-best 85 max light-heavyweight kickboxer in the world behind Sahak Parparyan.[47] In 2013, Tate returned to full contact kickboxing and won his second ISKA world title in a 12-round match against Vincent Petitjean in the Light Cruiserweight division, making him world champion in two weight classes.[48] Tate returned to K-1 rules and managed to score four victories in the Enfusion ring during 2013 over David Radeff, Marino Schouten, Marlon Hunt, and Laszlo Szabo in the middleweight division.[49][50][51][52] Tate participated in a four-man tournament to determine the Enfusion 85 kg middleweight World Champion, alongside Miroslav Cingel, Jiří Žák, and Rustam Guseinov. Held in Žilina, Slovakia, on 26 April 2014, Tate lost in the semi-finals to local fighter and tournament winner, Miroslav Cingel, via unanimous decision.[38] Tate defended the ISKA Full Contact Light Cruiserweight World Title against Cyril Vetter winning by knockout, won his first K-1 Rules World Title by defeating Wendell Roche to capture the Enfusion 90 kg Belt in 2014, making him a four-time world champion[53] before he retired with 31 recorded fights.[54][55] In January 2015 Tate fought in K-1 in the event K-1 China vs. USA against Liang Ling. Tate won by decision.[56] In March 2015 Tate returned to full contact kickboxing and faced Jean Luc Benoît in a trilogy fight to settle the score. Tate won by decision making the rivalry 2–1 in favor of Tate.[57] In December 2016, Tate returned to kickboxing to fight for the Enfusion 90 kg world title against Ibrahim El Boustati who was originally scheduled to face Marc de Bonte, however tragic events led to de Bonte's passing. Tate would lose by tko in round one due to an eye injury.[58][59][60] Tate was later then forced into an early retirement due to his eye sustaining damage through his combat sport career which first began at just 23, when Tate experienced his first eye injury, with detached retinas in both eyes that required surgical repair. By the age of 30

Emory Andrew Tate III (born 1 December 1986) is an American and British social media personality, businessman, and former professional kickboxer who gained notoriety for promoting various highly controversial positions in the manosphere.[3] His commentary has resulted in his expulsion from various social media platforms and concern that he promotes misogynistic views to his audience.[4] A divisive influencer,[5] Tate has amassed 9.9 million followers on Twitter as of August 2024 and was the third-most googled person in 2023.[6] He has been dubbed the "king of toxic masculinity",[7] has called himself a misogynist,[8] and is politically described as both right-wing[9] and far-right.[10] As of March 2025, Tate is facing six legal investigations—four criminal and two civil—in Romania, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[11][12][13][14]
From 2005, Tate began his kickboxing career in England, winning several kickboxing titles in the late 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, he appeared on the British reality series Big Brother, but was removed, as he was the suspect in an open rape investigation in the United Kingdom. The investigation was later dropped, but Tate was subject to an extradition request for rape charges in 2024.[15] After his kickboxing career, Tate and his brother, Tristan, began operating a webcam model business, then sold online courses. With his audience from his courses, he became prominent as an internet celebrity promoting a hyper-macho view of masculinity.[16][17][18] Tate's courses include Hustler's University, which gained 100,000 subscribers and was later relaunched as The Real World, and the secretive group named The War Room, which the BBC has accused of coercing women into sex work and teaching violence against women.[19] In August 2023, it was estimated that Tate's online ventures generated US$5 million in revenue monthly.[20]
In December 2022, Tate and his brother, Tristan, were arrested in Romania, along with two women. In June 2023, all four were charged with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. Soon after, accusers reportedly went into hiding after a campaign of online harassment, and the Tate brothers filed a defamation lawsuit, claiming $5 million in damages. In March 2024, British police obtained an arrest warrant for the Tate brothers. In July 2024, a civil case in the UK was brought against the brothers and a third person for alleged tax evasion. In August 2024, Romanian police raided four properties Tate owns and expanded its investigation to include trafficking minors, sex with a minor, money laundering and attempting to influence witnesses. Tate and his brother have denied all charges and allegations.[21] In May 2025, the United Kingdom Crown Prosecution Service brought multiple charges against Tate and his brother Tristan including for rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.[22]
Early life
Emory Andrew Tate III was born on 1 December 1986[23][24][25] at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.[26] He is multiracial;[27] his African American father, Emory Tate (1958–2015), was a chess international master,[28] while his White English mother, Eileen Tate, worked as a catering assistant.[29] He has a younger brother, Tristan, and a younger sister, Janine.[30] He was raised in Chicago, Illinois, and Goshen, Indiana.[31][32] In 1997, after his parents divorced, his mother took him and his brother to Luton in Bedfordshire, England.[33][32] They "lived on Marsh Farm, an infamously rough council estate which Tate has described as the 'worst area of the worst town'".[34] He was educated at Halyard High School and Luton Sixth Form College.[35][36]
Kickboxing career
Tate started practising boxing and other martial arts in 2005, and worked in the television advertising industry to support himself. Tate started his career in Full contact kickboxing and gained recognition after defeating former super cruiserweight British champions Ollie Green and Mo Kargbo which got him ranked the seventh-best light heavyweight kickboxer in the United Kingdom by the International Sport Kickboxing Association (ISKA) in November 2008.[37][38]
In 2009, Tate fought and defeated Paul Randall to capture the English ISKA Full Contact Cruiserweight Championship and beat Daniel Hughes for the International Kickboxing Federation Full Contact Cruiserweight British Title receiving the top rank in his division across Europe.[39][40] Tate's kickboxing nickname was "King Cobra".[41][38] In 2010 Tate defeated Jamie Bates by knockout.[42]
In 2011, Tate won his first International Sport Kickboxing Association (ISKA) full contact world title in a rematch against Jean-Luc Benoît via knockout, having previously lost to Benoît by decision.[43] The weight was set at light heavyweight 81.5 kg. In August 2011, Tate made his K-1 Rules debut and fought in the Enfusion 3: Trial of the Gladiators tournament to determine the world's Number one kickboxer in the 85 kg category. Tate qualified for the tournament, stopping Sammy Masa by second-round KO and Adnan Omeragić by first-round KO. The tournament was later resumed in December 2012.[38] In November 2011 Tate moved up to 85 kg to challenge Vincent Petitjean for the Nuit des Champions(NDC) full contact title. Tate lost by decision.[44]
In 2012 after scoring a knockout win over Joe McCgovan, Tate would get the opportunity to fight Sahak Parparyan for his It's Showtime 85MAX Championship and would lose by unanimous decision.[45][46] On 2 December 2012, Tate returned to the Enfusion 3: Trial of the Gladiators tournament to determine the world's Number one kickboxer in the 85 kg category. Tate managed to score a victory in the semi-finals, knocking out Ritchie Hocking with punches in the first round, but lost in the final via a first-round flying knee KO from Franci Grajš who after the fight got named the best in the 85 Max weight division.[38][1] Before his loss, he was ranked second-best 85 max light-heavyweight kickboxer in the world behind Sahak Parparyan.[47]
In 2013, Tate returned to full contact kickboxing and won his second ISKA world title in a 12-round match against Vincent Petitjean in the Light Cruiserweight division, making him world champion in two weight classes.[48] Tate returned to K-1 rules and managed to score four victories in the Enfusion ring during 2013 over David Radeff, Marino Schouten, Marlon Hunt, and Laszlo Szabo in the middleweight division.[49][50][51][52]
Tate participated in a four-man tournament to determine the Enfusion 85 kg middleweight World Champion, alongside Miroslav Cingel, Jiří Žák, and Rustam Guseinov. Held in Žilina, Slovakia, on 26 April 2014, Tate lost in the semi-finals to local fighter and tournament winner, Miroslav Cingel, via unanimous decision.[38] Tate defended the ISKA Full Contact Light Cruiserweight World Title against Cyril Vetter winning by knockout, won his first K-1 Rules World Title by defeating Wendell Roche to capture the Enfusion 90 kg Belt in 2014, making him a four-time world champion[53] before he retired with 31 recorded fights.[54][55]
In January 2015 Tate fought in K-1 in the event K-1 China vs. USA against Liang Ling. Tate won by decision.[56] In March 2015 Tate returned to full contact kickboxing and faced Jean Luc Benoît in a trilogy fight to settle the score. Tate won by decision making the rivalry 2–1 in favor of Tate.[57]
In December 2016, Tate returned to kickboxing to fight for the Enfusion 90 kg world title against Ibrahim El Boustati who was originally scheduled to face Marc de Bonte, however tragic events led to de Bonte's passing. Tate would lose by tko in round one due to an eye injury.[58][59][60] Tate was later then forced into an early retirement due to his eye sustaining damage through his combat sport career which first began at just 23, when Tate experienced his first eye injury, with detached retinas in both eyes that required surgical repair. By the age of 30

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

The Tate-space on YouTube: Ambient ideology and the limits of platform moderation Bernhard Rieder Bastian August Brogan Latil New Media & Society, 2026 Abstract This article investigates the persistence and transformation of Andrew Tate’s presence on YouTube following the removal of his official channels in August 2022. Combining two empirical approaches—a small-scale analysis of top-ranked videos from YouTube search results in 2022 and 2024, and a large-scale data set of over 112k videos—we examine how Tate-related content continues to circulate and how the platform moderates such material. Our findings show that Tate remains highly visible through a diffuse and decentralized network of actors who repackage his messaging into interviews, remixes, and YouTube-native formats. This configuration produces what we term the “Tate-space”: an ambient ideological environment where motivational rhetoric, aspirational masculinity, and far-right talking points converge. We find that YouTube’s substantial moderation efforts are outpaced by the speed and scale of recommendation-driven circulation and that deplatforming, while symbolically significant, fails to disrupt the cultural and logistical dynamics that sustain Tate’s influence. https://lnkd.in/eEmtZb_z

The Tate-space on YouTube: Ambient ideology and the limits of platform moderation Bernhard Rieder Bastian August Brogan Latil New Media & Society, 2026 Abstract This article investigates the persistence and transformation of Andrew Tate’s presence on YouTube following the removal of his official channels in August 2022. Combining two empirical approaches—a small-scale analysis of top-ranked videos from YouTube search results in 2022 and 2024, and a large-scale data set of over 112k videos—we examine how Tate-related content continues to circulate and how the platform moderates such material. Our findings show that Tate remains highly visible through a diffuse and decentralized network of actors who repackage his messaging into interviews, remixes, and YouTube-native formats. This configuration produces what we term the “Tate-space”: an ambient ideological environment where motivational rhetoric, aspirational masculinity, and far-right talking points converge. We find that YouTube’s substantial moderation efforts are outpaced by the speed and scale of recommendation-driven circulation and that deplatforming, while symbolically significant, fails to disrupt the cultural and logistical dynamics that sustain Tate’s influence. https://lnkd.in/eEmtZb_z

Andrew Tate, one of the most controversial internet personalities out there, has captured the attention of middle and high school boys—and teachers say his offensive, violent rhetoric has made its way into the classroom this school year. Tate, a British-American former professional kickboxer, rose to fame in the last couple years through offering his mostly male fans advice on self-improvement. The 36-year-old is also a self-described misogynist, comparing women to dogs, saying women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, and claiming that men have “authority” over their female partners. He’s also argued that women should “bear some responsibility” for being raped. And even though he was arrested in Romania in December on charges of rape and human trafficking, his influence might not be waning any time soon. While Tate was banned from TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube for hate speech last summer, fan clips of his videos still circulate on those sites, and he was reinstated on Twitter last fall after a five-year ban. Tate is currently in jail, but tweets from his account are still posted regularly. Experts say preteen boys are particularly susceptible to Tate’s brand of toxic masculinity. Teachers across the world, including in the United States, have shared on social media that they’ve seen an uptick in male students repeating sexist vitriol in class to get a rise from their classmates and teachers. “It’s concerning—these kids pretty much live online,” said Jordan Randolph, a middle school English teacher in Texas. “The younger boys, they’re so impressionable. They’re definitely at an age where they’re trying to figure out, what does it mean to be a man? What kind of man will I become? It seems like the whole Andrew Tate thing captures them.” Sometimes, her students will blurt out joking references to Tate, like his infamous retort, “What color is your Bugatti?,” as a way of bragging about their possessions. But occasionally, the comments feel more pointed. Last semester, one 6th grade boy asked Randolph about Tate. She dismissed the question, saying it wasn’t appropriate to talk about at school. The next day, he raised his hand in the middle of an unrelated class discussion and asked again what she thought of Tate. Randolph felt unsettled: “It was like he was using the question to upset me—almost like it was a weapon,” she said. “It honestly did upset me. … I was like, ‘Why do you keep asking?’ He was like, ‘I just want to know what you think.’” She responded that he was inappropriate and a misogynist, and several of her other students started cheering. “They were sick of hearing about it, too,” Randolph said. Sarah “Mili” Milianta-Laffin, a 7th grade teacher in Ewa Beach, Hawaii, learned about Tate from her female students who were disturbed that their boyfriends were watching his videos. Then, she started to notice a disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric that she attributes to Tate’s influence. “There’s been a huge increase in rape jokes that the boys are making,” she said. “I’ve been teaching for 17 years, and that’s not really a topic that comes up, especially in a joking matter.” Milianta-Laffin refers those students to a counselor, who informed their parents. Typically, she said, families are “mortified—they don’t believe it’s their kid,” she said. “A lot of them are shocked to learn that this content is out there.” She doesn’t think her students are seeking Tate out, but rather, algorithms are introducing his content to them while they scroll TikTok or YouTube. And they don’t have the social-emotional skills—particularly following pandemic-related school shutdowns when they weren’t in physical classrooms—to recognize how problematic the videos are, Milianta-Laffin said. “They don’t understand the severity of what they’re saying,” she said. “They’re not understanding that one person’s joke is another person’s trigger.” Why is Andrew Tate so appealing to young boys? Middle school students are “really in the process of figuring out who they are and their place in the world,” said Mairead Moloney, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Kentucky who studies online misogyny. “It’s really seductive for someone like Andrew Tate to come along with a worldview that puts you at the very center of the world and, in essence, makes all other groups beholden to you.” Pasha Dashtgard, the director of research at American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL), said Tate’s rhetoric appeals to boys who feel forgotten or left out of the cultural conversation that has embraced and popularized feminism. “There are a lot of young boys who are like, ‘I don’t see how I fit into this, and I don’t understand how feminist concepts apply to me, except as a way of criticizing me or diminishing me,’” he said. “That gap creates space for grifters and scam artists and people who have bad intentions to insert themselves into the conversation. Andrew Tate is part of a long legacy of shock jocks and people who make their money being offensive.” Tate runs “Hustler’s University,” a series of online courses on how to make money on the internet (through methods like investing in cryptocurrency or setting up e-commerce stores). He charges $49.99 a month. Some of the subscribers claim to be as young as 13. “There is cultural cache of being the person who has this secret code to society,” Dashtgard said. “Andrew Tate is … targeting a common human problem: ‘I’m a young boy, I’m nervous around girls. I don’t know how to talk to women; I’m insecure.’ … It’s all done with this idea of, ‘If you just give me your money, I’ll teach you how to be … the perfect man.’” Tate draws young boys in with his talk of fancy cars, the money he makes, and his experience as a professional kickboxer. He shares fitness tips and gives motivational advice about working hard and believing in yourself. They’re definitely at an age where they’re trying to figure out, what does it mean to be a man? What kind of man will I become? It seems like the whole Andrew Tate thing captures them. “He does say aggressive and offensive things, but a lot of his videos come across as him being amiable, a good guy, funny,” Moloney said. “That makes it more seductive—he comes across as one of the boys. It’s very accessible.” This type of content is sandwiched between misogynistic rants or other hateful comments. But that’s how radicalization works, Moloney said: “You don’t start with the worst stuff. You draw people in by having these more middle-of-the-road views.” Falling into Tate’s rabbit hole is dangerous, she said. Men’s misogynistic attitudes are linked to the perpetration of physical or sexual violence against women. But extreme misogyny also harms men, Moloney said. Men who have sexist beliefs tend to have higher rates of substance abuse and depression and are less likely to be able to ask for and receive help, more likely to bully others, and are less likely to form intimate connections with women or men. What to do when a student brings up Tate in class If a student repeats a harmful comment from Tate in front of other students, “the teacher has a responsibility to the class and to the people who are being targeted by that hate speech and offensive terms and statements, separate from this person who is saying these things,” Dashtgard said. For instance, teachers could send students who make those comments to the school counselor, he said, but then they also must tell the rest of the class that kind of language isn’t acceptable. When talking one-on-one to a student who has espoused Tate’s views, educators shouldn’t immediately criticize Tate, the experts said. “Do not come from a place of judgment or, ‘You’re really in trouble’—that’s not effective, that shuts down the conversation,” Dashtgard said. Instead, educators could say: “Hey, you’re saying these horrible things about women. What do you think your sister thinks about this? [What about] your mom? How w

Andrew Tate, one of the most controversial internet personalities out there, has captured the attention of middle and high school boys—and teachers say his offensive, violent rhetoric has made its way into the classroom this school year.
Tate, a British-American former professional kickboxer, rose to fame in the last couple years through offering his mostly male fans advice on self-improvement. The 36-year-old is also a self-described misogynist, comparing women to dogs, saying women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, and claiming that men have “authority” over their female partners. He’s also argued that women should “bear some responsibility” for being raped.
And even though he was arrested in Romania in December on charges of rape and human trafficking, his influence might not be waning any time soon. While Tate was banned from TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube for hate speech last summer, fan clips of his videos still circulate on those sites, and he was reinstated on Twitter last fall after a five-year ban. Tate is currently in jail, but tweets from his account are still posted regularly.
Experts say preteen boys are particularly susceptible to Tate’s brand of toxic masculinity. Teachers across the world, including in the United States, have shared on social media that they’ve seen an uptick in male students repeating sexist vitriol in class to get a rise from their classmates and teachers.
“It’s concerning—these kids pretty much live online,” said Jordan Randolph, a middle school English teacher in Texas. “The younger boys, they’re so impressionable. They’re definitely at an age where they’re trying to figure out, what does it mean to be a man? What kind of man will I become? It seems like the whole Andrew Tate thing captures them.”
Sometimes, her students will blurt out joking references to Tate, like his infamous retort, “What color is your Bugatti?,” as a way of bragging about their possessions. But occasionally, the comments feel more pointed. Last semester, one 6th grade boy asked Randolph about Tate. She dismissed the question, saying it wasn’t appropriate to talk about at school. The next day, he raised his hand in the middle of an unrelated class discussion and asked again what she thought of Tate.
Randolph felt unsettled: “It was like he was using the question to upset me—almost like it was a weapon,” she said. “It honestly did upset me. … I was like, ‘Why do you keep asking?’ He was like, ‘I just want to know what you think.’”
She responded that he was inappropriate and a misogynist, and several of her other students started cheering. “They were sick of hearing about it, too,” Randolph said.
Sarah “Mili” Milianta-Laffin, a 7th grade teacher in Ewa Beach, Hawaii, learned about Tate from her female students who were disturbed that their boyfriends were watching his videos. Then, she started to notice a disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric that she attributes to Tate’s influence.
“There’s been a huge increase in rape jokes that the boys are making,” she said. “I’ve been teaching for 17 years, and that’s not really a topic that comes up, especially in a joking matter.”
Milianta-Laffin refers those students to a counselor, who informed their parents. Typically, she said, families are “mortified—they don’t believe it’s their kid,” she said. “A lot of them are shocked to learn that this content is out there.”
She doesn’t think her students are seeking Tate out, but rather, algorithms are introducing his content to them while they scroll TikTok or YouTube. And they don’t have the social-emotional skills—particularly following pandemic-related school shutdowns when they weren’t in physical classrooms—to recognize how problematic the videos are, Milianta-Laffin said.
“They don’t understand the severity of what they’re saying,” she said. “They’re not understanding that one person’s joke is another person’s trigger.”
Why is Andrew Tate so appealing to young boys?
Middle school students are “really in the process of figuring out who they are and their place in the world,” said Mairead Moloney, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Kentucky who studies online misogyny. “It’s really seductive for someone like Andrew Tate to come along with a worldview that puts you at the very center of the world and, in essence, makes all other groups beholden to you.”
Pasha Dashtgard, the director of research at American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL), said Tate’s rhetoric appeals to boys who feel forgotten or left out of the cultural conversation that has embraced and popularized feminism.
“There are a lot of young boys who are like, ‘I don’t see how I fit into this, and I don’t understand how feminist concepts apply to me, except as a way of criticizing me or diminishing me,’” he said. “That gap creates space for grifters and scam artists and people who have bad intentions to insert themselves into the conversation. Andrew Tate is part of a long legacy of shock jocks and people who make their money being offensive.”
Tate runs “Hustler’s University,” a series of online courses on how to make money on the internet (through methods like investing in cryptocurrency or setting up e-commerce stores). He charges $49.99 a month. Some of the subscribers claim to be as young as 13.
“There is cultural cache of being the person who has this secret code to society,” Dashtgard said. “Andrew Tate is … targeting a common human problem: ‘I’m a young boy, I’m nervous around girls. I don’t know how to talk to women; I’m insecure.’ … It’s all done with this idea of, ‘If you just give me your money, I’ll teach you how to be … the perfect man.’”
Tate draws young boys in with his talk of fancy cars, the money he makes, and his experience as a professional kickboxer. He shares fitness tips and gives motivational advice about working hard and believing in yourself.
They’re definitely at an age where they’re trying to figure out, what does it mean to be a man? What kind of man will I become? It seems like the whole Andrew Tate thing captures them.
“He does say aggressive and offensive things, but a lot of his videos come across as him being amiable, a good guy, funny,” Moloney said. “That makes it more seductive—he comes across as one of the boys. It’s very accessible.”
This type of content is sandwiched between misogynistic rants or other hateful comments. But that’s how radicalization works, Moloney said: “You don’t start with the worst stuff. You draw people in by having these more middle-of-the-road views.”
Falling into Tate’s rabbit hole is dangerous, she said. Men’s misogynistic attitudes are linked to the perpetration of physical or sexual violence against women.
But extreme misogyny also harms men, Moloney said. Men who have sexist beliefs tend to have higher rates of substance abuse and depression and are less likely to be able to ask for and receive help, more likely to bully others, and are less likely to form intimate connections with women or men.
What to do when a student brings up Tate in class
If a student repeats a harmful comment from Tate in front of other students, “the teacher has a responsibility to the class and to the people who are being targeted by that hate speech and offensive terms and statements, separate from this person who is saying these things,” Dashtgard said.
For instance, teachers could send students who make those comments to the school counselor, he said, but then they also must tell the rest of the class that kind of language isn’t acceptable.
When talking one-on-one to a student who has espoused Tate’s views, educators shouldn’t immediately criticize Tate, the experts said. “Do not come from a place of judgment or, ‘You’re really in trouble’—that’s not effective, that shuts down the conversation,” Dashtgard said.
Instead, educators could say: “Hey, you’re saying these horrible things about women. What do you think your sister thinks about this? [What about] your mom? How w

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13] - In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11] - In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14] - By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14] - In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13] - For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13] On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms: - **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14] - **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13] - **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15] A concise way to frame the evolution is: | Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys | |---|---|---| | 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] | | 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] | | 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] | | 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] | | 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] | If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric appears to have **shifted from broad “alpha male” self-help and anti-“matrix” provocation in 2022 to a more openly political, antisemitic, and far-right-adjacent style by 2023–2026**, while his influence on teenage boys has remained a recurring concern in education, child-safeguarding, and research sources.[1][2][6][11][13]

- In **2022**, Tate’s visibility surged on short-video platforms, where his clips spread widely and were described as targeting “disaffected young men” with controversy around masculinity and misogyny.[1][5][11]
- In **2023**, reporting and advocacy groups described him as openly misogynistic, with content teaching boys that women are inferior and, in some accounts, normalizing abuse and domination.[2][3][14]
- By **2024**, official and educational concern focused less on his celebrity status and more on his **influence on boys in schools**, with UK authorities and educators linking his content to misogyny and online radicalisation among adolescent boys.[3][4][14]
- In **2025**, academic work described Tate’s material as part of a wider **“manosphere” ideology**, arguing that his content mainstreams misogynistic ideas and combines fear about boys’ futures with promises of dating and entrepreneurial advice.[6][11][13]
- For **2026**, I do not have a new source in the provided set documenting a distinct rhetorical change from 2025; the strongest available evidence suggests his influence persists through **repackaged, networked distribution** rather than only through his own direct posts.[10][13]

On **influence on teenage boys**, the sources consistently describe three mechanisms:

- **Appeal through identity and status**: Tate presents himself as a model of wealth, confidence, and “real” masculinity, which some boys interpret as humorous, aspirational, or rebellious.[9][11][14]
- **Algorithmic amplification**: short-form platforms and repost networks helped push Tate’s clips into boys’ feeds, even without direct searching.[5][9][13]
- **Normalization of misogyny**: teachers, researchers, and watchdog groups report that boys repeat Tate-style language in classrooms and online spaces, and that his content helps mainstream “manosphere” beliefs.[2][11][14][15]

A concise way to frame the evolution is:

| Year | Rhetorical emphasis | Likely effect on teenage boys |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Viral “alpha male” persona, anti-establishment provocation, masculinity talk | Rapid spread among boys via TikTok/short clips[1][5][11] |
| 2023 | More overt misogyny and social dominance claims | Greater concern from educators and anti-hate groups[2][14][15] |
| 2024 | Seen through lens of online radicalisation and school safeguarding | Institutional responses aimed at boys in classrooms[3][4] |
| 2025 | Embedded in broader manosphere ideology; mixed motivational and far-right themes | Influence persists through remix culture and peer sharing[6][11][13] |
| 2026 | No clear new break in the supplied sources; influence remains networked and durable | Continued concern about boys encountering Tate-like content indirectly[10][13] |

If you want, I can turn this into a **one-page safeguarding briefing** or a **year-by-year timeline with citations** for use by teachers or youth workers.

New research shows how TikTok and YouTube Shorts are bombarding users with misogynist content A new study from Dublin City University’s Anti-Bullying Centre shows that the recommender algorithms used by social media platforms are rapidly amplifying misogynistic and male supremacist content. The study, conducted by Professor Debbie Ging, Dr Catherine Baker and Dr Maja Andreasen, tracked, recorded and coded the content recommended to 10 experimental or ‘sockpuppet’ accounts on 10 blank smartphones - five on YouTube Shorts and five on TikTok. The researchers found that all of the male-identified accounts were fed masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content, irrespective of whether they sought out general or male supremacist-related content, and that they all received this content within the first 23 minutes of the experiment. Once the account showed interest by watching this sort of content, the amount rapidly increased. By the last round of the experiment (after 400 videos or two to three hours viewing), the vast majority of the content being recommended to the phones was toxic (TikTok 76% and YouTube Shorts 78%), primarily falling into the manosphere (alpha male and anti-feminist) category. Much of this content rails against equality and promotes the submission of women. There was also a large amount of content devoted to male motivation, money-making and mental health. This material strategically taps into boys’ financial and emotional insecurities and is particularly dangerous in relation to mental health as it frequently claims that depression is a sign of weakness and that therapy is ineffective. The other toxic categories were reactionary right and conspiracy, which accounted for 13.6% of recommended content on TikTok and 5.2% of recommended content on YouTube Shorts. Much of this was anti-transgender content. Overall, YouTube Shorts accounts were recommended a larger amount of toxic content (on average 61.5% of the total recommended content) than TikTok accounts (34.7%). Content featuring ‘Manfluencers’ (male influencers) accounted for the vast majority of recommended videos in the dataset, demonstrating their centrality in the current manosphere ecosystem. By far the most prevalent of these was Andrew Tate, who featured 582 times on the YouTube Shorts accounts and 93 times on the TikTok accounts. According to Prof. Ging, Our study shows that shutting down influencers’ accounts does not necessarily remove their content. The overwhelming presence of Andrew Tate content in our dataset at a time when he was de-platformed means that social media companies must tackle harmful content in more sophisticated ways. The findings of the report point to urgent and concerning issues for parents, teachers, policy makers, and society as a whole. Among the authors’ recommendations are better content moderation, turning off recommender algorithms by default and cooperation with trusted flaggers to highlight illegal, harmful, and borderline content. They also stress the need for teacher education and the teaching of critical digital literacy skills in schools to equip young people with a better understanding of how influencer culture and algorithms work. According to Prof. Ging, Ultimately, girls and women are the most severely impacted by these beliefs, but they are also damaging to the boys and men who consume them, especially in relation to mental wellbeing. The social media companies must come under increased pressure from the government to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of young people over profit. The full-length report is available here: antibullyingcentre.ie/recommending-toxicity/ About the DCU Anti-Bullying Centre DCU Anti-Bullying Centre is a national university designated research centre located within DCU’s Institute of Education. The Centre is known globally for its research excellence in bullying and online safety. It is home to scholars with a global reputation as leaders in the field. The objectives of the Centre are aligned to support the United Nations overarching goal to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all by 2030” (SDG4) and supports the implementation of the Government of Ireland’s Action Plan on Bullying (2022), Action Plan for Online Safety (2018-2019), Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (2018-2024), and the WRC/HSA Joint Code of Practice on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work (2021).

New research shows how TikTok and YouTube Shorts are bombarding users with misogynist content
A new study from Dublin City University’s Anti-Bullying Centre shows that the recommender algorithms used by social media platforms are rapidly amplifying misogynistic and male supremacist content.
The study, conducted by Professor Debbie Ging, Dr Catherine Baker and Dr Maja Andreasen, tracked, recorded and coded the content recommended to 10 experimental or ‘sockpuppet’ accounts on 10 blank smartphones - five on YouTube Shorts and five on TikTok. The researchers found that all of the male-identified accounts were fed masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content, irrespective of whether they sought out general or male supremacist-related content, and that they all received this content within the first 23 minutes of the experiment.
Once the account showed interest by watching this sort of content, the amount rapidly increased. By the last round of the experiment (after 400 videos or two to three hours viewing), the vast majority of the content being recommended to the phones was toxic (TikTok 76% and YouTube Shorts 78%), primarily falling into the manosphere (alpha male and anti-feminist) category. Much of this content rails against equality and promotes the submission of women. There was also a large amount of content devoted to male motivation, money-making and mental health. This material strategically taps into boys’ financial and emotional insecurities and is particularly dangerous in relation to mental health as it frequently claims that depression is a sign of weakness and that therapy is ineffective. The other toxic categories were reactionary right and conspiracy, which accounted for 13.6% of recommended content on TikTok and 5.2% of recommended content on YouTube Shorts. Much of this was anti-transgender content.
Overall, YouTube Shorts accounts were recommended a larger amount of toxic content (on average 61.5% of the total recommended content) than TikTok accounts (34.7%). Content featuring ‘Manfluencers’ (male influencers) accounted for the vast majority of recommended videos in the dataset, demonstrating their centrality in the current manosphere ecosystem. By far the most prevalent of these was Andrew Tate, who featured 582 times on the YouTube Shorts accounts and 93 times on the TikTok accounts.
According to Prof. Ging,
Our study shows that shutting down influencers’ accounts does not necessarily remove their content. The overwhelming presence of Andrew Tate content in our dataset at a time when he was de-platformed means that social media companies must tackle harmful content in more sophisticated ways.
The findings of the report point to urgent and concerning issues for parents, teachers, policy makers, and society as a whole. Among the authors’ recommendations are better content moderation, turning off recommender algorithms by default and cooperation with trusted flaggers to highlight illegal, harmful, and borderline content. They also stress the need for teacher education and the teaching of critical digital literacy skills in schools to equip young people with a better understanding of how influencer culture and algorithms work.
According to Prof. Ging,
Ultimately, girls and women are the most severely impacted by these beliefs, but they are also damaging to the boys and men who consume them, especially in relation to mental wellbeing. The social media companies must come under increased pressure from the government to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of young people over profit.
The full-length report is available here: antibullyingcentre.ie/recommending-toxicity/
About the DCU Anti-Bullying Centre
DCU Anti-Bullying Centre is a national university designated research centre located within DCU’s Institute of Education. The Centre is known globally for its research excellence in bullying and online safety. It is home to scholars with a global reputation as leaders in the field. The objectives of the Centre are aligned to support the United Nations overarching goal to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all by 2030” (SDG4) and supports the implementation of the Government of Ireland’s Action Plan on Bullying (2022), Action Plan for Online Safety (2018-2019), Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (2018-2024), and the WRC/HSA Joint Code of Practice on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work (2021).

Social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens 5 February 2024 Social media algorithms amplify extreme content, such as misogynistic posts, which normalises harmful ideologies for young people, finds a new report led by a UCL researcher. The research, conducted in partnership between UCL, the University of Kent and the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), found a fourfold increase in the level of misogynistic content in the “For You” page of TikTok accounts over just five days on the platform, in an algorithmic modelling study. Through interviews with young people and school leaders, the researchers also found that hateful ideologies and misogynistic tropes have moved off screens and into schools, becoming embedded in mainstream youth cultures. The report authors stress the need for a “healthy digital diet” approach to education to support young people, schools, parents and the community at large. They also say it is essential to champion the voices of young people themselves, particularly to include boys as part of discussions regarding online misogyny, and they suggest a “peer-to-peer” mentoring approach. Principal investigator Dr Kaitlyn Regehr (UCL Information Studies) said: “Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities – such as loneliness or feelings of loss of control – and gamify harmful content. As young people micro dose on topics like self-harm, or extremism, to them, it feels like entertainment. “Harmful views and tropes are now becoming normalised among young people. Online consumption is impacting young people’s offline behaviours, as we see these ideologies moving off screens and into school yards. “Further, adults are often unaware of how harmful algorithmic processes function, or indeed how they could feed into their own social media addictions, making parenting around these issues difficult.” The researchers began the study by interviewing young people engaging with and producing radical online content. This then informed the algorithmic study in the creation of archetypes, to represent typologies of teenage boys who may be vulnerable to becoming radicalised by online content. The researchers set up accounts on TikTok for each archetype, with distinct content interests typical of these archetypes (for example, seeking out content on masculinity or addressing loneliness), and researchers used these accounts to watch videos that TikTok suggested in its “For You” page, over a period of seven days. Initial suggested content was in line with the stated interests of each archetype, such as with material exploring themes of loneliness or self-improvement, but then increasingly focused on anger and blame directed at women. After five days, the TikTok algorithm was presenting four times as many videos with misogynistic content such as objectification, sexual harassment or discrediting women (increasing from 13% of recommended videos to 56%). The research team led roundtables and interviews with school leaders, who attested that misogynistic tropes are becoming normalised in how young people interact in person as well. The researchers set out the following recommendations: - Holding social media companies accountable, and applying pressure on them to address the harm caused by their algorithms and prioritise the wellbeing of young people over profit. - Implementing “healthy digital diet” education, which considers different types of screen time and digital content young people are engaging with, akin to different food groups, considering how much of it is consumed, how it can become “ultra-processed” due to algorithms, and potential impacts on mental and physical health. - Peer to peer mentoring, empowering older pupils to work with their younger peers, and helping to involve boys in discussions around misogyny. - Promoting wider awareness of algorithmic processes among parents and the community at large. The researchers say that their research may apply similarly to other social media platforms, supported by other groups’ research on Instagram and YouTube, for example, while social media algorithms can also favour other harmful content types such self-harm material or extreme ideologies. Previous research involving Dr Regehr and UCL colleagues has found sexual violence online is routinely experienced by women and girls, which has further increased in recent years. This work fed into new digital flashing legislation in 2022.* Geoff Barton, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, commented: “UCL’s findings show that algorithms – which most of us know little about – have a snowball effect in which they serve up ever-more extreme content in the form of entertainment. This is deeply worrying in general but particularly so in respect of the amplification of messages around toxic masculinity and its impact on young people who need to be able to grow up and develop their understanding of the world without being influenced by such appalling material. “We welcome the call to involve young people, particularly boys, in the conversation to combat this problem together with their peers and families. We call upon TikTok in particular and social media platforms in general to review their algorithms as a matter of urgency and to strengthen safeguards to prevent this type of content, and on the government and Ofcom to consider the implications of this issue under the auspices of the new Online Safety Act. It’s time for action rather than yet more talk of action.” * Two studies co-led by UCL’s Professor Jessica Ringrose: UCL News, 2021: Young peoples’ rates of reporting online harassment and abuse are ‘shockingly low’ (see more: IOE research informs Online Safety Bill); UCL News, 2024: UK teens experience spike in online harm during Covid-19 pandemic Links - Report: Safer scrolling: How algorithms popularise and gamify online hate and misogyny for young people - Dr Kaitlyn Regehr’s academic profile - UCL Information Studies - Media coverage Image Source: iStock Media contact Chris Lane tel: +44 20 7679 9222 / +44 (0)7717 728 648 E: chris.lane [at] ucl.ac.uk

Social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens
5 February 2024
Social media algorithms amplify extreme content, such as misogynistic posts, which normalises harmful ideologies for young people, finds a new report led by a UCL researcher.
The research, conducted in partnership between UCL, the University of Kent and the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), found a fourfold increase in the level of misogynistic content in the “For You” page of TikTok accounts over just five days on the platform, in an algorithmic modelling study.
Through interviews with young people and school leaders, the researchers also found that hateful ideologies and misogynistic tropes have moved off screens and into schools, becoming embedded in mainstream youth cultures.
The report authors stress the need for a “healthy digital diet” approach to education to support young people, schools, parents and the community at large. They also say it is essential to champion the voices of young people themselves, particularly to include boys as part of discussions regarding online misogyny, and they suggest a “peer-to-peer” mentoring approach.
Principal investigator Dr Kaitlyn Regehr (UCL Information Studies) said: “Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities – such as loneliness or feelings of loss of control – and gamify harmful content. As young people micro dose on topics like self-harm, or extremism, to them, it feels like entertainment.
“Harmful views and tropes are now becoming normalised among young people. Online consumption is impacting young people’s offline behaviours, as we see these ideologies moving off screens and into school yards.
“Further, adults are often unaware of how harmful algorithmic processes function, or indeed how they could feed into their own social media addictions, making parenting around these issues difficult.”
The researchers began the study by interviewing young people engaging with and producing radical online content. This then informed the algorithmic study in the creation of archetypes, to represent typologies of teenage boys who may be vulnerable to becoming radicalised by online content. The researchers set up accounts on TikTok for each archetype, with distinct content interests typical of these archetypes (for example, seeking out content on masculinity or addressing loneliness), and researchers used these accounts to watch videos that TikTok suggested in its “For You” page, over a period of seven days.
Initial suggested content was in line with the stated interests of each archetype, such as with material exploring themes of loneliness or self-improvement, but then increasingly focused on anger and blame directed at women. After five days, the TikTok algorithm was presenting four times as many videos with misogynistic content such as objectification, sexual harassment or discrediting women (increasing from 13% of recommended videos to 56%).
The research team led roundtables and interviews with school leaders, who attested that misogynistic tropes are becoming normalised in how young people interact in person as well.
The researchers set out the following recommendations:
- Holding social media companies accountable, and applying pressure on them to address the harm caused by their algorithms and prioritise the wellbeing of young people over profit.
- Implementing “healthy digital diet” education, which considers different types of screen time and digital content young people are engaging with, akin to different food groups, considering how much of it is consumed, how it can become “ultra-processed” due to algorithms, and potential impacts on mental and physical health.
- Peer to peer mentoring, empowering older pupils to work with their younger peers, and helping to involve boys in discussions around misogyny.
- Promoting wider awareness of algorithmic processes among parents and the community at large.
The researchers say that their research may apply similarly to other social media platforms, supported by other groups’ research on Instagram and YouTube, for example, while social media algorithms can also favour other harmful content types such self-harm material or extreme ideologies. Previous research involving Dr Regehr and UCL colleagues has found sexual violence online is routinely experienced by women and girls, which has further increased in recent years. This work fed into new digital flashing legislation in 2022.*
Geoff Barton, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, commented: “UCL’s findings show that algorithms – which most of us know little about – have a snowball effect in which they serve up ever-more extreme content in the form of entertainment. This is deeply worrying in general but particularly so in respect of the amplification of messages around toxic masculinity and its impact on young people who need to be able to grow up and develop their understanding of the world without being influenced by such appalling material.
“We welcome the call to involve young people, particularly boys, in the conversation to combat this problem together with their peers and families. We call upon TikTok in particular and social media platforms in general to review their algorithms as a matter of urgency and to strengthen safeguards to prevent this type of content, and on the government and Ofcom to consider the implications of this issue under the auspices of the new Online Safety Act. It’s time for action rather than yet more talk of action.”
* Two studies co-led by UCL’s Professor Jessica Ringrose: UCL News, 2021: Young peoples’ rates of reporting online harassment and abuse are ‘shockingly low’ (see more: IOE research informs Online Safety Bill); UCL News, 2024: UK teens experience spike in online harm during Covid-19 pandemic
Links
- Report: Safer scrolling: How algorithms popularise and gamify online hate and misogyny for young people
- Dr Kaitlyn Regehr’s academic profile
- UCL Information Studies
- Media coverage
Image
Source: iStock
Media contact
Chris Lane
tel: +44 20 7679 9222 / +44 (0)7717 728 648
E: chris.lane [at] ucl.ac.uk

Research from 2024–2026 indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys**, even when the accounts start with neutral or general-interest behavior.[1][2][4] - A Dublin City University study found that male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were fed **“masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content”** within the first **23 minutes**, and by the end of the experiment the recommended feed was mostly toxic content: **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%**.[1] - The same DCU research reported that YouTube Shorts accounts received a larger share of toxic content overall on average, **61.5%** versus **34.7%** on TikTok.[1] - A UCL-led report found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days, rising from **13% to 56%** of recommended videos.[2] - That UCL report states that **“Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities”** and can **“gamify harmful content.”**[2] - Reporting summarizing the Irish findings said boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through **recommended video** features, and that the effect was **worse on YouTube Shorts** because the system optimized more aggressively in response to user behavior.[4] - A peer-reviewed analysis in *International Journal of Communication* argues that the manosphere is becoming mainstream on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, and that algorithmic pathways can direct users toward **increasingly extreme content**.[3] - A 2025 peer-reviewed article in *PMC* describes this content as being **normalized and presented as entertainment**, and notes that “in(cel)fluencers” such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have promoted misogynistic messaging aimed at young boys.[6] For a safeguarding team, the strongest evidence in the results is that **engagement-based recommender systems are not just passively reflecting interest; they can actively intensify exposure to misogynistic and extremist masculine content over a short time, including for teenage-boy profiles that begin with ordinary interests like sport, gaming, and the gym**.[1][4] If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence brief** with: - a one-paragraph summary for staff, - a risk-and-safeguarding section, - and a short list of quotable findings for training materials.

Research from 2024–2026 indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys**, even when the accounts start with neutral or general-interest behavior.[1][2][4]

- A Dublin City University study found that male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were fed **“masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content”** within the first **23 minutes**, and by the end of the experiment the recommended feed was mostly toxic content: **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%**.[1]
- The same DCU research reported that YouTube Shorts accounts received a larger share of toxic content overall on average, **61.5%** versus **34.7%** on TikTok.[1]
- A UCL-led report found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days, rising from **13% to 56%** of recommended videos.[2]
- That UCL report states that **“Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities”** and can **“gamify harmful content.”**[2]
- Reporting summarizing the Irish findings said boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through **recommended video** features, and that the effect was **worse on YouTube Shorts** because the system optimized more aggressively in response to user behavior.[4]
- A peer-reviewed analysis in *International Journal of Communication* argues that the manosphere is becoming mainstream on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, and that algorithmic pathways can direct users toward **increasingly extreme content**.[3]
- A 2025 peer-reviewed article in *PMC* describes this content as being **normalized and presented as entertainment**, and notes that “in(cel)fluencers” such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have promoted misogynistic messaging aimed at young boys.[6]

For a safeguarding team, the strongest evidence in the results is that **engagement-based recommender systems are not just passively reflecting interest; they can actively intensify exposure to misogynistic and extremist masculine content over a short time, including for teenage-boy profiles that begin with ordinary interests like sport, gaming, and the gym**.[1][4]

If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence brief** with:
- a one-paragraph summary for staff,
- a risk-and-safeguarding section,
- and a short list of quotable findings for training materials.

We research online 'misogynist radicalisation'—here's what parents of boys should know Many parents are worried about their children using social media. But these concerns tend to focus on privacy, exposure to explicit material or contact with strangers. As researchers looking at sexism and misogyny in Australian schools and the influence of social media, we think it is also important for parents to understand how algorithms work. These can drive misogynistic content towards boys and young men and make extreme views seem normal. What does research say about social media? Researchers are increasingly studying how social media can amplify social and political divisions. It is also showing how these platforms spread prejudice, hate speech and misinformation. At the same time, researchers are identifying a growing divide between young men and women in their attitudes towards gender equality. Our own research has found a disturbing increase in sexism, sexual harassment and misogyny in Australian schools. This includes examples of boys physically intimidating women teachers in schools, gaslighting them, saying they are "hysterical", describing gender inequality issues as "myths", and saying things like "Miss, your boobs look really big today". Similar examples emerged from other Australian research this year. Our research, done via interviews with Australian teachers, suggests these views are influenced by the rise of figures from the "manosphere" (a collection of extreme men's communities that are anti-women) on social media. How do algorithms work? How are boys and young men coming into contact with this content? Algorithms play a huge role in what we all see online. Algorithms are set up by human coders, but once operational they are automated pathways that direct content to social media users. They are optimized to get us to click, like, share and view content and keep coming back. This is the key commercial goal of the so-called "attention economy". The longer algorithms hold our attention, the more profit they generate for social media companies like Meta. So, as a social media user demonstrates increasing interest in specific content or activities, they receive more of it. Boys are 'fed' misogyny online Recent studies have shown us how boys and young men are being fed misogynistic content. A 2022 Australian study set up ten experimental YouTube accounts. These included profiles of four boys under 18, four young men over 18 and two blank control accounts. It showed boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through "recommended video" features that pop up. On YouTube shorts (which feature shorter videos) this phenomenon was worse. The study found the algorithm was seen to "optimize more aggressively in response to user behavior and show more extreme videos within a relatively brief time frame." A 2024 Irish study made similar findings. Researchers created 10 fake profiles for TikTok and YouTube shorts on ten blank smartphones. On the two different platforms, the researchers created accounts for a 16- and 18-year-old boy who sought content typically associated with masculine gender norms for their age (such as the gym, sport and video games), a 16- and 18- year-old boy who sought manosphere content, and one blank control account. Misogynist manosphere content was sent to users regardless of whether those accounts actively searched for it. This was especially the case for the profiles set up as teenage boys seeking out content typically associated with masculine gender norms. All accounts were presented with masculinist, extremist and anti-feminist content and the frequency increased once their account demonstrated interest or engagement. How does misogynist content radicalize boys? We believe what is occurring is very serious. In our research we use the term "misogynist radicalization" to describe what is happening to some boys and young men. This phrase was selected to capture a stark and sudden shift in boys' attitudes and behavior towards women and girls in Australian schools, which teachers report occurred at the return from lockdown and remote schooling. Although "radicalisation" is typically used to refer to the process of being recruited to religious or political terrorist ideology, research has identified misogyny as a feature of right-wing terrorism. At the same time, the "incel" (or involuntary celibate) community is also being seen as a possible terrorist threat. Incels, who are mostly men and boys, blame and resent women for their own inability to find a sexual partner. We also know misogyny perpetuates gender inequity and biases that underpin violence against women. While we are not suggesting boys and young people who are influenced by extremist misogynist ideology will all become violent or recruited to other extremist groups, it is important to consider misogyny as both a form of extremism and as an ideology. Research shows young people who view misogynist content are likely to harbor unhealthy views on relationships. A 2024 UK study on teenagers also found "manfluencer" Andrew Tate's content is emotionally engaging for boys and young men. It encourages feelings of fear and anger as well as belief in myths about gender equity. What can parents of boys do? An outright ban for young people is not necessarily the right step to take (even if such a ban could work). Research tells us social media is an important space for young men to explore their identities, interests and establish connections with others. So we need education both for parents and young people about how algorithms shape the feeds of young people's social media accounts, and how this content can deliberately exploit their emotions and beliefs. One key thing parents can do is initiate open, respectful conversations with their children about what they are viewing online. These conversations should be free of judgment or reprimand and allow children to describe what they are seeing and why it might interest them. Open-ended questions that encourage your children to express their views are a good place to start. For example, "Can you tell me a little about about X? What's interesting about their content?" Judgment-free conversations are important so young people don't fear bringing up difficult experiences. If you are going to be critical of something, try and do this together, with children contributing to explanations of whether specific content can be harmful and to whom. You can also talk about the implications of "echo chambers" and how these are generated by algorithms. Some examples might include: "Do you notice you're seeing a lot of content by one particular creator? Or on one particular topic?" or "How does the content you are seeing make you feel?". There are also lots of useful organizations providing specific advice for parents around algorithms and general safety online. Watch and listen Also, be on the look out for any changes in a child's behavior and attitudes towards women and girls. Are there certain terms they are using that did not before? How do they react if certain figures in the news or popular culture come up in conversations? How are they relating to women and girls in their family and social circles? Do you find them expressing opinions that are not aligned with your family values? If teachers approach you about problems with your child's behavior at school towards women and girls, try to be open to the conversation (rather than dismiss it as impossible). It is likely what parents see and hear is different to school and online contexts. Indeed, some teachers in our study reported boys expressed different versions of themselves and different views, depending on the audience. If you do notice your child is expressing some concerning views, as well as initiating an open, calm discussion with them, we recommend contacting your child's teachers or school well-being team. You can also seek support and advice from the eSafety Commissioner. This arti

We research online 'misogynist radicalisation'—here's what parents of boys should know
Many parents are worried about their children using social media. But these concerns tend to focus on privacy, exposure to explicit material or contact with strangers.
As researchers looking at sexism and misogyny in Australian schools and the influence of social media, we think it is also important for parents to understand how algorithms work.
These can drive misogynistic content towards boys and young men and make extreme views seem normal.
What does research say about social media?
Researchers are increasingly studying how social media can amplify social and political divisions. It is also showing how these platforms spread prejudice, hate speech and misinformation.
At the same time, researchers are identifying a growing divide between young men and women in their attitudes towards gender equality.
Our own research has found a disturbing increase in sexism, sexual harassment and misogyny in Australian schools. This includes examples of boys physically intimidating women teachers in schools, gaslighting them, saying they are "hysterical", describing gender inequality issues as "myths", and saying things like "Miss, your boobs look really big today".
Similar examples emerged from other Australian research this year.
Our research, done via interviews with Australian teachers, suggests these views are influenced by the rise of figures from the "manosphere" (a collection of extreme men's communities that are anti-women) on social media.
How do algorithms work?
How are boys and young men coming into contact with this content? Algorithms play a huge role in what we all see online.
Algorithms are set up by human coders, but once operational they are automated pathways that direct content to social media users. They are optimized to get us to click, like, share and view content and keep coming back. This is the key commercial goal of the so-called "attention economy". The longer algorithms hold our attention, the more profit they generate for social media companies like Meta.
So, as a social media user demonstrates increasing interest in specific content or activities, they receive more of it.
Boys are 'fed' misogyny online
Recent studies have shown us how boys and young men are being fed misogynistic content.
A 2022 Australian study set up ten experimental YouTube accounts. These included profiles of four boys under 18, four young men over 18 and two blank control accounts.
It showed boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through "recommended video" features that pop up. On YouTube shorts (which feature shorter videos) this phenomenon was worse. The study found the algorithm was seen to "optimize more aggressively in response to user behavior and show more extreme videos within a relatively brief time frame."
A 2024 Irish study made similar findings.
Researchers created 10 fake profiles for TikTok and YouTube shorts on ten blank smartphones. On the two different platforms, the researchers created accounts for a 16- and 18-year-old boy who sought content typically associated with masculine gender norms for their age (such as the gym, sport and video games), a 16- and 18- year-old boy who sought manosphere content, and one blank control account.
Misogynist manosphere content was sent to users regardless of whether those accounts actively searched for it. This was especially the case for the profiles set up as teenage boys seeking out content typically associated with masculine gender norms. All accounts were presented with masculinist, extremist and anti-feminist content and the frequency increased once their account demonstrated interest or engagement.
How does misogynist content radicalize boys?
We believe what is occurring is very serious. In our research we use the term "misogynist radicalization" to describe what is happening to some boys and young men.
This phrase was selected to capture a stark and sudden shift in boys' attitudes and behavior towards women and girls in Australian schools, which teachers report occurred at the return from lockdown and remote schooling.
Although "radicalisation" is typically used to refer to the process of being recruited to religious or political terrorist ideology, research has identified misogyny as a feature of right-wing terrorism.
At the same time, the "incel" (or involuntary celibate) community is also being seen as a possible terrorist threat. Incels, who are mostly men and boys, blame and resent women for their own inability to find a sexual partner.
We also know misogyny perpetuates gender inequity and biases that underpin violence against women.
While we are not suggesting boys and young people who are influenced by extremist misogynist ideology will all become violent or recruited to other extremist groups, it is important to consider misogyny as both a form of extremism and as an ideology.
Research shows young people who view misogynist content are likely to harbor unhealthy views on relationships. A 2024 UK study on teenagers also found "manfluencer" Andrew Tate's content is emotionally engaging for boys and young men. It encourages feelings of fear and anger as well as belief in myths about gender equity.
What can parents of boys do?
An outright ban for young people is not necessarily the right step to take (even if such a ban could work). Research tells us social media is an important space for young men to explore their identities, interests and establish connections with others.
So we need education both for parents and young people about how algorithms shape the feeds of young people's social media accounts, and how this content can deliberately exploit their emotions and beliefs.
One key thing parents can do is initiate open, respectful conversations with their children about what they are viewing online.
These conversations should be free of judgment or reprimand and allow children to describe what they are seeing and why it might interest them. Open-ended questions that encourage your children to express their views are a good place to start. For example, "Can you tell me a little about about X? What's interesting about their content?"
Judgment-free conversations are important so young people don't fear bringing up difficult experiences. If you are going to be critical of something, try and do this together, with children contributing to explanations of whether specific content can be harmful and to whom.
You can also talk about the implications of "echo chambers" and how these are generated by algorithms. Some examples might include: "Do you notice you're seeing a lot of content by one particular creator? Or on one particular topic?" or "How does the content you are seeing make you feel?".
There are also lots of useful organizations providing specific advice for parents around algorithms and general safety online.
Watch and listen
Also, be on the look out for any changes in a child's behavior and attitudes towards women and girls.
Are there certain terms they are using that did not before? How do they react if certain figures in the news or popular culture come up in conversations? How are they relating to women and girls in their family and social circles? Do you find them expressing opinions that are not aligned with your family values?
If teachers approach you about problems with your child's behavior at school towards women and girls, try to be open to the conversation (rather than dismiss it as impossible). It is likely what parents see and hear is different to school and online contexts. Indeed, some teachers in our study reported boys expressed different versions of themselves and different views, depending on the audience.
If you do notice your child is expressing some concerning views, as well as initiating an open, calm discussion with them, we recommend contacting your child's teachers or school well-being team. You can also seek support and advice from the eSafety Commissioner.
This arti

19th April 2024 Prof. Debbie Ging and Deniz Celikoglu, Anti-Bullying Centre, DCU Illustration by Willow Cahill This week in Ireland, two studies revealed that young people are at risk of being served harmful content by social media platforms TikTok and YouTube Shorts. In the first, an investigative report conducted by the national public service broadcaster RTE, the journalists created three new TikTok accounts on three newly registered phones, each set with an age of 13 years. Without actively engaging with content or searching for specific topics, they observed and recorded the videos recommended by TikTok’s algorithm. Within 20 minutes, the accounts were shown videos which referenced self-harm and suicidal content. After an hour of engagement, the recommender system was serving a constant stream of videos referencing depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts. The findings are of serious concern to psychologists, particularly given that the age group with the most rapid increase in rates in self-harm is those aged 10 to 14 years. The day after this programme was aired, our own Anti-Bullying Centre published a report on the role of recommender algorithms on TikTok and YouTube Shorts in promoting male supremacist influencers to boys and young men. The manosphere, which is an online network of anti-feminist and male supremacist groups, has been steadily growing and becoming more mainstreamed due to the amplification of its messages by social media algorithms. However, the social media companies do not reveal how their recommender algorithms work, and therefore they operate in ‘black box’ mode. In response to this lack of algorithmic transparency, a number of recent studies have turned to experimental or ‘reverse-engineering’ methods to expose the ways in which TikTok, in particular, exposes young users to various types of extreme content. Two recent (2023) global Amnesty International reports (Driven into the Darkness: How TikTok Encourages Self-harm and Suicidal Ideation and I Feel Exposed: Caught in TikTok’s Surveillance Web) highlight the ways in which TikTok exposes children and young people with pre-existing mental health issues to depressive and suicidal content, including videos that romanticize and encourage depressive thinking, self-harm and suicide. In 2022, Reset Australia also used experimental accounts to track the content that YouTube and YouTube Shorts most frequently recommended to boys and young men and, more recently, a similar study by Kaitlyn Regehr and colleagues in the UK found that after only 5 days of TikTok usage, there was a four-fold increase in the level of misogynistic content being presented on the platform’s ‘For You’ page. The DCU Anti-Bullying Centre study, conducted by Professor Debbie Ging, Dr Catherine Baker and Dr Maja Andreasen, tracked, recorded and coded the content recommended to 10 experimental or ‘sockpuppet’ accounts on 10 blank smartphones – five on YouTube Shorts and five on TikTok. The researchers found that all of the male-identified accounts were fed masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content, irrespective of whether they sought out general or male supremacist-related content, and that they all received this content within the first 23 minutes of the experiment. Once the account showed interest by watching this sort of content, the amount rapidly increased. By the last round of the experiment (after two to three hours viewing), the vast majority of the content being recommended to the phones was harmful (TikTok 76% and YouTube Shorts 78%), primarily falling into the manosphere (alpha male and anti-feminist) category. Much of this content rails against equality and promotes the submission of women. There was also a large amount of content devoted to male motivation, money-making and mental health. This material strategically taps into boys’ financial and emotional insecurities and is particularly dangerous in relation to mental health as it frequently claims that depression is a sign of weakness and that therapy is ineffective. The other toxic categories were reactionary right and conspiracy, which accounted for 13.6% of recommended content on TikTok and 5.2% of recommended content on YouTube Shorts The findings of the report point to urgent and concerning issues for parents, teachers, policy makers, and society as a whole. For parents, the authors emphasise the need for open discussions with young people, without fear of rebuttal. Rather than expressing disgust or outrage at celebrity ‘manfluencers’, they recommend that parents should listen to and discuss why their child is attracted to them. The reasons may be complex and varied, and it is important to understand where boys’ anxieties are coming from if we are to address them effectively. In addition to this, both children and parents need support and resources in critical digital media literacy to understand how influencer culture and the algorithmic architectures of social media platforms actually work. The research of one of our PARTICIPATE Doctoral Candidates, Deniz Celikoglu, responds directly to this need. As the above reports indicate, parents’ digital literacy skills could play an important role in mitigating the online risks associated with children’s social media consumption curated by algorithms. It is important to understand that children’s online and offline lives have become inextricably linked and, while they may be intensely tech-savvy, young people are not necessarily aware of how algorithms are shaping their digital engagements. Despite the critical role of parents in their children’s social media consumption, research focusing on parents’ algorithmic literacy has been very limited (Das, 2023; Taylor & Brisini, 2024). Although there has been some information available online for parents about algorithms (Childnet), there is a need for more detailed information and resources which go beyond practical tips. Many parents feel ill-equipped to navigate the complex system of algorithms. A recent study on parents’ understanding of social media algorithms revealed that they were aware of the risks of algorithms but believed that their concerns were an issue for the future (Das, 2023). This research also found that many parents misunderstood how algorithms worked and had incorrect assumptions about certain features of social media platforms. As the reports described above show, many young people are at risk of being exposed to harmful mental health content, and boys are especially vulnerable to being indoctrinated into manosphere thinking. While parents can both create risk factors and provide protection for their children, there is currently very little guidance available to help them understand and navigate this complex digital landscape. To address this lack of algorithmic awareness in parents’ digital literacy, PARTICIPATE’s Work Package 4 will investigate parents’ awareness of the technological affordances of social media and mobile technologies, and will produce a set of Digital Safety Guideline for Parents. Deniz’s work in particular will explore parental awareness of recommender algorithms as well as the push factors which might make their children more susceptible to indoctrination into these spaces. Based on the data gathered from her fieldwork, Deniz will create a toolkit for parents that specifically addresses how algorithms work, provides guidance on how to prevent online risks and utilise online opportunities (Taylor & Brisini, 2024), and identifies ‘red flags’ or signs that their children may be coming under the influence of harmful online groups and ideas. The full-length report ‘Recommending Toxicity: the role of algorithmic recommender functions on YouTube Shorts and TikTok in promoting male supremacist influencers’ is available here: antibullyingcentre.ie/recommending-toxicity/ You can read more about the RTE Prime Time report here – https://about.rte.ie/2024/04/18/rte-prime-time-experiment-reveals-disturbi

19th April 2024
Prof. Debbie Ging and Deniz Celikoglu, Anti-Bullying Centre, DCU
Illustration by Willow Cahill
This week in Ireland, two studies revealed that young people are at risk of being served harmful content by social media platforms TikTok and YouTube Shorts. In the first, an investigative report conducted by the national public service broadcaster RTE, the journalists created three new TikTok accounts on three newly registered phones, each set with an age of 13 years. Without actively engaging with content or searching for specific topics, they observed and recorded the videos recommended by TikTok’s algorithm. Within 20 minutes, the accounts were shown videos which referenced self-harm and suicidal content. After an hour of engagement, the recommender system was serving a constant stream of videos referencing depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts. The findings are of serious concern to psychologists, particularly given that the age group with the most rapid increase in rates in self-harm is those aged 10 to 14 years.
The day after this programme was aired, our own Anti-Bullying Centre published a report on the role of recommender algorithms on TikTok and YouTube Shorts in promoting male supremacist influencers to boys and young men. The manosphere, which is an online network of anti-feminist and male supremacist groups, has been steadily growing and becoming more mainstreamed due to the amplification of its messages by social media algorithms. However, the social media companies do not reveal how their recommender algorithms work, and therefore they operate in ‘black box’ mode.
In response to this lack of algorithmic transparency, a number of recent studies have turned to experimental or ‘reverse-engineering’ methods to expose the ways in which TikTok, in particular, exposes young users to various types of extreme content. Two recent (2023) global Amnesty International reports (Driven into the Darkness: How TikTok Encourages Self-harm and Suicidal Ideation and I Feel Exposed: Caught in TikTok’s Surveillance Web) highlight the ways in which TikTok exposes children and young people with pre-existing mental health issues to depressive and suicidal content, including videos that romanticize and encourage depressive thinking, self-harm and suicide. In 2022, Reset Australia also used experimental accounts to track the content that YouTube and YouTube Shorts most frequently recommended to boys and young men and, more recently, a similar study by Kaitlyn Regehr and colleagues in the UK found that after only 5 days of TikTok usage, there was a four-fold increase in the level of misogynistic content being presented on the platform’s ‘For You’ page.
The DCU Anti-Bullying Centre study, conducted by Professor Debbie Ging, Dr Catherine Baker and Dr Maja Andreasen, tracked, recorded and coded the content recommended to 10 experimental or ‘sockpuppet’ accounts on 10 blank smartphones – five on YouTube Shorts and five on TikTok. The researchers found that all of the male-identified accounts were fed masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content, irrespective of whether they sought out general or male supremacist-related content, and that they all received this content within the first 23 minutes of the experiment.
Once the account showed interest by watching this sort of content, the amount rapidly increased. By the last round of the experiment (after two to three hours viewing), the vast majority of the content being recommended to the phones was harmful (TikTok 76% and YouTube Shorts 78%), primarily falling into the manosphere (alpha male and anti-feminist) category. Much of this content rails against equality and promotes the submission of women. There was also a large amount of content devoted to male motivation, money-making and mental health. This material strategically taps into boys’ financial and emotional insecurities and is particularly dangerous in relation to mental health as it frequently claims that depression is a sign of weakness and that therapy is ineffective. The other toxic categories were reactionary right and conspiracy, which accounted for 13.6% of recommended content on TikTok and 5.2% of recommended content on YouTube Shorts
The findings of the report point to urgent and concerning issues for parents, teachers, policy makers, and society as a whole. For parents, the authors emphasise the need for open discussions with young people, without fear of rebuttal. Rather than expressing disgust or outrage at celebrity ‘manfluencers’, they recommend that parents should listen to and discuss why their child is attracted to them. The reasons may be complex and varied, and it is important to understand where boys’ anxieties are coming from if we are to address them effectively.
In addition to this, both children and parents need support and resources in critical digital media literacy to understand how influencer culture and the algorithmic architectures of social media platforms actually work. The research of one of our PARTICIPATE Doctoral Candidates, Deniz Celikoglu, responds directly to this need. As the above reports indicate, parents’ digital literacy skills could play an important role in mitigating the online risks associated with children’s social media consumption curated by algorithms. It is important to understand that children’s online and offline lives have become inextricably linked and, while they may be intensely tech-savvy, young people are not necessarily aware of how algorithms are shaping their digital engagements. Despite the critical role of parents in their children’s social media consumption, research focusing on parents’ algorithmic literacy has been very limited (Das, 2023; Taylor & Brisini, 2024). Although there has been some information available online for parents about algorithms (Childnet), there is a need for more detailed information and resources which go beyond practical tips.
Many parents feel ill-equipped to navigate the complex system of algorithms. A recent study on parents’ understanding of social media algorithms revealed that they were aware of the risks of algorithms but believed that their concerns were an issue for the future (Das, 2023). This research also found that many parents misunderstood how algorithms worked and had incorrect assumptions about certain features of social media platforms. As the reports described above show, many young people are at risk of being exposed to harmful mental health content, and boys are especially vulnerable to being indoctrinated into manosphere thinking. While parents can both create risk factors and provide protection for their children, there is currently very little guidance available to help them understand and navigate this complex digital landscape.
To address this lack of algorithmic awareness in parents’ digital literacy, PARTICIPATE’s Work Package 4 will investigate parents’ awareness of the technological affordances of social media and mobile technologies, and will produce a set of Digital Safety Guideline for Parents. Deniz’s work in particular will explore parental awareness of recommender algorithms as well as the push factors which might make their children more susceptible to indoctrination into these spaces. Based on the data gathered from her fieldwork, Deniz will create a toolkit for parents that specifically addresses how algorithms work, provides guidance on how to prevent online risks and utilise online opportunities (Taylor & Brisini, 2024), and identifies ‘red flags’ or signs that their children may be coming under the influence of harmful online groups and ideas.
The full-length report ‘Recommending Toxicity: the role of algorithmic recommender functions on YouTube Shorts and TikTok in promoting male supremacist influencers’ is available here: antibullyingcentre.ie/recommending-toxicity/
You can read more about the RTE Prime Time report here – https://about.rte.ie/2024/04/18/rte-prime-time-experiment-reveals-disturbi

Abstract This article explores how social media recommendation systems shape the digital consumption practices of young people and the potential implications for mental health and wellbeing. It examines how the consumption of increasingly radical content, with a focus on gender-based violence and misogyny, is presented on young people’s feeds in increasingly high dosages, which has significant implications for young people’s social development. Employing a mixed-methods approach, this research draws on three data sources: (i) long-form interviews with young people, (ii) algorithmic analysis of over 1,000 social media videos, and (iii) roundtable discussions and interviews with school leaders from across England and Wales. These methods were used to triangulate how digital environments encourage and normalize harmful ideologies, normalizing radical content, and the affective impacts of this content on young people’s wellbeing. The study presents three main findings. First, recommendation systems amplify and subsequently normalize harmful ideologies, increasing users’ exposure to radical material. Second, misogynistic content is often presented as entertainment, which enables it to gain high levels of traction on social media platforms. As a result, hateful ideologies and misogynistic tropes appear in young people’s behaviors, which may have significant impacts on their mental health and peer relationships. Our findings suggest the need for a significant change in approaches to digital literacy, education and policy to support young people’s wellbeing and social development in digital spaces. Keywords: misogyny, social media, algorithm analysis, mental health, neurodiversity, digital literacy Introduction Economist Ben Marder has classified contemporary young people as ‘social natives’, having predominantly experienced their formative years engaged with the social, participatory web and have interacted with smartphones and tablets from birth (Ben Marder, 2020). Unlike their predecessors (‘digital natives’: 25–34-year-olds, Prensky, 2001), when it comes to news, access and attitudes, social natives increasingly use social media (Instagram, TikTok and YouTube) not just as a way to socially interact, but as a way to consume news and access information. Whilst forming communities through social media can have a positive benefit for young people, affirming social identity and creating connection, particularly for displaced, marginalized, or disenfranchised young people (Ko and Kuo, 2009; Davis, 2012), some aspects of online communities can also be problematic (Allen et al., 2014). There are concerns regarding how the affordances of social media platforms are increasingly exposing young people to untrusted, unverified, and radical material, which is subsequently impacting their peer relationships and wellbeing (e.g., Amnesty International, 2024; Reset Australia, 2022). While the risks that these types of platforms present in terms of disinformation and radicalization has been highlighted by many across both media and academia (Floridi, 2016; Lazer et al., 2018), longitudinal, psycho-behavioral research on the impacts of digital engagement on adolescent development, focusing specifically on the long-term mental health impacts to young people, is still emerging (Odgers and Jensen, 2020). As Candace Odgers (2024), along with Jensen et al. (2019), has emphasized, digital technologies may be amplifying many of the existing offline risks regarding anxiety, self-harm, and radicalization that young people experience in their teenage years. As Przybylski et al. (2020) found, the associated links between digital technology use and wellbeing also have a ‘u-shaped’ relationship, with poorer wellbeing outcomes for those at either extreme—either very high or very low digital screen engagement. For researchers, there is a need to understand how particular vulnerabilities of young people intersect with their online experiences. Within wider society, however, there are growing assumptions that the rise in mental health concerns among young people (Banks et al., 2023) is strongly linked to smartphone use (e.g., Haidt, 2024, “The terrible costs of a phone-based childhood”), but it is likely the picture is more nuanced. For example, we know that online behaviors and risks also often mirror offline vulnerabilities (Odgers and Jensen, 2019). The growing prominence of radical material has heightened existing worries about the impact of digital usage on adolescent development and their peer-to-peer interactions (Lewis-Kraus, 2022). Young people are vulnerable to online echo chambers, and the circulation of electoral fake news, mis/disinformation, and polarization toward political extremes (Floridi, 2016; Krasodomski-Jones, 2016; Lazer et al., 2018). In particular, concerns have been raised regarding how digital access is impacting peer relationships (Children’s Commissioner, 2023). For example, the online initiative ‘Everyone’s Invited’ sparked a national dialogue concerning the perpetuation of harassment and sexual abuse among young people in schools in the UK, with many pointing to the role of digital sexual violence in enabling and amplifying this phenomenon (Children’s Commissioner, 2023). According to research conducted by the Children’s Commission, a significant majority, 79%, of young people had been exposed to violent pornography before turning 18, and those who frequently consumed pornography were more likely to participate in sexual violence within their own relationships (Children’s Commissioner, 2023). A rapid report released by Ofsted in 2021 on sexual abuse in educational settings underscored the prevalence of the problem, with nine out of 10 girls reporting they had experienced some form of sexist abuse or image-based sexual harassment (IBSH; Ofsted, 2021). Concurrently, research has also revealed widespread digital sexual violence, with the majority of young women and girls reporting instances of IBSH and Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) (Ringrose et al., 2021). In response to these findings, there were calls to investigate the evolution of gendered dynamics such as ‘lad banter’ in online environments. As part of these recommendations, Ringrose et al. (2021) emphasized the role of digital literacy and the importance of fostering trust and openness between young people, parents, and teachers regarding online activities. As tech companies grow in power and profit and young people spend an increasing number of hours online, there is a critical need to interrogate the exact processes and affordances of these platforms, examine the ways in which types of negative content are delivered and consumed, and their impacts upon young people’s behaviors and wellbeing (Allen et al., 2014). This article takes the case study of online misogyny to consider wider questions regarding the affordances of social media and young people’s wellbeing: How do algorithmic processes popularize and normalize negative, toxic material, and how might this impact young people’s wellbeing? Misogynistic extremism in mainstream youth cultures Concerns around digital misogynistic extremism has over the past 5 years, focused on a small, subculture of people (typically young and male) identifying as Incels or ‘involuntary celibates’, who feel left out of romantic relationships and often turn to the digital space to express their frustration, anger, and hate against women (Hoffman et al., 2020). ‘Incel’ denotes a demographic of young individuals who perceive themselves as excluded from romantic relationships as well as from broader societal inclusion. Typically, these individuals turn to online platforms to express sentiments of frustration, anger, and occasionally, a longing for retaliation (Regehr, 2022), with some isolated cases having been linked to incidents of mass violence, particularly in the United States and Canada (Horne, 2024). Much of this discontent is directed toward women, and as Diaz and

Abstract
This article explores how social media recommendation systems shape the digital consumption practices of young people and the potential implications for mental health and wellbeing. It examines how the consumption of increasingly radical content, with a focus on gender-based violence and misogyny, is presented on young people’s feeds in increasingly high dosages, which has significant implications for young people’s social development. Employing a mixed-methods approach, this research draws on three data sources: (i) long-form interviews with young people, (ii) algorithmic analysis of over 1,000 social media videos, and (iii) roundtable discussions and interviews with school leaders from across England and Wales. These methods were used to triangulate how digital environments encourage and normalize harmful ideologies, normalizing radical content, and the affective impacts of this content on young people’s wellbeing. The study presents three main findings. First, recommendation systems amplify and subsequently normalize harmful ideologies, increasing users’ exposure to radical material. Second, misogynistic content is often presented as entertainment, which enables it to gain high levels of traction on social media platforms. As a result, hateful ideologies and misogynistic tropes appear in young people’s behaviors, which may have significant impacts on their mental health and peer relationships. Our findings suggest the need for a significant change in approaches to digital literacy, education and policy to support young people’s wellbeing and social development in digital spaces.
Keywords: misogyny, social media, algorithm analysis, mental health, neurodiversity, digital literacy
Introduction
Economist Ben Marder has classified contemporary young people as ‘social natives’, having predominantly experienced their formative years engaged with the social, participatory web and have interacted with smartphones and tablets from birth (Ben Marder, 2020). Unlike their predecessors (‘digital natives’: 25–34-year-olds, Prensky, 2001), when it comes to news, access and attitudes, social natives increasingly use social media (Instagram, TikTok and YouTube) not just as a way to socially interact, but as a way to consume news and access information. Whilst forming communities through social media can have a positive benefit for young people, affirming social identity and creating connection, particularly for displaced, marginalized, or disenfranchised young people (Ko and Kuo, 2009; Davis, 2012), some aspects of online communities can also be problematic (Allen et al., 2014). There are concerns regarding how the affordances of social media platforms are increasingly exposing young people to untrusted, unverified, and radical material, which is subsequently impacting their peer relationships and wellbeing (e.g., Amnesty International, 2024; Reset Australia, 2022).
While the risks that these types of platforms present in terms of disinformation and radicalization has been highlighted by many across both media and academia (Floridi, 2016; Lazer et al., 2018), longitudinal, psycho-behavioral research on the impacts of digital engagement on adolescent development, focusing specifically on the long-term mental health impacts to young people, is still emerging (Odgers and Jensen, 2020). As Candace Odgers (2024), along with Jensen et al. (2019), has emphasized, digital technologies may be amplifying many of the existing offline risks regarding anxiety, self-harm, and radicalization that young people experience in their teenage years. As Przybylski et al. (2020) found, the associated links between digital technology use and wellbeing also have a ‘u-shaped’ relationship, with poorer wellbeing outcomes for those at either extreme—either very high or very low digital screen engagement. For researchers, there is a need to understand how particular vulnerabilities of young people intersect with their online experiences. Within wider society, however, there are growing assumptions that the rise in mental health concerns among young people (Banks et al., 2023) is strongly linked to smartphone use (e.g., Haidt, 2024, “The terrible costs of a phone-based childhood”), but it is likely the picture is more nuanced. For example, we know that online behaviors and risks also often mirror offline vulnerabilities (Odgers and Jensen, 2019).
The growing prominence of radical material has heightened existing worries about the impact of digital usage on adolescent development and their peer-to-peer interactions (Lewis-Kraus, 2022). Young people are vulnerable to online echo chambers, and the circulation of electoral fake news, mis/disinformation, and polarization toward political extremes (Floridi, 2016; Krasodomski-Jones, 2016; Lazer et al., 2018). In particular, concerns have been raised regarding how digital access is impacting peer relationships (Children’s Commissioner, 2023). For example, the online initiative ‘Everyone’s Invited’ sparked a national dialogue concerning the perpetuation of harassment and sexual abuse among young people in schools in the UK, with many pointing to the role of digital sexual violence in enabling and amplifying this phenomenon (Children’s Commissioner, 2023). According to research conducted by the Children’s Commission, a significant majority, 79%, of young people had been exposed to violent pornography before turning 18, and those who frequently consumed pornography were more likely to participate in sexual violence within their own relationships (Children’s Commissioner, 2023). A rapid report released by Ofsted in 2021 on sexual abuse in educational settings underscored the prevalence of the problem, with nine out of 10 girls reporting they had experienced some form of sexist abuse or image-based sexual harassment (IBSH; Ofsted, 2021). Concurrently, research has also revealed widespread digital sexual violence, with the majority of young women and girls reporting instances of IBSH and Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) (Ringrose et al., 2021). In response to these findings, there were calls to investigate the evolution of gendered dynamics such as ‘lad banter’ in online environments. As part of these recommendations, Ringrose et al. (2021) emphasized the role of digital literacy and the importance of fostering trust and openness between young people, parents, and teachers regarding online activities. As tech companies grow in power and profit and young people spend an increasing number of hours online, there is a critical need to interrogate the exact processes and affordances of these platforms, examine the ways in which types of negative content are delivered and consumed, and their impacts upon young people’s behaviors and wellbeing (Allen et al., 2014). This article takes the case study of online misogyny to consider wider questions regarding the affordances of social media and young people’s wellbeing: How do algorithmic processes popularize and normalize negative, toxic material, and how might this impact young people’s wellbeing?
Misogynistic extremism in mainstream youth cultures
Concerns around digital misogynistic extremism has over the past 5 years, focused on a small, subculture of people (typically young and male) identifying as Incels or ‘involuntary celibates’, who feel left out of romantic relationships and often turn to the digital space to express their frustration, anger, and hate against women (Hoffman et al., 2020). ‘Incel’ denotes a demographic of young individuals who perceive themselves as excluded from romantic relationships as well as from broader societal inclusion. Typically, these individuals turn to online platforms to express sentiments of frustration, anger, and occasionally, a longing for retaliation (Regehr, 2022), with some isolated cases having been linked to incidents of mass violence, particularly in the United States and Canada (Horne, 2024). Much of this discontent is directed toward women, and as Diaz and 

The online world of boys and young men in the post-Andrew Tate moment is now saturated with masculinity influencers who take ideas, advice, talking points and ideologies from the “manosphere” – a loose online network of men’s interest communities known for its virulent misogyny, coordinated antifeminist campaigns and cases of extreme real-world violence. Whether it’s manipulative dating strategies, get-rich-quick schemes, or extreme discipline and fitness content, an entire ecosystem of masculinity influencers are now selling their version of how to be a “Real Man” by repackaging ideologies from subgroups of the manosphere – such as Incels, Pick-Up Artists, Red Pillers, and Men Going Their Own Way. Yet, a version of the manosphere has existed on the internet since its early use. So why has it only now become mainstream? The case of Andrew Tate Andrew Tate became a viral sensation in 2022 as a self-styled misogynist and anti-woke maverick who “tells it like it is”. His rise to infamy marked a key turning point in the information ecosystem of the manosphere. Clips of Tate’s most controversial takes, which include beating women into submission and questioning women’s right to vote, had flooded TikTok and other short-form video platforms. His content became inescapable for boys and young men, regardless of whether users actively engaged with it or not. Research shows that Tate’s content capitalises on the gendered anxieties of boys growing up in a world that still defines masculinity by dominance, control and economic success. His product is masculine empowerment; he produces and connects to a feeling of deficit, points the finger at an enemy (feminists, elites, weak men), and presents a simple solution – become unapologetically “manly”. And this had real-world effects. Teachers have come out across several countries reporting a surge in sexual harassment, misogyny and antifeminist talking points against women teachers, girl peers and LGBTQIA+ students in schools. Read more: We research online ‘misogynist radicalisation’. Here’s what parents of boys should know Moreover, a recent study on gendered attitudes in the UK has shown that young men aged 16-29 were the cohort most likely to believe men have it harder than women, that feminism has done more harm than good, and that Tate raises important points about “real threats to male identity and gender roles”. However, the viral success of Tate cannot wholly be explained as a reaction to gender equality movements. Tate’s ideas are not new, nor is his formula for masculine empowerment. Manosphere thought leaders have been profiting from and recruiting members with this formula since the beginning of social media influencer culture in the early 2010s. What is new is the ubiquity of his content. From niche dedicated forums, websites and podcasts, the manosphere has now moved into the everyday social media feeds of boys and young men. So how did this happen? Understanding why the manosphere’s messaging has amplified takes us to a specific development in social media technology – TikTok’s recommender algorithm. As the COVID-19 pandemic hit and countries went into lockdowns, TikTok’s popularity skyrocketed. TikTok presented a new form of social media, one that enabled users to create interactive short-form audio-visual content, which it circulated using a highly effective recommender algorithm. Content recommender algorithms at their simplest are mathematical procedures used by computers to calculate what content should be recommended to users. Content recommendation systems can use a variety of different algorithmic models to determine the characteristics, context, interests and preferences of users. Social media recommender algorithms rely heavily on machine learning, which uses a feedback model that tracks and responds to the real-time behaviour of users on platforms. This makes recommender algorithms highly successful at learning and predicting the shifting moods, interests and desires of users. Where social media had previously networked users through a model of friends and followers, TikTok’s recommender algorithm began to connect users through shared attention and relatability to content. Other social media apps soon followed suit by releasing their own short-form video features and accompanying recommender algorithms, such as YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels and Facebook Reels. Recommender algorithms might seem innocuous, or even helpful, for connecting us to relevant content and people within an unfathomable volume of online information. However, the primary objective of content recommender algorithms is not actually to serve the most relevant content – it’s to optimise engagement. Recommender algorithms are designed to learn what keeps users engaged on social media platforms for as long as possible, as frequently as possible. They produce attention metrics based on a user’s engagement with certain content, alongside predictive analytics based on the user’s demographic information, characteristics and location. This suggests two things: - That recommender algorithms prioritise content that generates the most engagement (ie. attention and interaction), which digital marketing analytics show tends to be emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content. - That users will be pushed towards certain content that algorithms calculate will likely engage someone “like you”. Where to from here? Recommender algorithms on short-form video platforms have changed the terms of social media and the business of influencing. Masculinity influencers are entrepreneurs in this attention economy, innovating genre, style, delivery, ideologies and branding to carve their niche and game the algorithmic infrastructure so that their content goes as far as fast as possible. This incentivises masculinity influencers in this unfettered market of attention to create increasingly extreme, emotionally volatile and polarising content. Our environments are crucial for forming consensus about fairness, equality and justice, including what counts as legitimate and acceptable behaviour. Interrogating the logics of the things that mediate our information environments is critical in the struggle against gender-based violence. These digital spaces are shaped by the infrastructures with which we build them. And these infrastructures can be changed.

The online world of boys and young men in the post-Andrew Tate moment is now saturated with masculinity influencers who take ideas, advice, talking points and ideologies from the “manosphere” – a loose online network of men’s interest communities known for its virulent misogyny, coordinated antifeminist campaigns and cases of extreme real-world violence.
Whether it’s manipulative dating strategies, get-rich-quick schemes, or extreme discipline and fitness content, an entire ecosystem of masculinity influencers are now selling their version of how to be a “Real Man” by repackaging ideologies from subgroups of the manosphere – such as Incels, Pick-Up Artists, Red Pillers, and Men Going Their Own Way.
Yet, a version of the manosphere has existed on the internet since its early use. So why has it only now become mainstream?
The case of Andrew Tate
Andrew Tate became a viral sensation in 2022 as a self-styled misogynist and anti-woke maverick who “tells it like it is”. His rise to infamy marked a key turning point in the information ecosystem of the manosphere.
Clips of Tate’s most controversial takes, which include beating women into submission and questioning women’s right to vote, had flooded TikTok and other short-form video platforms. His content became inescapable for boys and young men, regardless of whether users actively engaged with it or not.
Research shows that Tate’s content capitalises on the gendered anxieties of boys growing up in a world that still defines masculinity by dominance, control and economic success. His product is masculine empowerment; he produces and connects to a feeling of deficit, points the finger at an enemy (feminists, elites, weak men), and presents a simple solution – become unapologetically “manly”.
And this had real-world effects. Teachers have come out across several countries reporting a surge in sexual harassment, misogyny and antifeminist talking points against women teachers, girl peers and LGBTQIA+ students in schools.
Read more: We research online ‘misogynist radicalisation’. Here’s what parents of boys should know
Moreover, a recent study on gendered attitudes in the UK has shown that young men aged 16-29 were the cohort most likely to believe men have it harder than women, that feminism has done more harm than good, and that Tate raises important points about “real threats to male identity and gender roles”.
However, the viral success of Tate cannot wholly be explained as a reaction to gender equality movements. Tate’s ideas are not new, nor is his formula for masculine empowerment. Manosphere thought leaders have been profiting from and recruiting members with this formula since the beginning of social media influencer culture in the early 2010s.
What is new is the ubiquity of his content. From niche dedicated forums, websites and podcasts, the manosphere has now moved into the everyday social media feeds of boys and young men.
So how did this happen?
Understanding why the manosphere’s messaging has amplified takes us to a specific development in social media technology – TikTok’s recommender algorithm.
As the COVID-19 pandemic hit and countries went into lockdowns, TikTok’s popularity skyrocketed. TikTok presented a new form of social media, one that enabled users to create interactive short-form audio-visual content, which it circulated using a highly effective recommender algorithm.
Content recommender algorithms at their simplest are mathematical procedures used by computers to calculate what content should be recommended to users. Content recommendation systems can use a variety of different algorithmic models to determine the characteristics, context, interests and preferences of users.
Social media recommender algorithms rely heavily on machine learning, which uses a feedback model that tracks and responds to the real-time behaviour of users on platforms. This makes recommender algorithms highly successful at learning and predicting the shifting moods, interests and desires of users.
Where social media had previously networked users through a model of friends and followers, TikTok’s recommender algorithm began to connect users through shared attention and relatability to content.
Other social media apps soon followed suit by releasing their own short-form video features and accompanying recommender algorithms, such as YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels and Facebook Reels.
Recommender algorithms might seem innocuous, or even helpful, for connecting us to relevant content and people within an unfathomable volume of online information. However, the primary objective of content recommender algorithms is not actually to serve the most relevant content – it’s to optimise engagement.
Recommender algorithms are designed to learn what keeps users engaged on social media platforms for as long as possible, as frequently as possible. They produce attention metrics based on a user’s engagement with certain content, alongside predictive analytics based on the user’s demographic information, characteristics and location.
This suggests two things:
- That recommender algorithms prioritise content that generates the most engagement (ie. attention and interaction), which digital marketing analytics show tends to be emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.
- That users will be pushed towards certain content that algorithms calculate will likely engage someone “like you”.
Where to from here?
Recommender algorithms on short-form video platforms have changed the terms of social media and the business of influencing.
Masculinity influencers are entrepreneurs in this attention economy, innovating genre, style, delivery, ideologies and branding to carve their niche and game the algorithmic infrastructure so that their content goes as far as fast as possible. This incentivises masculinity influencers in this unfettered market of attention to create increasingly extreme, emotionally volatile and polarising content.
Our environments are crucial for forming consensus about fairness, equality and justice, including what counts as legitimate and acceptable behaviour.
Interrogating the logics of the things that mediate our information environments is critical in the struggle against gender-based violence. These digital spaces are shaped by the infrastructures with which we build them. And these infrastructures can be changed.

You may never have seen it yourself, but there's a dark part of the internet, lurking closer than you think. It's an online world where men reign supreme. They are fit and powerful, rich and muscular. They welcome confused, angry men and boys, promising them wealth, status and success with women. This is the manosphere. I was among the first to start researching it more than a decade ago. Since then, I've watched it grow and become mainstream, luring boys as young as 12 into its web of toxic masculinity. We set up ten fake 16 and 18-year old male accounts on TikTok and YouTube to show how the algorithm recommends videos that suck boys into a world they were never looking for. Here's how it happens. Let’s say a teenage boy is looking for some dating advice. He’ll be served a typical dating coach video like this, which, at first glance, seems harmless enough. But note how this influencer is already normalising the sexist claim that women are "not the same as men" because "men are logical". Some claim if you don’t make a woman feel inferior, she won’t believe she’s "dating up". Many manfluencers believe women are genetically hardwired to mate only with so-called "alpha males". This video peddles the manosphere belief that women don’t like good men because they are "naturally" attracted to "dark-triad" personalities (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism). This tactic endorses and excuses toxic behaviours. When it comes to money advice, it's also aggressively masculine. UK manfluencer Hamza advises men to become influencers if they want to become rich, high-status leaders. See how he slips in visual dog whistles to establish associations between success and aggressive masculinity. Our teenager has watched and liked this content because it tells him some simple life hacks will make him a "high-value man". It's easy, practical advice that resonated. So, the algorithm serves him more of it. But it starts to get darker, suggesting women enjoy sexual aggression and violence. And because of those earlier videos about female inferiority and male aggression, he's been primed to accept what comes next. The dating coach in this video uses language and concepts from evolutionary psychology. This lends "scientific" legitimacy to his claims and recasts male sexual violence as motivated by a desire to protect women. At this point, our teenager is also receiving videos about concepts like "the Red Pill". This is the idea that by refusing to blindly accept the world as it is, they learn the "truth": that men are at the whims of women's power and desires. This messaging reframes hypermasculinity as edgy and anti-establishment. But in reality, it's about preserving the status quo, not disrupting it. It also positions followers as intelligent and questioning. By now, we are quite deep in the manosphere. A steady stream of narratives about male victimhood and "wokeism" make our boy feel both enlightened and aggrieved. Videos will often start referencing the film The Matrix. Manfluencers describe how the corporate world, liberal government and education conspire to keep "blue-pilled brokies" in a life of wage slavery. Our teenager’s mindset has started to change. He is now engaging with overt misogyny, as well as common far-right tropes, such as that single mothers produce murderers, drug dealers and criminals. These ideas are probably manifesting in his behaviour at school, and in how he is treating girls and women both on and offline. At this point, our teenager is groomed into a mindset that conflates nihilism and lack of empathy with courageous masculinity. He's told to focus relentlessly on himself, and to diminish his empathy for others. He feels seen, he feels vindicated, and most concerningly, he feels emboldened. How long will he stay in this space? Will he get a wake-up call? Or will he get involved in darker, more extreme misogynistic or far-right communities in closed, encrypted apps? It depends on a number of factors, from the strength of his friendships, to happiness at home, among others. Not all boys exposed to this content will pursue it. Many get themselves out. Nevertheless, even the more innocuous advice in the manosphere is overwhelmingly digital snake oil being peddled for profit. And while the social media ban may put a brake on younger boys accessing this material, it will not solve the problem. Misogyny is rife beyond the digital world, and male supremacists will inevitably find other platforms to reach younger audiences. The challenge is to reach men and boys before the manosphere does, which given its power, is a significant challenge. What can I do? - Have open, non-judgemental conversations with men and boys about what they're viewing online. Ask them why they find it appealing. - Watch and listen for if any of these manosphere beliefs and attitudes are creeping into their conversations, especially about women and girls. - Consult good advice, such as from Australia's eSafety Commissioner or New Zealands's Netsafe. - Provide men and boys with a loving environment to talk openly about their feelings and insecurities and to forge meaningful connections. Boys with good friends, supportive families and positive school environments are far less likely to find this content compelling in the first place. The manosphere is a dark, but growing part of the internet that’s harming everyone who gets sucked into it. In this three-part series, Mapping the Manosphere, we’ve asked leading global experts how it works, what the dangers are and how this online phenomenon is playing out in real life. Authors Editorial production Disclosures Debbie Ging does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

You may never have seen it yourself, but there's a dark part of the internet, lurking closer than you think.
It's an online world where men reign supreme. They are fit and powerful, rich and muscular.
They welcome confused, angry men and boys, promising them wealth, status and success with women.
This is the manosphere. I was among the first to start researching it more than a decade ago.
Since then, I've watched it grow and become mainstream, luring boys as young as 12 into its web of toxic masculinity.
We set up ten fake 16 and 18-year old male accounts on TikTok and YouTube to show how the algorithm recommends videos that suck boys into a world they were never looking for.
Here's how it happens.
Let’s say a teenage boy is looking for some dating advice.
He’ll be served a typical dating coach video like this, which, at
first glance, seems harmless enough.
But note how this influencer is already normalising the sexist claim
that women are "not the same as men" because "men are logical".
Some claim if you don’t make a woman feel inferior, she won’t
believe she’s "dating up".
Many manfluencers believe women are genetically hardwired to mate
only with so-called "alpha males".
This video peddles the manosphere belief that women don’t like good
men because they are "naturally" attracted to "dark-triad"
personalities (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism).
This tactic endorses and excuses toxic behaviours.
When it comes to money advice, it's also aggressively masculine.
UK manfluencer Hamza advises men to become influencers if they want
to become rich, high-status leaders.
See how he slips in visual dog whistles to establish associations
between success and aggressive masculinity.
Our teenager has watched and liked this content because it tells him
some simple life hacks will make him a "high-value man". It's easy,
practical advice that resonated.
So, the algorithm serves him more of it.
But it starts to get darker, suggesting women enjoy sexual
aggression and violence.
And because of those earlier videos about female inferiority and
male aggression, he's been primed to accept what comes next.
The dating coach in this video uses language and concepts from
evolutionary psychology.
This lends "scientific" legitimacy to his claims and recasts male
sexual violence as motivated by a desire to protect women.
At this point, our teenager is also receiving videos about concepts like "the Red Pill". This is the idea that by refusing to blindly accept the world as it is, they learn the "truth": that men are at the whims of women's power and desires.
This messaging reframes hypermasculinity as edgy and
anti-establishment. But in reality, it's about preserving the status
quo, not disrupting it.
It also positions followers as intelligent and questioning.
By now, we are quite deep in the manosphere.
A steady stream of narratives about male victimhood and "wokeism"
make our boy feel both enlightened and aggrieved.
Videos will often start referencing the film The Matrix.
Manfluencers describe how the corporate world, liberal government
and education conspire to keep "blue-pilled brokies" in a life of
wage slavery.
Our teenager’s mindset has started to change.
He is now engaging with overt misogyny, as well as
common far-right tropes, such as that single mothers produce murderers, drug dealers and
criminals.
These ideas are probably manifesting in his
behaviour at school, and in how he is treating girls and women
both on and offline.
At this point, our teenager is groomed into a mindset that conflates
nihilism and lack of empathy with courageous masculinity.
He's told to focus relentlessly on himself, and to diminish his
empathy for others.
He feels seen, he feels vindicated, and most concerningly, he feels emboldened.
How long will he stay in this space?
Will he get a wake-up call? Or will he get involved in darker, more
extreme misogynistic or far-right communities in closed, encrypted apps?
It depends on a number of factors, from the strength of his friendships,
to happiness at home, among others.
Not all boys
exposed to this content will pursue it. Many get themselves out.
Nevertheless, even the more innocuous advice in the manosphere is
overwhelmingly
digital snake oil
being peddled for profit.
And while the social media ban may put a brake on younger boys accessing
this material, it will not solve the problem. Misogyny is rife beyond
the digital world, and male supremacists will inevitably find other
platforms to reach younger audiences.
The challenge is to reach men and boys before the manosphere does, which
given its power, is a significant challenge.
What can I do?
-
Have open, non-judgemental conversations with men and boys about what they're viewing online. Ask them why they find it appealing.
-
Watch and listen for if any of these manosphere beliefs and attitudes are creeping into their conversations, especially about women and girls.
-
Consult good advice, such as from Australia's eSafety Commissioner or New Zealands's Netsafe.
-
Provide men and boys with a loving environment to talk openly about their feelings and insecurities and to forge meaningful connections. Boys with good friends, supportive families and positive school environments are far less likely to find this content compelling in the first place.
The manosphere is a dark, but growing part of the internet that’s harming everyone who gets sucked into it. In this three-part series, Mapping the Manosphere, we’ve asked leading global experts how it works, what the dangers are and how this online phenomenon is playing out in real life.
Authors
Editorial production
Disclosures
Debbie Ging does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Research from 2024–2026 indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys**, even when the accounts start with neutral or general-interest behavior.[1][2][4] - A Dublin City University study found that male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were fed **“masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content”** within the first **23 minutes**, and by the end of the experiment the recommended feed was mostly toxic content: **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%**.[1] - The same DCU research reported that YouTube Shorts accounts received a larger share of toxic content overall on average, **61.5%** versus **34.7%** on TikTok.[1] - A UCL-led report found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days, rising from **13% to 56%** of recommended videos.[2] - That UCL report states that **“Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities”** and can **“gamify harmful content.”**[2] - Reporting summarizing the Irish findings said boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through **recommended video** features, and that the effect was **worse on YouTube Shorts** because the system optimized more aggressively in response to user behavior.[4] - A peer-reviewed analysis in *International Journal of Communication* argues that the manosphere is becoming mainstream on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, and that algorithmic pathways can direct users toward **increasingly extreme content**.[3] - A 2025 peer-reviewed article in *PMC* describes this content as being **normalized and presented as entertainment**, and notes that “in(cel)fluencers” such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have promoted misogynistic messaging aimed at young boys.[6] For a safeguarding team, the strongest evidence in the results is that **engagement-based recommender systems are not just passively reflecting interest; they can actively intensify exposure to misogynistic and extremist masculine content over a short time, including for teenage-boy profiles that begin with ordinary interests like sport, gaming, and the gym**.[1][4] If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence brief** with: - a one-paragraph summary for staff, - a risk-and-safeguarding section, - and a short list of quotable findings for training materials.

Research from 2024–2026 indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys**, even when the accounts start with neutral or general-interest behavior.[1][2][4]

- A Dublin City University study found that male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were fed **“masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content”** within the first **23 minutes**, and by the end of the experiment the recommended feed was mostly toxic content: **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%**.[1]
- The same DCU research reported that YouTube Shorts accounts received a larger share of toxic content overall on average, **61.5%** versus **34.7%** on TikTok.[1]
- A UCL-led report found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days, rising from **13% to 56%** of recommended videos.[2]
- That UCL report states that **“Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities”** and can **“gamify harmful content.”**[2]
- Reporting summarizing the Irish findings said boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through **recommended video** features, and that the effect was **worse on YouTube Shorts** because the system optimized more aggressively in response to user behavior.[4]
- A peer-reviewed analysis in *International Journal of Communication* argues that the manosphere is becoming mainstream on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, and that algorithmic pathways can direct users toward **increasingly extreme content**.[3]
- A 2025 peer-reviewed article in *PMC* describes this content as being **normalized and presented as entertainment**, and notes that “in(cel)fluencers” such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have promoted misogynistic messaging aimed at young boys.[6]

For a safeguarding team, the strongest evidence in the results is that **engagement-based recommender systems are not just passively reflecting interest; they can actively intensify exposure to misogynistic and extremist masculine content over a short time, including for teenage-boy profiles that begin with ordinary interests like sport, gaming, and the gym**.[1][4]

If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence brief** with:
- a one-paragraph summary for staff,
- a risk-and-safeguarding section,
- and a short list of quotable findings for training materials.

Research from 2024–2026 indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys**, even when the accounts start with neutral or general-interest behavior.[1][2][4] - A Dublin City University study found that male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were fed **“masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content”** within the first **23 minutes**, and by the end of the experiment the recommended feed was mostly toxic content: **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%**.[1] - The same DCU research reported that YouTube Shorts accounts received a larger share of toxic content overall on average, **61.5%** versus **34.7%** on TikTok.[1] - A UCL-led report found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days, rising from **13% to 56%** of recommended videos.[2] - That UCL report states that **“Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities”** and can **“gamify harmful content.”**[2] - Reporting summarizing the Irish findings said boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through **recommended video** features, and that the effect was **worse on YouTube Shorts** because the system optimized more aggressively in response to user behavior.[4] - A peer-reviewed analysis in *International Journal of Communication* argues that the manosphere is becoming mainstream on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, and that algorithmic pathways can direct users toward **increasingly extreme content**.[3] - A 2025 peer-reviewed article in *PMC* describes this content as being **normalized and presented as entertainment**, and notes that “in(cel)fluencers” such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have promoted misogynistic messaging aimed at young boys.[6] For a safeguarding team, the strongest evidence in the results is that **engagement-based recommender systems are not just passively reflecting interest; they can actively intensify exposure to misogynistic and extremist masculine content over a short time, including for teenage-boy profiles that begin with ordinary interests like sport, gaming, and the gym**.[1][4] If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence brief** with: - a one-paragraph summary for staff, - a risk-and-safeguarding section, - and a short list of quotable findings for training materials.

Research from 2024–2026 indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommendation systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys**, even when the accounts start with neutral or general-interest behavior.[1][2][4]

- A Dublin City University study found that male-identified accounts on TikTok and YouTube Shorts were fed **“masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content”** within the first **23 minutes**, and by the end of the experiment the recommended feed was mostly toxic content: **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%**.[1]
- The same DCU research reported that YouTube Shorts accounts received a larger share of toxic content overall on average, **61.5%** versus **34.7%** on TikTok.[1]
- A UCL-led report found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days, rising from **13% to 56%** of recommended videos.[2]
- That UCL report states that **“Algorithmic processes on TikTok and other social media sites target people’s vulnerabilities”** and can **“gamify harmful content.”**[2]
- Reporting summarizing the Irish findings said boys and young men were lured to the manosphere through **recommended video** features, and that the effect was **worse on YouTube Shorts** because the system optimized more aggressively in response to user behavior.[4]
- A peer-reviewed analysis in *International Journal of Communication* argues that the manosphere is becoming mainstream on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, and that algorithmic pathways can direct users toward **increasingly extreme content**.[3]
- A 2025 peer-reviewed article in *PMC* describes this content as being **normalized and presented as entertainment**, and notes that “in(cel)fluencers” such as Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have promoted misogynistic messaging aimed at young boys.[6]

For a safeguarding team, the strongest evidence in the results is that **engagement-based recommender systems are not just passively reflecting interest; they can actively intensify exposure to misogynistic and extremist masculine content over a short time, including for teenage-boy profiles that begin with ordinary interests like sport, gaming, and the gym**.[1][4]

If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence brief** with:
- a one-paragraph summary for staff,
- a risk-and-safeguarding section,
- and a short list of quotable findings for training materials.

Sir Gareth Southgate: Boys need role models not gaming and porn Sir Gareth Southgate says he fears young men are spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography - and they need better role models beyond online influencers. In a wide-ranging talk for the BBC's annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture, the ex-England men's football manager spoke about his own experience of missing a crucial penalty at Euro 96, saying he didn't let it define him. "That pain still haunts me today," he said, "and I guess it always will." Referencing his own experiences, he said the UK needed to do more to encourage young people - especially young men - to make the right choices in life and to not fear failure. Rather than turning to teachers, sports coaches or youth group leaders, Sir Gareth said he feared many young men were searching for direction online. There, he said they were finding a new kind of role model, one that too often did not have their best interests at heart. "These are callous, manipulative and toxic influencers, whose sole drive is for their own gain," he said. "They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them." Sir Gareth spoke about missing the crucial penalty in the 1996 Euros semi-final, when England lost to Germany. "Missing that penalty was undoubtedly a watershed moment that made me stronger, a better man," Sir Gareth said at the lecture. "It forced me to dig deep, and revealed an inner belief and resilience I never knew existed." He contrasted his own miss with Eric Dier's successful penalty kick against Colombia in 2018, when - with Sir Gareth as manager - England won a World Cup penalty shootout for the first time. During the intervening 22 years, he said there had been a change in mindset among England players. "In 1996, I had walked 30 yards to the penalty spot believing I would miss," he said. "In 2018, Eric had walked 30 yards to the penalty spot believing he would score." During Sir Gareth's career as a defender and midfielder, he played for Crystal Palace, Aston Villa and Middlesbrough and was in the England squad between 1995 and 2004. He took over as manager in 2016 and led the team to the 2018 World Cup semi-final, 2022 World Cup quarter-final and Euro finals in 2020 and 2024. Sir Gareth has been credited with revitalising the England team and was knighted in the King's New Year Honours in December. He is the latest in a line of academics, business leaders and other notable figures to deliver the Richard Dimbleby Lecture, which has been held most years since 1972 in memory of the broadcaster. Previous speakers have included King Charles III, when he was the Prince of Wales, tech entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates, and Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 'Too many young men are isolated' Sir Gareth's talk focused on the importance of belief and resilience for young men, and he cited three things needed to build these: identity, connection and culture. He referred to a report, released earlier this month by the Centre for Social Justice, which said boys and young men were "in crisis", with a "staggering" increase in those not in education, employment or training. "Too many young men are isolated," Sir Gareth said in his talk. "Too many feel uncomfortable opening up to friends or family. Many don't have mentors - teachers, coaches, bosses - who understand how best to push them to grow. And so, when they struggle, young men inevitably try to handle whatever situation they find themselves in, alone." "Young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk or express their emotions," he added. "They spend more time online searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives like gaming, gambling and pornography." Ukie - the UK's trade body for video games - said it was "disappointed" by the way the former England manager characterised gaming. In a letter to Sir Gareth it said: "Video games should be celebrated for their positive impact, as a medium that connects people, teaches new skills, drives creativity, and boosts the economy." Sir Gareth also said young men don't get enough opportunities to fail and learn from their mistakes. "In my opinion, if we make life too easy for young boys now, we will inevitably make life harder when they grow up to be young men," he said. "Too many young men are at risk of fearing failure, precisely because they've had so few opportunities to experience and overcome it. They fail to try, rather than try and fail." The ex-footballer also reflected on what his career has taught him about belief and resilience. "If I've learned anything from my life in football, it's that success is much more than the final score," he said. "True success is how you respond in the hardest moments." The Richard Dimbleby lecture 2025 - Sir Gareth Southgate's speech in full The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about two very different penalty kicks, separated by more than two decades, but connected by two characteristics far more powerful than football. These characteristics have picked me up when I've been down, grounded me in success, and given me purpose amidst the noise of public life. They are qualities that everyone, young and old, needs every day of their lives. They are belief and resilience. Now, I'd like you to picture the old Wembley Stadium, it's England versus Germany, semi-final of Euro 96 a tournament that has captivated the nation, up to this point, extra- time has finished and we're locked at 1-1. And my childhood hero Bryan Robson has asked me would I take penalty number 6 if it goes to sudden death. Now I've been captain of every team that I played for and this is my hero asking the question… So, you just don't say no at those moments. But… I am thinking as I'm walking away… Mmm, let's hope it doesn't go to that… 1-0, 1-1 I'm not a regular penalty taker, with a process to fall back on... 2-1, 2-2 But never mind because Dave Seaman saved one last weekend so we'll be ok... 3-2 and actually Dave this would be a really good moment to save one... 3-3 What happens if I miss? My brain has now entered the arena of what might go wrong and now I'm in trouble... 4-4, 5-5 In front of 90,000 people and millions watching at home. Let me tell you that 30-yard walk from the centre circle to the penalty spot feels like you've walked from Land's End to John o' Groats, and that's basically how my legs felt when I got there as well. It was as much as I could do to hit the target, forget placement or power… the keeper duly saves. And we're out... I feel I've let myself down, my teammates down, my country down. That pain still haunts me today and I guess it always will. Now, that single shot could have defined my life, let alone my football career. It didn't. But how I chose to respond to it did. And that's what I want to talk about tonight. How do you build resilience when the going gets tough? How do you cultivate belief, in individuals, AND in a collective? And how do you build a positive culture not just for a national football team, but for a nation? Before I delve into this topic, I want to personally thank the Dimbleby family, and the BBC, for this enormous honour and wonderful opportunity to deliver the 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture. Since 1972, the Lecture has been delivered by 45 speakers, including princes, scientists, influential business and religious leaders, as well as other prominent figures. So adding the former England football manager to the illustrious list is certainly a bold selection… Now… there's a slight question mark hanging over my head about bold selections... so I really hope this one works for you! Richard Dimbleby was not just a broadcaster, but an extraordinary man of belief and resilience. The exact themes I wan

Sir Gareth Southgate: Boys need role models not gaming and porn
Sir Gareth Southgate says he fears young men are spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography - and they need better role models beyond online influencers.
In a wide-ranging talk for the BBC's annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture, the ex-England men's football manager spoke about his own experience of missing a crucial penalty at Euro 96, saying he didn't let it define him.
"That pain still haunts me today," he said, "and I guess it always will."
Referencing his own experiences, he said the UK needed to do more to encourage young people - especially young men - to make the right choices in life and to not fear failure.
Rather than turning to teachers, sports coaches or youth group leaders, Sir Gareth said he feared many young men were searching for direction online. There, he said they were finding a new kind of role model, one that too often did not have their best interests at heart.
"These are callous, manipulative and toxic influencers, whose sole drive is for their own gain," he said.
"They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them."
Sir Gareth spoke about missing the crucial penalty in the 1996 Euros semi-final, when England lost to Germany.
"Missing that penalty was undoubtedly a watershed moment that made me stronger, a better man," Sir Gareth said at the lecture. "It forced me to dig deep, and revealed an inner belief and resilience I never knew existed."
He contrasted his own miss with Eric Dier's successful penalty kick against Colombia in 2018, when - with Sir Gareth as manager - England won a World Cup penalty shootout for the first time.
During the intervening 22 years, he said there had been a change in mindset among England players.
"In 1996, I had walked 30 yards to the penalty spot believing I would miss," he said. "In 2018, Eric had walked 30 yards to the penalty spot believing he would score."
During Sir Gareth's career as a defender and midfielder, he played for Crystal Palace, Aston Villa and Middlesbrough and was in the England squad between 1995 and 2004. He took over as manager in 2016 and led the team to the 2018 World Cup semi-final, 2022 World Cup quarter-final and Euro finals in 2020 and 2024.
Sir Gareth has been credited with revitalising the England team and was knighted in the King's New Year Honours in December.
He is the latest in a line of academics, business leaders and other notable figures to deliver the Richard Dimbleby Lecture, which has been held most years since 1972 in memory of the broadcaster.
Previous speakers have included King Charles III, when he was the Prince of Wales, tech entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates, and Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
'Too many young men are isolated'
Sir Gareth's talk focused on the importance of belief and resilience for young men, and he cited three things needed to build these: identity, connection and culture.
He referred to a report, released earlier this month by the Centre for Social Justice, which said boys and young men were "in crisis", with a "staggering" increase in those not in education, employment or training.
"Too many young men are isolated," Sir Gareth said in his talk. "Too many feel uncomfortable opening up to friends or family. Many don't have mentors - teachers, coaches, bosses - who understand how best to push them to grow. And so, when they struggle, young men inevitably try to handle whatever situation they find themselves in, alone."
"Young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk or express their emotions," he added. "They spend more time online searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives like gaming, gambling and pornography."
Ukie - the UK's trade body for video games - said it was "disappointed" by the way the former England manager characterised gaming.
In a letter to Sir Gareth it said: "Video games should be celebrated for their positive impact, as a medium that connects people, teaches new skills, drives creativity, and boosts the economy."
Sir Gareth also said young men don't get enough opportunities to fail and learn from their mistakes.
"In my opinion, if we make life too easy for young boys now, we will inevitably make life harder when they grow up to be young men," he said. "Too many young men are at risk of fearing failure, precisely because they've had so few opportunities to experience and overcome it. They fail to try, rather than try and fail."
The ex-footballer also reflected on what his career has taught him about belief and resilience.
"If I've learned anything from my life in football, it's that success is much more than the final score," he said. "True success is how you respond in the hardest moments."
The Richard Dimbleby lecture 2025 - Sir Gareth Southgate's speech in full
The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation
Good evening.
Tonight, I want to talk about two very different penalty kicks, separated by more than two decades, but connected by two characteristics far more powerful than football.
These characteristics have picked me up when I've been down, grounded me in success, and given me purpose amidst the noise of public life.
They are qualities that everyone, young and old, needs every day of their lives.
They are belief and resilience.
Now, I'd like you to picture the old Wembley Stadium, it's England versus Germany, semi-final of Euro 96 a tournament that has captivated the nation, up to this point, extra- time has finished and we're locked at 1-1.
And my childhood hero Bryan Robson has asked me would I take penalty number 6 if it goes to sudden death. Now I've been captain of every team that I played for and this is my hero asking the question…
So, you just don't say no at those moments.
But… I am thinking as I'm walking away… Mmm, let's hope it doesn't go to that…
1-0, 1-1
I'm not a regular penalty taker, with a process to fall back on...
2-1, 2-2
But never mind because Dave Seaman saved one last weekend so we'll be ok...
3-2 and actually Dave this would be a really good moment to save one...
3-3
What happens if I miss? My brain has now entered the arena of what might go wrong and now I'm in trouble...
4-4, 5-5
In front of 90,000 people and millions watching at home.
Let me tell you that 30-yard walk from the centre circle to the penalty spot feels like you've walked from Land's End to John o' Groats, and that's basically how my legs felt when I got there as well. It was as much as I could do to hit the target, forget placement or power… the keeper duly saves. And we're out...
I feel I've let myself down, my teammates down, my country down.
That pain still haunts me today and I guess it always will.
Now, that single shot could have defined my life, let alone my football career. It didn't. But how I chose to respond to it did.
And that's what I want to talk about tonight.
How do you build resilience when the going gets tough?
How do you cultivate belief, in individuals, AND in a collective?
And how do you build a positive culture not just for a national football team, but for a nation?
Before I delve into this topic, I want to personally thank the Dimbleby family, and the BBC, for this enormous honour and wonderful opportunity to deliver the 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture.
Since 1972, the Lecture has been delivered by 45 speakers, including princes, scientists, influential business and religious leaders, as well as other prominent figures.
So adding the former England football manager to the illustrious list is certainly a bold selection… Now… there's a slight question mark hanging over my head about bold selections... so I really hope this one works for you!
Richard Dimbleby was not just a broadcaster, but an extraordinary man of belief and resilience. The exact themes I wan

Gareth Southgate’s 2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture framed a “crisis in masculinity” around **lost, isolated boys**, **toxic online influencers**, and the urgent need for **positive, real‑world male role models**—especially in families, schools, sport and youth work.[3][4][8][12] Key points relevant to masculinity, role models and boys: - **Crisis in modern masculinity / “lost boys”** - Southgate argued that many young men feel *isolated*, unsure of their place in society, and are struggling with “their sense of masculinity and their overall role in society.”[12] - He drew on the Centre for Social Justice’s idea of “Lost Boys” and the finding that around **2.5 million children in the UK have no father figure at home**.[4] - Commentators summarised his argument as a “crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models.”[13] - **Toxic influencers vs positive role models** - Southgate warned that a **gap in positive male guidance** is being filled by “a new type of role model who does not prioritise [boys’] well‑being.”[12] - He described these figures as **“callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”** on social media, who “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”[5][12] - He argued these influencers are “the antithesis of the role models that our young men truly require.”[12] - **Gaming, gambling and pornography** - In the lecture and related coverage, Southgate expressed concern that **too many boys are retreating into online spaces**—“spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography”[1][2][9]—especially when they lack real‑world communities and support.[1][9] - He linked this to isolation and vulnerability to harmful messages about masculinity online.[1][9][12] - **What positive male role models should look like** - Southgate called for **more mentors and everyday role models**, not just celebrities: “coaches, youth workers, teachers” and other trusted adults who can offer consistent support.[4][5][8] - He emphasised leaders “who set the right tone” and “be the role models we want for our young men,” showing that **“character is more important than status”** and that **“how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.”[10][9] - Positive role models, in his account, model: - **Empathy and respect**, including how men treat women.[5][11][12] - **Courage, humility and integrity over selfishness, greed and arrogance.**[10] - **Emotional openness**, explicitly challenging the idea that strength means never showing emotion.[5][12] - **Belief, resilience and the “three foundations”** - Southgate organised his lecture around **belief** and **resilience** as crucial qualities for young men.[1][8] - He argued these rest on **three foundations: “identity, connection and culture.”**[1][2] - **Identity** – helping boys develop a secure sense of who they are, not tied solely to money, dominance or online status.[4][6][12] - **Connection** – building relationships and communities (teams, schools, youth groups, families) so boys are not facing struggles alone.[6][11] - **Culture** – creating environments (in sport, schools, society) where values like respect, effort, learning from failure and supporting others are normal.[1][6][10] - He said “the culture we create today will shape the kind of men that we inherit tomorrow.”[10][8] - **Teaching boys and girls – “different to get the best out of them”** - In subsequent commentary on the lecture, Southgate is reported as saying **“we need to teach boys differently to girls to get the best out of them.”**[3] - This was linked to his view that many boys respond well to environments that emphasise **clear expectations, structure, encouragement, and constructive challenge**, grounded in secure relationships and role modelling.[3][4][11] - The BBC summary notes that he did *not* argue for lower standards, but for **tailored approaches** that recognise boys’ vulnerability to isolation, shame and online harm.[3][6] - **From toxic to healthy masculinity** - Commentaries describe Southgate’s lecture as a call for **“different and better leaders specifically for young men”** and an antidote to “toxic masculinity.”[4][11] - Instead of toughness defined by dominance or emotional suppression, he promotes a version of masculinity based on: - **Responsibility to others** and being part of a team or community.[4][6][11] - **Learning from failure** and allowing vulnerability, rather than shaming boys when they struggle.[6][11] - **Mutual support and mentoring**, where older men model empathy and help boys move from isolation into “the communality of wider society.”[6][11] - **Sport and other settings as protective spaces** - Southgate highlighted **sport** as one key environment for building belief, resilience and positive masculinity—where boys can experience teamwork, shared effort, and supportive male mentoring.[4][11] - Commentators draw parallels with projects like *Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams*, where sport gives boys an environment “for mutual support, team development and learning… the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.”[11] - He stresses that **any structured, relational activity** (youth clubs, arts, volunteering) can play a similar role in fostering connection and healthy male identity.[4][6][11] Implications for child‑safeguarding and education work: - Boys who lack **present, prosocial male figures** are at heightened risk of turning to **hyper‑masculine online influencers**, gaming/gambling communities and pornography for scripts about manhood.[1][4][9][12] - Protective factors Southgate highlights—**consistent male mentors, emotionally literate leadership in schools, team‑based activities, and cultures that value character and respect over status**—align with wider safeguarding practice around reducing vulnerability to exploitation and harmful gender norms.[4][5][6][11][15] - His core message for adults around boys is that **“self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key… to their individual future and to that of our country”** and that adults must *actively* model and teach values of courage, humility, integrity and empathy.[10][6]

Gareth Southgate’s 2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture framed a “crisis in masculinity” around **lost, isolated boys**, **toxic online influencers**, and the urgent need for **positive, real‑world male role models**—especially in families, schools, sport and youth work.[3][4][8][12]

Key points relevant to masculinity, role models and boys:

- **Crisis in modern masculinity / “lost boys”**
  - Southgate argued that many young men feel *isolated*, unsure of their place in society, and are struggling with “their sense of masculinity and their overall role in society.”[12]  
  - He drew on the Centre for Social Justice’s idea of “Lost Boys” and the finding that around **2.5 million children in the UK have no father figure at home**.[4]  
  - Commentators summarised his argument as a “crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models.”[13]

- **Toxic influencers vs positive role models**
  - Southgate warned that a **gap in positive male guidance** is being filled by “a new type of role model who does not prioritise [boys’] well‑being.”[12]  
  - He described these figures as **“callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”** on social media, who “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”[5][12]  
  - He argued these influencers are “the antithesis of the role models that our young men truly require.”[12]

- **Gaming, gambling and pornography**
  - In the lecture and related coverage, Southgate expressed concern that **too many boys are retreating into online spaces**—“spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography”[1][2][9]—especially when they lack real‑world communities and support.[1][9]  
  - He linked this to isolation and vulnerability to harmful messages about masculinity online.[1][9][12]

- **What positive male role models should look like**
  - Southgate called for **more mentors and everyday role models**, not just celebrities: “coaches, youth workers, teachers” and other trusted adults who can offer consistent support.[4][5][8]  
  - He emphasised leaders “who set the right tone” and “be the role models we want for our young men,” showing that **“character is more important than status”** and that **“how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.”[10][9]  
  - Positive role models, in his account, model:
    - **Empathy and respect**, including how men treat women.[5][11][12]  
    - **Courage, humility and integrity over selfishness, greed and arrogance.**[10]  
    - **Emotional openness**, explicitly challenging the idea that strength means never showing emotion.[5][12]

- **Belief, resilience and the “three foundations”**
  - Southgate organised his lecture around **belief** and **resilience** as crucial qualities for young men.[1][8]  
  - He argued these rest on **three foundations: “identity, connection and culture.”**[1][2]  
    - **Identity** – helping boys develop a secure sense of who they are, not tied solely to money, dominance or online status.[4][6][12]  
    - **Connection** – building relationships and communities (teams, schools, youth groups, families) so boys are not facing struggles alone.[6][11]  
    - **Culture** – creating environments (in sport, schools, society) where values like respect, effort, learning from failure and supporting others are normal.[1][6][10]  
  - He said “the culture we create today will shape the kind of men that we inherit tomorrow.”[10][8]

- **Teaching boys and girls – “different to get the best out of them”**
  - In subsequent commentary on the lecture, Southgate is reported as saying **“we need to teach boys differently to girls to get the best out of them.”**[3]  
  - This was linked to his view that many boys respond well to environments that emphasise **clear expectations, structure, encouragement, and constructive challenge**, grounded in secure relationships and role modelling.[3][4][11]  
  - The BBC summary notes that he did *not* argue for lower standards, but for **tailored approaches** that recognise boys’ vulnerability to isolation, shame and online harm.[3][6]

- **From toxic to healthy masculinity**
  - Commentaries describe Southgate’s lecture as a call for **“different and better leaders specifically for young men”** and an antidote to “toxic masculinity.”[4][11]  
  - Instead of toughness defined by dominance or emotional suppression, he promotes a version of masculinity based on:
    - **Responsibility to others** and being part of a team or community.[4][6][11]  
    - **Learning from failure** and allowing vulnerability, rather than shaming boys when they struggle.[6][11]  
    - **Mutual support and mentoring**, where older men model empathy and help boys move from isolation into “the communality of wider society.”[6][11]

- **Sport and other settings as protective spaces**
  - Southgate highlighted **sport** as one key environment for building belief, resilience and positive masculinity—where boys can experience teamwork, shared effort, and supportive male mentoring.[4][11]  
  - Commentators draw parallels with projects like *Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams*, where sport gives boys an environment “for mutual support, team development and learning… the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.”[11]  
  - He stresses that **any structured, relational activity** (youth clubs, arts, volunteering) can play a similar role in fostering connection and healthy male identity.[4][6][11]

Implications for child‑safeguarding and education work:

- Boys who lack **present, prosocial male figures** are at heightened risk of turning to **hyper‑masculine online influencers**, gaming/gambling communities and pornography for scripts about manhood.[1][4][9][12]  
- Protective factors Southgate highlights—**consistent male mentors, emotionally literate leadership in schools, team‑based activities, and cultures that value character and respect over status**—align with wider safeguarding practice around reducing vulnerability to exploitation and harmful gender norms.[4][5][6][11][15]  
- His core message for adults around boys is that **“self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key… to their individual future and to that of our country”** and that adults must *actively* model and teach values of courage, humility, integrity and empathy.[10][6]

Gareth Southgate: We need to teach boys differently from girls to get best out of them The way boys are taught in schools should be changed to take account of their "fundamental differences" to girls, Sir Gareth Southgate has said. The former England football manager told the BBC this was needed to tackle the crisis facing boys and young men who feel isolated and are struggling with education, employment, identity and mental health. "I think anybody that's worked with either sex at a younger age knows there are some fundamental differences," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He said to get the most out of young people it "might require a slightly different approach when we're educating and developing young men, compared to educating and developing young women". The 55-year-old has made a documentary for the BBC examining how young men struggling to find work, particularly those who did badly at school, can suffer a cascade of problems later on in life including poor mental health and loss of identity. Gareth Southgate: Changing the Game for Young Men, which is released on Monday, also looks at possible solutions to the crisis, including older men volunteering to be mentors and encouraging more men to go into teaching. He criticised online influencers who were willing to manipulate and "trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance". Speaking to Today presenter Amol Rajan, Sir Gareth warned of historic expectations weighing on boys, and the compounding effect of poor attainment in school, leading to behavioural problems. "That's leading to issues of being employable," he said, referencing a recent study by former Labour minister Alan Milburn about the level of young people not in education, employment or training (Neets). That affects both sexes, he added, but said there were "particular issues for boys". Sir Gareth praised work to empower girls, saying "there's some brilliant work going on creating better opportunities for women" - and that trying to improve outcomes for boys was not a case of "either or". "We've taken our eyes off some of the issues that men face through their lives and we have to start thinking about how we address those, as well as the issues for women and girls," he said. Since the pandemic, the number of men aged 16-24 classified as Neet has risen by 40%. By comparison, it rose 7% for women. For the documentary, Sir Gareth met three young men in Middlesbrough struggling to find work. Taylor, 20, has been looking for a job for the last five months. He used to work in a warehouse but has struggled since then, particularly with the lack of communication from some employers. Many do not inform candidates they have been rejected or provide feedback about why interviews have been unsuccessful, something highlighted in the Milburn report. Joblessness caused Taylor to have feelings of worthlessness. "I just thought, 'I'm clearly not good enough, am I?'" He says he then turned to alcohol. "I just wanted to go out, get drunk with my mates and pretty much forget about everything," he told Sir Gareth. It reached the point where he was drinking most days and getting needlessly angry at his family and friends. He eventually "came to the conclusion that I didn't really want to be around anymore". Taylor was able to change his mind and, in the documentary, Sir Gareth encouraged him to keep believing in himself and praised his strong communication skills. That kind of advice and positive feedback is something the former England manager thinks young people need more of, telling Today he would like to see a "national movement where we're creating more mentors". "There's a lot of people with experience who want to help," he said, adding the country wanted a "story of hope". That feeling has been rising among England fans ahead of the World Cup, which features many players Sir Gareth brought through as manager. "This group of players have now been through so many of the hurdles towards winning that we hadn't been through eight years ago," the former Three Lions defender said, adding he had "become an England fan again". "Winning knockout matches, winning penalty shootouts, getting to finals... we will win a tournament at some point."

Gareth Southgate: We need to teach boys differently from girls to get best out of them
The way boys are taught in schools should be changed to take account of their "fundamental differences" to girls, Sir Gareth Southgate has said.
The former England football manager told the BBC this was needed to tackle the crisis facing boys and young men who feel isolated and are struggling with education, employment, identity and mental health.
"I think anybody that's worked with either sex at a younger age knows there are some fundamental differences," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
He said to get the most out of young people it "might require a slightly different approach when we're educating and developing young men, compared to educating and developing young women".
The 55-year-old has made a documentary for the BBC examining how young men struggling to find work, particularly those who did badly at school, can suffer a cascade of problems later on in life including poor mental health and loss of identity.
Gareth Southgate: Changing the Game for Young Men, which is released on Monday, also looks at possible solutions to the crisis, including older men volunteering to be mentors and encouraging more men to go into teaching.
He criticised online influencers who were willing to manipulate and "trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance".
Speaking to Today presenter Amol Rajan, Sir Gareth warned of historic expectations weighing on boys, and the compounding effect of poor attainment in school, leading to behavioural problems.
"That's leading to issues of being employable," he said, referencing a recent study by former Labour minister Alan Milburn about the level of young people not in education, employment or training (Neets). That affects both sexes, he added, but said there were "particular issues for boys".
Sir Gareth praised work to empower girls, saying "there's some brilliant work going on creating better opportunities for women" - and that trying to improve outcomes for boys was not a case of "either or".
"We've taken our eyes off some of the issues that men face through their lives and we have to start thinking about how we address those, as well as the issues for women and girls," he said.
Since the pandemic, the number of men aged 16-24 classified as Neet has risen by 40%. By comparison, it rose 7% for women.
For the documentary, Sir Gareth met three young men in Middlesbrough struggling to find work.
Taylor, 20, has been looking for a job for the last five months. He used to work in a warehouse but has struggled since then, particularly with the lack of communication from some employers.
Many do not inform candidates they have been rejected or provide feedback about why interviews have been unsuccessful, something highlighted in the Milburn report.
Joblessness caused Taylor to have feelings of worthlessness. "I just thought, 'I'm clearly not good enough, am I?'" He says he then turned to alcohol.
"I just wanted to go out, get drunk with my mates and pretty much forget about everything," he told Sir Gareth.
It reached the point where he was drinking most days and getting needlessly angry at his family and friends. He eventually "came to the conclusion that I didn't really want to be around anymore".
Taylor was able to change his mind and, in the documentary, Sir Gareth encouraged him to keep believing in himself and praised his strong communication skills.
That kind of advice and positive feedback is something the former England manager thinks young people need more of, telling Today he would like to see a "national movement where we're creating more mentors".
"There's a lot of people with experience who want to help," he said, adding the country wanted a "story of hope".
That feeling has been rising among England fans ahead of the World Cup, which features many players Sir Gareth brought through as manager.
"This group of players have now been through so many of the hurdles towards winning that we hadn't been through eight years ago," the former Three Lions defender said, adding he had "become an England fan again".
"Winning knockout matches, winning penalty shootouts, getting to finals... we will win a tournament at some point."

In the typically modest mode we’ve come to associate with Sir Gareth Southgate he began the prestigious 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture by paying homage to some of the speakers who had gone before him, as he said, princes and presidents. Unlike many of those earlier speakers Southgate had ended his formal education long before Oxbridge or any other university. His was a football apprenticeship experiencing the highs of being picked for Southampton at 13 years old and the lows as he was dropped two years later. He struggled to get back into professional football but determination took him to Crystal Palace at 16 years old where his manager at the time told him “you’re a nice chap, if you were my son I’d be proud, but actually you are weak and you’re not cut out to be in the first team.” Obviously, Southgate proved him wrong and he went on famously to play for England, miss a deciding penalty, experience vilification and hatred on a national level only to keep going, keep believing in himself and with the utmost resilience returned years later as a very successful England manager. Perhaps, despite what many football fans like to believe, one of our best. When I asked our decorator, both a caring family man and a self-proclaimed follower of Russell Brand’s philosophy, what he thought of Southgate he pondered for a while – he seemed reluctant to even have a view – but finally said, “well he looks weak doesn’t he?” He then compared him with ‘real leaders’ like Putin whom he admired for excelling at Taekwondo and sitting bare-chested on a horse. His dismissal of Southgate was complete when he said, “who knows if England needed him? Perhaps they’d have got that far without him.” Southgate’s lecture revolved around the need for different and better leaders specifically for young men. It pointed to the sense of isolation of the ‘Lost Boys’ of the Centre for Social Justice, who recently reported that in the UK 2.5 million children have no father figure at home. Southgate was making a plea for more positive role models, mentors, outside the immediate family – coaches, youth workers, teachers – as he believes the void is currently filled by a new type of role model: ‘callous, toxic influencers’ on social media who only have their own, often commercial, interests at heart. He didn’t bother to name Jordan Peterson, Adin Ross, Sneako or Hamza Ahmed, but they, alongside the infamous Tate brothers, were clearly front of mind. Influencers whose misogynistic views have gained millions of followers in the UK. Nor did he mention by name the current leader of the free world either. Arguably the most powerful parental figure. But Southgate’s argument flows. If this global father figure famously believes it’s ok to boast about ‘grabbing pussy’, and to publicly humiliate other world leaders (Zelenskyy, Biden for example), then what hope for boys beginning to wonder about how to find a place in the world and make their mark with respect? It was a powerful lecture, funny, self-deprecating, deeply thoughtful drawing as it did on Southgate’s personal determination to change the culture of the England men’s football team when he was manager. He put an emphasis on the team connecting, communicating and expressing difficult feelings. He put in as team captain and deputy Harry Kane and Jordan Henderson as he believed they were role models off the pitch as well as on it. The lecture raises important questions about why courtesy and decency, especially if wrapped up in the quietly spoken, can seem weak and might be rejected as leadership material. Why young boys seem currently more likely to turn to the brash ‘authority’ of men whose world view is of dominance and financial superiority. Southgate’s Dimbleby Lecture was broadcast days after Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham’s Adolescence started making waves. They are singing from the same hymn sheet as Femi Koleoso of 2025 Brit Award winning Ezra Collective. Koleoso credited youth clubs as playing a huge part in getting him started and is eloquent in making a strong connection between demise of those clubs and the rise in knife crime and that same sense of isolation of which Southgate spoke. How Southgate aimed to change the philosophy of the England men’s football team is also played out in James Graham’s hugely successful play, Dear England. It has just returned to the National Theatre in an updated form. Sadly, no 2024 win in the Euros as its new conclusion but it is a wonderfully entertaining amplification of the Southgate philosophy. I would highly recommend a trip alongside listening to the 2025 Richard Dimbleby lecture. Neither may not seem an obvious choice for psychotherapists, counsellors and coaches but especially in Southgate’s lecture there is much to learn and consider which can help us understand our clients in the rapidly changing world of social media. Southgate, like Thorne, Graham and Koleoso are helping to move the dial and extend the possibility of hope in a part of society that can often feel as if it is sliding into hopelessness.

In the typically modest mode we’ve come to associate with Sir Gareth Southgate he began the prestigious 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture by paying homage to some of the speakers who had gone before him, as he said, princes and presidents. Unlike many of those earlier speakers Southgate had ended his formal education long before Oxbridge or any other university. His was a football apprenticeship experiencing the highs of being picked for Southampton at 13 years old and the lows as he was dropped two years later. He struggled to get back into professional football but determination took him to Crystal Palace at 16 years old where his manager at the time told him “you’re a nice chap, if you were my son I’d be proud, but actually you are weak and you’re not cut out to be in the first team.”
Obviously, Southgate proved him wrong and he went on famously to play for England, miss a deciding penalty, experience vilification and hatred on a national level only to keep going, keep believing in himself and with the utmost resilience returned years later as a very successful England manager. Perhaps, despite what many football fans like to believe, one of our best.
When I asked our decorator, both a caring family man and a self-proclaimed follower of Russell Brand’s philosophy, what he thought of Southgate he pondered for a while – he seemed reluctant to even have a view – but finally said, “well he looks weak doesn’t he?” He then compared him with ‘real leaders’ like Putin whom he admired for excelling at Taekwondo and sitting bare-chested on a horse. His dismissal of Southgate was complete when he said, “who knows if England needed him? Perhaps they’d have got that far without him.”
Southgate’s lecture revolved around the need for different and better leaders specifically for young men. It pointed to the sense of isolation of the ‘Lost Boys’ of the Centre for Social Justice, who recently reported that in the UK 2.5 million children have no father figure at home. Southgate was making a plea for more positive role models, mentors, outside the immediate family – coaches, youth workers, teachers – as he believes the void is currently filled by a new type of role model: ‘callous, toxic influencers’ on social media who only have their own, often commercial, interests at heart. He didn’t bother to name Jordan Peterson, Adin Ross, Sneako or Hamza Ahmed, but they, alongside the infamous Tate brothers, were clearly front of mind. Influencers whose misogynistic views have gained millions of followers in the UK.
Nor did he mention by name the current leader of the free world either. Arguably the most powerful parental figure. But Southgate’s argument flows. If this global father figure famously believes it’s ok to boast about ‘grabbing pussy’, and to publicly humiliate other world leaders (Zelenskyy, Biden for example), then what hope for boys beginning to wonder about how to find a place in the world and make their mark with respect?
It was a powerful lecture, funny, self-deprecating, deeply thoughtful drawing as it did on Southgate’s personal determination to change the culture of the England men’s football team when he was manager. He put an emphasis on the team connecting, communicating and expressing difficult feelings. He put in as team captain and deputy Harry Kane and Jordan Henderson as he believed they were role models off the pitch as well as on it. The lecture raises important questions about why courtesy and decency, especially if wrapped up in the quietly spoken, can seem weak and might be rejected as leadership material. Why young boys seem currently more likely to turn to the brash ‘authority’ of men whose world view is of dominance and financial superiority.
Southgate’s Dimbleby Lecture was broadcast days after Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham’s Adolescence started making waves. They are singing from the same hymn sheet as Femi Koleoso of 2025 Brit Award winning Ezra Collective. Koleoso credited youth clubs as playing a huge part in getting him started and is eloquent in making a strong connection between demise of those clubs and the rise in knife crime and that same sense of isolation of which Southgate spoke.
How Southgate aimed to change the philosophy of the England men’s football team is also played out in James Graham’s hugely successful play, Dear England. It has just returned to the National Theatre in an updated form. Sadly, no 2024 win in the Euros as its new conclusion but it is a wonderfully entertaining amplification of the Southgate philosophy. I would highly recommend a trip alongside listening to the 2025 Richard Dimbleby lecture. Neither may not seem an obvious choice for psychotherapists, counsellors and coaches but especially in Southgate’s lecture there is much to learn and consider which can help us understand our clients in the rapidly changing world of social media. Southgate, like Thorne, Graham and Koleoso are helping to move the dial and extend the possibility of hope in a part of society that can often feel as if it is sliding into hopelessness.

The role models young men need aren’t going to be found on social media Gareth Southgate gets it—now we need systems that do, too. Listen to this article At the BBC’s annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Gareth Southgate spoke about the deep harm being caused by online influencers who exploit the gap in support for young men, offering advice that ultimately only serves their own narrow interests, and at a great cost to young men and society. "They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them." In a week that’s seen the release of Netflix’s highly acclaimed drama, Adolescence, the most extreme consequences of this influence have been on the minds of many parents and teachers. Yet, to prevent harm, we need to see this as a mainstream issue. We desperately need to provide young men with space to explore their questions about relationships, their part in the world, and the future, and we need communities and involved adults supporting our young people. Southgate highlighted the importance of role models for young men, from coaches to teachers and youth workers. But for these mentors to truly make a difference, they need support too. Teachers need training to confidently navigate conversations about relationships and wellbeing. Schools need funding for pastoral support, and to provide experts to provide space for the more challenging explorations for young men and masculinities. Coaches must develop communication skills that go beyond gameplay tactics, including emotional literacy and relationships. At Beyond Equality, we’ve seen firsthand how small changes in approach can transform the spaces where young men learn and grow. We’ve worked with hundreds of teachers, coaches, and community leaders, helping them shift from reacting to challenges with authority to guiding with empathy and understanding of the experiences the boys have. In schools, we’ve supported teachers who want to better understand how boys process emotions. In football academies, we’ve helped coaches recognise the unspoken pressures young players feel, creating environments where boys are encouraged to express vulnerability rather than suppress it. Crucially, we also do direct work with tens of thousands of young men. So much of what men and boys have been taught about relationships, strength and mental well-being is outdated and not serving them. This work has included direct challenges to the ideas they’re frequently exposed to that tell them women are against them. Over the past three years we have seen a disturbing rise, particularly in schools and online, of explicitly sexist attitudes. Street harassment rates remain high, women teachers have faced abuse in classrooms, and digital violence and harassment is rife. Men have a particularly important role to play in creating this change. Many adult men in our workshops, reflecting on their own childhoods, recognise that they were never given real tools to look after themselves emotionally. The approaches they learned—bottling things up, pushing through in silence—often left them isolated rather than resilient. Sometimes it’s not until they are older men, retired, going through bereavement counselling that they start to develop the language and skills to process their own emotions. Now, many of these same men want to provide something better for the next generation—but they need support to do so. But for this to happen, more new dads, including those who are self-employed, need a decent amount of paid paternity leave to give them the space and resources to get to grips with fatherhood. All fathers and all families need decent pay, working conditions and in-work benefits that enable them to take time away from work to support their families when they need to. We should be aware of the way types of employment and access to flexible hours impact these opportunities to maintain ongoing relationships. Boys need role models and mentors—but we can’t expect the adults in their lives to fill these roles without systems that enable them. Positive voices like Gareth Southgate’s, who acknowledge men’s struggles while offering hope, are a step in the right direction. The question now is: how do we ensure that every teacher, coach, youth worker, and parent has what they need to guide the next generation? ________________ Dan Guinness is managing director of Beyond Equality. Holly Green is head of Head of Quality, Learning and Impact at Beyond Equality. LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position. To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk

The role models young men need aren’t going to be found on social media
Gareth Southgate gets it—now we need systems that do, too.
Listen to this article
At the BBC’s annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Gareth Southgate spoke about the deep harm being caused by online influencers who exploit the gap in support for young men, offering advice that ultimately only serves their own narrow interests, and at a great cost to young men and society. "They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them."
In a week that’s seen the release of Netflix’s highly acclaimed drama, Adolescence, the most extreme consequences of this influence have been on the minds of many parents and teachers.
Yet, to prevent harm, we need to see this as a mainstream issue. We desperately need to provide young men with space to explore their questions about relationships, their part in the world, and the future, and we need communities and involved adults supporting our young people.
Southgate highlighted the importance of role models for young men, from coaches to teachers and youth workers. But for these mentors to truly make a difference, they need support too.
Teachers need training to confidently navigate conversations about relationships and wellbeing. Schools need funding for pastoral support, and to provide experts to provide space for the more challenging explorations for young men and masculinities. Coaches must develop communication skills that go beyond gameplay tactics, including emotional literacy and relationships.
At Beyond Equality, we’ve seen firsthand how small changes in approach can transform the spaces where young men learn and grow. We’ve worked with hundreds of teachers, coaches, and community leaders, helping them shift from reacting to challenges with authority to guiding with empathy and understanding of the experiences the boys have.
In schools, we’ve supported teachers who want to better understand how boys process emotions. In football academies, we’ve helped coaches recognise the unspoken pressures young players feel, creating environments where boys are encouraged to express vulnerability rather than suppress it.
Crucially, we also do direct work with tens of thousands of young men. So much of what men and boys have been taught about relationships, strength and mental well-being is outdated and not serving them. This work has included direct challenges to the ideas they’re frequently exposed to that tell them women are against them.
Over the past three years we have seen a disturbing rise, particularly in schools and online, of explicitly sexist attitudes. Street harassment rates remain high, women teachers have faced abuse in classrooms, and digital violence and harassment is rife.
Men have a particularly important role to play in creating this change. Many adult men in our workshops, reflecting on their own childhoods, recognise that they were never given real tools to look after themselves emotionally. The approaches they learned—bottling things up, pushing through in silence—often left them isolated rather than resilient. Sometimes it’s not until they are older men, retired, going through bereavement counselling that they start to develop the language and skills to process their own emotions.
Now, many of these same men want to provide something better for the next generation—but they need support to do so. But for this to happen, more new dads, including those who are self-employed, need a decent amount of paid paternity leave to give them the space and resources to get to grips with fatherhood. All fathers and all families need decent pay, working conditions and in-work benefits that enable them to take time away from work to support their families when they need to.
We should be aware of the way types of employment and access to flexible hours impact these opportunities to maintain ongoing relationships. Boys need role models and mentors—but we can’t expect the adults in their lives to fill these roles without systems that enable them.
Positive voices like Gareth Southgate’s, who acknowledge men’s struggles while offering hope, are a step in the right direction. The question now is: how do we ensure that every teacher, coach, youth worker, and parent has what they need to guide the next generation?
________________
Dan Guinness is managing director of Beyond Equality.
Holly Green is head of Head of Quality, Learning and Impact at Beyond Equality.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk

Boys used to be raised by their parents. Now, as they grow up, an increasing number are coming under the influence of toxic online figures who push a hollow, misogynistic version of masculinity. This isn’t helping their character or their relationships. But it does work for a digital world where worth is measured in money, status and appearance. Girls have long seen their mental health suffer from social media comparisons and phone addiction. But that doesn’t make it any less troubling now that boys are being similarly affected. In his Richard Dimbleby lecture for the BBC, Sir Gareth Southgate made a cogent case that young men are being failed by modern society – not just by absent role models, but by a culture that doesn’t acknowledge failure and vulnerability while exposing them to damaging digital influences. Without real-life guidance, they can withdraw, becoming reluctant to talk or unable to express their emotions. Boys can fall into an unhealthy world of gaming, gambling and pornography. This void, the former England football manager warned, is also being filled by “callous, manipulative and toxic influencers whose sole drive is for their own gain”. They trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or emotionless dominance. That seems hard to refute – and is affecting society for the worse. Polls suggest men and women belonging to gen Z are more polarised than any other generation on questions about feminism, gender roles and women’s rights – with a clear increase in sexist attitudes. There must be a concerted effort to reverse such trends. That boys are now more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their dad is striking. Politicians, enamoured with hi-tech progress, must reckon with the impact: it’s now easier to connect to a global network than to build a local community, easier to consume endless content than to find real-world mentors. Encouraging boys to be resilient, empathetic and capable of real relationships requires investment in families, schools and youth clubs that foster connection. They need space to be themselves – and the confidence to reject the empty validation of a social media feed. Resilience isn’t innate; it’s built through experience, effort and good example. If literature – as evidenced by the young adult novels on the Carnegie medal shortlist – is beginning to explore the struggles of young boys, mainstream entertainment is exploring a darker narrative. The Netflix drama Adolescence, about a teenage boy accused of murder, has had the country – from the prime minister down – glued to their screens. While the show has rightfully garnered rave reviews, boys should not be seen as dangerous or inherently suspect – they are children who need care and support just as much as girls do. Apple’s iPhone arrived in 2007. Mobile social media apps followed, offering access and unimaginable connections to a new generation. But they didn’t just change masculinity – they monetised it. Instead of mentors, boys get marketers; instead of guidance, they get grifters; instead of role models, they get algorithms. Sir Gareth stressed the need to create a world where young people feel valued beyond just success. Because when society worships wealth and power, it is the young who suffer most from knowing they have neither. - Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Boys used to be raised by their parents. Now, as they grow up, an increasing number are coming under the influence of toxic online figures who push a hollow, misogynistic version of masculinity. This isn’t helping their character or their relationships. But it does work for a digital world where worth is measured in money, status and appearance. Girls have long seen their mental health suffer from social media comparisons and phone addiction. But that doesn’t make it any less troubling now that boys are being similarly affected.
In his Richard Dimbleby lecture for the BBC, Sir Gareth Southgate made a cogent case that young men are being failed by modern society – not just by absent role models, but by a culture that doesn’t acknowledge failure and vulnerability while exposing them to damaging digital influences. Without real-life guidance, they can withdraw, becoming reluctant to talk or unable to express their emotions. Boys can fall into an unhealthy world of gaming, gambling and pornography.
This void, the former England football manager warned, is also being filled by “callous, manipulative and toxic influencers whose sole drive is for their own gain”. They trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or emotionless dominance. That seems hard to refute – and is affecting society for the worse. Polls suggest men and women belonging to gen Z are more polarised than any other generation on questions about feminism, gender roles and women’s rights – with a clear increase in sexist attitudes. There must be a concerted effort to reverse such trends.
That boys are now more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their dad is striking. Politicians, enamoured with hi-tech progress, must reckon with the impact: it’s now easier to connect to a global network than to build a local community, easier to consume endless content than to find real-world mentors.
Encouraging boys to be resilient, empathetic and capable of real relationships requires investment in families, schools and youth clubs that foster connection. They need space to be themselves – and the confidence to reject the empty validation of a social media feed. Resilience isn’t innate; it’s built through experience, effort and good example.
If literature – as evidenced by the young adult novels on the Carnegie medal shortlist – is beginning to explore the struggles of young boys, mainstream entertainment is exploring a darker narrative. The Netflix drama Adolescence, about a teenage boy accused of murder, has had the country – from the prime minister down – glued to their screens. While the show has rightfully garnered rave reviews, boys should not be seen as dangerous or inherently suspect – they are children who need care and support just as much as girls do.
Apple’s iPhone arrived in 2007. Mobile social media apps followed, offering access and unimaginable connections to a new generation. But they didn’t just change masculinity – they monetised it. Instead of mentors, boys get marketers; instead of guidance, they get grifters; instead of role models, they get algorithms. Sir Gareth stressed the need to create a world where young people feel valued beyond just success. Because when society worships wealth and power, it is the young who suffer most from knowing they have neither.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Episode details Available for over a year Sir Gareth Southgate has said apprenticeships ‘have become a dirty word’ as he looks to tackle the issues facing young men when it comes to education and work. Speaking to Amol Rajan for the Today programme about his new documentary, 'Changing the Game for Young Men', the former England men’s football manager said the issue is “complex” and pointed out that a lack of positive male role models can lead to boys looking elsewhere for guidance. The former footballer was also asked about England’s World Cup prospects, enthusing that he gets to “become an England fan again” after standing down as manager in 2024. Programme Website

Episode details
Available for over a year
Sir Gareth Southgate has said apprenticeships ‘have become a dirty word’ as he looks to tackle the issues facing young men when it comes to education and work. Speaking to Amol Rajan for the Today programme about his new documentary, 'Changing the Game for Young Men', the former England men’s football manager said the issue is “complex” and pointed out that a lack of positive male role models can lead to boys looking elsewhere for guidance. The former footballer was also asked about England’s World Cup prospects, enthusing that he gets to “become an England fan again” after standing down as manager in 2024.
Programme Website

The former England manager followed in the footsteps of famous authors, actors, entrepreneurs and members of the Royal Family in delivering the 46th Richard Dimbleby Lecture at the University of London. Titled ‘The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation’, Sir Gareth used the address to address the influence of social media and influencers and a lack of present male role models in the lives of the current generation of young men. The former defender has visited community centres, schools and a prison in recent months, and he said: “Today, young people are bombarded by information at all times of the day. “They are targeted with images of the perfect body, the perfect career and the perfect life. A beautifully crafted highlights reel where success appears to be instant and effortless. How can this make them feel good about themselves? “The solutions are complex because bad habits have been formed. But ignoring the negative impact of social media on our young people is not an option.” Sir Gareth also expressed his belief that boys are not given enough chance to experience failure as children and develop the resilience needed to overcome it. “There’s one topic that keeps being brought to my attention. And it’s parents who keep raising it,” Sir Gareth said. “Young men are suffering. They are feeling isolated. They’re grappling with their masculinity and with their broader place in society.” He said a lack of mentors is causing more young men to become reluctant to express their emotions. “They spend more time online searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives like gaming, gambling and pornography,” Sir Gareth said. “And this void is filled by a new kind of role model who do not have their best interest at heart. These are callous, manipulative and toxic influencers, whose sole drive is for their own gain. They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, never showing emotion, and that the world – including women – is against them. They are as far away as you could possibly get from the role models our young men need in their lives.” Read More He added: “With England, we gave ourselves the best chance to succeed. And we must give our young men the best chance to succeed as well. That’s the message we need to offer young men today. “Not everyone will win trophies, not everyone will be at the top of their field. But everyone can live a life where they can constantly strive to improve. “That is how we will create a young generation, a society, and a nation of which we can all be very proud. And I’m looking forward to playing whatever role I can to help make it happen.” The former England manager described how his career as a player and manager has shaped his view of society. “Tonight, I want to talk about two very different penalty kicks, separated by more than two decades, but connected by two characteristics far more powerful than football,” said the 54-year-old, who stepped down after eight years in charge of England following last summer’s European Championship final defeat by Spain. “These characteristics have picked me up when I’ve been down, grounded me in success, and given me purpose amidst the noise of public life. They are qualities that everyone, young and old, needs every day of their lives. They are belief and resilience.” Starting with his missed penalty at Euro 96 that ended England’s hopes of reaching the final, which he said would always haunt him, Sir Gareth described how he had learned to grow from difficult experiences. He made changing the culture and image of the England team his biggest priority after taking over the hot seat and saw the difference when Eric Dier stepped up to the penalty spot to send England through to the quarter-finals at the World Cup in 2018. “In 1996, I had walked 30 yards to the penalty spot believing I would miss,” said Sir Gareth. “In 2018, Eric had walked the same 30 yards believing he would score.” :: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture with Sir Gareth Southgate is available now on BBC iPlayer and on BBC One at 10:40pm on Wednesday 19 March.

The former England manager followed in the footsteps of famous authors, actors, entrepreneurs and members of the Royal Family in delivering the 46th Richard Dimbleby Lecture at the University of London.
Titled ‘The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation’, Sir Gareth used the address to address the influence of social media and influencers and a lack of present male role models in the lives of the current generation of young men.
The former defender has visited community centres, schools and a prison in recent months, and he said: “Today, young people are bombarded by information at all times of the day.
“They are targeted with images of the perfect body, the perfect career and the perfect life. A beautifully crafted highlights reel where success appears to be instant and effortless. How can this make them feel good about themselves?
“The solutions are complex because bad habits have been formed. But ignoring the negative impact of social media on our young people is not an option.”
Sir Gareth also expressed his belief that boys are not given enough chance to experience failure as children and develop the resilience needed to overcome it.
“There’s one topic that keeps being brought to my attention. And it’s parents who keep raising it,” Sir Gareth said. “Young men are suffering. They are feeling isolated. They’re grappling with their masculinity and with their broader place in society.”
He said a lack of mentors is causing more young men to become reluctant to express their emotions.
“They spend more time online searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives like gaming, gambling and pornography,” Sir Gareth said.
“And this void is filled by a new kind of role model who do not have their best interest at heart. These are callous, manipulative and toxic influencers, whose sole drive is for their own gain. They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, never showing emotion, and that the world – including women – is against them. They are as far away as you could possibly get from the role models our young men need in their lives.”
Read More
He added: “With England, we gave ourselves the best chance to succeed. And we must give our young men the best chance to succeed as well. That’s the message we need to offer young men today.
“Not everyone will win trophies, not everyone will be at the top of their field. But everyone can live a life where they can constantly strive to improve.
“That is how we will create a young generation, a society, and a nation of which we can all be very proud. And I’m looking forward to playing whatever role I can to help make it happen.”
The former England manager described how his career as a player and manager has shaped his view of society.
“Tonight, I want to talk about two very different penalty kicks, separated by more than two decades, but connected by two characteristics far more powerful than football,” said the 54-year-old, who stepped down after eight years in charge of England following last summer’s European Championship final defeat by Spain.
“These characteristics have picked me up when I’ve been down, grounded me in success, and given me purpose amidst the noise of public life. They are qualities that everyone, young and old, needs every day of their lives. They are belief and resilience.”
Starting with his missed penalty at Euro 96 that ended England’s hopes of reaching the final, which he said would always haunt him, Sir Gareth described how he had learned to grow from difficult experiences.
He made changing the culture and image of the England team his biggest priority after taking over the hot seat and saw the difference when Eric Dier stepped up to the penalty spot to send England through to the quarter-finals at the World Cup in 2018.
“In 1996, I had walked 30 yards to the penalty spot believing I would miss,” said Sir Gareth. “In 2018, Eric had walked the same 30 yards believing he would score.”
:: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture with Sir Gareth Southgate is available now on BBC iPlayer and on BBC One at 10:40pm on Wednesday 19 March.

Gareth Southgate’s 2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture framed a “crisis in masculinity” around **lost, isolated boys**, **toxic online influencers**, and the urgent need for **positive, real‑world male role models**—especially in families, schools, sport and youth work.[3][4][8][12] Key points relevant to masculinity, role models and boys: - **Crisis in modern masculinity / “lost boys”** - Southgate argued that many young men feel *isolated*, unsure of their place in society, and are struggling with “their sense of masculinity and their overall role in society.”[12] - He drew on the Centre for Social Justice’s idea of “Lost Boys” and the finding that around **2.5 million children in the UK have no father figure at home**.[4] - Commentators summarised his argument as a “crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models.”[13] - **Toxic influencers vs positive role models** - Southgate warned that a **gap in positive male guidance** is being filled by “a new type of role model who does not prioritise [boys’] well‑being.”[12] - He described these figures as **“callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”** on social media, who “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”[5][12] - He argued these influencers are “the antithesis of the role models that our young men truly require.”[12] - **Gaming, gambling and pornography** - In the lecture and related coverage, Southgate expressed concern that **too many boys are retreating into online spaces**—“spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography”[1][2][9]—especially when they lack real‑world communities and support.[1][9] - He linked this to isolation and vulnerability to harmful messages about masculinity online.[1][9][12] - **What positive male role models should look like** - Southgate called for **more mentors and everyday role models**, not just celebrities: “coaches, youth workers, teachers” and other trusted adults who can offer consistent support.[4][5][8] - He emphasised leaders “who set the right tone” and “be the role models we want for our young men,” showing that **“character is more important than status”** and that **“how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.”[10][9] - Positive role models, in his account, model: - **Empathy and respect**, including how men treat women.[5][11][12] - **Courage, humility and integrity over selfishness, greed and arrogance.**[10] - **Emotional openness**, explicitly challenging the idea that strength means never showing emotion.[5][12] - **Belief, resilience and the “three foundations”** - Southgate organised his lecture around **belief** and **resilience** as crucial qualities for young men.[1][8] - He argued these rest on **three foundations: “identity, connection and culture.”**[1][2] - **Identity** – helping boys develop a secure sense of who they are, not tied solely to money, dominance or online status.[4][6][12] - **Connection** – building relationships and communities (teams, schools, youth groups, families) so boys are not facing struggles alone.[6][11] - **Culture** – creating environments (in sport, schools, society) where values like respect, effort, learning from failure and supporting others are normal.[1][6][10] - He said “the culture we create today will shape the kind of men that we inherit tomorrow.”[10][8] - **Teaching boys and girls – “different to get the best out of them”** - In subsequent commentary on the lecture, Southgate is reported as saying **“we need to teach boys differently to girls to get the best out of them.”**[3] - This was linked to his view that many boys respond well to environments that emphasise **clear expectations, structure, encouragement, and constructive challenge**, grounded in secure relationships and role modelling.[3][4][11] - The BBC summary notes that he did *not* argue for lower standards, but for **tailored approaches** that recognise boys’ vulnerability to isolation, shame and online harm.[3][6] - **From toxic to healthy masculinity** - Commentaries describe Southgate’s lecture as a call for **“different and better leaders specifically for young men”** and an antidote to “toxic masculinity.”[4][11] - Instead of toughness defined by dominance or emotional suppression, he promotes a version of masculinity based on: - **Responsibility to others** and being part of a team or community.[4][6][11] - **Learning from failure** and allowing vulnerability, rather than shaming boys when they struggle.[6][11] - **Mutual support and mentoring**, where older men model empathy and help boys move from isolation into “the communality of wider society.”[6][11] - **Sport and other settings as protective spaces** - Southgate highlighted **sport** as one key environment for building belief, resilience and positive masculinity—where boys can experience teamwork, shared effort, and supportive male mentoring.[4][11] - Commentators draw parallels with projects like *Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams*, where sport gives boys an environment “for mutual support, team development and learning… the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.”[11] - He stresses that **any structured, relational activity** (youth clubs, arts, volunteering) can play a similar role in fostering connection and healthy male identity.[4][6][11] Implications for child‑safeguarding and education work: - Boys who lack **present, prosocial male figures** are at heightened risk of turning to **hyper‑masculine online influencers**, gaming/gambling communities and pornography for scripts about manhood.[1][4][9][12] - Protective factors Southgate highlights—**consistent male mentors, emotionally literate leadership in schools, team‑based activities, and cultures that value character and respect over status**—align with wider safeguarding practice around reducing vulnerability to exploitation and harmful gender norms.[4][5][6][11][15] - His core message for adults around boys is that **“self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key… to their individual future and to that of our country”** and that adults must *actively* model and teach values of courage, humility, integrity and empathy.[10][6]

Gareth Southgate’s 2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture framed a “crisis in masculinity” around **lost, isolated boys**, **toxic online influencers**, and the urgent need for **positive, real‑world male role models**—especially in families, schools, sport and youth work.[3][4][8][12]

Key points relevant to masculinity, role models and boys:

- **Crisis in modern masculinity / “lost boys”**
  - Southgate argued that many young men feel *isolated*, unsure of their place in society, and are struggling with “their sense of masculinity and their overall role in society.”[12]  
  - He drew on the Centre for Social Justice’s idea of “Lost Boys” and the finding that around **2.5 million children in the UK have no father figure at home**.[4]  
  - Commentators summarised his argument as a “crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models.”[13]

- **Toxic influencers vs positive role models**
  - Southgate warned that a **gap in positive male guidance** is being filled by “a new type of role model who does not prioritise [boys’] well‑being.”[12]  
  - He described these figures as **“callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”** on social media, who “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”[5][12]  
  - He argued these influencers are “the antithesis of the role models that our young men truly require.”[12]

- **Gaming, gambling and pornography**
  - In the lecture and related coverage, Southgate expressed concern that **too many boys are retreating into online spaces**—“spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography”[1][2][9]—especially when they lack real‑world communities and support.[1][9]  
  - He linked this to isolation and vulnerability to harmful messages about masculinity online.[1][9][12]

- **What positive male role models should look like**
  - Southgate called for **more mentors and everyday role models**, not just celebrities: “coaches, youth workers, teachers” and other trusted adults who can offer consistent support.[4][5][8]  
  - He emphasised leaders “who set the right tone” and “be the role models we want for our young men,” showing that **“character is more important than status”** and that **“how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.”[10][9]  
  - Positive role models, in his account, model:
    - **Empathy and respect**, including how men treat women.[5][11][12]  
    - **Courage, humility and integrity over selfishness, greed and arrogance.**[10]  
    - **Emotional openness**, explicitly challenging the idea that strength means never showing emotion.[5][12]

- **Belief, resilience and the “three foundations”**
  - Southgate organised his lecture around **belief** and **resilience** as crucial qualities for young men.[1][8]  
  - He argued these rest on **three foundations: “identity, connection and culture.”**[1][2]  
    - **Identity** – helping boys develop a secure sense of who they are, not tied solely to money, dominance or online status.[4][6][12]  
    - **Connection** – building relationships and communities (teams, schools, youth groups, families) so boys are not facing struggles alone.[6][11]  
    - **Culture** – creating environments (in sport, schools, society) where values like respect, effort, learning from failure and supporting others are normal.[1][6][10]  
  - He said “the culture we create today will shape the kind of men that we inherit tomorrow.”[10][8]

- **Teaching boys and girls – “different to get the best out of them”**
  - In subsequent commentary on the lecture, Southgate is reported as saying **“we need to teach boys differently to girls to get the best out of them.”**[3]  
  - This was linked to his view that many boys respond well to environments that emphasise **clear expectations, structure, encouragement, and constructive challenge**, grounded in secure relationships and role modelling.[3][4][11]  
  - The BBC summary notes that he did *not* argue for lower standards, but for **tailored approaches** that recognise boys’ vulnerability to isolation, shame and online harm.[3][6]

- **From toxic to healthy masculinity**
  - Commentaries describe Southgate’s lecture as a call for **“different and better leaders specifically for young men”** and an antidote to “toxic masculinity.”[4][11]  
  - Instead of toughness defined by dominance or emotional suppression, he promotes a version of masculinity based on:
    - **Responsibility to others** and being part of a team or community.[4][6][11]  
    - **Learning from failure** and allowing vulnerability, rather than shaming boys when they struggle.[6][11]  
    - **Mutual support and mentoring**, where older men model empathy and help boys move from isolation into “the communality of wider society.”[6][11]

- **Sport and other settings as protective spaces**
  - Southgate highlighted **sport** as one key environment for building belief, resilience and positive masculinity—where boys can experience teamwork, shared effort, and supportive male mentoring.[4][11]  
  - Commentators draw parallels with projects like *Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams*, where sport gives boys an environment “for mutual support, team development and learning… the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.”[11]  
  - He stresses that **any structured, relational activity** (youth clubs, arts, volunteering) can play a similar role in fostering connection and healthy male identity.[4][6][11]

Implications for child‑safeguarding and education work:

- Boys who lack **present, prosocial male figures** are at heightened risk of turning to **hyper‑masculine online influencers**, gaming/gambling communities and pornography for scripts about manhood.[1][4][9][12]  
- Protective factors Southgate highlights—**consistent male mentors, emotionally literate leadership in schools, team‑based activities, and cultures that value character and respect over status**—align with wider safeguarding practice around reducing vulnerability to exploitation and harmful gender norms.[4][5][6][11][15]  
- His core message for adults around boys is that **“self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key… to their individual future and to that of our country”** and that adults must *actively* model and teach values of courage, humility, integrity and empathy.[10][6]

It's a year since I had the honour of delivering the BBC's Richard Dimbleby Lecture on the subject of belief and resilience in young men. Too many are falling behind in education, employment and training, influenced by the wrong role models and too often spoken about as a problem to be solved rather than potential to develop. The Centre for Social Justice called them the "lost boys". I remember feeling humbled by the reaction it received, especially from mum's who were worried about their son's. It inspired me to spend the last 12 months listening, learning and observing the environment for young men and trying to piece together what's happening. I've visited schools, charities, community groups, youth clubs and prisons; consulted high court judges, mentors, parents and teachers. Most importantly, I've listened to young men themselves. We should all be grateful for the unsung heroes who are at the sharp end every day, championing and supporting young people. Their energy, passion and commitment motivates me to carry on this work for a long time to come. In the coming weeks and months I'm going to share the findings, in the hope it will make a difference. But one theme hasn't changed since the Dimbleby Lecture that day. It's that self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key....to their individual future and to that of our country. That's something we should all encourage in our young people as they navigate this extremely uncertain world.

It's a year since I had the honour of delivering the BBC's Richard Dimbleby Lecture on the subject of belief and resilience in young men. Too many are falling behind in education, employment and training, influenced by the wrong role models and too often spoken about as a problem to be solved rather than potential to develop. The Centre for Social Justice called them the "lost boys". I remember feeling humbled by the reaction it received, especially from mum's who were worried about their son's. It inspired me to spend the last 12 months listening, learning and observing the environment for young men and trying to piece together what's happening. I've visited schools, charities, community groups, youth clubs and prisons; consulted high court judges, mentors, parents and teachers. Most importantly, I've listened to young men themselves. We should all be grateful for the unsung heroes who are at the sharp end every day, championing and supporting young people. Their energy, passion and commitment motivates me to carry on this work for a long time to come. In the coming weeks and months I'm going to share the findings, in the hope it will make a difference. But one theme hasn't changed since the Dimbleby Lecture that day. It's that self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key....to their individual future and to that of our country. That's something we should all encourage in our young people as they navigate this extremely uncertain world.

There is increasing alarm within the older generation about the forces at work on their children. The most pressing concern is about what they are watching on their smartphones in the privacy of their bedrooms and the damage it is inflicting on their transition into adulthood. For teenage girls, it is a diet of impossible-to-match beauty influencers, creating a generation of the fearful and unconvinced. For boys, it is a barrage of pornography and misogyny that many believe is turning them into emotionally repressed conduits for toxic masculinity. But right now there is an alternative view and it comes from former England manager Sir Gareth Southgate, who has a new mission: to improve outcomes for young men in society. We first heard a hint of this in his delivery of the BBC’s 46th Richard Dimbleby lecture last year. Entitled The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation, Southgate offered an antidote to sinking pessimism about British boys. Speaking without notes for 45 minutes, he addressed many of the issues that Adolescence co-writer Joe Thorne also brilliantly explored last year: what does the future hold for a generation of boys embroiled in tech? He acknowledged that this is a world he, like all of us parents, has little understanding or connection with. In his speech, he also references a report that states that boys are more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their father. And he is back with a similar message in his first television documentary, Gareth Southgate: Changing the Game for Young Men. During the hour-long programme, he travels around the country to speak to struggling boys and the men trying to keep their lives on track. During their conversations, he uses his experience of building a culture of mutual support, tolerance and watching each other’s backs to seek solutions to the issues they are facing. While he recognises the problem seems insurmountable, his prescription is simple. Rather than sneering and snarling, convincing ourselves that the young men in Britain are going to the dogs, we need to show compassion and understanding of how vulnerable many of them are feeling. He also makes the point that older men need to show young men an alternative path. One of empathy and sympathy, courage and resilience. One in which, moreover, character is more important than status. The poison of the Andrew Tate worldview, in which so many young men are indoctrinated, is not simply the misogynistic assumption that women are to blame for all men’s problems. It is also that male success can only be quantified in material terms, that real men have 10 Ferraris. Without explicitly mentioning Tate or other toxic influencers, Southgate suggests that dads and granddads, mentors and youth leaders can counter the negativity that surrounds the next generation by challenging them. Not in order to see them fail, but to help them learn from setbacks and to develop the resilience which will fuel proper growth. Most of all, there is a need, he believes, to ensure that young men are not facing their struggles alone. That they have someone sympathetic and empathetic to turn to. “The culture we create today will shape the kind of men we inherit tomorrow,” is his conclusion. For those with longer memories, there is an irony here in a football figure delivering moral and societal advice from the most establishment of platforms. Such a person would certainly not have been considered a legitimate speaker back in 1985. Just over 40 years to the day that he was addressing his distinguished audience, a riot at an FA Cup match between Luton Town and Millwall presaged one of the darkest times in the history of the game, one which reached a nadir when 39 spectators were crushed to death at the European Cup final at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels months later. Back then, Margaret Thatcher reckoned football was exercising a malignant force on wider society, and that it was at fault for Britain’s faltering standing on the world stage. For her, football hooliganism was the biggest internal threat the country faced. Like Teddy Boys, mods and rockers, television, drugs, and hooliganism fuelled the moral panic of masculinity of that era. Perhaps encouragingly, given our own current fear, it is from a man forged in football that we now seek advice. Not that Southgate for a moment suggests that simply getting every boy in the land to kick a ball will somehow solve all our ills. Indeed, there is a sequence in Thorne’s Adolescence that neatly skewers any such assumption. In it, Cooper’s character recalls going along, at his dad’s insistence, to play in a youth game. Uninterested and unathletic, the boy recalls at one point in the match seeing his father wince at his obvious incompetence. In a later frame, Graham recalls the same incident. He does remember squirming. But rather it is embarrassment at his own wilful exposure of his son to such humiliation. The shame was entirely mutual. Those of us who have stood on the touchline watching our boys engage in the sport will know precisely that feeling. For 10 years I coached my youngest son’s junior team, and some of the things I saw still make me weep in reminiscence. Not least the time we were at a summer tournament, billed as a fun family outing, when the father of a lad on the team we were playing berated his son so much for giving away a penalty, the boy ran off the pitch and climbed a nearby tree where he sat for the rest of the afternoon. His father’s reaction? Shouting in his direction: “Good riddance to bad rubbish.” The boy, incidentally, was nine years old. But what Southgate is suggesting, much like the cricketer did in the magnificent TV series Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams, is that sport, along with any outside interest – is just one of the avenues that can provide an environment for mutual support, team development and learning. This is the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence. The thing is, none of us really knows how best to do this stuff. Southgate has pointed out his parents were much softer on him than their parents had been on them. In turn, he was much softer on his children than his parents were on him. He imagines his children will be much gentler on their children than he was. Where that gets us, he does not know. But what he is arguing for, what he thinks will make the difference is for adults to spend time gently encouraging youngsters away from the solitude they are currently feeling and into the communality of wider society. Anything that offers a challenge and builds character, anything where the fear of failure – whether that is being snubbed by a girl or an employer – can be overcome. Anything where shame can be made irrelevant. It can be done. Far from being already lost, the younger generation is a brilliant, curious bunch, forever keen to find out what they can learn from those who have gone before. It is now up to fathers, uncles, older brothers and friends to be present enough to teach them. There will be those who argue that Southgate is in no position to offer advice about negotiating success, given that he twice, as England manager, fell at the last hurdle. But that is exactly his point. In everything, even football, in which victory is ultimately defined by the lifting of a trophy, there are incidental successes along the way which are just as valuable as the procurement of silverware. Perhaps more so. In charge of England, what he oversaw was a group of men who worked together, strove together, laughed together and, yes, cried together. Like Flintoff, it is in the creation of that positive collective spirit and bond among “brothers” that Southgate reckons lies the best remedy for the crisis facing young men today. “As a society, we’ve got to stop talking about young men as if they’re a problem to be fixed,” Southgate proclaims at the show’s conclusion. And it is up to all of us ol

There is increasing alarm within the older generation about the forces at work on their children. The most pressing concern is about what they are watching on their smartphones in the privacy of their bedrooms and the damage it is inflicting on their transition into adulthood.
For teenage girls, it is a diet of impossible-to-match beauty influencers, creating a generation of the fearful and unconvinced. For boys, it is a barrage of pornography and misogyny that many believe is turning them into emotionally repressed conduits for toxic masculinity.
But right now there is an alternative view and it comes from former England manager Sir Gareth Southgate, who has a new mission: to improve outcomes for young men in society.
We first heard a hint of this in his delivery of the BBC’s 46th Richard Dimbleby lecture last year. Entitled The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation, Southgate offered an antidote to sinking pessimism about British boys.
Speaking without notes for 45 minutes, he addressed many of the issues that Adolescence co-writer Joe Thorne also brilliantly explored last year: what does the future hold for a generation of boys embroiled in tech? He acknowledged that this is a world he, like all of us parents, has little understanding or connection with. In his speech, he also references a report that states that boys are more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their father.
And he is back with a similar message in his first television documentary, Gareth Southgate: Changing the Game for Young Men. During the hour-long programme, he travels around the country to speak to struggling boys and the men trying to keep their lives on track. During their conversations, he uses his experience of building a culture of mutual support, tolerance and watching each other’s backs to seek solutions to the issues they are facing.
While he recognises the problem seems insurmountable, his prescription is simple. Rather than sneering and snarling, convincing ourselves that the young men in Britain are going to the dogs, we need to show compassion and understanding of how vulnerable many of them are feeling. He also makes the point that older men need to show young men an alternative path. One of empathy and sympathy, courage and resilience. One in which, moreover, character is more important than status.
The poison of the Andrew Tate worldview, in which so many young men are indoctrinated, is not simply the misogynistic assumption that women are to blame for all men’s problems. It is also that male success can only be quantified in material terms, that real men have 10 Ferraris.
Without explicitly mentioning Tate or other toxic influencers, Southgate suggests that dads and granddads, mentors and youth leaders can counter the negativity that surrounds the next generation by challenging them. Not in order to see them fail, but to help them learn from setbacks and to develop the resilience which will fuel proper growth.
Most of all, there is a need, he believes, to ensure that young men are not facing their struggles alone. That they have someone sympathetic and empathetic to turn to. “The culture we create today will shape the kind of men we inherit tomorrow,” is his conclusion.
For those with longer memories, there is an irony here in a football figure delivering moral and societal advice from the most establishment of platforms. Such a person would certainly not have been considered a legitimate speaker back in 1985. Just over 40 years to the day that he was addressing his distinguished audience, a riot at an FA Cup match between Luton Town and Millwall presaged one of the darkest times in the history of the game, one which reached a nadir when 39 spectators were crushed to death at the European Cup final at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels months later.
Back then, Margaret Thatcher reckoned football was exercising a malignant force on wider society, and that it was at fault for Britain’s faltering standing on the world stage. For her, football hooliganism was the biggest internal threat the country faced. Like Teddy Boys, mods and rockers, television, drugs, and hooliganism fuelled the moral panic of masculinity of that era.
Perhaps encouragingly, given our own current fear, it is from a man forged in football that we now seek advice. Not that Southgate for a moment suggests that simply getting every boy in the land to kick a ball will somehow solve all our ills. Indeed, there is a sequence in Thorne’s Adolescence that neatly skewers any such assumption. In it, Cooper’s character recalls going along, at his dad’s insistence, to play in a youth game. Uninterested and unathletic, the boy recalls at one point in the match seeing his father wince at his obvious incompetence. In a later frame, Graham recalls the same incident. He does remember squirming. But rather it is embarrassment at his own wilful exposure of his son to such humiliation. The shame was entirely mutual.
Those of us who have stood on the touchline watching our boys engage in the sport will know precisely that feeling. For 10 years I coached my youngest son’s junior team, and some of the things I saw still make me weep in reminiscence. Not least the time we were at a summer tournament, billed as a fun family outing, when the father of a lad on the team we were playing berated his son so much for giving away a penalty, the boy ran off the pitch and climbed a nearby tree where he sat for the rest of the afternoon. His father’s reaction? Shouting in his direction: “Good riddance to bad rubbish.” The boy, incidentally, was nine years old.
But what Southgate is suggesting, much like the cricketer did in the magnificent TV series Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams, is that sport, along with any outside interest – is just one of the avenues that can provide an environment for mutual support, team development and learning. This is the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.
The thing is, none of us really knows how best to do this stuff. Southgate has pointed out his parents were much softer on him than their parents had been on them. In turn, he was much softer on his children than his parents were on him. He imagines his children will be much gentler on their children than he was. Where that gets us, he does not know.
But what he is arguing for, what he thinks will make the difference is for adults to spend time gently encouraging youngsters away from the solitude they are currently feeling and into the communality of wider society. Anything that offers a challenge and builds character, anything where the fear of failure – whether that is being snubbed by a girl or an employer – can be overcome. Anything where shame can be made irrelevant.
It can be done. Far from being already lost, the younger generation is a brilliant, curious bunch, forever keen to find out what they can learn from those who have gone before. It is now up to fathers, uncles, older brothers and friends to be present enough to teach them.
There will be those who argue that Southgate is in no position to offer advice about negotiating success, given that he twice, as England manager, fell at the last hurdle. But that is exactly his point. In everything, even football, in which victory is ultimately defined by the lifting of a trophy, there are incidental successes along the way which are just as valuable as the procurement of silverware. Perhaps more so.
In charge of England, what he oversaw was a group of men who worked together, strove together, laughed together and, yes, cried together. Like Flintoff, it is in the creation of that positive collective spirit and bond among “brothers” that Southgate reckons lies the best remedy for the crisis facing young men today. “As a society, we’ve got to stop talking about young men as if they’re a problem to be fixed,” Southgate proclaims at the show’s conclusion. And it is up to all of us ol

Former England manager Sir Gareth Southgate has warned that young men are being led by “toxic influencers”. Southgate, who stepped down from his role as manager following England’s defeat by Spain in the European Championship final last year, said while giving the BBC’s annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture that “young men are suffering” with feeling “isolated”, leading them to unhealthy solutions. Advertisement Southgate referred to a report released by the Centre for Social Justice earlier this month, which found that young boys without a positive male role model are “in crisis”. “Young men are suffering,” Southgate, 54, said. “They are feeling isolated. They’re grappling with their masculinity and with their broader place in society. “As real world communities and mentorship declines, young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk or express their emotions. They spend more time online, searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives such as gaming, gambling and pornography. “And this void is filled by a new kind of role model who do not have their best interest at heart. “These are callous, manipulative and toxic influencers, whose sole drive is for their own gain. They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, never showing emotion, and that the world… including women… is against them. They are as far away as you could possibly get from the role models our young men need in their lives.” In the wide-ranging talk, Southgate added that he had learned from his career in football that “success is much more than the final score”. The annual lecture has previously been led by King Charles III and Bill Gates. (Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

Former England manager Sir Gareth Southgate has warned that young men are being led by “toxic influencers”.
Southgate, who stepped down from his role as manager following England’s defeat by Spain in the European Championship final last year, said while giving the BBC’s annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture that “young men are suffering” with feeling “isolated”, leading them to unhealthy solutions.
Advertisement
Southgate referred to a report released by the Centre for Social Justice earlier this month, which found that young boys without a positive male role model are “in crisis”.
“Young men are suffering,” Southgate, 54, said. “They are feeling isolated. They’re grappling with their masculinity and with their broader place in society.
“As real world communities and mentorship declines, young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk or express their emotions. They spend more time online, searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives such as gaming, gambling and pornography.
“And this void is filled by a new kind of role model who do not have their best interest at heart.
“These are callous, manipulative and toxic influencers, whose sole drive is for their own gain. They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, never showing emotion, and that the world… including women… is against them. They are as far away as you could possibly get from the role models our young men need in their lives.”
In the wide-ranging talk, Southgate added that he had learned from his career in football that “success is much more than the final score”.
The annual lecture has previously been led by King Charles III and Bill Gates.
(Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

Last night, Gareth Southgate gave the Richard Dimbleby Lecture in which he talked about a crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models. The purpose of this article is not to suggest that he is either right or wrong, still less to analyse the causes of the loss of male role models if he is correct. Rather, it is to provide an indication of where we might find male role models outside the places that are often suggested in the modern age. There is, no doubt, a problem. Around one quarter of children will grow up without a father at home. Families are much smaller and more geographically dispersed, so the extended family does not step in as it used to. There has been an increase in migration which often leads to the splitting up of families, at least temporarily. These challenges will never be solved completely. There will always be difficulties and brokenness in the world. And there are certainly good external role models to whom young males can look outside their families. An increasing number of footballers, for example, live exemplary lives today: you might notice how, when interviewed, modern footballers are often humble and appreciative of the support of others as well as being highly disciplined in their professional life. But there is a source of role models which seems to have been lost. Until the not-too-recent past, it would have been second nature for people to look to the Bible and the saints for male role models. Whatever your situation in life, you can do that. The saints and the characters in the Bible often have the advantage of living exemplary lives whilst also being flawed in certain ways. This contrast is important in understanding the virtues and the realities of human life, as well as providing reassurance and encouragement to those who may lack self-esteem. It happens that Gareth Southgate was giving his lecture on the Feast of St Joseph. He missed an opportunity to mention that – this was a big omission! The life of St Joseph, husband of Mary and foster-father of Jesus Christ, provides a practical example of Christian virtue that all men can seek to imitate in the circumstances of their own lives. Through a succession of General Audiences between November 2021 and February 2022, Pope Francis offered Catechesis on Saint Joseph. Pope Francis drew particular attention to the witness of the cardinal virtues (fortitude, justice, temperance and prudence) in the life of St Joseph. Although these are not exclusively male virtues, their particular manifestation in the example of Joseph can give a clear and compelling guide to men of all ages today. St Joseph demonstrates courage through his trust in God and his loving care for his wife and son in the face of tremendous adversity. In the flight into Egypt, St Joseph leads Mary and Jesus on a long and dangerous journey into a foreign land, protecting his son from the murderous persecution of King Herod. We have two examples here – one to avoid and one to imitate. While Herod lashes out with violence fearing loss of power, St Joseph cares for his loved ones. As Pope Francis describes, Joseph “reacts to fear with courage in God’s Providence”. St Joseph is a man of justice, who seeks to be in right relationship with God and those around him. He responds, in love, to the sudden discovery that Mary has become pregnant while betrothed. Love, in a mature sense, means the willingness to sacrifice one’s more selfish hopes and dreams to more generously love and serve the good of others – that is what St Joseph did. St Joseph is also a man of temperance who embraces the need for silence so that he can better hear and respond to the Word of God. Rather than surrendering to mute passivity or surrounding himself with superficial noise, St Joseph creates space for listening to God so he can then act wisely. As Pope Francis highlights “with his silence, Joseph invites us to leave room for the Presence of the Word made flesh, for Jesus”. In the image of St Joseph, Christian men are called to be contemplative as well as active, to listen as well as to speak and move. The Good Samaritan is a different type of role model. To begin with, he is a fictional figure in a parable, unlike St Joseph. Jesus created the character to express the virtues. The Good Samaritan is a central figure in Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, as well as in Pope Francis’ Fratelli Tutti. The Good Samaritan is, perhaps, an especially good role model for single males. It would appear that he intended to be away from home for a considerable period of time – though many married males may be away from home too. But he took risks that it might be imprudent for a married man with children to take. Single men are freer in that respect. He was travelling a long distance down a notoriously unsafe road and stopped to help a stranger, thus putting himself in greater danger. He was brave; he had courage. He did not apply the virtue of courage in the pursuit of senseless violence or warfare, but to help a stranger in need. He had prudently accumulated some money out of which he could generously provide for the person who had been robbed. And he spent time with the person and made sure he was cared for. As Pope Francis states in Fratelli Tutti, each day we have decisions to make as to whether to help those in need or be an indifferent bystander: the Good Samaritan shows us how to respond. The Good Samaritan was also trusting, and the inn keeper was too. Sometimes trusting a stranger is reckless, but having the courage to trust can also help build mutual confidence and social capital instead of disharmony – populism of the left and right feeds on mistrust. To trust somebody can take courage, including accepting the risk that you might be hurt or disappointed. Referencing his own experiences, Gareth Southgate said that the UK needed to do more to encourage young people – especially young men – to make the right choices in life and not to fear failure. Neither St Joseph nor the Good Samaritan feared failure. He also said that social media influencers “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them”. How different that is from the loving example of St Joseph and the Good Samaritan. There is, of course, an urgent need to spread the Gospel. But the cardinal virtues can be, and should be, practised by all. The cardinal virtues of fortitude, justice and temperance are underpinned by the virtue of prudence. This is the virtue which can help us understand how to apply the lessons of these two figures in our own lives – and we should start by doing so in very ordinary ways. Philip Booth is Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. Naoise Grenham is Policy and Research Analyst at the Bishop’s Conference, but writes in a personal capacity. MOST READ ARTICLES FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK

Last night, Gareth Southgate gave the Richard Dimbleby Lecture in which he talked about a crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models. The purpose of this article is not to suggest that he is either right or wrong, still less to analyse the causes of the loss of male role models if he is correct. Rather, it is to provide an indication of where we might find male role models outside the places that are often suggested in the modern age.
There is, no doubt, a problem. Around one quarter of children will grow up without a father at home. Families are much smaller and more geographically dispersed, so the extended family does not step in as it used to. There has been an increase in migration which often leads to the splitting up of families, at least temporarily. These challenges will never be solved completely. There will always be difficulties and brokenness in the world. And there are certainly good external role models to whom young males can look outside their families. An increasing number of footballers, for example, live exemplary lives today: you might notice how, when interviewed, modern footballers are often humble and appreciative of the support of others as well as being highly disciplined in their professional life.
But there is a source of role models which seems to have been lost. Until the not-too-recent past, it would have been second nature for people to look to the Bible and the saints for male role models. Whatever your situation in life, you can do that. The saints and the characters in the Bible often have the advantage of living exemplary lives whilst also being flawed in certain ways. This contrast is important in understanding the virtues and the realities of human life, as well as providing reassurance and encouragement to those who may lack self-esteem.
It happens that Gareth Southgate was giving his lecture on the Feast of St Joseph. He missed an opportunity to mention that – this was a big omission!
The life of St Joseph, husband of Mary and foster-father of Jesus Christ, provides a practical example of Christian virtue that all men can seek to imitate in the circumstances of their own lives.
Through a succession of General Audiences between November 2021 and February 2022, Pope Francis offered Catechesis on Saint Joseph. Pope Francis drew particular attention to the witness of the cardinal virtues (fortitude, justice, temperance and prudence) in the life of St Joseph. Although these are not exclusively male virtues, their particular manifestation in the example of Joseph can give a clear and compelling guide to men of all ages today.
St Joseph demonstrates courage through his trust in God and his loving care for his wife and son in the face of tremendous adversity. In the flight into Egypt, St Joseph leads Mary and Jesus on a long and dangerous journey into a foreign land, protecting his son from the murderous persecution of King Herod. We have two examples here – one to avoid and one to imitate. While Herod lashes out with violence fearing loss of power, St Joseph cares for his loved ones. As Pope Francis describes, Joseph “reacts to fear with courage in God’s Providence”.
St Joseph is a man of justice, who seeks to be in right relationship with God and those around him. He responds, in love, to the sudden discovery that Mary has become pregnant while betrothed. Love, in a mature sense, means the willingness to sacrifice one’s more selfish hopes and dreams to more generously love and serve the good of others – that is what St Joseph did.
St Joseph is also a man of temperance who embraces the need for silence so that he can better hear and respond to the Word of God. Rather than surrendering to mute passivity or surrounding himself with superficial noise, St Joseph creates space for listening to God so he can then act wisely. As Pope Francis highlights “with his silence, Joseph invites us to leave room for the Presence of the Word made flesh, for Jesus”. In the image of St Joseph, Christian men are called to be contemplative as well as active, to listen as well as to speak and move.
The Good Samaritan is a different type of role model. To begin with, he is a fictional figure in a parable, unlike St Joseph. Jesus created the character to express the virtues. The Good Samaritan is a central figure in Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, as well as in Pope Francis’ Fratelli Tutti.
The Good Samaritan is, perhaps, an especially good role model for single males. It would appear that he intended to be away from home for a considerable period of time – though many married males may be away from home too. But he took risks that it might be imprudent for a married man with children to take. Single men are freer in that respect. He was travelling a long distance down a notoriously unsafe road and stopped to help a stranger, thus putting himself in greater danger. He was brave; he had courage. He did not apply the virtue of courage in the pursuit of senseless violence or warfare, but to help a stranger in need. He had prudently accumulated some money out of which he could generously provide for the person who had been robbed. And he spent time with the person and made sure he was cared for. As Pope Francis states in Fratelli Tutti, each day we have decisions to make as to whether to help those in need or be an indifferent bystander: the Good Samaritan shows us how to respond.
The Good Samaritan was also trusting, and the inn keeper was too. Sometimes trusting a stranger is reckless, but having the courage to trust can also help build mutual confidence and social capital instead of disharmony – populism of the left and right feeds on mistrust. To trust somebody can take courage, including accepting the risk that you might be hurt or disappointed.
Referencing his own experiences, Gareth Southgate said that the UK needed to do more to encourage young people – especially young men – to make the right choices in life and not to fear failure. Neither St Joseph nor the Good Samaritan feared failure. He also said that social media influencers “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them”. How different that is from the loving example of St Joseph and the Good Samaritan.
There is, of course, an urgent need to spread the Gospel. But the cardinal virtues can be, and should be, practised by all. The cardinal virtues of fortitude, justice and temperance are underpinned by the virtue of prudence. This is the virtue which can help us understand how to apply the lessons of these two figures in our own lives – and we should start by doing so in very ordinary ways.
Philip Booth is Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.
Naoise Grenham is Policy and Research Analyst at the Bishop’s Conference, but writes in a personal capacity.
MOST READ ARTICLES
FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK

Gareth Southgate’s 2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture framed a “crisis in masculinity” around **lost, isolated boys**, **toxic online influencers**, and the urgent need for **positive, real‑world male role models**—especially in families, schools, sport and youth work.[3][4][8][12] Key points relevant to masculinity, role models and boys: - **Crisis in modern masculinity / “lost boys”** - Southgate argued that many young men feel *isolated*, unsure of their place in society, and are struggling with “their sense of masculinity and their overall role in society.”[12] - He drew on the Centre for Social Justice’s idea of “Lost Boys” and the finding that around **2.5 million children in the UK have no father figure at home**.[4] - Commentators summarised his argument as a “crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models.”[13] - **Toxic influencers vs positive role models** - Southgate warned that a **gap in positive male guidance** is being filled by “a new type of role model who does not prioritise [boys’] well‑being.”[12] - He described these figures as **“callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”** on social media, who “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”[5][12] - He argued these influencers are “the antithesis of the role models that our young men truly require.”[12] - **Gaming, gambling and pornography** - In the lecture and related coverage, Southgate expressed concern that **too many boys are retreating into online spaces**—“spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography”[1][2][9]—especially when they lack real‑world communities and support.[1][9] - He linked this to isolation and vulnerability to harmful messages about masculinity online.[1][9][12] - **What positive male role models should look like** - Southgate called for **more mentors and everyday role models**, not just celebrities: “coaches, youth workers, teachers” and other trusted adults who can offer consistent support.[4][5][8] - He emphasised leaders “who set the right tone” and “be the role models we want for our young men,” showing that **“character is more important than status”** and that **“how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.”[10][9] - Positive role models, in his account, model: - **Empathy and respect**, including how men treat women.[5][11][12] - **Courage, humility and integrity over selfishness, greed and arrogance.**[10] - **Emotional openness**, explicitly challenging the idea that strength means never showing emotion.[5][12] - **Belief, resilience and the “three foundations”** - Southgate organised his lecture around **belief** and **resilience** as crucial qualities for young men.[1][8] - He argued these rest on **three foundations: “identity, connection and culture.”**[1][2] - **Identity** – helping boys develop a secure sense of who they are, not tied solely to money, dominance or online status.[4][6][12] - **Connection** – building relationships and communities (teams, schools, youth groups, families) so boys are not facing struggles alone.[6][11] - **Culture** – creating environments (in sport, schools, society) where values like respect, effort, learning from failure and supporting others are normal.[1][6][10] - He said “the culture we create today will shape the kind of men that we inherit tomorrow.”[10][8] - **Teaching boys and girls – “different to get the best out of them”** - In subsequent commentary on the lecture, Southgate is reported as saying **“we need to teach boys differently to girls to get the best out of them.”**[3] - This was linked to his view that many boys respond well to environments that emphasise **clear expectations, structure, encouragement, and constructive challenge**, grounded in secure relationships and role modelling.[3][4][11] - The BBC summary notes that he did *not* argue for lower standards, but for **tailored approaches** that recognise boys’ vulnerability to isolation, shame and online harm.[3][6] - **From toxic to healthy masculinity** - Commentaries describe Southgate’s lecture as a call for **“different and better leaders specifically for young men”** and an antidote to “toxic masculinity.”[4][11] - Instead of toughness defined by dominance or emotional suppression, he promotes a version of masculinity based on: - **Responsibility to others** and being part of a team or community.[4][6][11] - **Learning from failure** and allowing vulnerability, rather than shaming boys when they struggle.[6][11] - **Mutual support and mentoring**, where older men model empathy and help boys move from isolation into “the communality of wider society.”[6][11] - **Sport and other settings as protective spaces** - Southgate highlighted **sport** as one key environment for building belief, resilience and positive masculinity—where boys can experience teamwork, shared effort, and supportive male mentoring.[4][11] - Commentators draw parallels with projects like *Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams*, where sport gives boys an environment “for mutual support, team development and learning… the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.”[11] - He stresses that **any structured, relational activity** (youth clubs, arts, volunteering) can play a similar role in fostering connection and healthy male identity.[4][6][11] Implications for child‑safeguarding and education work: - Boys who lack **present, prosocial male figures** are at heightened risk of turning to **hyper‑masculine online influencers**, gaming/gambling communities and pornography for scripts about manhood.[1][4][9][12] - Protective factors Southgate highlights—**consistent male mentors, emotionally literate leadership in schools, team‑based activities, and cultures that value character and respect over status**—align with wider safeguarding practice around reducing vulnerability to exploitation and harmful gender norms.[4][5][6][11][15] - His core message for adults around boys is that **“self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key… to their individual future and to that of our country”** and that adults must *actively* model and teach values of courage, humility, integrity and empathy.[10][6]

Gareth Southgate’s 2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture framed a “crisis in masculinity” around **lost, isolated boys**, **toxic online influencers**, and the urgent need for **positive, real‑world male role models**—especially in families, schools, sport and youth work.[3][4][8][12]

Key points relevant to masculinity, role models and boys:

- **Crisis in modern masculinity / “lost boys”**
  - Southgate argued that many young men feel *isolated*, unsure of their place in society, and are struggling with “their sense of masculinity and their overall role in society.”[12]  
  - He drew on the Centre for Social Justice’s idea of “Lost Boys” and the finding that around **2.5 million children in the UK have no father figure at home**.[4]  
  - Commentators summarised his argument as a “crisis in masculinity and the lack of male role models.”[13]

- **Toxic influencers vs positive role models**
  - Southgate warned that a **gap in positive male guidance** is being filled by “a new type of role model who does not prioritise [boys’] well‑being.”[12]  
  - He described these figures as **“callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”** on social media, who “willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”[5][12]  
  - He argued these influencers are “the antithesis of the role models that our young men truly require.”[12]

- **Gaming, gambling and pornography**
  - In the lecture and related coverage, Southgate expressed concern that **too many boys are retreating into online spaces**—“spending too much time gaming, gambling and watching pornography”[1][2][9]—especially when they lack real‑world communities and support.[1][9]  
  - He linked this to isolation and vulnerability to harmful messages about masculinity online.[1][9][12]

- **What positive male role models should look like**
  - Southgate called for **more mentors and everyday role models**, not just celebrities: “coaches, youth workers, teachers” and other trusted adults who can offer consistent support.[4][5][8]  
  - He emphasised leaders “who set the right tone” and “be the role models we want for our young men,” showing that **“character is more important than status”** and that **“how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.”[10][9]  
  - Positive role models, in his account, model:
    - **Empathy and respect**, including how men treat women.[5][11][12]  
    - **Courage, humility and integrity over selfishness, greed and arrogance.**[10]  
    - **Emotional openness**, explicitly challenging the idea that strength means never showing emotion.[5][12]

- **Belief, resilience and the “three foundations”**
  - Southgate organised his lecture around **belief** and **resilience** as crucial qualities for young men.[1][8]  
  - He argued these rest on **three foundations: “identity, connection and culture.”**[1][2]  
    - **Identity** – helping boys develop a secure sense of who they are, not tied solely to money, dominance or online status.[4][6][12]  
    - **Connection** – building relationships and communities (teams, schools, youth groups, families) so boys are not facing struggles alone.[6][11]  
    - **Culture** – creating environments (in sport, schools, society) where values like respect, effort, learning from failure and supporting others are normal.[1][6][10]  
  - He said “the culture we create today will shape the kind of men that we inherit tomorrow.”[10][8]

- **Teaching boys and girls – “different to get the best out of them”**
  - In subsequent commentary on the lecture, Southgate is reported as saying **“we need to teach boys differently to girls to get the best out of them.”**[3]  
  - This was linked to his view that many boys respond well to environments that emphasise **clear expectations, structure, encouragement, and constructive challenge**, grounded in secure relationships and role modelling.[3][4][11]  
  - The BBC summary notes that he did *not* argue for lower standards, but for **tailored approaches** that recognise boys’ vulnerability to isolation, shame and online harm.[3][6]

- **From toxic to healthy masculinity**
  - Commentaries describe Southgate’s lecture as a call for **“different and better leaders specifically for young men”** and an antidote to “toxic masculinity.”[4][11]  
  - Instead of toughness defined by dominance or emotional suppression, he promotes a version of masculinity based on:
    - **Responsibility to others** and being part of a team or community.[4][6][11]  
    - **Learning from failure** and allowing vulnerability, rather than shaming boys when they struggle.[6][11]  
    - **Mutual support and mentoring**, where older men model empathy and help boys move from isolation into “the communality of wider society.”[6][11]

- **Sport and other settings as protective spaces**
  - Southgate highlighted **sport** as one key environment for building belief, resilience and positive masculinity—where boys can experience teamwork, shared effort, and supportive male mentoring.[4][11]  
  - Commentators draw parallels with projects like *Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams*, where sport gives boys an environment “for mutual support, team development and learning… the kind of empathetic male mentoring that can ultimately change lives and give boys and men true confidence.”[11]  
  - He stresses that **any structured, relational activity** (youth clubs, arts, volunteering) can play a similar role in fostering connection and healthy male identity.[4][6][11]

Implications for child‑safeguarding and education work:

- Boys who lack **present, prosocial male figures** are at heightened risk of turning to **hyper‑masculine online influencers**, gaming/gambling communities and pornography for scripts about manhood.[1][4][9][12]  
- Protective factors Southgate highlights—**consistent male mentors, emotionally literate leadership in schools, team‑based activities, and cultures that value character and respect over status**—align with wider safeguarding practice around reducing vulnerability to exploitation and harmful gender norms.[4][5][6][11][15]  
- His core message for adults around boys is that **“self esteem, confidence and belonging remain absolutely key… to their individual future and to that of our country”** and that adults must *actively* model and teach values of courage, humility, integrity and empathy.[10][6]

It’s good to see that men in positions of power and influence are concerned about the impact that masculinity influencers, the manosphere and the misogyny they can inspire is having on boys and young men. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and former England manager Sir Gareth Southgate have spoken about the need for positive role models. Southgate has highlighted the ills of social media, gaming and pornography. Starmer has backed the showing of Netflix series Adolescence, which explores the impact of the manosphere on teenagers, in schools. Starmer and Southgate mean well and their words have amplified the issue. But their approach may not reach the boys and young men they would hope to inspire. Southgate’s recent Richard Dimbleby lecture followed a well-trodden path of demonising certain spaces – such as social media – and in doing so offered a somewhat limited understanding of how and why they are so prevalent in young people’s lives. Men like Starmer and Southgate are defined by their progressive outlook. But in the manosphere, “niceness” can be viewed with suspicion and disdain. It can come with the assumption that “white knights,” men who display a caring kind of masculinity, are driven by an aim, conscious or unconscious, of being sexually rewarded by women for their efforts. Messages from proponents of this caring masculinity may be dismissed out of hand by the young men they are most trying to reach. The influencers that so many boys are drawn to project an entirely different kind of masculinity to that of Starmer and Southgate. They are characterised by a focus on fitness and physical strength, financial success and heterosexuality. This is known as hypermasculinity. Boys and young men may feel more comfortable, less judged and more valued if they can see themselves in the people who support them. Youth workers, for example, can offer an important and effective counterpoint to online misogyny. My research with young fathers reveals that a “safe environment free of judgment” is key to exploring ideas of care and equality with young men. I learned that hypermasculinity does not have to necessitate dominance over others – women, LGBTQ+ people, people of colour. Nor does this way of being a man need to be predicated on emotional repression, misogyny, racism or homophobia. Hypermasculine spaces can offer comfort for those who fail to see themselves in more “feminised” spaces elsewhere. Fitness and gym culture Influencers know that fitness is appealing to many young men. They make explicit links between physical strength, fitness and sexual prowess. According to incel (involuntary celibate) culture, athleticism and physicality help determine a man’s “sexual market value”, and those who lack these hypermasculine characteristics are denied sexual access and social status. But young men do not need to buy wholly into this mindset to value gym culture and see physical strength as desirable. Former kickboxer Andrew Tate offers the appeal of the hypermasculine triumvirate of fitness, fame and fighting. Listening to young men tells us that they can be drawn to the hypermasculine “success” of Andrew Tate for reasons such as his devotion to physical fitness, not because of his misogyny. This tells us we should be spending time better understanding hypermasculinity, not further marginalising it. I believe hypermasculinity can make space for positive social change, but there needs to be an authentic connection for young men. Paddy “the Baddy” Pimblett would be a good place to start in understanding how hypermasculinity can be a positive force. Pimblett is a professional mixed martial artist who has over 3 million followers on Instagram. His public profile proves that hypermasculinity can carry more than just violence: he is using his platform for social good through charity work and mental health campaigning. Tech and financial independence Hypermasculine social media influencers also attract followers through their pursuit of financial independence. The allure of an aspirational lifestyle is not surprising in an era of financial uncertainty, especially when influencers purport that their successes are replicable. Andrew Tate’s “education system” The Real World, for instance, offers to teach paid subscribers the pathway to financial success when they sign up. At the same time, “tech bros” have become a defining financial success story. They are aspirational figures for some young men – simultaneously representing elite financial power and a self-sufficient, anti-establishment swagger. I am not suprised by their popularity, as in my work with young men in the north east of England, anti-elite narratives were often repeated. Again, though, there are positive examples to be found in this hypermasculine space. Gary Stevenson, whose YouTube channel has over a million subscribers, represents this. On one level, he is a hypermasculine trader who claims he won his job through a card game and whose high-risk gambling brought great rewards. Yet he now calls himself a “people’s economist” and uses his significant media profile to highlight structural disadvantage instead of aspirational lifestyles. Making space for hypermasculinity does not mean it should replace other forms, such as caring masculinities. But we need to engage with the hypermasculine and listen to those who value it to better understand it. We should not assume the hypermasculine is always problematic. In acknowledging, and avoiding demonising this kind of masculinity, we can ensure greater representation for young men and boys, while continuing to challenge sexism, misogyny and other social ills. Michael Joseph Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, Newcastle University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s good to see that men in positions of power and influence are concerned about the impact that masculinity influencers, the manosphere and the misogyny they can inspire is having on boys and young men.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and former England manager Sir Gareth Southgate have spoken about the need for positive role models. Southgate has highlighted the ills of social media, gaming and pornography. Starmer has backed the showing of Netflix series Adolescence, which explores the impact of the manosphere on teenagers, in schools.
Starmer and Southgate mean well and their words have amplified the issue. But their approach may not reach the boys and young men they would hope to inspire.
Southgate’s recent Richard Dimbleby lecture followed a well-trodden path of demonising certain spaces – such as social media – and in doing so offered a somewhat limited understanding of how and why they are so prevalent in young people’s lives.
Men like Starmer and Southgate are defined by their progressive outlook. But in the manosphere, “niceness” can be viewed with suspicion and disdain. It can come with the assumption that “white knights,” men who display a caring kind of masculinity, are driven by an aim, conscious or unconscious, of being sexually rewarded by women for their efforts. Messages from proponents of this caring masculinity may be dismissed out of hand by the young men they are most trying to reach.
The influencers that so many boys are drawn to project an entirely different kind of masculinity to that of Starmer and Southgate. They are characterised by a focus on fitness and physical strength, financial success and heterosexuality. This is known as hypermasculinity.
Boys and young men may feel more comfortable, less judged and more valued if they can see themselves in the people who support them. Youth workers, for example, can offer an important and effective counterpoint to online misogyny.
My research with young fathers reveals that a “safe environment free of judgment” is key to exploring ideas of care and equality with young men. I learned that hypermasculinity does not have to necessitate dominance over others – women, LGBTQ+ people, people of colour. Nor does this way of being a man need to be predicated on emotional repression, misogyny, racism or homophobia.
Hypermasculine spaces can offer comfort for those who fail to see themselves in more “feminised” spaces elsewhere.
Fitness and gym culture
Influencers know that fitness is appealing to many young men. They make explicit links between physical strength, fitness and sexual prowess.
According to incel (involuntary celibate) culture, athleticism and physicality help determine a man’s “sexual market value”, and those who lack these hypermasculine characteristics are denied sexual access and social status. But young men do not need to buy wholly into this mindset to value gym culture and see physical strength as desirable.
Former kickboxer Andrew Tate offers the appeal of the hypermasculine triumvirate of fitness, fame and fighting. Listening to young men tells us that they can be drawn to the hypermasculine “success” of Andrew Tate for reasons such as his devotion to physical fitness, not because of his misogyny.
This tells us we should be spending time better understanding hypermasculinity, not further marginalising it. I believe hypermasculinity can make space for positive social change, but there needs to be an authentic connection for young men.
Paddy “the Baddy” Pimblett would be a good place to start in understanding how hypermasculinity can be a positive force. Pimblett is a professional mixed martial artist who has over 3 million followers on Instagram.
His public profile proves that hypermasculinity can carry more than just violence: he is using his platform for social good through charity work and mental health campaigning.
Tech and financial independence
Hypermasculine social media influencers also attract followers through their pursuit of financial independence. The allure of an aspirational lifestyle is not surprising in an era of financial uncertainty, especially when influencers purport that their successes are replicable. Andrew Tate’s “education system” The Real World, for instance, offers to teach paid subscribers the pathway to financial success when they sign up.
At the same time, “tech bros” have become a defining financial success story. They are aspirational figures for some young men – simultaneously representing elite financial power and a self-sufficient, anti-establishment swagger. I am not suprised by their popularity, as in my work with young men in the north east of England, anti-elite narratives were often repeated.
Again, though, there are positive examples to be found in this hypermasculine space. Gary Stevenson, whose YouTube channel has over a million subscribers, represents this. On one level, he is a hypermasculine trader who claims he won his job through a card game and whose high-risk gambling brought great rewards. Yet he now calls himself a “people’s economist” and uses his significant media profile to highlight structural disadvantage instead of aspirational lifestyles.
Making space for hypermasculinity does not mean it should replace other forms, such as caring masculinities. But we need to engage with the hypermasculine and listen to those who value it to better understand it. We should not assume the hypermasculine is always problematic. In acknowledging, and avoiding demonising this kind of masculinity, we can ensure greater representation for young men and boys, while continuing to challenge sexism, misogyny and other social ills.
Michael Joseph Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, Newcastle University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

School misogyny surge 'prompted by Andrew Tate' The influence of self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate sparked "a surge" in similar attitudes in secondary schools in South Ribble and had to be tackled with targeted action, a report said. Local councillors have been exploring the degree to which misogyny was a problem in the Lancashire district and what could be done about it. South Ribble Borough Council's cabinet heard the "prevalence" of the highly controversial social media personality in recent years drove a spike in "misogyny-related" incidents in schools. They were concentrated on a period three years ago and prompted the development by school leaders of a "zero tolerance" approach. 'Increasingly concerned' According to the report – by South Ribble's misogyny working group – the strategies "had a positive effect", but the authors noted that "working with schools and young people will be vital to address [the issue] effectively" in the longer term. South Ribble MP and former council leader Paul Foster, told the group during its evidence gathering that he had become aware that young girls were increasingly concerned about online misogynistic hate from young boys and men. The report said that misogyny "often begins at an early age in digital spaces" and Foster said he would raise the issue with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson. He also suggested that there needed to be a "serious review of the curriculum". 'Toxic masculinity' Among the 23 recommendations of the working group were proposals to better advise young women and girls – as well as young men and boys – how to report experiencing or witnessing misogyny. It was also recommended that the borough's social prescribing team engaged boys and young men to address the issue of "toxic masculinity" in a "constructive way, ensuring that [they] feel supported rather than targeted". Council leader Matthew Tomlinson said the group's work was "the start of a journey". He added: "It's really important for us to make a mark and say this is important to us – and this is who we are." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.

School misogyny surge 'prompted by Andrew Tate'
The influence of self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate sparked "a surge" in similar attitudes in secondary schools in South Ribble and had to be tackled with targeted action, a report said.
Local councillors have been exploring the degree to which misogyny was a problem in the Lancashire district and what could be done about it.
South Ribble Borough Council's cabinet heard the "prevalence" of the highly controversial social media personality in recent years drove a spike in "misogyny-related" incidents in schools.
They were concentrated on a period three years ago and prompted the development by school leaders of a "zero tolerance" approach.
'Increasingly concerned'
According to the report – by South Ribble's misogyny working group – the strategies "had a positive effect", but the authors noted that "working with schools and young people will be vital to address [the issue] effectively" in the longer term.
South Ribble MP and former council leader Paul Foster, told the group during its evidence gathering that he had become aware that young girls were increasingly concerned about online misogynistic hate from young boys and men.
The report said that misogyny "often begins at an early age in digital spaces" and Foster said he would raise the issue with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson.
He also suggested that there needed to be a "serious review of the curriculum".
'Toxic masculinity'
Among the 23 recommendations of the working group were proposals to better advise young women and girls – as well as young men and boys – how to report experiencing or witnessing misogyny.
It was also recommended that the borough's social prescribing team engaged boys and young men to address the issue of "toxic masculinity" in a "constructive way, ensuring that [they] feel supported rather than targeted".
Council leader Matthew Tomlinson said the group's work was "the start of a journey".
He added: "It's really important for us to make a mark and say this is important to us – and this is who we are."
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government is to tackle misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate head-on with compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary school pupils. The flagship £36m strategy will finally be unveiled today, 18 months after Labour was elected on a manifesto promise to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) within a decade. The strategy will see secondary school teachers given specialist training to talk to boys and girls about issues such as consent, and children who show harmful behaviour towards their parents, siblings or while in relationships will be signed up to special programmes. Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips compared the plans to anti-extremism programmes, telling Sky News: “If my children were showing extremist behaviours in school, there are schemes that people can be sent on, but that doesn't exist for this. “So if a young man had been found to have been sharing indecent images, as a mother of sons, what I would want is for the school to have a referral place, a specialist service that they could bring in for a child to stop that progressing.” The much-anticipated plans will focus on tackling the root causes of abuse, and come as the latest statistics show that nearly 40 per cent of teenagers in relationships are victims of abuse, while more than 40 per cent of young men hold a positive view of Tate. Sir Keir said: “Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships. “But too often, toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged. This government is stepping in sooner – backing teachers, calling out misogyny, and intervening when warning signs appear – to stop harm before it starts. “This is about protecting girls and driving forward education and conversation with boys and young men, which is a responsibility we owe to the next generation, and one this government will deliver.” It follows repeated calls by The Independent for a strategy to tackle these issues, as well as our Brick by Brick campaign, which was backed by the prime minister, to build two safe houses for women who have been victims of domestic abuse. Sir Keir said at the time: “I am so pleased to back The Independent’s Brick By Brick campaign to support victims of domestic abuse. I don’t only support the campaign, but I want the campaign to go on and get bigger.” Under Labour’s latest initiative, all secondary schools in England will teach students about healthy relationships, following concerns about the impact of self-described “misogynistic” influencers, like Tate, who appeal to young men by pushing an agenda characterised by toxic masculinity. A new helpline will also be set up for teenagers to get help with concerns about their own behaviour in relationships. It came as Ms Phillips said she is “sick” of putting “nicer plasters onto ever-growing scars” when it comes to tackling violence against women. “One in eight women were victims of violence against women and girls last year and so I’m a bit sick, I have to say, as somebody who’s campaigned on this for many years of just trying to put nicer plasters onto ever growing scars, and so we’ve got to – the government is really, really focused on the prevention,” she told Times Radio. Campaign groups including Refuge have indicated that they will be poring over the details of the long-awaited plan to ensure that the flagship policy lives up to its billing and provides the funding needed. Measures already announced as part of the cross-government strategy include specialist rape and sexual offences investigators for every police force, better support through the NHS for those who have experienced abuse, and a £19m funding boost for councils to provide safe housing for domestic abuse survivors. The latest measures for educating children are backed by a £20m package, with £16m invested by the government, which is working with philanthropists on an innovation fund. Responding to the announcements made about the strategy so far, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, said the commitments “do not go far enough” to see the number of people experiencing abuse start to fall. She said: “Today’s strategy rightly recognises the scale of this challenge and the need to address the misogynistic attitudes that underpin it, but the level of investment to achieve this falls seriously short.” Dame Nicole also said that overburdened schools were not being equipped with the infrastructure needed to safeguard child victims of domestic abuse. The schools that will take part in the pilot scheme will be chosen next year, while ministers are aiming for all secondary schools to teach healthy relationships by the end of this parliament. It comes as Department for Education-commissioned research found that 70 per cent of secondary school teachers surveyed said their school had actively dealt with sexual violence and/or harassment between children. Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “Having spent years working in a refuge for women experiencing domestic abuse, I know just how much early intervention could have changed lives. We cannot simply respond to harm after it happens; we must give young people the understanding and tools they need before attitudes harden into harm.” Police and social services will also be given new guidance on teenage relationships to help them tackle abuse, and the legal framework for domestic abuse will be looked at in order to address the experiences of teenagers. It comes after Sir Keir vowed to look at whether younger people should be recognised as domestic abuse victims following the murder of 15-year-old Holly Newton by her stalker ex-boyfriend in Hexham, Northumberland, in January 2023. VAWG minister Jess Phillips said: “For too long, the scale of violence against women and girls has been treated as a fact of life in our country. I am determined our groundbreaking strategy will prevent women and girls from actually being harmed in the first place. “Put together from today, it will deploy the full power of the state to introduce the largest crackdown to stop violence perpetrated against women and girls in British history.”

Sir Keir Starmer’s government is to tackle misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate head-on with compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary school pupils.
The flagship £36m strategy will finally be unveiled today, 18 months after Labour was elected on a manifesto promise to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) within a decade.
The strategy will see secondary school teachers given specialist training to talk to boys and girls about issues such as consent, and children who show harmful behaviour towards their parents, siblings or while in relationships will be signed up to special programmes.
Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips compared the plans to anti-extremism programmes, telling Sky News: “If my children were showing extremist behaviours in school, there are schemes that people can be sent on, but that doesn't exist for this.
“So if a young man had been found to have been sharing indecent images, as a mother of sons, what I would want is for the school to have a referral place, a specialist service that they could bring in for a child to stop that progressing.”
The much-anticipated plans will focus on tackling the root causes of abuse, and come as the latest statistics show that nearly 40 per cent of teenagers in relationships are victims of abuse, while more than 40 per cent of young men hold a positive view of Tate.
Sir Keir said: “Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships.
“But too often, toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged. This government is stepping in sooner – backing teachers, calling out misogyny, and intervening when warning signs appear – to stop harm before it starts.
“This is about protecting girls and driving forward education and conversation with boys and young men, which is a responsibility we owe to the next generation, and one this government will deliver.”
It follows repeated calls by The Independent for a strategy to tackle these issues, as well as our Brick by Brick campaign, which was backed by the prime minister, to build two safe houses for women who have been victims of domestic abuse.
Sir Keir said at the time: “I am so pleased to back The Independent’s Brick By Brick campaign to support victims of domestic abuse. I don’t only support the campaign, but I want the campaign to go on and get bigger.”
Under Labour’s latest initiative, all secondary schools in England will teach students about healthy relationships, following concerns about the impact of self-described “misogynistic” influencers, like Tate, who appeal to young men by pushing an agenda characterised by toxic masculinity.
A new helpline will also be set up for teenagers to get help with concerns about their own behaviour in relationships.
It came as Ms Phillips said she is “sick” of putting “nicer plasters onto ever-growing scars” when it comes to tackling violence against women.
“One in eight women were victims of violence against women and girls last year and so I’m a bit sick, I have to say, as somebody who’s campaigned on this for many years of just trying to put nicer plasters onto ever growing scars, and so we’ve got to – the government is really, really focused on the prevention,” she told Times Radio.
Campaign groups including Refuge have indicated that they will be poring over the details of the long-awaited plan to ensure that the flagship policy lives up to its billing and provides the funding needed.
Measures already announced as part of the cross-government strategy include specialist rape and sexual offences investigators for every police force, better support through the NHS for those who have experienced abuse, and a £19m funding boost for councils to provide safe housing for domestic abuse survivors.
The latest measures for educating children are backed by a £20m package, with £16m invested by the government, which is working with philanthropists on an innovation fund.
Responding to the announcements made about the strategy so far, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, said the commitments “do not go far enough” to see the number of people experiencing abuse start to fall.
She said: “Today’s strategy rightly recognises the scale of this challenge and the need to address the misogynistic attitudes that underpin it, but the level of investment to achieve this falls seriously short.”
Dame Nicole also said that overburdened schools were not being equipped with the infrastructure needed to safeguard child victims of domestic abuse.
The schools that will take part in the pilot scheme will be chosen next year, while ministers are aiming for all secondary schools to teach healthy relationships by the end of this parliament.
It comes as Department for Education-commissioned research found that 70 per cent of secondary school teachers surveyed said their school had actively dealt with sexual violence and/or harassment between children.
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “Having spent years working in a refuge for women experiencing domestic abuse, I know just how much early intervention could have changed lives. We cannot simply respond to harm after it happens; we must give young people the understanding and tools they need before attitudes harden into harm.”
Police and social services will also be given new guidance on teenage relationships to help them tackle abuse, and the legal framework for domestic abuse will be looked at in order to address the experiences of teenagers.
It comes after Sir Keir vowed to look at whether younger people should be recognised as domestic abuse victims following the murder of 15-year-old Holly Newton by her stalker ex-boyfriend in Hexham, Northumberland, in January 2023.
VAWG minister Jess Phillips said: “For too long, the scale of violence against women and girls has been treated as a fact of life in our country. I am determined our groundbreaking strategy will prevent women and girls from actually being harmed in the first place.
“Put together from today, it will deploy the full power of the state to introduce the largest crackdown to stop violence perpetrated against women and girls in British history.”

UK schools fight misogynism peddled by online influencer Tate London (AFP) – When Nick Hewlett, head of a London school, was told about controversial online influencer Andrew Tate by a parent, he had never heard the name. Issued on: Yet he soon found out that his students were familiar with all of Tate's misogynist posts on social media. The head teacher of St Dunstan's College decided to counter the problem, even before Tate's arrest in December in Romania. Hewlett's solution, and that of some other schools, is to openly talk to students about Tate's ideas. Tate, a 36-year-old former kick boxer, is being investigated along with his brother on accusations of "forming an organised criminal group, human trafficking and rape", charges which they deny. When this news broke, many adults learned for the first time of this British man's existence and that he was already an internet star for teenagers across English-speaking countries and beyond. Tate's name was one of the most-searched-for terms on Google in 2022. He is known for his motivational videos, in which he lays out his vision of masculinity and success, waving a cigar and baring his chest. For him, success is synonymous with wealth, domination and possessing women and luxury cars. In one of his most disturbing messages, he talks about women being "the property" of men. In a tweet, he wrote: "A man without struggle is never going to be a powerful man... If you're going to be a hero, you're going to suffer." He also said: "Masculine life is war". 'Talks about women like objects' Just mentioning Tate's name is enough to set off a heated debate among teenagers. "At one point, I thought his message was good. He was encouraging men to go the gym," says 17-year-old Kieran, outside his state school in north London. "He talked about masculinity while a lot of men are lost. They are asked to behave in a certain way." Tate's ban from some social media has not been enough to stop him reaching minors. "After his arrest, I talked with my mother and my sister and I realised how serious it was," says Kieran. He says he has tried to block Tate from his social media but keeps seeing the content popping up anyway. Kieran's friend Jon, 18, says he likes some of Tate's messages, but has noticed that he "talks about women like objects". "I've never liked him," says Lilly, 17, the only girl in the group. 'Toxic masculinity' "Do we have a defined sense of what modern masculinity looks like? I'm not sure we do... I think that creates a huge vacuum in particular for young boys. And some exploit that", said the head of St Dunstan's College. To deal with the problem, the private school in south London has added Tate's story to a lesson topic already being taught. From the age of 11, students learn about gender stereotypes and equality. At the age of around 13, they cover "toxic masculinity". "We have 1,200 children here. So, inevitably, some are going to be falling under his influence -- or his spell," says Hewlett. "If schools don't respond to that, who is going to challenge their views? (…) You'll create a generation of young people who have a completely distorted view of what success looks like." The students learn about this topic through discussions between girls and boys, with the teacher playing the role of facilitator. Together, they deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers. Baffled parents Natasha Eeles heads Bold Voices, a social enterprise she founded in 2018 that visits schools and universities to teach students about gender inequality. She says she first heard of Tate in May 2022. Currently, 70 percent of schools that contact her want her to talk about him. "A lot of his rhetoric relies on stereotypes on masculinity. It's very difficult to challenge that," she says. Last autumn, Bold Voices put together a toolkit to help parents start a conversation with children about Tate. The advice includes asking open questions such as "What do you think of him?" and explaining what misogyny and homophobia mean. "There's a panic and fear among lots of parents, carers, teachers about Andrew Tate," says Michael Conroy, founder of Men at Work, a social enterprise that helps teachers and social workers talk to young men. "Teachers say young men are frequently bringing him into the classroom by quoting him, whatever the context," he says. For example in a business studies class, some will give him as an example, saying: "he's the greatest businessman in the world". While Tate is being held in detention pending investigation, his videos are still going viral and he and his close allies are still tweeting. Asked whether a jail term would reduce Tate's influence, Conroy is sceptical. "If he stays in jail, let's not be naive. Others will fill the space." © 2023 AFP

UK schools fight misogynism peddled by online influencer Tate
London (AFP) – When Nick Hewlett, head of a London school, was told about controversial online influencer Andrew Tate by a parent, he had never heard the name.
Issued on:
Yet he soon found out that his students were familiar with all of Tate's misogynist posts on social media.
The head teacher of St Dunstan's College decided to counter the problem, even before Tate's arrest in December in Romania.
Hewlett's solution, and that of some other schools, is to openly talk to students about Tate's ideas.
Tate, a 36-year-old former kick boxer, is being investigated along with his brother on accusations of "forming an organised criminal group, human trafficking and rape", charges which they deny.
When this news broke, many adults learned for the first time of this British man's existence and that he was already an internet star for teenagers across English-speaking countries and beyond.
Tate's name was one of the most-searched-for terms on Google in 2022.
He is known for his motivational videos, in which he lays out his vision of masculinity and success, waving a cigar and baring his chest.
For him, success is synonymous with wealth, domination and possessing women and luxury cars.
In one of his most disturbing messages, he talks about women being "the property" of men.
In a tweet, he wrote: "A man without struggle is never going to be a powerful man... If you're going to be a hero, you're going to suffer."
He also said: "Masculine life is war".
'Talks about women like objects'
Just mentioning Tate's name is enough to set off a heated debate among teenagers.
"At one point, I thought his message was good. He was encouraging men to go the gym," says 17-year-old Kieran, outside his state school in north London.
"He talked about masculinity while a lot of men are lost. They are asked to behave in a certain way."
Tate's ban from some social media has not been enough to stop him reaching minors.
"After his arrest, I talked with my mother and my sister and I realised how serious it was," says Kieran.
He says he has tried to block Tate from his social media but keeps seeing the content popping up anyway.
Kieran's friend Jon, 18, says he likes some of Tate's messages, but has noticed that he "talks about women like objects".
"I've never liked him," says Lilly, 17, the only girl in the group.
'Toxic masculinity'
"Do we have a defined sense of what modern masculinity looks like? I'm not sure we do... I think that creates a huge vacuum in particular for young boys. And some exploit that", said the head of St Dunstan's College.
To deal with the problem, the private school in south London has added Tate's story to a lesson topic already being taught.
From the age of 11, students learn about gender stereotypes and equality. At the age of around 13, they cover "toxic masculinity".
"We have 1,200 children here. So, inevitably, some are going to be falling under his influence -- or his spell," says Hewlett.
"If schools don't respond to that, who is going to challenge their views? (…) You'll create a generation of young people who have a completely distorted view of what success looks like."
The students learn about this topic through discussions between girls and boys, with the teacher playing the role of facilitator. Together, they deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers.
Baffled parents
Natasha Eeles heads Bold Voices, a social enterprise she founded in 2018 that visits schools and universities to teach students about gender inequality.
She says she first heard of Tate in May 2022. Currently, 70 percent of schools that contact her want her to talk about him.
"A lot of his rhetoric relies on stereotypes on masculinity. It's very difficult to challenge that," she says.
Last autumn, Bold Voices put together a toolkit to help parents start a conversation with children about Tate.
The advice includes asking open questions such as "What do you think of him?" and explaining what misogyny and homophobia mean.
"There's a panic and fear among lots of parents, carers, teachers about Andrew Tate," says Michael Conroy, founder of Men at Work, a social enterprise that helps teachers and social workers talk to young men.
"Teachers say young men are frequently bringing him into the classroom by quoting him, whatever the context," he says.
For example in a business studies class, some will give him as an example, saying: "he's the greatest businessman in the world".
While Tate is being held in detention pending investigation, his videos are still going viral and he and his close allies are still tweeting.
Asked whether a jail term would reduce Tate's influence, Conroy is sceptical.
"If he stays in jail, let's not be naive. Others will fill the space."
© 2023 AFP

Children will be taught to combat misogyny and resist 'incel' culture under new school guidance published on Tuesday. The relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) framework specifically aims to help boys find positive role models, countering the increasing spread of sexist online content from 'manosphere' influencers like Andrew Tate. It also stresses the need to avoid 'stigmatising boys for being boys'. Beyond lessons on 'incel' (involuntary celibate) culture, secondary schools will be required to provide young people with greater awareness of AI, deepfakes, and the links between pornography and misogyny. The guidance comes as the Department for Education (DfE) warned that misogynistic attitudes had reached “epidemic scale” among young people, with 54 per cent of those aged 11-19 saying they had witnessed misogynist comments. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson (PA) Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “Before I was elected to Parliament, I managed a refuge for women and children fleeing domestic violence, so I have seen first-hand the devastating impact when we don’t foster healthy attitudes from the youngest age. “I want our children to be equipped to defy the malign forces that exist online. Schools and parents alike have a vital role to play, helping children identify positive role models and resist the manipulation too often used online to groom impressionable young minds.” In its manifesto last year, Labour pledged to halve the rate of violence against women and girls in 10 years. And earlier in 2025, Sir Keir Starmer praised the Netflix drama Adolescence for highlighting how misogyny had “taken on a different form” and said he wanted a discussion on what could be done to stop young boys “being dragged into this whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”. Margaret Mulholland, of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the new guidance and its focus on finding positive male role models for boys, saying it was “important that we don’t simply tell boys what is wrong”. Sir Keir Starmer, pictured with writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson, praised the Netflix drama Adolescence (PA) The previous Conservative government proposed changing the guidance on RSHE in May last year, with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak expressing concern children were being exposed to “inappropriate” content. The draft guidance, which was open to a nine-week consultation, proposed clear age limits on the teaching of certain topics to ensure children were not “exposed to too much too soon”. It said sex education should be taught no earlier than Year 5, when pupils are aged nine to 10, and that what is described as the “contested topic of gender identity” should not be taught at all. The proposed guidance said schools should “at minimum” show parents a representative sample of teaching resources they plan to use and that schools “should respond positively to requests from parents to see material that has not already been shared”. While Tuesday’s revised guidance includes the requirement to provide parents with teaching materials, the new Government has scrapped the proposal to prescribe specific ages at which individual topics are taught. The DfE said there would be a “strong new emphasis on age-appropriate” teaching, and a “clear dividing line” between primary and secondary school. But the guidance would allow teachers to “sensitively respond to topics that children might have seen online or heard from their friends”, with research suggesting 22% of primary school-aged girls had seen “rude images online”. Tuesday’s guidance also includes requirements on helping children with their mental health, including working with mental health professionals to discuss suicide prevention “in an age-appropriate way”. Children will be taught the importance of “grit and resilience” in order to help them “feel able to take on challenges and risks”. Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen – who campaign for greater awareness of suicide prevention as the 3 Dads Walking in memory of their daughters – said: “Giving schools permission to talk about suicide prevention means more young people can be supported to open up about difficult feelings and know where to find help. “We know, from painful personal experience, how much this matters. This change will save lives.” Schools will be able to implement the guidance from September this year, and must follow it from September 2026.

Children will be taught to combat misogyny and resist 'incel' culture under new school guidance published on Tuesday.
The relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) framework specifically aims to help boys find positive role models, countering the increasing spread of sexist online content from 'manosphere' influencers like Andrew Tate.
It also stresses the need to avoid 'stigmatising boys for being boys'.
Beyond lessons on 'incel' (involuntary celibate) culture, secondary schools will be required to provide young people with greater awareness of AI, deepfakes, and the links between pornography and misogyny.
The guidance comes as the Department for Education (DfE) warned that misogynistic attitudes had reached “epidemic scale” among young people, with 54 per cent of those aged 11-19 saying they had witnessed misogynist comments.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson (PA)
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “Before I was elected to Parliament, I managed a refuge for women and children fleeing domestic violence, so I have seen first-hand the devastating impact when we don’t foster healthy attitudes from the youngest age.
“I want our children to be equipped to defy the malign forces that exist online. Schools and parents alike have a vital role to play, helping children identify positive role models and resist the manipulation too often used online to groom impressionable young minds.”
In its manifesto last year, Labour pledged to halve the rate of violence against women and girls in 10 years.
And earlier in 2025, Sir Keir Starmer praised the Netflix drama Adolescence for highlighting how misogyny had “taken on a different form” and said he wanted a discussion on what could be done to stop young boys “being dragged into this whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”.
Margaret Mulholland, of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the new guidance and its focus on finding positive male role models for boys, saying it was “important that we don’t simply tell boys what is wrong”.
Sir Keir Starmer, pictured with writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson, praised the Netflix drama Adolescence (PA)
The previous Conservative government proposed changing the guidance on RSHE in May last year, with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak expressing concern children were being exposed to “inappropriate” content.
The draft guidance, which was open to a nine-week consultation, proposed clear age limits on the teaching of certain topics to ensure children were not “exposed to too much too soon”.
It said sex education should be taught no earlier than Year 5, when pupils are aged nine to 10, and that what is described as the “contested topic of gender identity” should not be taught at all.
The proposed guidance said schools should “at minimum” show parents a representative sample of teaching resources they plan to use and that schools “should respond positively to requests from parents to see material that has not already been shared”.
While Tuesday’s revised guidance includes the requirement to provide parents with teaching materials, the new Government has scrapped the proposal to prescribe specific ages at which individual topics are taught.
The DfE said there would be a “strong new emphasis on age-appropriate” teaching, and a “clear dividing line” between primary and secondary school.
But the guidance would allow teachers to “sensitively respond to topics that children might have seen online or heard from their friends”, with research suggesting 22% of primary school-aged girls had seen “rude images online”.
Tuesday’s guidance also includes requirements on helping children with their mental health, including working with mental health professionals to discuss suicide prevention “in an age-appropriate way”.
Children will be taught the importance of “grit and resilience” in order to help them “feel able to take on challenges and risks”.
Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen – who campaign for greater awareness of suicide prevention as the 3 Dads Walking in memory of their daughters – said: “Giving schools permission to talk about suicide prevention means more young people can be supported to open up about difficult feelings and know where to find help.
“We know, from painful personal experience, how much this matters. This change will save lives.”
Schools will be able to implement the guidance from September this year, and must follow it from September 2026.

The Standard visited St Saviour’s nursery and primary school in Poplar, east London - one of 4,750 UK classrooms implementing a “critical” new programme - to see how it is being delivered to those aged three to six-years-old. Executive headteacher Fanoula Smith says it is important children are “seen, heard” and told “their feelings matter”. They are taught no emotional reaction is “bad” and to speak up about anything that makes them uncomfortable, including hugs. As a result, St Saviour’s doesn’t have any permanent exclusions and a lower rate of suspensions. Over 9,000 London schoolchildren are receiving lessons up to three times a week on respect, kindness and how their actions make others feel. The project is designed by the global education specialists, Think Equal. Leslee Udwin, a British filmmaker turned education activist who founded Think Equal, believes children must be armed with tools to help promote inclusion, equality and wellbeing in society. Asked whether the very young should be taught how to avoid negative behaviours in later life, Ms Udwin told the Standard: “It’s too late after six-years-old.” In a vacuum created by a lack of positive role models, she said youngsters are turning to figures such as self-proclaimed misogynist Tate, 39, and street gang leaders. By primary school, children can have “absolute gender stereotypes”, Ms Udwin says. She added: “It’s not unusual to see many come in at three-years-old pulling hair, pushing and kicking.” Read More Some teachers have even encountered eight-year-old boys addicted to pornography, she adds. “We have a lot of violence and aggression in little ones, particularly post Covid. Teachers have been seeing behaviours they have never seen before. “If you don’t have empathy, you can pull out a knife and stab someone later on and many do. But they won’t if you come in with a programme like this.” She added: “In the same way an architect wouldn’t dream of building a skyscraper without foundations, we need to build solid emotional foundations in our children. That’s why our society is so fractured - it’s because we don’t spend enough time on this. “The first five years of a child’s life have everything to do with how the next 90, or however many years they are lucky enough to live, turn out. “Prosocial neural pathways can be laid in the brain and last a lifetime like buildings.” Ms Smith, who gave our reporters a tour of three classrooms, said: “For us, it means we don’t have any permanent exclusions, and we have a lower rate of suspensions because of the emotional development of the child. Think Equal is a critical part in that. You put the work in now and you reap the benefits lifelong. “By the age of 11 our boys are being targeted by algorithms online to find misogynistic images and words. It’s difficult for them to think critically and decipher emotional intelligence. With this programme, they’re better able to understand and navigate this landscape.” Mrs Badenoch said Sir Keir Starmer’s approach “risks demonising boys before they’ve even started their lives”. However Katie Cohen, Think Equal’s UK director, says the programme has reached over 93,000 children in 29 local authorities across the country, and more councils are expected to start teaching the programme in 2026. A study carried out in Hounslow shows communication, language, social and emotional development outcomes were higher for children on the programme than those not. “It’s been really successful,” said Ms Cohen. “In the last year we’re seeing huge take up, right from north Lanarkshire, through to Manchester and London boroughs. “Our children need social and emotional education. They’re not getting it - particularly at these key early ages. Think Equal provides the tools for our early years practitioners to deliver it in classroom settings.” Government ministers and police chiefs have declared violence against women and girls a “national emergency”. Almost one in three children in relationships have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence, according to a 2024 report by the Youth Endowment Fund. About 33 per cent of 13 to 17-year-olds have encountered content online that specifically encourages such violence, the poll of 10,000 teenagers found. In adulthood 3.2 million women over 16 experienced domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking in the year to March, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Standard visited St Saviour’s nursery and primary school in Poplar, east London - one of 4,750 UK classrooms implementing a “critical” new programme - to see how it is being delivered to those aged three to six-years-old.
Executive headteacher Fanoula Smith says it is important children are “seen, heard” and told “their feelings matter”.
They are taught no emotional reaction is “bad” and to speak up about anything that makes them uncomfortable, including hugs.
As a result, St Saviour’s doesn’t have any permanent exclusions and a lower rate of suspensions.
Over 9,000 London schoolchildren are receiving lessons up to three times a week on respect, kindness and how their actions make others feel. The project is designed by the global education specialists, Think Equal.
Leslee Udwin, a British filmmaker turned education activist who founded Think Equal, believes children must be armed with tools to help promote inclusion, equality and wellbeing in society.
Asked whether the very young should be taught how to avoid negative behaviours in later life, Ms Udwin told the Standard: “It’s too late after six-years-old.”
In a vacuum created by a lack of positive role models, she said youngsters are turning to figures such as self-proclaimed misogynist Tate, 39, and street gang leaders.
By primary school, children can have “absolute gender stereotypes”, Ms Udwin says.
She added: “It’s not unusual to see many come in at three-years-old pulling hair, pushing and kicking.”
Read More
Some teachers have even encountered eight-year-old boys addicted to pornography, she adds.
“We have a lot of violence and aggression in little ones, particularly post Covid. Teachers have been seeing behaviours they have never seen before.
“If you don’t have empathy, you can pull out a knife and stab someone later on and many do. But they won’t if you come in with a programme like this.”
She added: “In the same way an architect wouldn’t dream of building a skyscraper without foundations, we need to build solid emotional foundations in our children. That’s why our society is so fractured - it’s because we don’t spend enough time on this.
“The first five years of a child’s life have everything to do with how the next 90, or however many years they are lucky enough to live, turn out.
“Prosocial neural pathways can be laid in the brain and last a lifetime like buildings.”
Ms Smith, who gave our reporters a tour of three classrooms, said: “For us, it means we don’t have any permanent exclusions, and we have a lower rate of suspensions because of the emotional development of the child. Think Equal is a critical part in that. You put the work in now and you reap the benefits lifelong.
“By the age of 11 our boys are being targeted by algorithms online to find misogynistic images and words. It’s difficult for them to think critically and decipher emotional intelligence. With this programme, they’re better able to understand and navigate this landscape.”
Mrs Badenoch said Sir Keir Starmer’s approach “risks demonising boys before they’ve even started their lives”.
However Katie Cohen, Think Equal’s UK director, says the programme has reached over 93,000 children in 29 local authorities across the country, and more councils are expected to start teaching the programme in 2026.
A study carried out in Hounslow shows communication, language, social and emotional development outcomes were higher for children on the programme than those not.
“It’s been really successful,” said Ms Cohen. “In the last year we’re seeing huge take up, right from north Lanarkshire, through to Manchester and London boroughs.
“Our children need social and emotional education. They’re not getting it - particularly at these key early ages. Think Equal provides the tools for our early years practitioners to deliver it in classroom settings.”
Government ministers and police chiefs have declared violence against women and girls a “national emergency”.
Almost one in three children in relationships have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence, according to a 2024 report by the Youth Endowment Fund.
About 33 per cent of 13 to 17-year-olds have encountered content online that specifically encourages such violence, the poll of 10,000 teenagers found.
In adulthood 3.2 million women over 16 experienced domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking in the year to March, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Experts from The RAP Project, which normally runs workshops about rape, consent and sexual assault for some of London’s top private schools, have been asked to specifically address concerns about the controversial “influencer”. Tate, 36, has millions of young followers online and promotes an “ultra-masculine” lifestyle. He is currently under investigation in Romania after being arrested on charges of being part of an organised crime group, human trafficking and rape. Some London schools, including the £20,000-a-year St Dunstan’s College in Catford, have created their own lesson plans to ensure his misogynistic views do not go unchallenged, after parents raised concerns about his influence. Deana Puccio, a former sex crimes prosecutor from New York, who co-founded The RAP project, said teachers have asked her to directly address the issue of Tate in her school presentations because they are concerned about the behaviour and views of some teenage boys. She said some boys are blaming women and girls because their own lives are not how they would like them to be. Five schools initially sought her help in September to talk to students directly about Tate, but now she discusses him in most presentations. She said: “All last term almost every all-boys or co-educational school we were in asked us to specifically address Andrew Tate as an issue. Some schools say he has been influencing boys as young as Year 6.” She said one school contacted The Rap Project because teachers were alarmed at conversations boys were having on issues such as equal pay for men and women. She added: “Andrew Tate’s influence is legitimising their misogynistic comments and behaviour.” St Dunstan’s has introduced its own special lessons to teach children what is wrong with Tate’s approach to women. Jonathan Holmes, deputy head academic, said the school plans to talk about Tate with all children in Year 8 and above. He added: “Some of our parents have been really proactive, asking for us to address his views in our teaching.” Older students will look at transcripts of videos Tate has shared and explore why they are harmful. Read More Ms Puccio said the best way for schools to deal with the issue is to talk about it rather than “cancelling” Tate. During her school presentations, she said, there is “lots of laughter and giggles” but when she questions the boys afterwards they become quieter. She said: “I will ask them if they really think their mother is the property of their father… they will say no. If you ask them questions in a very calm, logical way they don’t really have answers. “If you humiliate or berate them they will become defensive… right now these boys don’t feel heard and that is why Andrew Tate is on the rise… we need to get to the heart of why so many young men find him a role model.” It comes as the NSPCC on Tuesday called on tech companies to do more to tackle misogynistic hate online. Rani Govender, its child safety online policy officer, said: “This sexist content is shaping boys’ attitudes and behaviour, causing harm to girls in and out of school and online.”

Experts from The RAP Project, which normally runs workshops about rape, consent and sexual assault for some of London’s top private schools, have been asked to specifically address concerns about the controversial “influencer”.
Tate, 36, has millions of young followers online and promotes an “ultra-masculine” lifestyle. He is currently under investigation in Romania after being arrested on charges of being part of an organised crime group, human trafficking and rape.
Some London schools, including the £20,000-a-year St Dunstan’s College in Catford, have created their own lesson plans to ensure his misogynistic views do not go unchallenged, after parents raised concerns about his influence.
Deana Puccio, a former sex crimes prosecutor from New York, who co-founded The RAP project, said teachers have asked her to directly address the issue of Tate in her school presentations because they are concerned about the behaviour and views of some teenage boys.
She said some boys are blaming women and girls because their own lives are not how they would like them to be.
Five schools initially sought her help in September to talk to students directly about Tate, but now she discusses him in most presentations. She said: “All last term almost every all-boys or co-educational school we were in asked us to specifically address Andrew Tate as an issue. Some schools say he has been influencing boys as young as Year 6.”
She said one school contacted The Rap Project because teachers were alarmed at conversations boys were having on issues such as equal pay for men and women. She added: “Andrew Tate’s influence is legitimising their misogynistic comments and behaviour.” St Dunstan’s has introduced its own special lessons to teach children what is wrong with Tate’s approach to women.
Jonathan Holmes, deputy head academic, said the school plans to talk about Tate with all children in Year 8 and above.
He added: “Some of our parents have been really proactive, asking for us to address his views in our teaching.” Older students will look at transcripts of videos Tate has shared and explore why they are harmful.
Read More
Ms Puccio said the best way for schools to deal with the issue is to talk about it rather than “cancelling” Tate.
During her school presentations, she said, there is “lots of laughter and giggles” but when she questions the boys afterwards they become quieter. She said: “I will ask them if they really think their mother is the property of their father… they will say no. If you ask them questions in a very calm, logical way they don’t really have answers.
“If you humiliate or berate them they will become defensive… right now these boys don’t feel heard and that is why Andrew Tate is on the rise… we need to get to the heart of why so many young men find him a role model.”
It comes as the NSPCC on Tuesday called on tech companies to do more to tackle misogynistic hate online.
Rani Govender, its child safety online policy officer, said: “This sexist content is shaping boys’ attitudes and behaviour, causing harm to girls in and out of school and online.”

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials. Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026. --- ## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026) - The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4] - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4] - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4] - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4] - A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2] - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2] For a safeguarding team, this means: - You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity. - Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward. --- ## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice ### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive. - A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3] - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3] - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3] - London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8] - The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6] - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6] Practical implications: - Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for: - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6] - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6] - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6] - Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6] ### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture - In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1] - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1] - Their recommendations include: - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1] - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1] Implications for safeguarding teams: - Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring: - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm. - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services). - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership. --- ## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise ### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses - A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on: - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7] - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7] - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7] - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7] - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7] - The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as: - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6] - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6] - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6] Implications: - Provide **INSET/CPD** that: - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**. - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies. - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion. ### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources - The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9] - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9] - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9] - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9] - The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10] - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10] - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender. Implications: - Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to: - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments. - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff. - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught. ### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

Effective school interventions in UK secondary settings (2024–26) against **toxic masculinity** and the influence of **Andrew Tate** are converging around four pillars: whole‑school safeguarding and RSHE, open critical discussion of influencers, staff training and guidance, and early, relational emotional‑literacy work. Evidence is emerging from UK practice, early government policy, and research rather than long‑term trials.

Below is a synthesis focused on practical, *safeguarding‑oriented* interventions you can build into work for 2024–2026.

---

## 1. Policy and curriculum context in England (2024–2026)

- The updated **Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** for England explicitly requires schools to help pupils **resist misogyny, incel culture and online “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate**.[4]  
  - Boys are to be helped to find **positive role models** and to understand links between **pornography and misogyny**, AI and deepfakes.[4]  
  - The guidance stresses avoiding **“stigmatising boys for being boys”** while confronting harmful content.[4]  
  - Schools can implement the guidance from **September 2024** and must follow it from **September 2026**.[4]

- A recent government strategy (under the current administration) includes **compulsory lessons on healthy relationships for all secondary pupils**, explicitly framed as a response to **“misogynistic, toxic influencers like Andrew Tate”**.[2]  
  - Teachers are to receive **specialist training** to talk about consent and harmful behaviour at home or in relationships, with referral to **targeted programmes** where needed.[2]

For a safeguarding team, this means:

- You can frame interventions as **implementation of statutory RSHE** and **violence‑against‑women‑and‑girls (VAWG)** duties, rather than “extra” activity.  
- Planning should assume RSHE content on misogyny, online influence and masculinity will be **scrutinised by inspectors and parents** from 2024 onward.

---

## 2. What is happening in schools now: lessons from practice

### 2.1 Open discussion and critical deconstruction of Tate’s content

Several schools and support organisations report that **avoiding the topic** or “cancelling” Tate is ineffective; open discussion and critical thinking are more productive.

- A south London independent school has integrated **Andrew Tate’s story** into existing lessons on **gender stereotypes, equality and toxic masculinity**.[3]  
  - From age 11, pupils learn about gender stereotypes and equality; around 13, they cover **“toxic masculinity”**.[3]  
  - Mixed‑gender class discussions are facilitated by teachers, who help pupils **“deconstruct the discourse of Tate and other influencers”**.[3]

- London teachers interviewed about Tate’s impact report that the **best response is to talk about him, not to “cancel” him**.[8]

- The Counselling Directory guidance for schools similarly advises that the role of staff is not to **ban content or shame students** but to create space where students can **critically engage** with ideas, question harmful narratives and develop respect.[6]  
  - Teachers are encouraged to use **open questions** such as *“What do you admire about him?”* and *“Does everything he says make sense?”* to start reflective discussions.[6]

Practical implications:

- Build planned RSHE/PSHE sessions where Tate and similar influencers are used as *case studies* for:
  - **Critical thinking / media literacy** (algorithms, monetisation, performance vs belief).[6]
  - **Gender norms, equality, homophobia and misogyny**.[3][6]
  - **Real‑world consequences** of online attitudes for relationships and school culture.[6]
- Ensure sessions are **mixed‑gender where safe and appropriate**, with **additional safe spaces for girls** to speak freely about experiences of misogyny.[6]

### 2.2 Local multi‑agency responses and whole‑school culture

- In **South Ribble**, a local authority misogyny working group found a **surge in misogyny “prompted by Andrew Tate”**.[1]  
  - They introduced measures including school work and youth engagement; early findings suggested a **beneficial impact**, but they stressed that **ongoing collaboration with schools and young people is essential**.[1]  
  - Their recommendations include:
    - Improved guidance for **boys and young men, and girls**, on **how to report misogyny**.[1]  
    - Using the local **social prescribing team** to engage boys and young men in **positive discussions** about masculinity so they feel **supported, not targeted**.[1]

Implications for safeguarding teams:

- Treat misogyny and Tate‑style content as a **VAWG and safeguarding** issue requiring:
  - Clear **reporting routes** for misogyny, sexual harassment and online harm.  
  - Multi‑agency partnerships (early help, youth services, social prescribing, VAWG services).
  - A **whole‑school approach**—behaviour policy, staff training, pastoral systems, and student leadership.

---

## 3. Specific intervention approaches that show promise

### 3.1 Staff training and scripted responses

- A specialised course, **“Tackling Misogyny and the Andrew Tate Phenomenon”**, offers schools a **practical blueprint**.[7] It focuses on:
  - Recognising **root causes** of misogyny in adolescent boys (insecurity, fear, anger, peer influence).[7]
  - Clarifying what **sexual harassment in schools** looks like (from verbal taunts to physical violations).[7]
  - Building a **toolkit of scripted responses and questions** to use when a student repeats Tate rhetoric.[7]
  - Discussion techniques that **redirect boys without shaming them**, turning confrontation into education.[7]
  - Developing a **policy framework** that protects students and staff and ensures leadership support.[7]

- The Counselling Directory guide gives similar **low‑shame, high‑challenge** dialogue examples, such as:
  - “Tell me more about that… What makes you think that?” instead of “That’s offensive.”[6]
  - Questions linking comments to impact: *“How do you think that comment makes others feel?”* or *“How would you feel if someone said that about your sister or mother?”*[6]  
  - Encouraging **self‑reflection** and linking beliefs to **future relationships, career and friendships**.[6]

Implications:

- Provide **INSET/CPD** that:
  - Normalises staff hearing Tate‑style rhetoric and responding **calmly, consistently and educationally**.  
  - Gives **simple scripts** for classroom and corridor use, aligned with behaviour and anti‑bullying policies.  
  - Clarifies when to **escalate as safeguarding / sexual harassment** versus when to handle as classroom discussion.

### 3.2 Andrew Tate toolkits and structured resources

- The **“Andrew Tate Schools Toolkit”** (Gloucestershire Healthy Living & Learning) offers practical guidance for discussion sessions.[9]  
  - It advises being **proactive, not reactive**, bringing up the topic before incidents occur to minimise defensiveness.[9]  
  - Staff are encouraged to **keep the discussion light, casual and friendly**, and to adjust body language to foster a sense of equality.[9]  
  - It stresses **clear discussion boundaries**, centring empathy and challenge: all views are welcome, but everyone must be open to being challenged.[9]

- The Irish Anti‑Bullying Centre’s **“Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys”** resource is designed for **educational interventions with boys aged 13–18**.[10]  
  - It guides schools in having **critical discussions** about online masculinity influencers and their impact.[10]  
  - It can be adapted in UK RSHE/PSHE for structured, evidence‑informed sessions on influencer culture and gender.

Implications:

- Adopt or adapt one of these **ready‑made toolkits** to:
  - Standardise lesson formats and safeguarding risk assessments.  
  - Ensure **consistency** across year groups and staff.  
  - Give parents and governors a transparent outline of what is being taught.

### 3.3 Emotional literacy & early‑years social‑emotional l

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12] Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance: - **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions** The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12] Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8] - **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers** Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8] Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3] - **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate** White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends: - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11] - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11] This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics. - **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking** Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**: - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5] - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4] - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3] - **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness** UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses: - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3] - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9] This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online. - **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’** Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends: - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10] - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9] - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6] - **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing** The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6] For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of: - **Treating others respectfully** - **Online and media influences** - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation** within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15] - **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)** Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary: - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14] - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14] - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14] - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14] - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15] - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14] - **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate** UK school and charity guidance suggests using: - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11] - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4] - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4] - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11] - **Safeguarding framing** Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as: - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14] - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14] This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe. If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12]

Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance:

- **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions**  
  The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12]  
  Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8]

- **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers**  
  Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8]  
  Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3]

- **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate**  
  White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends:  
  - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11]  
  - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11]  
  This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics.

- **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking**  
  Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**:  
  - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5]  
  - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4]  
  - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3]

- **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness**  
  UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses:  
  - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3]  
  - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9]  
  This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online.

- **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’**  
  Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends:  
  - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10]  
  - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9]  
  - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6]

- **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing**  
  The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6]  
  For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of:  
  - **Treating others respectfully**  
  - **Online and media influences**  
  - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation**  
  within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15]

- **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)**  
  Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary:  
  - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14]  
  - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14]  
  - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14]  
  - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14]  
  - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15]  
  - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14]

- **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate**  
  UK school and charity guidance suggests using:  
  - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11]  
  - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4]  
  - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4]  
  - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11]

- **Safeguarding framing**  
  Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as:  
  - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14]  
  - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14]  
  This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe.

If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

Children and young people will be better protected from the scourge of misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control through new Relationships, Sex and Health Education guidance for schools being published today (Tuesday 15 July). The statutory guidance has a new focus on helping boys identify positive role models, and challenge myths about women and relationships that are spread online in the ‘manosphere’ - without stigmatising boys for being boys. Secondary schools will also now include lessons on incel culture, including how a piece of content online can impact a person’s understanding of sexual ethics and behaviour, as well as increasing awareness of AI, deepfakes and how pornography links to misogyny. It comes as new data published today shows misogynistic attitudes have reached epidemic scale by the end of secondary school. When asked to think about just the past week, over a third (37%) of pupils aged 11-19 had heard comments that made them concerned about the safety of girls, and over half (54%) said they had witnessed comments they would describe as misogynistic. Other additions to the curriculum include spiking and methanol poisoning, increased focus on resilience and coping, a strengthened health syllabus so children are equipped with necessary knowledge on women’s health such as endometriosis and fertility. The guidance builds on the government’s commitment to give every school child access to a mental health professional, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change, and comes ahead of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy due to be published in the autumn. Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said: Before I was elected to Parliament, I managed a refuge for women and children fleeing domestic violence, so I have seen first-hand the devastating impact when we don’t foster healthy attitudes from the youngest age. I want our children to be equipped to defy the malign forces that exist online. Schools and parents alike have a vital role to play, helping children identify positive role models and resist the manipulation too often used online to groom impressionable young minds. Whether it’s helping deliver on our Plan for Change mission to halve violence against women and girls or growing a more just and equal society, there can be no more basic mission for a government then making sure our children grow up to become decent, respectful adults, prepared for the modern world. Children will start to build positive attitudes to relationships between friends and family in primary school, followed by new dedicated content in secondary school that helps boys identify positive male role models, and all children to expect consent and kindness when they get ready for more intimate relationships. Additional new content for secondary schools includes: - Sexual ethics beyond consent, for example teaching young people that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account - Staying safe in public spaces, to match staying safe online, so young people know how to increase their personal safety in public spaces, build confidence in trusting their instincts and learn ways to seek help - Financial exploitation - Positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity A strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school, will mean children don’t get taught things they are too young for, without proscribing specific ages to each individual topic. The clear dividing line between what can be taught in primary and secondary school remains unchanged. This will allow teachers to sensitively respond to topics that children might have seen online or heard from their friends – making sure children are kept safe and parents are informed. Research shows over one in five (22%) of girls aged 7 to 10 had seen ‘rude images online’, and the average age for exposure to pornography is 13. This is also an issue the sector has regularly raised concerns about, with 3 out of 4 teachers surveyed worrying about the influence of online misogyny over their pupils. That’s why, starting in early 2026, schools will be able to apply for an RSHE training grant, empowering the workforce to take on these challenges. Oak National Academy, the publicly-funded provider of curriculum and teaching resources for schools, has released a set of online safety lessons reflecting this part of the guidance that will warn teenagers of the dangers of incel ideology and other forms of misogyny they encounter on the internet. Jason Elsom, Chief Executive of Parentkind, the UK’s largest parent charity, said: Transparency is critical for parents and there should be an unambiguous right for parents to see what their children are being taught before they are taught it. This guidance makes it clear that is what should happen. Where parents have been able to view RSHE materials, they are four times as likely to say they are happy with the content of RSHE lessons. Transparency is the word that should be written through every school’s approach to RSHE. Parents rightly have high expectations of schools around the teaching of sensitive subjects and doing this in a way that works with parents rather than keeping parents in the dark. John Roberts, Interim CEO of Oak National Academy, said: Teachers have an important role to play in helping children stay safe online and enabling them to identify harms such as incel ideology and misogyny. But it’s a delicate topic to cover, and schools need to feel confident they are getting it right. These free, optional Oak resources offer age-appropriate lessons that help teachers start honest conversations and guide pupils towards healthier digital habits and safer online experiences. The guidance is absolutely clear that parents should be able to view all RSHE curriculum materials on request and that schools should not agree to any contractual restrictions on showing parents any content that the school will use. To further support children to feel able to take on challenges and risks, they will be taught the importance of grit and resilience and to recognise that anxiety and low mood can be a normal of managing every day mental health. With suicide being the biggest killer of under 35s, the guidance has made clear that secondary schools should work closely with mental health professionals on how to discuss suicide prevention in an age-appropriate way. Andy, Mike and Tim of 3 Dads Walking said: We welcome this vital step forward. Giving schools permission to talk about suicide prevention means more young people can be supported to open up about difficult feelings and know where to find help. We know, from painful personal experience, how much this matters. This change will save lives. We’re grateful to have played a part in helping bring it about. Schools can begin following the guidance from the new school year and it must be followed from September 2026. Margaret Mulholland, SEND and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said: Sadly, boys are often exposed to harmful and toxic misogynistic content online, which can impact on their behaviour in the real world. The focus of this updated guidance on tackling these issues is timely and welcome. It is important that we don’t simply tell boys what is wrong but that we also talk to them about positive male role models – and we are pleased that this is recognised in the guidance. Social media companies must also do more to police their platforms to remove harmful material and in particular protect children and young people from malign influences. We all have a responsibility to uphold values of decency and respect.

Children and young people will be better protected from the scourge of misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control through new Relationships, Sex and Health Education guidance for schools being published today (Tuesday 15 July).
The statutory guidance has a new focus on helping boys identify positive role models, and challenge myths about women and relationships that are spread online in the ‘manosphere’ - without stigmatising boys for being boys.
Secondary schools will also now include lessons on incel culture, including how a piece of content online can impact a person’s understanding of sexual ethics and behaviour, as well as increasing awareness of AI, deepfakes and how pornography links to misogyny.
It comes as new data published today shows misogynistic attitudes have reached epidemic scale by the end of secondary school. When asked to think about just the past week, over a third (37%) of pupils aged 11-19 had heard comments that made them concerned about the safety of girls, and over half (54%) said they had witnessed comments they would describe as misogynistic.
Other additions to the curriculum include spiking and methanol poisoning, increased focus on resilience and coping, a strengthened health syllabus so children are equipped with necessary knowledge on women’s health such as endometriosis and fertility.
The guidance builds on the government’s commitment to give every school child access to a mental health professional, delivering on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change, and comes ahead of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy due to be published in the autumn.
Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said:
Before I was elected to Parliament, I managed a refuge for women and children fleeing domestic violence, so I have seen first-hand the devastating impact when we don’t foster healthy attitudes from the youngest age.
I want our children to be equipped to defy the malign forces that exist online. Schools and parents alike have a vital role to play, helping children identify positive role models and resist the manipulation too often used online to groom impressionable young minds.
Whether it’s helping deliver on our Plan for Change mission to halve violence against women and girls or growing a more just and equal society, there can be no more basic mission for a government then making sure our children grow up to become decent, respectful adults, prepared for the modern world.
Children will start to build positive attitudes to relationships between friends and family in primary school, followed by new dedicated content in secondary school that helps boys identify positive male role models, and all children to expect consent and kindness when they get ready for more intimate relationships.
Additional new content for secondary schools includes:
- Sexual ethics beyond consent, for example teaching young people that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account
- Staying safe in public spaces, to match staying safe online, so young people know how to increase their personal safety in public spaces, build confidence in trusting their instincts and learn ways to seek help
- Financial exploitation
- Positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity
A strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school, will mean children don’t get taught things they are too young for, without proscribing specific ages to each individual topic.
The clear dividing line between what can be taught in primary and secondary school remains unchanged.
This will allow teachers to sensitively respond to topics that children might have seen online or heard from their friends – making sure children are kept safe and parents are informed.
Research shows over one in five (22%) of girls aged 7 to 10 had seen ‘rude images online’, and the average age for exposure to pornography is 13. This is also an issue the sector has regularly raised concerns about, with 3 out of 4 teachers surveyed worrying about the influence of online misogyny over their pupils.
That’s why, starting in early 2026, schools will be able to apply for an RSHE training grant, empowering the workforce to take on these challenges.
Oak National Academy, the publicly-funded provider of curriculum and teaching resources for schools, has released a set of online safety lessons reflecting this part of the guidance that will warn teenagers of the dangers of incel ideology and other forms of misogyny they encounter on the internet.
Jason Elsom, Chief Executive of Parentkind, the UK’s largest parent charity, said:
Transparency is critical for parents and there should be an unambiguous right for parents to see what their children are being taught before they are taught it. This guidance makes it clear that is what should happen.
Where parents have been able to view RSHE materials, they are four times as likely to say they are happy with the content of RSHE lessons. Transparency is the word that should be written through every school’s approach to RSHE.
Parents rightly have high expectations of schools around the teaching of sensitive subjects and doing this in a way that works with parents rather than keeping parents in the dark.
John Roberts, Interim CEO of Oak National Academy, said:
Teachers have an important role to play in helping children stay safe online and enabling them to identify harms such as incel ideology and misogyny.
But it’s a delicate topic to cover, and schools need to feel confident they are getting it right.
These free, optional Oak resources offer age-appropriate lessons that help teachers start honest conversations and guide pupils towards healthier digital habits and safer online experiences.
The guidance is absolutely clear that parents should be able to view all RSHE curriculum materials on request and that schools should not agree to any contractual restrictions on showing parents any content that the school will use.
To further support children to feel able to take on challenges and risks, they will be taught the importance of grit and resilience and to recognise that anxiety and low mood can be a normal of managing every day mental health.
With suicide being the biggest killer of under 35s, the guidance has made clear that secondary schools should work closely with mental health professionals on how to discuss suicide prevention in an age-appropriate way.
Andy, Mike and Tim of 3 Dads Walking said:
We welcome this vital step forward. Giving schools permission to talk about suicide prevention means more young people can be supported to open up about difficult feelings and know where to find help.
We know, from painful personal experience, how much this matters. This change will save lives. We’re grateful to have played a part in helping bring it about.
Schools can begin following the guidance from the new school year and it must be followed from September 2026.
Margaret Mulholland, SEND and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said:
Sadly, boys are often exposed to harmful and toxic misogynistic content online, which can impact on their behaviour in the real world. The focus of this updated guidance on tackling these issues is timely and welcome.
It is important that we don’t simply tell boys what is wrong but that we also talk to them about positive male role models – and we are pleased that this is recognised in the guidance.
Social media companies must also do more to police their platforms to remove harmful material and in particular protect children and young people from malign influences. We all have a responsibility to uphold values of decency and respect.

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12] Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance: - **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions** The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12] Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8] - **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers** Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8] Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3] - **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate** White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends: - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11] - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11] This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics. - **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking** Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**: - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5] - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4] - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3] - **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness** UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses: - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3] - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9] This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online. - **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’** Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends: - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10] - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9] - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6] - **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing** The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6] For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of: - **Treating others respectfully** - **Online and media influences** - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation** within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15] - **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)** Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary: - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14] - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14] - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14] - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14] - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15] - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14] - **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate** UK school and charity guidance suggests using: - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11] - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4] - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4] - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11] - **Safeguarding framing** Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as: - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14] - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14] This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe. If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12]

Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance:

- **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions**  
  The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12]  
  Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8]

- **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers**  
  Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8]  
  Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3]

- **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate**  
  White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends:  
  - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11]  
  - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11]  
  This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics.

- **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking**  
  Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**:  
  - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5]  
  - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4]  
  - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3]

- **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness**  
  UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses:  
  - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3]  
  - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9]  
  This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online.

- **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’**  
  Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends:  
  - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10]  
  - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9]  
  - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6]

- **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing**  
  The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6]  
  For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of:  
  - **Treating others respectfully**  
  - **Online and media influences**  
  - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation**  
  within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15]

- **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)**  
  Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary:  
  - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14]  
  - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14]  
  - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14]  
  - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14]  
  - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15]  
  - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14]

- **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate**  
  UK school and charity guidance suggests using:  
  - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11]  
  - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4]  
  - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4]  
  - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11]

- **Safeguarding framing**  
  Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as:  
  - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14]  
  - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14]  
  This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe.

If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

Why This Matters Now Online toxic masculinity is spreading rapidly through social media, gaming platforms, and influencer content. Harmful ideas about gender are often disguised as lifestyle tips, memes, or jokes, making them harder to spot. Recent reports from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) highlight influencers like Andrew Tate, who have amassed billions of views on TikTok and Instagram, normalizing misogynistic narratives under the guise of “self-improvement.” Gaming communities and streaming platforms also face scrutiny, with studies showing that sexist language, harassment, and misogynistic memes are still widespread—even algorithmically amplified—pushing young users into online echo chambers that valorize aggression and dominance. With most boys encountering misogynistic content by age 14, these messages can shape their attitudes, damage mental health, and even lead to real-world harm ranging from bullying to gender-based violence. Schools Stepping Up In response, schools across the UK are launching new initiatives: - Updated RHSE Curriculum: From 2025, the government is updating Relationships, Health and Sex Education guidance to include anti-misogyny lessons. These curricula will teach children—even from primary level—to recognize harmful narratives online and build healthy relationships and digital literacy skills. - Anti-Misogyny Classes: Inspired by the Netflix drama Adolescence—which illustrates how a teenage boy is radicalized by online misogyny—schools are set to introduce focused classes tackling toxic masculinity. These lessons aim to foster empathy, emotional literacy, consent, and boundaries, adapted appropriately for different age groups. - Teacher Training & Support: A government-funded strategy is rolling out specialist training so teachers can spot early signs of misogyny and toxic ideas among boys. Secondary schools will also implement healthy relationship programmes, with pilot schemes launching in 2026 and full rollout scheduled by 2029. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson emphasizes this is part of a wider £20–36 million investment in combating violence against women and girls, with schools at the forefront. What Parents Can Do - Start Conversations Early Ask open-ended questions like: “What do you think about the videos you see online?” or “How do your friends talk about relationships?” This helps you gauge their views without sounding judgmental. - Stay Informed About Trends Follow reputable sources on digital safety and check what’s trending on platforms like TikTok or YouTube. Knowing the influencers and memes they encounter makes your guidance relevant. - Promote Critical Thinking Encourage your child to question content: “Why do you think he said that?” or “What message is this video trying to send?” Teach them to spot manipulation and stereotypes. - Model Respectful Behavior Children learn from what they see. Show empathy and respect in your own interactions—online and offline. - Use Tech Wisely Set up parental controls where appropriate, but pair them with trust and dialogue. Explain why certain content is harmful rather than just blocking it. ONLINE TOXIC MASCULINITY: WHAT PARENTS NEED TO KNOW- A SIMPLE VERSION What is it? - Misogyny: Hatred or prejudice against women. - The Manosphere: Online communities promoting sexist, anti-feminist views. - These groups often hide harmful ideas in jokes, memes, and lifestyle content. Why it matters - 69% of boys aged 11–14 have seen misogynistic content online without searching for it. - Influencers like Andrew Tate and others mix harmful views with fitness or wealth advice to attract followers. Common Terms - Incel: “Involuntary celibate” – men who feel rejected by women. - Red Pill: Belief that society favors women too much. - PUA: Pickup Artists who manipulate women. - Chad/Stacey: Stereotypes for attractive men/women. Where Kids See This - TikTok, YouTube, Instagram - Podcasts - Reddit, 4Chan - Gaming streams (Twitch) Impact on Children - Gives boys a false sense of belonging. - Promotes harmful ideas like: - Men are superior to women - Violence against women is acceptable - Can lead to poor mental health and radicalization. What Can Parents Do? ✅ Show interest in their online life – ask, don’t judge. ✅ Encourage critical thinking – question influencers’ claims. ✅ Talk openly about respect and equality – ask how harmful views make others feel. ✅ Be a role model – show respect for women and healthy emotional expression. Want to learn more? Visit: thekeysupport.com/safeguarding Read: - BBC: Parents should be aware of extremism - Bold Voices: Andrew Tate toolkit CONVERSATION STARTERS Here are some conversation starters parents can use to open up discussions about online toxic masculinity in a non-judgmental way: General Curiosity - “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?” - “Have you ever come across content that made you think differently about men and women?” Critical Thinking - “Why do you think some influencers get so popular? Do you think everything they say is true?” - “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?” Empathy and Respect - “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?” - “What does being respectful online look like to you?” Values and Role Models - “Who do you think is a good role model for boys and girls? Why?” - “What qualities do you admire in people you follow online?”

Why This Matters Now
Online toxic masculinity is spreading rapidly through social media, gaming platforms, and influencer content. Harmful ideas about gender are often disguised as lifestyle tips, memes, or jokes, making them harder to spot. Recent reports from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) highlight influencers like Andrew Tate, who have amassed billions of views on TikTok and Instagram, normalizing misogynistic narratives under the guise of “self-improvement.”
Gaming communities and streaming platforms also face scrutiny, with studies showing that sexist language, harassment, and misogynistic memes are still widespread—even algorithmically amplified—pushing young users into online echo chambers that valorize aggression and dominance.
With most boys encountering misogynistic content by age 14, these messages can shape their attitudes, damage mental health, and even lead to real-world harm ranging from bullying to gender-based violence.
Schools Stepping Up
In response, schools across the UK are launching new initiatives:
-
Updated RHSE Curriculum: From 2025, the government is updating Relationships, Health and Sex Education guidance to include anti-misogyny lessons. These curricula will teach children—even from primary level—to recognize harmful narratives online and build healthy relationships and digital literacy skills.
-
Anti-Misogyny Classes: Inspired by the Netflix drama Adolescence—which illustrates how a teenage boy is radicalized by online misogyny—schools are set to introduce focused classes tackling toxic masculinity. These lessons aim to foster empathy, emotional literacy, consent, and boundaries, adapted appropriately for different age groups.
-
Teacher Training & Support: A government-funded strategy is rolling out specialist training so teachers can spot early signs of misogyny and toxic ideas among boys. Secondary schools will also implement healthy relationship programmes, with pilot schemes launching in 2026 and full rollout scheduled by 2029.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson emphasizes this is part of a wider £20–36 million investment in combating violence against women and girls, with schools at the forefront.
What Parents Can Do
-
Start Conversations Early
Ask open-ended questions like:
“What do you think about the videos you see online?” or
“How do your friends talk about relationships?”
This helps you gauge their views without sounding judgmental. -
Stay Informed About Trends
Follow reputable sources on digital safety and check what’s trending on platforms like TikTok or YouTube. Knowing the influencers and memes they encounter makes your guidance relevant. -
Promote Critical Thinking
Encourage your child to question content:
“Why do you think he said that?” or
“What message is this video trying to send?”
Teach them to spot manipulation and stereotypes. -
Model Respectful Behavior
Children learn from what they see. Show empathy and respect in your own interactions—online and offline. -
Use Tech Wisely
Set up parental controls where appropriate, but pair them with trust and dialogue. Explain why certain content is harmful rather than just blocking it.
ONLINE TOXIC MASCULINITY: WHAT PARENTS NEED TO KNOW- A SIMPLE VERSION
What is it?
- Misogyny: Hatred or prejudice against women.
- The Manosphere: Online communities promoting sexist, anti-feminist views.
- These groups often hide harmful ideas in jokes, memes, and lifestyle content.
Why it matters
- 69% of boys aged 11–14 have seen misogynistic content online without searching for it.
- Influencers like Andrew Tate and others mix harmful views with fitness or wealth advice to attract followers.
Common Terms
- Incel: “Involuntary celibate” – men who feel rejected by women.
- Red Pill: Belief that society favors women too much.
- PUA: Pickup Artists who manipulate women.
- Chad/Stacey: Stereotypes for attractive men/women.
Where Kids See This
- TikTok, YouTube, Instagram
- Podcasts
- Reddit, 4Chan
- Gaming streams (Twitch)
Impact on Children
- Gives boys a false sense of belonging.
- Promotes harmful ideas like:
- Men are superior to women
- Violence against women is acceptable
- Can lead to poor mental health and radicalization.
What Can Parents Do?
✅ Show interest in their online life – ask, don’t judge.
✅ Encourage critical thinking – question influencers’ claims.
✅ Talk openly about respect and equality – ask how harmful views make others feel.
✅ Be a role model – show respect for women and healthy emotional expression.
Want to learn more?
Visit: thekeysupport.com/safeguarding
Read:
- BBC: Parents should be aware of extremism
- Bold Voices: Andrew Tate toolkit
CONVERSATION STARTERS
Here are some conversation starters parents can use to open up discussions about online toxic masculinity in a non-judgmental way:
General Curiosity
- “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”
- “Have you ever come across content that made you think differently about men and women?”
Critical Thinking
- “Why do you think some influencers get so popular? Do you think everything they say is true?”
- “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”
Empathy and Respect
- “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”
- “What does being respectful online look like to you?”
Values and Role Models
- “Who do you think is a good role model for boys and girls? Why?”
- “What qualities do you admire in people you follow online?”

How to talk to your child about toxic masculinity and misogyny - Published A recent Eastenders storyline tackling the topic of toxic masculinity and misogyny has reignited the debate about the rise of the issue amongst boys and young men. To explain what's behind this trend, how it's influencing teenagers, and what parents can do to respond, expert psychiatrist Dr Sohom Das joined BBC Morning Live in the studio to share his insights. What is misogyny and how early does it start? Dr Das says: "Misogyny means a hatred or deep distrust of women, but it doesn't always look extreme. It can include more subtle behaviours, such as dismissing women's views, mocking them for showing emotion, or describing empathy as weakness. What's worrying now is how early this is taking root. We're seeing these ideas not only in adults but in children and teenagers who are spending more time online. According to Amnesty International, 73% of young social media users have seen misogynistic content, and more than half say they encounter it at least once a week. Much of it comes from influencers who portray themselves as confident and successful while spreading resentment towards women." The influencer effect Many influencers know exactly how to make their content appealing. Dr Das says: "They speak with confidence, promise success and control, and often wrap harmful ideas in messages about self-improvement or independence. That makes their views sound positive at first, but they can quickly shift towards hostility. Social media algorithms make the problem worse by promoting videos that generate strong reactions. So even if a teenager isn't searching for that material, it can still appear on their feed. A young person might start with one video about confidence, and soon they're in an echo chamber of extreme opinions about gender and power." What to look out for Parents, teachers and friends can spot warning signs that someone is being influenced by this type of content. Dr Das gives his tips: "Watch for an individual using language that generalises or insults women, such as "they're all manipulative" or "feminism has gone too far". Are they following or sharing "alpha male" accounts that promote dominance and control? Are they mocking women for speaking out or describing kindness as weakness? Look out for signs of increased hostility or defensiveness towards female classmates or family members. This behaviour can normalise quickly in online spaces, so early conversations are essential." How to talk about it Dr Das recommends approaching these discussions with curiosity rather than confrontation. He says: "Ask where they heard something, what they think it means, and whether they think it's fair. The aim isn't to lecture them, but to help them think critically about what they're watching." Suggest watching content together to explore who created it, what message they're pushing, and why it might appeal to people. When you identify the manipulation behind the message, it loses its power. "As a role model, show that being open, kind and emotionally aware is strength, not weakness. When boys see men who behave that way, it challenges the idea that power comes from aggression." Support and advice The Lucy Faithfull Foundation, external - supports families affected by harmful sexual behaviour. End Violence Against Women, external - campaigns for gender equality and education. Beyond Equality, external - runs workshops for schools and workplaces about healthy masculinity. Internet Matters, external - advice for parents on supporting children's online wellbeing. Action for Children, external - resources to help parents talk about sexism and gender equality. Do you have a story to share? Send us your comments on Whatsapp

How to talk to your child about toxic masculinity and misogyny
- Published
A recent Eastenders storyline tackling the topic of toxic masculinity and misogyny has reignited the debate about the rise of the issue amongst boys and young men.
To explain what's behind this trend, how it's influencing teenagers, and what parents can do to respond, expert psychiatrist Dr Sohom Das joined BBC Morning Live in the studio to share his insights.
What is misogyny and how early does it start?
Dr Das says:
"Misogyny means a hatred or deep distrust of women, but it doesn't always look extreme. It can include more subtle behaviours, such as dismissing women's views, mocking them for showing emotion, or describing empathy as weakness.
What's worrying now is how early this is taking root. We're seeing these ideas not only in adults but in children and teenagers who are spending more time online.
According to Amnesty International, 73% of young social media users have seen misogynistic content, and more than half say they encounter it at least once a week. Much of it comes from influencers who portray themselves as confident and successful while spreading resentment towards women."
The influencer effect
Many influencers know exactly how to make their content appealing.
Dr Das says:
"They speak with confidence, promise success and control, and often wrap harmful ideas in messages about self-improvement or independence. That makes their views sound positive at first, but they can quickly shift towards hostility.
Social media algorithms make the problem worse by promoting videos that generate strong reactions. So even if a teenager isn't searching for that material, it can still appear on their feed. A young person might start with one video about confidence, and soon they're in an echo chamber of extreme opinions about gender and power."
What to look out for
Parents, teachers and friends can spot warning signs that someone is being influenced by this type of content.
Dr Das gives his tips:
"Watch for an individual using language that generalises or insults women, such as "they're all manipulative" or "feminism has gone too far".
Are they following or sharing "alpha male" accounts that promote dominance and control?
Are they mocking women for speaking out or describing kindness as weakness?
Look out for signs of increased hostility or defensiveness towards female classmates or family members.
This behaviour can normalise quickly in online spaces, so early conversations are essential."
How to talk about it
Dr Das recommends approaching these discussions with curiosity rather than confrontation.
He says:
"Ask where they heard something, what they think it means, and whether they think it's fair. The aim isn't to lecture them, but to help them think critically about what they're watching."
Suggest watching content together to explore who created it, what message they're pushing, and why it might appeal to people. When you identify the manipulation behind the message, it loses its power.
"As a role model, show that being open, kind and emotionally aware is strength, not weakness. When boys see men who behave that way, it challenges the idea that power comes from aggression."
Support and advice
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation, external - supports families affected by harmful sexual behaviour.
End Violence Against Women, external - campaigns for gender equality and education.
Beyond Equality, external - runs workshops for schools and workplaces about healthy masculinity.
Internet Matters, external - advice for parents on supporting children's online wellbeing.
Action for Children, external - resources to help parents talk about sexism and gender equality.
Do you have a story to share?
Send us your comments on Whatsapp

Schoolchildren are set to be given lessons in how to counter misogyny and toxic masculinity amid the rise of influencers such as Andrew Tate. The Independent understands that health and sex education (RHSE) guidance for schools will be updated at the start the next academic year to add sections on supporting healthy relationships and to help schools target harmful narratives that are spread on social media. The guidance, which is still being updated, will also teach children at primary and secondary school how to navigate difficult emotions and have a focus tackling sexist content spread online. It comes as Sir Keir Starmer has expressed admiration for Stephen Graham’s Netflix series Adolescence about a teenage boy who is arrested for murdering a girl after being influenced by incel propaganda online. As well as watching it with his two teenagers at home, he has supported a campaign for it to be shown in schools. Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has been under pressure to overturn the draft RHSE guidance, put forward when the Conservatives were in power, which included plans to ban sex education for children under the age of nine, as well as discussion of gender identity. The Independent has spoken to school leaders about the problems caused by harmful attitudes held by young men, with one headteacher warning parents not to brush their concerns about the growing influence of toxic masculinity under the carpet and to speak to people about it. Michael Sullivan, head teacher of Forest Hill School for boys in Lewisham, had a message for parents who might be concerned about their sons: “Speak to your son, speak to his school, and don’t try and brush it under the carpet. “I think that’s the worst thing you could do if you are concerned about something. “Speak to the people who might be able to support you or your son or the person you’re concerned about to change that and for us to make sure that these things are openly discussed in a healthy way.” Forest Hill School has worked with Beyond Equality, an education programme who run workshops on positive masculinity values, in response to the growing influence of Andrew Tate, the manosphere and toxic masculinity among teenage boys. “As an all boys school, we have a duty to address the negative stereotypes that can sometimes be associated incorrectly with an all boys' education. “We want to make sure that we were proactively addressing some of the issues that were coming out with the toxic masculinity agenda.” Mr Sullivan said that while he didn’t feel his school had a “particular issue” with toxic masculinity, the decision to work with Beyond Equality stemmed from wanting to “address it in a proactive way while boys are with us in the school.” He isn’t the only teacher who has expressed the importance of addressing this issue. Clive Hill, a teacher at Meden School, Nottinghamshire, told The Independent that the sector had noticed a rise in sexist behaviour. “We’ve definitely seen a rise in the need to tackle those sorts of behaviours,” said the teacher, who got into education via TeachFirst. “That's across several schools. It's across the sector when I talk to colleagues at conferences.” It became a personal issue for Mr Hill when his daughter, who attended a co-ed sixth form attached to an all boys school, was on the receiving end of misogyny with some “students outright praising Andrew Tate”. Mr Hill said that part of the issue stems from within the school: “We don't have enough role models in schools. We've got the issue with recruitment of where you need to be seen in the classroom for students to be able to relate to who they are.” The latest figures from the Department of Education saw that men now make up only a third of staff at secondary schools, down from nearly half 30 years ago. “I think to start off with the narrative around what positive masculinity is has got to come from males,” Mr Hill said. “It's got to come from male teachers.” He continued: “The narrative that we need to portray to young men is that they are the solution, not the problem.” Adolescence has not only become a talking point in parliament, but in schools as well. Educator Will Adolphy, co-founder of M-Path, which goes into schools delivering masculinity programmes, has already noticed the impact of the show. “I've already had teachers reference [it],” he said. “I've said [to my whole team],guys, this is homework now because teachers are going to be referencing this. “That TV show really shows just how important it is that we engage boys and men, otherwise we might lose them to isolation and, and the manosphere and violence, gender-based violence.” He added: “We don't know what healthy masculinity really looks like yet culturally, like we don't see it much in our films and TV still. We don't see it much in our books or in our music.” Mr Adolphy knows firsthand the positive impact from teaching healthy masculinity. “My approach is to go in there and I’m not a teacher, I’m not a member of staff. I’m one of you and I share my story”, he said. “I’m modelling vulnerability”, he added. “I’m not there to tell them how to live their lives.” He continued: “I’ve found with that approach, sometimes you see the bravado drop. The educator sat down with Sir Keir and health secretary Wes Streeting last year where they discussed men’s health strategy, discussing in particular what can be done to bring boys and men into the conversation alongside the effort for girls and women. “Because it’s going to benefit everyone”, he said, adding that the moment filled him with optimism. “I’m excited.”

Schoolchildren are set to be given lessons in how to counter misogyny and toxic masculinity amid the rise of influencers such as Andrew Tate.
The Independent understands that health and sex education (RHSE) guidance for schools will be updated at the start the next academic year to add sections on supporting healthy relationships and to help schools target harmful narratives that are spread on social media.
The guidance, which is still being updated, will also teach children at primary and secondary school how to navigate difficult emotions and have a focus tackling sexist content spread online.
It comes as Sir Keir Starmer has expressed admiration for Stephen Graham’s Netflix series Adolescence about a teenage boy who is arrested for murdering a girl after being influenced by incel propaganda online.
As well as watching it with his two teenagers at home, he has supported a campaign for it to be shown in schools.
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has been under pressure to overturn the draft RHSE guidance, put forward when the Conservatives were in power, which included plans to ban sex education for children under the age of nine, as well as discussion of gender identity.
The Independent has spoken to school leaders about the problems caused by harmful attitudes held by young men, with one headteacher warning parents not to brush their concerns about the growing influence of toxic masculinity under the carpet and to speak to people about it.
Michael Sullivan, head teacher of Forest Hill School for boys in Lewisham, had a message for parents who might be concerned about their sons: “Speak to your son, speak to his school, and don’t try and brush it under the carpet.
“I think that’s the worst thing you could do if you are concerned about something.
“Speak to the people who might be able to support you or your son or the person you’re concerned about to change that and for us to make sure that these things are openly discussed in a healthy way.”
Forest Hill School has worked with Beyond Equality, an education programme who run workshops on positive masculinity values, in response to the growing influence of Andrew Tate, the manosphere and toxic masculinity among teenage boys.
“As an all boys school, we have a duty to address the negative stereotypes that can sometimes be associated incorrectly with an all boys' education.
“We want to make sure that we were proactively addressing some of the issues that were coming out with the toxic masculinity agenda.”
Mr Sullivan said that while he didn’t feel his school had a “particular issue” with toxic masculinity, the decision to work with Beyond Equality stemmed from wanting to “address it in a proactive way while boys are with us in the school.”
He isn’t the only teacher who has expressed the importance of addressing this issue. Clive Hill, a teacher at Meden School, Nottinghamshire, told The Independent that the sector had noticed a rise in sexist behaviour.
“We’ve definitely seen a rise in the need to tackle those sorts of behaviours,” said the teacher, who got into education via TeachFirst. “That's across several schools. It's across the sector when I talk to colleagues at conferences.”
It became a personal issue for Mr Hill when his daughter, who attended a co-ed sixth form attached to an all boys school, was on the receiving end of misogyny with some “students outright praising Andrew Tate”.
Mr Hill said that part of the issue stems from within the school: “We don't have enough role models in schools. We've got the issue with recruitment of where you need to be seen in the classroom for students to be able to relate to who they are.”
The latest figures from the Department of Education saw that men now make up only a third of staff at secondary schools, down from nearly half 30 years ago.
“I think to start off with the narrative around what positive masculinity is has got to come from males,” Mr Hill said. “It's got to come from male teachers.”
He continued: “The narrative that we need to portray to young men is that they are the solution, not the problem.”
Adolescence has not only become a talking point in parliament, but in schools as well.
Educator Will Adolphy, co-founder of M-Path, which goes into schools delivering masculinity programmes, has already noticed the impact of the show.
“I've already had teachers reference [it],” he said. “I've said [to my whole team],guys, this is homework now because teachers are going to be referencing this.
“That TV show really shows just how important it is that we engage boys and men, otherwise we might lose them to isolation and, and the manosphere and violence, gender-based violence.”
He added: “We don't know what healthy masculinity really looks like yet culturally, like we don't see it much in our films and TV still. We don't see it much in our books or in our music.”
Mr Adolphy knows firsthand the positive impact from teaching healthy masculinity.
“My approach is to go in there and I’m not a teacher, I’m not a member of staff. I’m one of you and I share my story”, he said.
“I’m modelling vulnerability”, he added. “I’m not there to tell them how to live their lives.”
He continued: “I’ve found with that approach, sometimes you see the bravado drop.
The educator sat down with Sir Keir and health secretary Wes Streeting last year where they discussed men’s health strategy, discussing in particular what can be done to bring boys and men into the conversation alongside the effort for girls and women.
“Because it’s going to benefit everyone”, he said, adding that the moment filled him with optimism. “I’m excited.”

SCARF and developing behaviours to help me to prevent misogyny, toxic masculinity, and harmful social media influence in school The UK government recognises how important PSHE is in providing prevention education, as well as a whole-school approach to tackling harmful attitudes and behaviours, as set out in the DfE's 2022 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education document: "Schools and colleges play a crucial role in preventative education. Preventative education is most effective in the context of a whole-school approach that prepares pupils and students for life in modern Britain and creates a culture of zero tolerance for sexism, misogyny/misandry, homophobia, biphobic and sexual violence/harassment." As part of statutory relationships and health education, pupils must be taught about online safety and harms, including: - The rules and principles for keeping safe online, how to recognise risks, harmful content and contact, and how to report them - How to critically consider their online friendships and sources of information including awareness of the risks associated with people they have never met - How information and data is shared and used online - About the benefits of rationing time spent online, the risks of excessive time spent on electronic devices and the impact of positive and negative content online on their own and others’ mental and physical wellbeing - How to be a discerning consumer of information online including understanding that information, including that from search engines, is ranked, selected and targeted. These requirements thread through our lessons and help teachers to support children to evaluate what they see online, helping them to make judgements and not automatically assume what they see is true, valid or acceptable. This will enable children to critically analyse what and whom they see online, why they are creating the content they are and who is benefitting. In addition, many of the requirements under Relationships Education help to prevent the development of unhealthy thoughts and behaviour, specifically: - The importance of respecting others, even when they are very different from them (for example, physically, in character, personality or background), make different choices or have different preferences or beliefs - That in school and in wider society they can expect to be treated with respect by others, and that in turn, they should show due respect to others, including those in positions of authority - Learning about what a stereotype is, and how stereotypes can be unfair, negative or destructive. This work is complemented with lessons considering healthy relationships, aspirations, (including positive role models), self-esteem, stereotyping, and bullying, both on and offline to ensure a holistic approach to tackling misogyny and toxic masculinity; providing children with time to explore respectful, healthy relationships and what they look like. Teaching and learning about misogyny, toxic masculinity, and social media influence is therefore fully integrated into SCARF, through age-appropriate content across its spiral curriculum. Whilst terms such as misogyny and toxic masculinity won't appear in lesson plans, the principles that underlie the prevention of these behaviours are included in the lessons. These can be within the subjects and issues listed below: Misogyny Relationships, gender expectations, respect, prejudice Toxic masculinity Gender, stereotypes, self-esteem, peer influence

SCARF and developing behaviours to help me to prevent misogyny, toxic masculinity, and harmful social media influence in school
The UK government recognises how important PSHE is in providing prevention education, as well as a whole-school approach to tackling harmful attitudes and behaviours, as set out in the DfE's 2022 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education document:
"Schools and colleges play a crucial role in preventative education. Preventative education is most effective in the context of a whole-school approach that prepares pupils and students for life in modern Britain and creates a culture of zero tolerance for sexism, misogyny/misandry, homophobia, biphobic and sexual violence/harassment."
As part of statutory relationships and health education, pupils must be taught about online safety and harms, including:
- The rules and principles for keeping safe online, how to recognise risks, harmful content and contact, and how to report them
- How to critically consider their online friendships and sources of information including awareness of the risks associated with people they have never met
- How information and data is shared and used online
- About the benefits of rationing time spent online, the risks of excessive time spent on electronic devices and the impact of positive and negative content online on their own and others’ mental and physical wellbeing
- How to be a discerning consumer of information online including understanding that information, including that from search engines, is ranked, selected and targeted.
These requirements thread through our lessons and help teachers to support children to evaluate what they see online, helping them to make judgements and not automatically assume what they see is true, valid or acceptable. This will enable children to critically analyse what and whom they see online, why they are creating the content they are and who is benefitting.
In addition, many of the requirements under Relationships Education help to prevent the development of unhealthy thoughts and behaviour, specifically:
- The importance of respecting others, even when they are very different from them (for example, physically, in character, personality or background), make different choices or have different preferences or beliefs
- That in school and in wider society they can expect to be treated with respect by others, and that in turn, they should show due respect to others, including those in positions of authority
- Learning about what a stereotype is, and how stereotypes can be unfair, negative or destructive.
This work is complemented with lessons considering healthy relationships, aspirations, (including positive role models), self-esteem, stereotyping, and bullying, both on and offline to ensure a holistic approach to tackling misogyny and toxic masculinity; providing children with time to explore respectful, healthy relationships and what they look like.
Teaching and learning about misogyny, toxic masculinity, and social media influence is therefore fully integrated into SCARF, through age-appropriate content across its spiral curriculum. Whilst terms such as misogyny and toxic masculinity won't appear in lesson plans, the principles that underlie the prevention of these behaviours are included in the lessons. These can be within the subjects and issues listed below:
Misogyny
Relationships, gender expectations, respect, prejudice
Toxic masculinity
Gender, stereotypes, self-esteem, peer influence

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12] Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance: - **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions** The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12] Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8] - **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers** Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8] Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3] - **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate** White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends: - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11] - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11] This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics. - **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking** Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**: - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5] - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4] - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3] - **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness** UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses: - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3] - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9] This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online. - **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’** Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends: - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10] - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9] - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6] - **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing** The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6] For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of: - **Treating others respectfully** - **Online and media influences** - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation** within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15] - **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)** Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary: - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14] - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14] - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14] - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14] - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15] - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14] - **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate** UK school and charity guidance suggests using: - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11] - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4] - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4] - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11] - **Safeguarding framing** Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as: - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14] - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14] This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe. If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12]

Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance:

- **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions**  
  The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12]  
  Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8]

- **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers**  
  Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8]  
  Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3]

- **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate**  
  White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends:  
  - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11]  
  - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11]  
  This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics.

- **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking**  
  Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**:  
  - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5]  
  - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4]  
  - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3]

- **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness**  
  UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses:  
  - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3]  
  - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9]  
  This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online.

- **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’**  
  Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends:  
  - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10]  
  - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9]  
  - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6]

- **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing**  
  The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6]  
  For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of:  
  - **Treating others respectfully**  
  - **Online and media influences**  
  - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation**  
  within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15]

- **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)**  
  Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary:  
  - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14]  
  - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14]  
  - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14]  
  - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14]  
  - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15]  
  - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14]

- **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate**  
  UK school and charity guidance suggests using:  
  - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11]  
  - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4]  
  - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4]  
  - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11]

- **Safeguarding framing**  
  Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as:  
  - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14]  
  - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14]  
  This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe.

If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12] Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance: - **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions** The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12] Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8] - **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers** Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8] Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3] - **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate** White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends: - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11] - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11] This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics. - **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking** Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**: - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5] - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4] - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3] - **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness** UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses: - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3] - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9] This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online. - **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’** Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends: - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10] - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9] - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6] - **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing** The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6] For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of: - **Treating others respectfully** - **Online and media influences** - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation** within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15] - **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)** Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary: - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14] - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14] - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14] - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14] - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15] - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14] - **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate** UK school and charity guidance suggests using: - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11] - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4] - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4] - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11] - **Safeguarding framing** Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as: - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14] - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14] This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe. If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

For 13–15-year-olds in UK schools, discussions of **toxic masculinity** are considered appropriate when they are embedded in planned PSHE/RSHE, focused on respect, equality, online influence and safety, and delivered in a safe, non-judgemental environment, rather than naming specific influencers.[3][8][12]

Key safeguarding and curriculum principles from UK-focused guidance:

- **Use planned, age‑appropriate PSHE/RSHE rather than one‑off reactions**  
  The PSHE Association advises schools to address online misogyny and toxic influences “**via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum**” instead of ad‑hoc sessions.[12]  
  Local PSHE guidance (KS1–5) similarly recommends embedding misogyny/toxic masculinity within existing content such as **respectful relationships, discrimination, online/media influence and radicalisation**.[3][8]

- **Focus on behaviours and ideas, not on promoting influencers**  
  Several UK guidance documents warn that staff should **avoid focusing lessons on specific influencers or platforms**, as this can “build awareness and further the ‘glamourisation’” of harmful figures.[3][8]  
  Instead, they recommend addressing the **negative views and behaviours**, and explaining how algorithms push similar content once a student searches for it, which can create a false sense that those views are widely held.[3]

- **Create a psychologically safe classroom climate**  
  White Ribbon’s guidance on talking to boys about violence against women and girls recommends:  
  - Start with **ground rules** (“no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key”) and make clear they will not be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.[11]  
  - Use anonymous question boxes or online polls if pupils are hesitant to speak.[11]  
  This aligns with broader PSHE good practice for sensitive topics.

- **Use ‘ask, don’t tell’ and encourage critical thinking**  
  Safeguarding and parenting guidance repeatedly emphasises **curiosity over confrontation**:  
  - BBC guidance quotes a child and adolescent psychiatrist: “The goal is not to lecture them but to encourage **critical thinking** about the content they consume.”[5]  
  - Local school and safeguarding materials recommend “don’t tell your child how to think, but **question their thinking and understanding**”, including asking if they agree with ideas like women “belong” to men and how that would make people feel.[1][4]  
  - Guidance on misogyny and toxic masculinity through PSHE stresses helping students understand how **online influencers package harmful world views within more wholesome messages** (e.g. fitness, self‑improvement) to create a false sense of validity.[3]

- **Explicitly teach online literacy and algorithm awareness**  
  UK guidance on misogyny/toxic masculinity stresses:  
  - Explaining that once a student searches for this content, **algorithms will present more similar content**, potentially making it seem mainstream.[3]  
  - Teaching students to **question what they see online**, be aware of bias and manipulation, and “be skeptical, not cynical – ask: Who wrote this? Why was it written?”[1][9]  
  This is appropriate for 13–15-year-olds, who are typically active online.

- **Emphasise respect, equality, and emotional literacy rather than ‘blaming boys’**  
  Local and national guidance on responding to the “manosphere” and online misogyny recommends:  
  - Presenting an **alternative worldview of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish**, and enabling **students of all genders to see and hear positive role models**, including staff who challenge toxic narratives.[3][10]  
  - Highlighting that **real strength comes from respect and empathy, not dominance or control**.[9]  
  - Anti‑misogyny classes being developed for schools aim to build **empathy, emotional literacy, consent and boundaries**, adapted for different age groups, rather than simply condemning masculinity.[4][6]

- **Age‑appropriateness and sequencing**  
  The Department for Education has announced a “**strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary school**” in RSHE guidance, specifically to ensure children are not taught things they are too young for.[2][6]  
  For **secondary** (13–15s), local PSHE guidance highlights coverage of:  
  - **Treating others respectfully**  
  - **Online and media influences**  
  - **Identifying discrimination and radicalisation**  
  within RSHE/PSHE.[3][8][15]

- **Recommended content themes for 13–15s (drawn from UK guidance)**  
  Across multiple UK resources, the following themes are treated as appropriate for early–mid secondary:  
  - **Gender stereotypes and expectations** (e.g. “boys don’t cry”, pressure to be “alpha”), linked to harm for boys and girls.[7][11][14]  
  - **Misogyny and sexist attitudes** as forms of discrimination, including how jokes, slurs or dismissive attitudes contribute to a hostile environment.[3][10][14]  
  - **Healthy vs unhealthy masculinity**, including the idea that it is healthy for boys to show emotions and seek help, and that kindness is not weakness.[4][5][9][14]  
  - **Violence against women and girls (VAWG)** in a safeguarding frame, focusing on empathy for those affected and the role of bystanders (challenging harmful comments, supporting peers).[11][14]  
  - **Healthy relationships, consent and boundaries**, including non‑sexual examples (personal space, sharing information) and respect in digital communication.[9][15]  
  - **Online influence, manosphere content and radicalisation risk**, framed as part of online safety and critical media literacy.[3][8][10][13][14]

- **Practical discussion approaches that are age‑appropriate**  
  UK school and charity guidance suggests using:  
  - **Open questions** such as “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”, “Have you ever heard something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”, or “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’?”[11]  
  - **Conversation starters** on online content: “What kind of videos or influencers do you like watching online?”, “Why do you think some influencers get so popular?”, “How do you decide whether to trust what someone says online?”[4]  
  - **Empathy prompts**: “How do you think comments like ‘women belong to men’ would make your friends feel?”[1][4]  
  - **Media analysis** of short clips/posts to identify stereotypes, manipulation, and impacts on relationships.[3][5][11]

- **Safeguarding framing**  
  Safeguarding‑oriented resources (e.g. Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership, The Children’s Society, local VRU/PSHE guidance) frame toxic masculinity and misogyny as:  
  - **Online harms** that can contribute to radicalisation, bullying, sexual harassment and abusive relationships.[8][10][14]  
  - Issues that require **ongoing dialogue with pupils**, regular check‑ins about their online life, and clear routes to disclose concerns.[1][9][10][14]  
  This justifies addressing the topic explicitly with 13–15s where relevant to keeping them and others safe.

If you share more about whether you are designing a lesson, a parent session, or a whole‑school approach, I can align this further with RSHE/Ofsted expectations and suggest example objectives and question prompts tailored to Year 9–10.

The Manosphere is a collection of sexist ideas, shared and discussed in digital forums, groups and meet ups. Protecting young people from misogyny and the manosphere With online harassment becoming real-world violence, even harmful comments have deeper consequences for both boys and girls. Manosphere, red-pill, incel – you might’ve heard of these terms. Here, we break down the terminology, and some of the risks to young people. Learn what parents and carers can look out for to keep young people safe. Manosphere stats 63% of young men watch masculinity influencers 1/3 of Gen Z men and boys think a wife should obey her husband 1 in 6 6 to 15-year-old boys have a positive opinion of Andrew Tate Sense of belonging A sense of belonging Young people need connection and safe spaces to be themselves without feeling judged, rejected, or outcast. With positive influences and early education, children begin to develop a more certain sense of themselves and the world around them, making them less susceptible to harmful rhetorics like those of the manosphere and able to challenge sexism when they see it. Misogyny isn’t new, the reach of sexist influencers is The ‘manosphere,’ consisting of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces, has exposed many people - boys, men, girls, women - to negative attitudes towards women and girls. It can cause them to adopt hostile views, sometimes acting upon them. Such influencers objectify women and girls, use dehumanising, traditional language, and paint them as inferior, for example belonging in the kitchen and only capable of motherhood, while also promoting the idea that men are oppressed victims of feminism. Representing women as weak and manipulative can convince boys that men must always be in control, so they begin to find their worth and masculinity tied to dominating women. This can escalate into physical and sexual violence against women and girls (VAWG) when their views become extremely distorted. Why do these narratives appeal to young boys? Why do these narratives appeal to young boys? When teenagers are struggling with their identity and uncertainties, the manosphere appears to offer answers. Masculinity influencers provide a sense of belonging where boys otherwise lack it, usually fixating on appearance, wealth, and sex. These online spaces build on algorithms feeding harmful content to young people - what may begin as ironic jokes can quickly become deeply rooted sexism. This can keep them stuck in an echo chamber of misogynistic views. Vulnerabilities Boys may be vulnerable, feeling insecure about their appearance, being exposed to domestic violence or abuse, or being bullied. These are exploited by the influencers to validate misogynistic ideas, and in some cases manipulate them into taking real-world, extreme actions. "Children who harm others are often experiencing significant hurt themselves. Behaviour is usually the final expression of an unmet need: negative thoughts develop into difficult emotions, which can present as harmful or concerning behaviour. We found that for children who have been victims of domestic abuse, their sense of physical and emotional safety has been eroded. Safety is a fundamental human need, and when it is compromised over a prolonged period, it can lead to insecure or disrupted attachments with the adults who should be their source of stability." - Gabrielle Ernest, Operations Manager at Resolve@ Young men stats 2/3 of young men feel that ‘No one really knows me’ 48% of incel participants recorded very high levels of loneliness 54% of boys think boys have it harder than girls today Terms to look out for Harm to girls How does this harm girls? As the manosphere normalises misogyny, boys exposed to this content are more likely to objectify women and justify harmful behaviours towards them. This can escalate from verbal threats or online harassment to stalking and physical or sexual assault. Harm to girls This creates an unsafe environment for women and girls to exist in – in schools, the workplace, and the streets. Not only do these behaviours increase physical dangers for women and girls, but also anxiety, paranoia, and depression around regular occurrences in daily life. As misogynist views spread, they also risk dismantling progress on gender equality - from policies on harassment to pay gaps and reproductive rights. The government have named VAWG as a national emergency that deserves a whole-of-society response, focusing on early intervention. Girls stats 58% of girls and young women have experienced some form of online harassment UK girls reported consistently lower happiness relative to boys Around 1 in 8 women were victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse or stalking 37% of female students at mixed sex schools have personally experienced some form of sexual harassment at school How does this harm boys? In promoting dominance as masculine, the manosphere shuns feelings and vulnerabilities as feminine and inferior. This leads to boys feeling shame about seeking mental health support or disclosing abuse. Many people assume girls are the most common targets of sexual abuse and exploitation, which leaves boys being abused going unnoticed. Boys are often worried about opening up, scared that they may be ridiculed or labelled as weak. If they deeply embed themselves into these communities, boys are at risk of internalising extreme messaging, which can result in condoning, even encouraging, violence against women and girls. Importance of early support Importance of early support Research suggests that children's attitudes towards gender are fully formed by age 7. Early support and education, like through our Beyond Gender Stereotypes curriculum, are crucial in tackling misogyny and the ideas circulated in the manosphere at its roots. Digital literacy is especially important in these areas, as the manosphere is built upon misinformation. Teaching young people to think critically, question the sources of the information they consume, and challenge generalisations, will reduce the risk of harm. What can you do? Create an open dialogue with your child. Take an interest in their interests and remain curious about the content they consume. Check in regularly and let them know you’ll always lend an unjudgmental ear. Be a positive role model. Show that you are willing to understand and support them whenever they need it. Helping your child feel heard will reduce the risk of them seeking solace elsewhere. Author: Aisha Khan Help keep all teenagers safe With preventative, early support, teenagers could develop the tools they need to cope with the challenges they face, rather than facing life alone. Sign now if you agree that we urgently need action to keep all teenagers safe.

The Manosphere is a collection of sexist ideas, shared and discussed in digital forums, groups and meet ups.
Protecting young people from misogyny and the manosphere
With online harassment becoming real-world violence, even harmful comments have deeper consequences for both boys and girls. Manosphere, red-pill, incel – you might’ve heard of these terms. Here, we break down the terminology, and some of the risks to young people. Learn what parents and carers can look out for to keep young people safe.
Manosphere stats
63%
of young men watch masculinity influencers
1/3
of Gen Z men and boys think a wife should obey her husband
1 in 6
6 to 15-year-old boys have a positive opinion of Andrew Tate
Sense of belonging
A sense of belonging
Young people need connection and safe spaces to be themselves without feeling judged, rejected, or outcast.
With positive influences and early education, children begin to develop a more certain sense of themselves and the world around them, making them less susceptible to harmful rhetorics like those of the manosphere and able to challenge sexism when they see it.
Misogyny isn’t new, the reach of sexist influencers is
The ‘manosphere,’ consisting of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces, has exposed many people - boys, men, girls, women - to negative attitudes towards women and girls. It can cause them to adopt hostile views, sometimes acting upon them.
Such influencers objectify women and girls, use dehumanising, traditional language, and paint them as inferior, for example belonging in the kitchen and only capable of motherhood, while also promoting the idea that men are oppressed victims of feminism.
Representing women as weak and manipulative can convince boys that men must always be in control, so they begin to find their worth and masculinity tied to dominating women.
This can escalate into physical and sexual violence against women and girls (VAWG) when their views become extremely distorted.
Why do these narratives appeal to young boys?
Why do these narratives appeal to young boys?
When teenagers are struggling with their identity and uncertainties, the manosphere appears to offer answers. Masculinity influencers provide a sense of belonging where boys otherwise lack it, usually fixating on appearance, wealth, and sex.
These online spaces build on algorithms feeding harmful content to young people - what may begin as ironic jokes can quickly become deeply rooted sexism. This can keep them stuck in an echo chamber of misogynistic views.
Vulnerabilities
Boys may be vulnerable, feeling insecure about their appearance, being exposed to domestic violence or abuse, or being bullied. These are exploited by the influencers to validate misogynistic ideas, and in some cases manipulate them into taking real-world, extreme actions.
"Children who harm others are often experiencing significant hurt themselves. Behaviour is usually the final expression of an unmet need: negative thoughts develop into difficult emotions, which can present as harmful or concerning behaviour.
We found that for children who have been victims of domestic abuse, their sense of physical and emotional safety has been eroded. Safety is a fundamental human need, and when it is compromised over a prolonged period, it can lead to insecure or disrupted attachments with the adults who should be their source of stability." - Gabrielle Ernest, Operations Manager at Resolve@
Young men stats
2/3
of young men feel that ‘No one really knows me’
48%
of incel participants recorded very high levels of loneliness
54%
of boys think boys have it harder than girls today
Terms to look out for
Harm to girls
How does this harm girls?
As the manosphere normalises misogyny, boys exposed to this content are more likely to objectify women and justify harmful behaviours towards them. This can escalate from verbal threats or online harassment to stalking and physical or sexual assault.
Harm to girls
This creates an unsafe environment for women and girls to exist in – in schools, the workplace, and the streets. Not only do these behaviours increase physical dangers for women and girls, but also anxiety, paranoia, and depression around regular occurrences in daily life.
As misogynist views spread, they also risk dismantling progress on gender equality - from policies on harassment to pay gaps and reproductive rights.
The government have named VAWG as a national emergency that deserves a whole-of-society response, focusing on early intervention.
Girls stats
58%
of girls and young women have experienced some form of online harassment
UK girls
reported consistently lower happiness relative to boys
Around 1 in 8
women were victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse or stalking
37%
of female students at mixed sex schools have personally experienced some form of sexual harassment at school
How does this harm boys?
In promoting dominance as masculine, the manosphere shuns feelings and vulnerabilities as feminine and inferior.
This leads to boys feeling shame about seeking mental health support or disclosing abuse. Many people assume girls are the most common targets of sexual abuse and exploitation, which leaves boys being abused going unnoticed. Boys are often worried about opening up, scared that they may be ridiculed or labelled as weak.
If they deeply embed themselves into these communities, boys are at risk of internalising extreme messaging, which can result in condoning, even encouraging, violence against women and girls.
Importance of early support
Importance of early support
Research suggests that children's attitudes towards gender are fully formed by age 7. Early support and education, like through our Beyond Gender Stereotypes curriculum, are crucial in tackling misogyny and the ideas circulated in the manosphere at its roots.
Digital literacy is especially important in these areas, as the manosphere is built upon misinformation. Teaching young people to think critically, question the sources of the information they consume, and challenge generalisations, will reduce the risk of harm.
What can you do?
Create an open dialogue with your child. Take an interest in their interests and remain curious about the content they consume. Check in regularly and let them know you’ll always lend an unjudgmental ear.
Be a positive role model. Show that you are willing to understand and support them whenever they need it. Helping your child feel heard will reduce the risk of them seeking solace elsewhere.
Author: Aisha Khan
Help keep all teenagers safe
With preventative, early support, teenagers could develop the tools they need to cope with the challenges they face, rather than facing life alone.
Sign now if you agree that we urgently need action to keep all teenagers safe.

How to talk to boys about violence against women and girls: overcoming defensiveness and alienation By Annie Chadwick When I first started leading workshops on "healthy masculinity" with Voicebox, I remember standing in front of a classroom full of Year 9 boys, heart thumping, trying to explain what “VAWG” meant. That’s Violence Against Women and Girls. I could feel the tension rise before I even finished the sentence. A few boys folded their arms, rolled their eyes. A few flat out laughed. I heard “Why are we being blamed for this?", "I’d never do that" and "Why aren't the girls learning about 'healthy femininity'?" It was a turning point for how I now approach any work I do with young people. I realised then that the biggest barrier wasn’t a lack of care from the Year 9s. It was a fear of being blamed, misunderstood, or written off before they'd even spoken. Especially as a female facilitator, I’ve learned how quickly a conversation can shut down if boys feel like they’re being talked at instead of talked with. If I walk in ready to ‘correct’ them before I’ve listened, I lose them. But if I show that I’m genuinely here to understand, not to shame, they're more likely to meet me there. In short: if I connect first, and critique second, things go much more smoothly. These days, I’m Voicebox’s Marketing and Social Media Manager, as well as a White Ribbon Champion. While I’m now more focused on amplifying our message than delivering sessions myself, that time spent directly with boys in schools still shapes everything I write and share. I know what these conversations look like on the ground - and how powerful they can be. I’m proud to say we’ve worked with over 37,000 young people across 160+ schools, local authorities and organisations to promote healthy masculinity. And the biggest lesson I’ve learned is this: Boys aren’t disengaged - they’re often just defensive. And that’s something we can work with. We don’t need them to say what we hope to hear, we need them to say what they really think, so that we can engage with them where they are at. Teenage boys don’t grow up in a vacuum. From the moment they start school, they’re taught - directly or indirectly - that “real men” don’t cry, don’t talk about feelings, and don’t like being told they’re wrong. So when we bring up misogyny, VAWG, or "toxic" masculinity many boys immediately feel accused. Some genuinely don’t see how it’s relevant to them. Others have seen these terms used in angry online debates. And almost all of them, at some point, have felt misunderstood. Having observed a lot of the online discourse around "toxic" masculinity amongst young men - especially since Netflix's Adolescence took over the internet - I fear many have forgotten that most of the young men they're referring to are, in fact, children. It's just not fair to place blame on those who don't have control over the lessons they absorb. What they need is guidance, clarity and empathy, not judgement. But here’s the thing: boys want to be respected. They want to do the right thing. They want to be proud of themselves, and their identities. We just need to reframe the conversation so they don’t feel like they’re walking into a courtroom. Language matters: healthy vs “toxic” At Voicebox, we never use the phrase “toxic masculinity” in workshops. It’s not because it’s inaccurate, it’s because it doesn’t work with this audience (trust me - this is tried and tested). Instead, we talk about masculinity in terms of healthy and unhealthy. That simple shift changes everything. It tells boys we’re not against them being boys, and that we’re not looking to reject masculinity. We’re just asking: What kind of man do you want to be? And who benefits (or suffers) when you behave a certain way? We use phrases like: “Some behaviours are unhelpful - for you and the people around you.” “Not all parts of masculinity are harmful. But some can be.” “What happens when boys are told to ‘man up’? How does that feel?” When we move away from blame and toward curiosity, we give boys the room to think, not just react. If you work with teenage boys, you’ve probably seen the shutdown happen: folded arms, silence, maybe even a snide comment. But we can create spaces that disarm that defensiveness and turn it into dialogue. Here are some practical tips for teachers, youth workers, and anyone who works with young men: 1. Set the scene Start with shared agreements: no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key. Let them know they won’t be “told off” for saying the wrong thing. If you're sensing a hesitancy to speak in front of others, use an anonymous question box or online poll to give students a safe way to express their thoughts. 2. Ask, don’t tell Try: “What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?” “Have you ever heard someone say something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?” “What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’ or 'misogynistic school culture?” You're more likely to get a response from a group when encouraging curiosity. When they feel like you’re genuinely interested in their thoughts, they’ll show you their depth. Questions like these are also an easy way to make the discussion feel like a free running conversation rather than a lecture. 3. Connect through empathy We often use short clips, role-playing exercises, or real-life stories to help participants connect the dots between what we've discussed and their own experiences. One activity that works especially well is asking them to reflect on a time they felt pressure to act “like a man.” Then we link it to how girls feel pressure too, and how these expectations, for everyone, can feed into harmful dynamics like misogyny or unhealthy relationships. Boys are listening - even when they look like they aren’t. And when we approach conversations about VAWG and misogyny in schools with empathy, clarity and open language, we make it safe for them to step into the conversation - not retreat from it. If you work with young people, I encourage you to check out our resources at Voicebox and explore how you can start promoting healthy masculinity in your school or organisation. As a White Ribbon Champion, I know that change doesn’t happen all at once. But it does happen - and it often starts with someone being willing to have a different kind of conversation. About Annie Chadwick Annie is a writer, actor and digital marketing professional who primarily works with and for charities and CICs within the creative industries. She trained in applied theatre (BA) and then scriptwriting (MA) at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, a foundation that informs her distinctive voice and commitment to impactful storytelling with community at the forefront. Annie began facilitating with Voicebox in 2022 and now serves as its Marketing & Social Media Manager.

How to talk to boys about violence against women and girls: overcoming defensiveness and alienation
By Annie Chadwick
When I first started leading workshops on "healthy masculinity" with Voicebox, I remember standing in front of a classroom full of Year 9 boys, heart thumping, trying to explain what “VAWG” meant. That’s Violence Against Women and Girls. I could feel the tension rise before I even finished the sentence.
A few boys folded their arms, rolled their eyes. A few flat out laughed. I heard “Why are we being blamed for this?", "I’d never do that" and "Why aren't the girls learning about 'healthy femininity'?"
It was a turning point for how I now approach any work I do with young people. I realised then that the biggest barrier wasn’t a lack of care from the Year 9s. It was a fear of being blamed, misunderstood, or written off before they'd even spoken.
Especially as a female facilitator, I’ve learned how quickly a conversation can shut down if boys feel like they’re being talked at instead of talked with. If I walk in ready to ‘correct’ them before I’ve listened, I lose them. But if I show that I’m genuinely here to understand, not to shame, they're more likely to meet me there. In short: if I connect first, and critique second, things go much more smoothly.
These days, I’m Voicebox’s Marketing and Social Media Manager, as well as a White Ribbon Champion. While I’m now more focused on amplifying our message than delivering sessions myself, that time spent directly with boys in schools still shapes everything I write and share. I know what these conversations look like on the ground - and how powerful they can be.
I’m proud to say we’ve worked with over 37,000 young people across 160+ schools, local authorities and organisations to promote healthy masculinity. And the biggest lesson I’ve learned is this:
Boys aren’t disengaged - they’re often just defensive. And that’s something we can work with. We don’t need them to say what we hope to hear, we need them to say what they really think, so that we can engage with them where they are at.
Teenage boys don’t grow up in a vacuum. From the moment they start school, they’re taught - directly or indirectly - that “real men” don’t cry, don’t talk about feelings, and don’t like being told they’re wrong. So when we bring up misogyny, VAWG, or "toxic" masculinity many boys immediately feel accused.
Some genuinely don’t see how it’s relevant to them. Others have seen these terms used in angry online debates. And almost all of them, at some point, have felt misunderstood.
Having observed a lot of the online discourse around "toxic" masculinity amongst young men - especially since Netflix's Adolescence took over the internet - I fear many have forgotten that most of the young men they're referring to are, in fact, children. It's just not fair to place blame on those who don't have control over the lessons they absorb. What they need is guidance, clarity and empathy, not judgement.
But here’s the thing: boys want to be respected. They want to do the right thing. They want to be proud of themselves, and their identities. We just need to reframe the conversation so they don’t feel like they’re walking into a courtroom.
Language matters: healthy vs “toxic”
At Voicebox, we never use the phrase “toxic masculinity” in workshops. It’s not because it’s inaccurate, it’s because it doesn’t work with this audience (trust me - this is tried and tested).
Instead, we talk about masculinity in terms of healthy and unhealthy.
That simple shift changes everything. It tells boys we’re not against them being boys, and that we’re not looking to reject masculinity. We’re just asking: What kind of man do you want to be? And who benefits (or suffers) when you behave a certain way?
We use phrases like:
“Some behaviours are unhelpful - for you and the people around you.”
“Not all parts of masculinity are harmful. But some can be.”
“What happens when boys are told to ‘man up’? How does that feel?”
When we move away from blame and toward curiosity, we give boys the room to think, not just react.
If you work with teenage boys, you’ve probably seen the shutdown happen: folded arms, silence, maybe even a snide comment. But we can create spaces that disarm that defensiveness and turn it into dialogue. Here are some practical tips for teachers, youth workers, and anyone who works with young men:
1. Set the scene
Start with shared agreements: no judgment, all opinions welcome, listening is key. Let them know they won’t be “told off” for saying the wrong thing.
If you're sensing a hesitancy to speak in front of others, use an anonymous question box or online poll to give students a safe way to express their thoughts.
2. Ask, don’t tell
Try:
“What does it mean to be a ‘good guy’ in your friend group?”
“Have you ever heard someone say something about girls that didn’t sit right with you?”
“What do you think people mean when they say ‘misogyny in schools’ or 'misogynistic school culture?”
You're more likely to get a response from a group when encouraging curiosity. When they feel like you’re genuinely interested in their thoughts, they’ll show you their depth. Questions like these are also an easy way to make the discussion feel like a free running conversation rather than a lecture.
3. Connect through empathy
We often use short clips, role-playing exercises, or real-life stories to help participants connect the dots between what we've discussed and their own experiences. One activity that works especially well is asking them to reflect on a time they felt pressure to act “like a man.” Then we link it to how girls feel pressure too, and how these expectations, for everyone, can feed into harmful dynamics like misogyny or unhealthy relationships.
Boys are listening - even when they look like they aren’t. And when we approach conversations about VAWG and misogyny in schools with empathy, clarity and open language, we make it safe for them to step into the conversation - not retreat from it.
If you work with young people, I encourage you to check out our resources at Voicebox and explore how you can start promoting healthy masculinity in your school or organisation. As a White Ribbon Champion, I know that change doesn’t happen all at once. But it does happen - and it often starts with someone being willing to have a different kind of conversation.
About Annie Chadwick
Annie is a writer, actor and digital marketing professional who primarily works with and for charities and CICs within the creative industries. She trained in applied theatre (BA) and then scriptwriting (MA) at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, a foundation that informs her distinctive voice and commitment to impactful storytelling with community at the forefront. Annie began facilitating with Voicebox in 2022 and now serves as its Marketing & Social Media Manager.

Addressing the influence of online misogyny and the manosphere through RSHE/PSHE You may have noticed that misogyny, toxic influences and other related issues have seen increasing media coverage recently. This is partly due to the TV show ‘Adolescence’, which has garnered a lot of media attention and concern amongst those who may not otherwise have been aware of the extent of the issue. While we have heard some suggestions that the series itself might be worth showing in class, we would be very wary of doing so given the issues it covers would need careful unpacking. Aside from the fact that it carries a BBFC Age-15 rating (and therefore wouldn’t be appropriate for viewers under that age in schools), the practicalities of showing a four hour series in class without sufficient time to explore these themes would leave a lot of questions and concerns unresolved. For some it may also prove shocking or triggering, although the issues it explores will be all too familiar to many young people already. Instead, we would recommend addressing the underlying issues (including misogyny and toxic influences) via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum. And we’ve highlighted some of our most relevant guidance and resources below. Firstly, we’ve made our ‘Addressing misogyny, toxic masculinity and social media influence through PSHE education’ guide free to all, as it includes practical advice on how to approach this difficult topic. It also includes links to useful teaching resources and relevant guidance you can draw upon, as well as key considerations of what to cover, and what to avoid. So please share widely, as we know schools are looking for advice in this area. It’s also important to consider the complementary factors and related issues in your approach — not covering misogyny in isolation, but as part of a planned programme that may cover factors such as consent, harmful sexual behaviours and the impact of pornography. Our Programme Builder tools will support you to do this and save you time in the process. Don’t miss our new on-demand training course on effectively teaching about the harms of pornography, available as part of our School Plus membership package. This is in addition to our existing lesson packs on consent for KS1-5 as well as the 'Talk Relationships' lesson pack we worked on with the NSPCC that explores harmful sexual behaviour and other relevant topics. We’d also encourage you to listen to (or read) 'Manosphere in the Mirror', a podcast episode from Fully Human, our research and development arm, which investigates what’s actually happening in the manosphere; how it’s affecting children and young people; and how we might respond. This episode features our CEO Jono, in conversation with Professor Harriet Over and Dr David Zendle (both from the University of York) as well Fully Human's Research Director, Dr Elly Hanson, exploring and comparing their deep research into these questions. It links to our wider work with the University of York, digging even deeper into this issue informed by teachers’ invaluable experience and unique perspectives of seeing this play out in schools — including in relation to misogyny against teachers themselves prompted by online influence. 76% of secondary school teachers and 60% of primary school teachers reported that they were extremely concerned about the influence of online misogyny in their schools. (See the ‘Understanding the influence of online misogyny in schools from the perspective of teachers’ paper for further insights and latest research on the issue.) The government’s ‘Education Against Hate’ initiative also has useful guidance on incels and online misogyny, which links to our guidance on supporting mental health and emotional wellbeing, as this too is an important factor to consider when supporting young people to resist the attraction of these destructive online cultures.

Addressing the influence of online misogyny and the manosphere through RSHE/PSHE
You may have noticed that misogyny, toxic influences and other related issues have seen increasing media coverage recently.
This is partly due to the TV show ‘Adolescence’, which has garnered a lot of media attention and concern amongst those who may not otherwise have been aware of the extent of the issue.
While we have heard some suggestions that the series itself might be worth showing in class, we would be very wary of doing so given the issues it covers would need careful unpacking.
Aside from the fact that it carries a BBFC Age-15 rating (and therefore wouldn’t be appropriate for viewers under that age in schools), the practicalities of showing a four hour series in class without sufficient time to explore these themes would leave a lot of questions and concerns unresolved.
For some it may also prove shocking or triggering, although the issues it explores will be all too familiar to many young people already.
Instead, we would recommend addressing the underlying issues (including misogyny and toxic influences) via your planned PSHE/RSHE curriculum. And we’ve highlighted some of our most relevant guidance and resources below.
Firstly, we’ve made our ‘Addressing misogyny, toxic masculinity and social media influence through PSHE education’ guide free to all, as it includes practical advice on how to approach this difficult topic. It also includes links to useful teaching resources and relevant guidance you can draw upon, as well as key considerations of what to cover, and what to avoid. So please share widely, as we know schools are looking for advice in this area.
It’s also important to consider the complementary factors and related issues in your approach — not covering misogyny in isolation, but as part of a planned programme that may cover factors such as consent, harmful sexual behaviours and the impact of pornography.
Our Programme Builder tools will support you to do this and save you time in the process.
Don’t miss our new on-demand training course on effectively teaching about the harms of pornography, available as part of our School Plus membership package. This is in addition to our existing lesson packs on consent for KS1-5 as well as the 'Talk Relationships' lesson pack we worked on with the NSPCC that explores harmful sexual behaviour and other relevant topics.
We’d also encourage you to listen to (or read) 'Manosphere in the Mirror', a podcast episode from Fully Human, our research and development arm, which investigates what’s actually happening in the manosphere; how it’s affecting children and young people; and how we might respond.
This episode features our CEO Jono, in conversation with Professor Harriet Over and Dr David Zendle (both from the University of York) as well Fully Human's Research Director, Dr Elly Hanson, exploring and comparing their deep research into these questions.
It links to our wider work with the University of York, digging even deeper into this issue informed by teachers’ invaluable experience and unique perspectives of seeing this play out in schools — including in relation to misogyny against teachers themselves prompted by online influence.
76% of secondary school teachers and 60% of primary school teachers reported that they were extremely concerned about the influence of online misogyny in their schools.
(See the ‘Understanding the influence of online misogyny in schools from the perspective of teachers’ paper for further insights and latest research on the issue.)
The government’s ‘Education Against Hate’ initiative also has useful guidance on incels and online misogyny, which links to our guidance on supporting mental health and emotional wellbeing, as this too is an important factor to consider when supporting young people to resist the attraction of these destructive online cultures.

Addressing the impact of Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys A guide for schools, teachers and parents/guardians Dr Fiona O’Rourke, Dr Catherine Baker and Dr Darragh McCashin The Observatory on Cyberbullying, Cyberhate and Online Harassment, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University. Acknowledgements This resource emerged from a project conducted by researchers at the Observatory on Cyberbullying, Cyberhate & Online Harassment, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University, Ireland, which is funded by the Department of Justice. In line with DCU’s strategy (2023-2028), the core mission of its Anti-Bullying Centre is to be a future focused and globally connected European centre of excellence for research and education on bullying and digital safety. The Centre contributes to solving the real-world problems of bullying and online safety through collaboration with an extensive community of academic and industry partnerships. This resource, which provides guidance to schools, teachers and parents/guardians on how to address the impact of online masculinity influencers and digital cultures on children and young people, particularly teenage boys, has been produced in consultation with a number of academics: Research team - Research advisor and lead-author: Dr Fiona O’Rourke, SHAPE Health, Queen Mary, University of London; University of Liverpool - Principal Investigator: Dr Darragh McCashin, Anti-Bullying Centre; Assistant Professor, School of Psychology, Dublin City University - Researcher: Dr Catherine Baker, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University. Research advisory board - Prof Debbie Ging - Professor of Digital Media and Gender, School of Communications, Dublin City University - Dr Kenny Doyle - Project Development O cer, Men’s Development Network Ireland - Dr Claire Edwards - Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork - Prof Jane Suiter - Professor in the School of Communications, Dublin City University - Dr Elaine Byrnes - Researcher in the School of Psychology, Dublin City University - Dr Fiona O’Rourke - SHAPE Health, Queen Mary, University of London; Honorary Research Associate, University of Liverpool - Dr Emily Setty - Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Surrey - Dr Craig Haslop - Senior Lecturer in Media, Department of Communication and Media, University of Liverpool - Dr Nigel Mulligan - fully accredited psychoanalytically informed psychotherapist and Lecturer in Psychoanalysis, Psychology & Psychotherapy, Dublin City University The authors of this resource would like to thank all those who have contributed, including Neogen Design Studio for print design and Katrina Mernagh for the cover illustration and infographics. The image in the cover illustration is not based on an actual masculinity influencer and is used for illustrative purposes only. Suggested Citation O’Rourke, F., Baker, C. and McCashin, D. (2024) Addressing the impact of Masculinity Influencers on teenage boys - A guide for schools, teachers and parents/ guardians, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14102915 Contents Introduction Part 1 Online masculinity influencers - what is being promoted? Part 2 Implications for educational interventions Part 3 Guidance on addressing the impact of masculinity influencers References Appendices Introduction In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the number of young people in Ireland, UK and elsewhere engaging with online influencers1, including those who post motivational health and fitness videos on social media. Online influencers can have a positive impact on their followers by providing them with information (albeit of varying degrees of accuracy), entertainment and opportunities for learning and skill development. However, teachers and parents/guardians in Ireland, and elsewhere have become increasingly concerned about how young people, particularly teenage boys2, are engaging with online ‘masculinity influencers’ who post content on social media platforms on issues relating to men and masculinity, some of which promotes harmful ideologies, attitudes and behaviours, including restrictive and oppressive forms of masculinity that are predicated on sexual and gender-based abuse, harassment and violence (e.g. Baker et. al., 2024; Ging et. al., 2024; Wescott et. al., 2024) (see figures 1-13). The discriminatory, hateful and often violent language of these online masculinity influencers is feeding a culture of prejudice, sexism and hate among children and young people (Weale, 2023; Wescott et al., 2024), which presents serious safeguarding concerns for schools, teachers and parents/guardians that urgently needs to be addressed. This resource aims to provide schools, teachers and educators with guidance on how to address the impact of these online masculinity influencers on young people, particularly teenage boys (aged 13-18), via educational interventions and initiatives, which include having critical discussions with them about this topic. Although this information may not be directly actionable for parents considering one-on-one discussions about this topic with their child, the overall guidance may still be helpful for those preparing for such discussions. Critically, the guidance outlined in this resource recognises that the harmful ideologies, attitudes and behaviours promoted by online masculinity influencers are part of a broader network or ‘ecosystem’ of spaces in our society and culture that have historically maintained and reproduced gendered power dynamics and inequalities (see figure 14). In other words, they are not online only phenomena, but are rather current manifestations of these gendered dynamics and inequalities, which 1 2 change over time. Therefore, discussions about specific online masculinity influencers in this resource should be taken as a proxy for similar content that may arise in our society and culture in the future. Moreover, this resource cautions against attributing the harms associated with online masculinity influencers solely to digital technologies and social media in discussions with young people about this topic. Instead, it advocates a balanced approach to these discussions, which acknowledges the potential harms and positive benefits of social media in ways that aim to support young people in safely navigating these spaces. This guidance comprises three main sections: - First, it provides introductory information about online masculinity influencers who promote harmful ideologies, attitudes and behaviours, the ‘ecosystem’ that underpins and supports them and the impact they are having on children and young people from all gendered backgrounds, including teenage boys, which is based on secondary research. - Second, it identifies the implications this research has for understanding and responding to the impact these online masculinity influencers are having on children and young people, particularly teenage boys, via educational interventions. - Third, it presents practical guidance to schools, teachers and educators on how to facilitate critical discussions about online masculinity influencers with teenage boys, which may also be helpful for parents/guardians who are preparing to have such discussions with their child/children. Guidelines on how schools can build a culture that promotes healthy, respectful and equitable online and o ine relationships, which challenge and change the harmful cultures that underpin and support online masculinity influencers, are also explored. This resource makes reference to discriminatory and hateful language, including gender-based discrimination (e.g. sexism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia) and sexual and gender-based abuse, harassment and violence, which some may find distressing. 1 Online influencers are individual internet users who have developed a sizeable community of followers on social media platforms, like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, thr

Addressing the impact of Masculinity Influencers on Teenage Boys
A guide for schools, teachers and parents/guardians
Dr Fiona O’Rourke, Dr Catherine Baker and Dr Darragh McCashin
The Observatory on Cyberbullying, Cyberhate and Online Harassment, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University.
Acknowledgements
This resource emerged from a project conducted by researchers at the Observatory on Cyberbullying, Cyberhate & Online Harassment, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University, Ireland, which is funded by the Department of Justice. In line with DCU’s strategy (2023-2028), the core mission of its Anti-Bullying Centre is to be a future focused and globally connected European centre of excellence for research and education on bullying and digital safety. The Centre contributes to solving the real-world problems of bullying and online safety through collaboration with an extensive community of academic and industry partnerships. This resource, which provides guidance to schools, teachers and parents/guardians on how to address the impact of online masculinity influencers and digital cultures on children and young people, particularly teenage boys, has been produced in consultation with a number of academics:
Research team
- Research advisor and lead-author: Dr Fiona O’Rourke, SHAPE Health, Queen Mary, University of London; University of Liverpool
- Principal Investigator: Dr Darragh McCashin, Anti-Bullying Centre; Assistant Professor, School of Psychology, Dublin City University
- Researcher: Dr Catherine Baker, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University.
Research advisory board
- Prof Debbie Ging - Professor of Digital Media and Gender, School of Communications, Dublin City University
- Dr Kenny Doyle - Project Development O cer, Men’s Development Network Ireland
- Dr Claire Edwards - Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork
- Prof Jane Suiter - Professor in the School of Communications, Dublin City University
- Dr Elaine Byrnes - Researcher in the School of Psychology, Dublin City University
- Dr Fiona O’Rourke - SHAPE Health, Queen Mary, University of London; Honorary Research Associate, University of Liverpool
- Dr Emily Setty - Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Surrey
- Dr Craig Haslop - Senior Lecturer in Media, Department of Communication and Media, University of Liverpool
- Dr Nigel Mulligan - fully accredited psychoanalytically informed psychotherapist and Lecturer in Psychoanalysis, Psychology & Psychotherapy, Dublin City University
The authors of this resource would like to thank all those who have contributed, including Neogen Design Studio for print design and Katrina Mernagh for the cover illustration and infographics.
The image in the cover illustration is not based on an actual masculinity influencer and is used for illustrative purposes only.
Suggested Citation
O’Rourke, F., Baker, C. and McCashin, D. (2024) Addressing the impact of Masculinity Influencers on teenage boys - A guide for schools, teachers and parents/ guardians, Anti-Bullying Centre, Dublin City University.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14102915
Contents
Introduction
Part 1 Online masculinity influencers - what is being promoted?
Part 2 Implications for educational interventions
Part 3 Guidance on addressing the impact of masculinity influencers
References
Appendices
Introduction
In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the number of young people in Ireland, UK and elsewhere engaging with online influencers1, including those who post motivational health and fitness videos on social media. Online influencers can have a positive impact on their followers by providing them with information (albeit of varying degrees of accuracy), entertainment and opportunities for learning and skill development. However, teachers and parents/guardians in Ireland, and elsewhere have become increasingly concerned about how young people, particularly teenage boys2, are engaging with online ‘masculinity influencers’ who post content on social media platforms on issues relating to men and masculinity, some of which promotes harmful ideologies, attitudes and behaviours, including restrictive and oppressive forms of masculinity that are predicated on sexual and gender-based abuse, harassment and violence (e.g. Baker et. al., 2024; Ging et. al., 2024; Wescott et. al., 2024) (see figures 1-13). The discriminatory, hateful and often violent language of these online masculinity influencers is feeding a culture of prejudice, sexism and hate among children and young people (Weale, 2023; Wescott et al., 2024), which presents serious safeguarding concerns for schools, teachers and parents/guardians that urgently needs to be addressed.
This resource aims to provide schools, teachers and educators with guidance on how to address the impact of these online masculinity influencers on young people, particularly teenage boys (aged 13-18), via educational interventions and initiatives, which include having critical discussions with them about this topic. Although this information may not be directly actionable for parents considering one-on-one discussions about this topic with their child, the overall guidance may still be helpful for those preparing for such discussions. Critically, the guidance outlined in this resource recognises that the harmful ideologies, attitudes and behaviours promoted by online masculinity influencers are part of a broader network or ‘ecosystem’ of spaces in our society and culture that have historically maintained and reproduced gendered power dynamics and inequalities (see figure 14). In other words, they are not online only phenomena, but are rather current manifestations of these gendered dynamics and inequalities, which 1 2 change over time. Therefore, discussions about specific online masculinity influencers in this resource should be taken as a proxy for similar content that may arise in our society and culture in the future. Moreover, this resource cautions against attributing the harms associated with online masculinity influencers solely to digital technologies and social media in discussions with young people about this topic. Instead, it advocates a balanced approach to these discussions, which acknowledges the potential harms and positive benefits of social media in ways that aim to support young people in safely navigating these spaces.
This guidance comprises three main sections:
- First, it provides introductory information about online masculinity influencers who promote harmful ideologies, attitudes and behaviours, the ‘ecosystem’ that underpins and supports them and the impact they are having on children and young people from all gendered backgrounds, including teenage boys, which is based on secondary research.
- Second, it identifies the implications this research has for understanding and responding to the impact these online masculinity influencers are having on children and young people, particularly teenage boys, via educational interventions.
- Third, it presents practical guidance to schools, teachers and educators on how to facilitate critical discussions about online masculinity influencers with teenage boys, which may also be helpful for parents/guardians who are preparing to have such discussions with their child/children. Guidelines on how schools can build a culture that promotes healthy, respectful and equitable online and o ine relationships, which challenge and change the harmful cultures that underpin and support online masculinity influencers, are also explored.
This resource makes reference to discriminatory and hateful language, including gender-based discrimination (e.g. sexism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia) and sexual and gender-based abuse, harassment and violence, which some may find distressing.
1 Online influencers are individual internet users who have developed a sizeable community of followers on social media platforms, like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, thr

Toxic Masculinity Toxic Masculinity stems from the idea that there is one way to considered masculine. These are typically traditional stereotypes of what it is to be a man. Usually encouraging violence, high earning potential and ‘toughness’ whilst excluding any emotional intelligence along with encouraging conforming to gender stereotypes for any partners. The issue is that many ‘role models’ can start out as positive but over time can start to represent something darker whilst appearing to show young men a positive path. There have been famous examples on social media channels that can start by showing younger generations of men how to eat healthy and have good exercise habits, also encouraging ideals for career aspects. All of this is very positive so it wouldn’t be alarming to begin with. However some of these ‘influencers’ have then gradually introduced sexism, homophobia and other outdated views. This then leads to poor mental health, bullying, violent outbursts among others. Some further resources and videos can be found below: Bold Voices is an award-winning social enterprise preparing and empowering school communities to recognise and tackle gender inequality and gender-based violence through the delivery of educational talks, workshops, training and resources for young people, teachers and parents. This link will take you to advice and guidance for schools on what we can do about Andrew Tate and how to talk to young people about him. Nick Dunne is Brook’s Head of Business Development and has over 20 years’ experience as a sexual health educator and trauma-informed counsellor. In particular with boys and young men. In this blog, he draws on this experience to give practical advice to educators dealing with the rise of hateful and Misogynistic rhetoric stemming from the popularity of influencers like Andrew Tate. The report by the University of Suffolk sheds light on general attitudes to sexual harassment and the age at which victims are targeted and follows the impact of the #MeToo movement against sexual abuse and harassment. Over 1,800 people participated in the survey. None of the questions were mandatory due to the sensitivity of the subject matter. This toolkit is designed to be used by anyone interested in learning more about how to engage effectively with men and boys about issues connected to masculinity and gendered social norms. There are eight sections to the Toolkit: What Are Gender Norms And Why Do They Matter?, Some Steps We Can All Take, Starting Points For Conversations With Men And Boys, Good Practice Pointers, Some Issues which Might Arise, Examples Of Interventions With Men and Boys In The UK, Key Resources, Other Useful Toolkits, Poster: A to Z of Engaging with Men And Boys. The Do’s and Don’ts of dealing with someone like Andrew Tate in the Classroom. A Guide for Schools. Misogyny is a form of online hate that targets women and girls. It is promoted in different communities online where influencers promote a narrative that women should be treated as less than men. This guide explores where misogyny is introduced to young people online and the effective actions you can take to challenge these ideas. A Toolkit to Support Schools. Research in 2017 showed that sexual harassment in schools was rife in schools. The research identified that over a third of girl students at mixed sex schools have personally experienced some form of sexual harassment at school and almost a quarter of female students at mixed sex schools have been subjected to unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature while at school. Our vision is a world free from public sexual harassment, a world which empowers, listens to and believes survivors, and which challenges this culture of gender-based violence and intersecting forms of oppression, rather than upholding it. Launched in 2019 and have led on work to make public spaces safer and in 2023 changed the law making public sexual harassment a criminal offence. OurStreetsNow are tackling harassment in four key areas: Schools, Higher Education, High Streets, Sports. A resource to help schools understand the issues and risks, teach about these topics safely, address the issues through KS1-KS2 PSHE, develop the learning through PSHE Education at KS3, 4 , 5 and Post 16 along with teaching resources and related learning. Lucy Emmerson explores how RSE tackles issues including gender, power, equality, respect, consent and healthy relationships. Psychologists from the BPS have reported a rise in teachers requesting help to support children and young people exposed to ‘toxic’ extreme views of social media influencers like Andrew Tate. Youngsters who lack self-confidence or self esteem or who are lonely and isolated are at particular risk of being drawn to influencers like Tate as it could give them a sense of belonging and connection. Teenage years are being influenced by the online world more than ever before. While the Internet can be a source of education and community, sometimes the education and community it provides can be dangerous, such as the rise of Incel culture and online misogyny. The article talks about the rise of misogyny and Incel culture online, the growing influence of Andrew Take and how these issues can be addressed in the classroom.

Toxic Masculinity
Toxic Masculinity stems from the idea that there is one way to considered masculine. These are typically traditional stereotypes of what it is to be a man. Usually encouraging violence, high earning potential and ‘toughness’ whilst excluding any emotional intelligence along with encouraging conforming to gender stereotypes for any partners.
The issue is that many ‘role models’ can start out as positive but over time can start to represent something darker whilst appearing to show young men a positive path. There have been famous examples on social media channels that can start by showing younger generations of men how to eat healthy and have good exercise habits, also encouraging ideals for career aspects. All of this is very positive so it wouldn’t be alarming to begin with. However some of these ‘influencers’ have then gradually introduced sexism, homophobia and other outdated views. This then leads to poor mental health, bullying, violent outbursts among others. Some further resources and videos can be found below:
Bold Voices is an award-winning social enterprise preparing and empowering school communities to recognise and tackle gender inequality and gender-based violence through the delivery of educational talks, workshops, training and resources for young people, teachers and parents.
This link will take you to advice and guidance for schools on what we can do about Andrew Tate and how to talk to young people about him.
Nick Dunne is Brook’s Head of Business Development and has over 20 years’ experience as a sexual health educator and trauma-informed counsellor.
In particular with boys and young men. In this blog, he draws on this experience to give practical advice to educators dealing with the rise of hateful and Misogynistic rhetoric stemming from the popularity of influencers like Andrew Tate.
The report by the University of Suffolk sheds light on general attitudes to sexual harassment and the age at which victims are targeted and follows the impact of the #MeToo movement against sexual abuse and harassment. Over 1,800 people participated in the survey.
None of the questions were mandatory due to the sensitivity of the subject matter.
This toolkit is designed to be used by anyone interested in learning more about how to engage effectively with men and boys about issues connected to masculinity and gendered social norms. There are eight sections to the Toolkit: What Are Gender Norms And Why Do They Matter?, Some Steps We Can All Take, Starting Points For Conversations With Men And Boys, Good Practice Pointers, Some Issues which Might Arise, Examples Of Interventions With Men and Boys In The UK, Key Resources, Other Useful Toolkits, Poster: A to Z of Engaging with Men And Boys.
The Do’s and Don’ts of dealing with someone like Andrew Tate in the Classroom.
A Guide for Schools.
Misogyny is a form of online hate that targets women and girls. It is promoted in different communities
online where influencers promote a narrative that women should be treated as less than men. This guide
explores where misogyny is introduced to young people online and the effective actions you can take to
challenge these ideas.
A Toolkit to Support Schools. Research in 2017 showed that sexual harassment in schools was rife in schools. The research identified that over a third of girl students at mixed sex schools have personally experienced some form of sexual harassment at school and almost a quarter of female students at mixed sex schools have been subjected to unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature while at school.
Our vision is a world free from public sexual harassment, a world which empowers, listens to and believes survivors, and which challenges this culture of gender-based violence and intersecting forms of oppression, rather than upholding it.
Launched in 2019 and have led on work to make public spaces safer and in 2023 changed the law making public sexual harassment a criminal offence. OurStreetsNow are tackling harassment in four key areas: Schools, Higher Education, High Streets, Sports.
A resource to help schools understand the issues and risks, teach about these topics safely, address the issues through KS1-KS2 PSHE, develop the learning through PSHE Education at KS3, 4 , 5 and Post 16 along with teaching resources and related learning.
Lucy Emmerson explores how RSE tackles issues including gender, power, equality, respect, consent and healthy relationships.
Psychologists from the BPS have reported a rise in teachers requesting help to support children and young people
exposed to ‘toxic’ extreme views of social media influencers like Andrew Tate. Youngsters who lack self-confidence or self esteem or who are lonely and isolated are at particular risk of being drawn to influencers like Tate as it could give them a sense of belonging and connection.
Teenage years are being influenced by the online world more than ever before. While the Internet can be a source of education and community, sometimes the education and community it provides can be dangerous, such as the rise of Incel culture and online misogyny. The article talks about the rise of misogyny and Incel culture online, the growing influence of Andrew Take and how these issues can be addressed in the classroom.

RSHE audit toolkit: secondary - being safe Being safe - outcomes from statutory document Pupils should know: - the concepts of, and laws relating to, sexual consent, sexual exploitation, abuse, grooming, coercion, harassment, rape, domestic abuse, forced marriage, honour-based violence and FGM, and how these can affect current and future relationships. - how people can actively communicate and recognise consent from others, including sexual consent, and how and when consent can be withdrawn (in all contexts, including online). Addressing misogyny, toxic masculinity and social media influence Equip pupils with the skills and strategies to recognise and challenge discriminatory behaviours and attitudes. FGM National FGM Centre - Key Stage 3 lesson, PowerPoint and guidance Sexual harassment Social experiment hosted by journalist and presenter Ben Zand in which a group of people come together to try to understand what constitutes sexual harassment. A three-part drama series about sexual harassment at work, designed for schools to build a lesson around. Grooming NSPCC teaching resources about positive relationships. It's Not OK reinforces the importance of building and maintaining positive relationships and recognising and responding to behaviour relating to: online safety, grooming, sexting, harmful sexual behaviour, child sexual abuse child sexual exploitation. Consent Teaching about consent and healthy relationship behaviours counters messages that normalise unhealthy relationship behaviours. ‘Relationship Expectations’ lessons from the BBFC that explore media influence: Relationship abuse Developed in collaboration with, and quality assured by, the PSHE Association. This consisted of two lesson plans aimed at young people aged 14-16 aiming to raise their understanding of healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviours, how to manage unwanted attentions, and how to support a friend who is experiencing stalking or coercive behaviours. Three revised and new lessons covering: - Identifying and managing unhealthy relationship behaviours - Recognising and managing unwanted attention - Recognising inappropriate behaviour and seeking support The resources are available on the PSHE website: One of several short videos shown on TV. Powerful dramatisation of an abusive teen relationship appropriate for lesson use (13-18). Free teaching resources are available on sexting, consent and preventing relationship abuse from the Home Office’s Disrespect NoBody campaign. The Home Office has worked with the PSHE association to develop the materials. These discussion guides and lesson plans support the Home Office Disrespect NoBody campaign, aimed at preventing abuse in teenage relationships. They're designed to help pupils understand and maintain healthy relationships, learn about consent and how to deal with controlling behaviour, violence and abuse. The films and supporting resources are aimed at young people aged 11 to 25 to help them learn strategies for staying safe as they grow up and gain independence. They enable adults to start conversations with young people about: feelings, privacy and boundaries, friendship, different kinds of love, online safety. This lesson from BBC Teach is designed for use with students over 15, and explores the topic of coercive control and controlling relationships. Archived 2016. Relevant and useful resources including online risks. Slight adaptations to include the newer online risks would be easy to insert. Every care has been taken to ensure the information and any recommendations in the toolkit are accurate at the time of publishing. Schools must make their own judgements when using these resources and always risk assess with their pupils in mind. This toolkit is brought to you by the HFL Education Wellbeing team. Contact the team at wellbeing@hfleducation.org or call 01438 544464.

RSHE audit toolkit: secondary - being safe
Being safe - outcomes from statutory document
Pupils should know:
- the concepts of, and laws relating to, sexual consent, sexual exploitation, abuse, grooming, coercion, harassment, rape, domestic abuse, forced marriage, honour-based violence and FGM, and how these can affect current and future relationships.
- how people can actively communicate and recognise consent from others, including sexual consent, and how and when consent can be withdrawn (in all contexts, including online).
Addressing misogyny, toxic masculinity and social media influence
Equip pupils with the skills and strategies to recognise and challenge discriminatory behaviours and attitudes.
FGM
National FGM Centre - Key Stage 3 lesson, PowerPoint and guidance
Sexual harassment
Social experiment hosted by journalist and presenter Ben Zand in which a group of people come together to try to understand what constitutes sexual harassment.
A three-part drama series about sexual harassment at work, designed for schools to build a lesson around.
Grooming
NSPCC teaching resources about positive relationships. It's Not OK reinforces the importance of building and maintaining positive relationships and recognising and responding to behaviour relating to: online safety, grooming, sexting, harmful sexual behaviour, child sexual abuse child sexual exploitation.
Consent
Teaching about consent and healthy relationship behaviours counters messages that normalise unhealthy relationship behaviours.
‘Relationship Expectations’ lessons from the BBFC that explore media influence:
Relationship abuse
Developed in collaboration with, and quality assured by, the PSHE Association. This consisted of two lesson plans aimed at young people aged 14-16 aiming to raise their understanding of healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviours, how to manage unwanted attentions, and how to support a friend who is experiencing stalking or coercive behaviours.
Three revised and new lessons covering:
- Identifying and managing unhealthy relationship behaviours
- Recognising and managing unwanted attention
- Recognising inappropriate behaviour and seeking support
The resources are available on the PSHE website:
One of several short videos shown on TV. Powerful dramatisation of an abusive teen relationship appropriate for lesson use (13-18).
Free teaching resources are available on sexting, consent and preventing relationship abuse from the Home Office’s Disrespect NoBody campaign. The Home Office has worked with the PSHE association to develop the materials. These discussion guides and lesson plans support the Home Office Disrespect NoBody campaign, aimed at preventing abuse in teenage relationships. They're designed to help pupils understand and maintain healthy relationships, learn about consent and how to deal with controlling behaviour, violence and abuse.
The films and supporting resources are aimed at young people aged 11 to 25 to help them learn strategies for staying safe as they grow up and gain independence. They enable adults to start conversations with young people about: feelings, privacy and boundaries, friendship, different kinds of love, online safety.
This lesson from BBC Teach is designed for use with students over 15, and explores the topic of coercive control and controlling relationships.
Archived 2016. Relevant and useful resources including online risks. Slight adaptations to include the newer online risks would be easy to insert.
Every care has been taken to ensure the information and any recommendations in the toolkit are accurate at the time of publishing. Schools must make their own judgements when using these resources and always risk assess with their pupils in mind.
This toolkit is brought to you by the HFL Education Wellbeing team. Contact the team at wellbeing@hfleducation.org or call 01438 544464.

Abstract The Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’ brought ‘the manosphere’ (a virtual space defined by misogynist views) and its potential dangers for teenage boys into the mainstream narrative. This paper describes parallels between toxic masculinity communities and other extremist groups. It considers why so many teenage boys may be attracted to the manosphere and why a developmental context is crucial to an informed response. The unique characteristics of ‘the teenage brain’ offer a framework to guide professionals working with young people who are exploring this type of content. Keywords: Toxic masculinity, online safety, adolescence, adolescent brain development, radicalisation The Netflix series Adolescence got the world talking about ‘the manosphere’: a virtual space defined by misogynist views and toxic masculinity. Mainstream media has the power to propel issues to the top of the political and social agenda, bringing with it an opportunity for professionals and academics to leverage the spotlight and inform the debate. So, what can we add? Adolescence describes a 13‐year‐old boy, Jamie, who fatally stabbed a female classmate. As the drama unfolds, we learn that he had been bullied by his peers and rejected by the girl he murdered. Crucial to our understanding of Jamie, he felt neglected by his Dad, a man with a violent childhood who set out to avoid aggression in his own family, and yet both he and Jamie shared a volatility – simmering below the surface. Jamie's parents are portrayed as loving but uninvolved and distant from his emotional life. For some months before the attack, he had been left to his own devices exploring the internet, alone in his bedroom. Themes specifically linked to toxic masculinity percolate the narrative: with the strong implication that Jamie had been radicalised by the manosphere. The origins of the manosphere movement are more than 50 years old. Some argue that the principles of Men's Rights Activists were a reaction to Women's Lib, and others argue that misogyny has been ever thus. But the zeitgeist is notable; contemporary themes in other spheres share values with the manosphere. For example, there are parallels between some populist political policies and the principles of toxic masculinity: both create a scapegoat which – if diminished in power or number, will redress the ‘natural balance’ and deliver optimum living circumstances. Perhaps predictably, radical politics and misogyny are comfortable bedfellows in the cyber world, Mamié, Ribeiro, and West (2021) described 300 million internet posts and established that ‘auto suggestions’ pushed those engaging in the manosphere towards extreme ‘Alt‐Right’ content. These data are undoubtedly unsettling, but as professionals invested in the wellbeing of young people, our concern is heightened when we consider the demographic consuming the material. In part because some manosphere content is not on mainstream channels and in part because of the significant time required to gather and publish high‐quality evidence, we do not yet have adequate empirical data to describe consumption patterns. Those data that do exist suggest 80% of 16‐ and 17‐year‐old boys have seen manosphere content (Hope Not Hate survey, 2023). Developmental theorists may argue that the manosphere and the adolescent brain create a perfect storm. Consider the unique brain state of a postpubertal teenager: searching for an identity, prone to take risks and explore unknowns, highly sensitive to perceived status, driven to be accepted and respected by peers and adult society (see Steinberg & Morris, 2001, for review) and primed for associative learning experiences (Towner, Chierchia, & Blakemore, 2023). These drives add up to a vulnerable brain perfectly placed to consume, learn and potentially internalise toxic masculinity. One of the reasons that adolescents and young men enter the manosphere so frequently is that it very often includes fitness tips, wealth generation schemes (likely to be fraudulent) luxury cars and so on. These topics are – traditionally at least – attractive to adolescent boys. Baker, Ging, and Brandt Andresen (2024) described creating dummy accounts for hypothetical teenage boys searched for traditional generic masculine content, such as #gymtips, and others for manosphere content, such as #redpill (indicating ‘a realisation’ that society discriminates against men). Both types of account search found the manosphere in almost equivalent time, whether they searched using #redpill or #gymtips. As they explore the digital world, adolescent boys may not be looking for misogyny but because it is wrapped up in content that interests them, online misogyny is very likely to find them. Understanding the lure of ‘digitally adjacent’ content, such as fitness, may offer clues about how young people may avoid harmful misogyny without losing the benefits of the digital world. Of course, not all young men exposed to this content will be affected by it or agree with it but the Hope Not Hate survey (2023) suggests that only 26% of 16‐ to 17‐year‐old boys rejected the ideas of one particular manosphere content provider and 45% considered them positively. A proportion of this latter group may be at risk of internalising the ideals or in extreme cases, becoming radicalised. Radicalisation is a gradual process, but it is often triggered by a personal event. In Jamie's case, rejection by the girl in his year ‘confirmed’ his growing belief that he was disempowered, disregarded and neglected by society and his hero Dad. The psychological literature offers limited data on the risk factors linked to misogynist extremism, but there are established patterns described in extremist religious or political groups. Adolescence itself is a risk factor but in addition, social disconnection, family dysfunction, a sense of abandonment or inequality and poverty are examples of characteristics that alone or in combination that increase the chances of extremism (see Campelo, Oppetit, Neau, Cohen, & Bronsard, 2018 for review). Manosphere proponents use recruitment techniques recognisable from extremist groups, such as capitalising on a perceived injustice (‘feminism is a cancer’ – women's rights dominate society at the cost of men), fear mongering (‘80% of women want to date 20% of men’ – only ‘Alpha Males’ with manosphere values) and isolation (‘stay lonely to be successful’ – social relationships slow down achievement). Unsurprisingly, the current debate includes an urgent call for practical strategies to protect young men and boys from these harmful influences. There is a proposal that Adolescence be shown in all secondary schools with the implication that simply viewing it would be an effective prevention or intervention. Without specialised facilitation, it is not clear what message we are expecting to send young people, particularly as many of the adult characters' responses are inadequate. For example, Jamie's parents were characterised as feeling helplessness. What else could we have done? We thought he was safe in his room…but helplessness does not invite effective action. The investigating police officer in the series dismisses his own teenage son's valuable insights and in doing so missed a chance to reconnect to him, losing the most valuable of tools in any intervention: a good relationship. The forensic psychologist was portrayed as lacking basic clinical skills and was not able to contain Jamie's feelings safely. Adolescence is a great drama but not a policy document. Below are suggestions for an informed framework and response for clinicians and other professionals working with young people: A developmental approach This paper argues that a developmental approach, drawing on established adolescent brain literature, will offer evidence‐based principles to develop interventions. The very characteristics that make adolescents vulnerable to the pernicious nature of the manosphere are the same characteristics that can o

Abstract
The Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’ brought ‘the manosphere’ (a virtual space defined by misogynist views) and its potential dangers for teenage boys into the mainstream narrative. This paper describes parallels between toxic masculinity communities and other extremist groups. It considers why so many teenage boys may be attracted to the manosphere and why a developmental context is crucial to an informed response. The unique characteristics of ‘the teenage brain’ offer a framework to guide professionals working with young people who are exploring this type of content.
Keywords: Toxic masculinity, online safety, adolescence, adolescent brain development, radicalisation
The Netflix series Adolescence got the world talking about ‘the manosphere’: a virtual space defined by misogynist views and toxic masculinity. Mainstream media has the power to propel issues to the top of the political and social agenda, bringing with it an opportunity for professionals and academics to leverage the spotlight and inform the debate. So, what can we add?
Adolescence describes a 13‐year‐old boy, Jamie, who fatally stabbed a female classmate. As the drama unfolds, we learn that he had been bullied by his peers and rejected by the girl he murdered. Crucial to our understanding of Jamie, he felt neglected by his Dad, a man with a violent childhood who set out to avoid aggression in his own family, and yet both he and Jamie shared a volatility – simmering below the surface. Jamie's parents are portrayed as loving but uninvolved and distant from his emotional life. For some months before the attack, he had been left to his own devices exploring the internet, alone in his bedroom. Themes specifically linked to toxic masculinity percolate the narrative: with the strong implication that Jamie had been radicalised by the manosphere.
The origins of the manosphere movement are more than 50 years old. Some argue that the principles of Men's Rights Activists were a reaction to Women's Lib, and others argue that misogyny has been ever thus. But the zeitgeist is notable; contemporary themes in other spheres share values with the manosphere. For example, there are parallels between some populist political policies and the principles of toxic masculinity: both create a scapegoat which – if diminished in power or number, will redress the ‘natural balance’ and deliver optimum living circumstances. Perhaps predictably, radical politics and misogyny are comfortable bedfellows in the cyber world, Mamié, Ribeiro, and West (2021) described 300 million internet posts and established that ‘auto suggestions’ pushed those engaging in the manosphere towards extreme ‘Alt‐Right’ content.
These data are undoubtedly unsettling, but as professionals invested in the wellbeing of young people, our concern is heightened when we consider the demographic consuming the material. In part because some manosphere content is not on mainstream channels and in part because of the significant time required to gather and publish high‐quality evidence, we do not yet have adequate empirical data to describe consumption patterns. Those data that do exist suggest 80% of 16‐ and 17‐year‐old boys have seen manosphere content (Hope Not Hate survey, 2023). Developmental theorists may argue that the manosphere and the adolescent brain create a perfect storm. Consider the unique brain state of a postpubertal teenager: searching for an identity, prone to take risks and explore unknowns, highly sensitive to perceived status, driven to be accepted and respected by peers and adult society (see Steinberg & Morris, 2001, for review) and primed for associative learning experiences (Towner, Chierchia, & Blakemore, 2023). These drives add up to a vulnerable brain perfectly placed to consume, learn and potentially internalise toxic masculinity.
One of the reasons that adolescents and young men enter the manosphere so frequently is that it very often includes fitness tips, wealth generation schemes (likely to be fraudulent) luxury cars and so on. These topics are – traditionally at least – attractive to adolescent boys. Baker, Ging, and Brandt Andresen (2024) described creating dummy accounts for hypothetical teenage boys searched for traditional generic masculine content, such as #gymtips, and others for manosphere content, such as #redpill (indicating ‘a realisation’ that society discriminates against men). Both types of account search found the manosphere in almost equivalent time, whether they searched using #redpill or #gymtips. As they explore the digital world, adolescent boys may not be looking for misogyny but because it is wrapped up in content that interests them, online misogyny is very likely to find them. Understanding the lure of ‘digitally adjacent’ content, such as fitness, may offer clues about how young people may avoid harmful misogyny without losing the benefits of the digital world.
Of course, not all young men exposed to this content will be affected by it or agree with it but the Hope Not Hate survey (2023) suggests that only 26% of 16‐ to 17‐year‐old boys rejected the ideas of one particular manosphere content provider and 45% considered them positively. A proportion of this latter group may be at risk of internalising the ideals or in extreme cases, becoming radicalised. Radicalisation is a gradual process, but it is often triggered by a personal event. In Jamie's case, rejection by the girl in his year ‘confirmed’ his growing belief that he was disempowered, disregarded and neglected by society and his hero Dad. The psychological literature offers limited data on the risk factors linked to misogynist extremism, but there are established patterns described in extremist religious or political groups. Adolescence itself is a risk factor but in addition, social disconnection, family dysfunction, a sense of abandonment or inequality and poverty are examples of characteristics that alone or in combination that increase the chances of extremism (see Campelo, Oppetit, Neau, Cohen, & Bronsard, 2018 for review). Manosphere proponents use recruitment techniques recognisable from extremist groups, such as capitalising on a perceived injustice (‘feminism is a cancer’ – women's rights dominate society at the cost of men), fear mongering (‘80% of women want to date 20% of men’ – only ‘Alpha Males’ with manosphere values) and isolation (‘stay lonely to be successful’ – social relationships slow down achievement).
Unsurprisingly, the current debate includes an urgent call for practical strategies to protect young men and boys from these harmful influences. There is a proposal that Adolescence be shown in all secondary schools with the implication that simply viewing it would be an effective prevention or intervention. Without specialised facilitation, it is not clear what message we are expecting to send young people, particularly as many of the adult characters' responses are inadequate. For example, Jamie's parents were characterised as feeling helplessness. What else could we have done? We thought he was safe in his room…but helplessness does not invite effective action. The investigating police officer in the series dismisses his own teenage son's valuable insights and in doing so missed a chance to reconnect to him, losing the most valuable of tools in any intervention: a good relationship. The forensic psychologist was portrayed as lacking basic clinical skills and was not able to contain Jamie's feelings safely. Adolescence is a great drama but not a policy document. Below are suggestions for an informed framework and response for clinicians and other professionals working with young people:
A developmental approach
This paper argues that a developmental approach, drawing on established adolescent brain literature, will offer evidence‐based principles to develop interventions. The very characteristics that make adolescents vulnerable to the pernicious nature of the manosphere are the same characteristics that can o

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

Men who engage in the online “manosphere” and the content of Andrew Tate are often able to express a “strong commitment to equal treatment and fairness”, according to research commissioned by Ofcom. Prompted by growing concerns about internet misogyny, researchers for the UK communications regulator followed the journeys of dozens of men through online content ranging from the US podcaster Joe Rogan to forums for “incels” (involuntary celibates). They found that while a minority encountered “extremely misogynistic content”, many users of the manosphere were critically engaged, selective and capable of discarding messages that did not resonate with their values. They found it was far from a unified community: many participants felt the various subcultures under the manosphere umbrella were misunderstood, with extreme misogyny being grouped with benign self-improvement content. Several participants were drawn to it by its perceived humour, open debate and irreverence as well as connecting with views they found about traditional gender roles and family dynamics. “This research does challenge the assumptions about the experiences and perceptions of individuals consuming manosphere content,” Ofcom said. “Many of the participants expressed a strong commitment to equal treatment and fairness. They showed particular sensitivity to situations they perceived as unjust or discriminatory. This extended to issues specifically concerning men.” The report’s author, Damon De Ionno, the managing director of Revealing Reality, which was commissioned by Ofcom to produce the study, separately told the Guardian it “suggests society has overestimated” the risk posed by the manosphere. It comes after rising violence against women and girls (VAWG) in England and Wales. Data published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in July 2024 found that about 3,000 VAWG offences a day were recorded by the police in 2022-23, an increase of 37% since 2018, with one in every 12 women a victim each year. Separate expert studies have found some evidence that the language of the manosphere can escalate into physical violence. A submission to parliament by a group of UK academics cited cases in which incels had gone on to commit offline acts of violence, including Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista, California, in 2014 and Jake Davison in Plymouth, England, in 2021. The Ofcom study involved 38 men, and more misogynistic men may have declined to take part. Some potential recruits refused to take part, considering the government-appointed regulator to be part of the “mainstream”. Perhaps the most impressionable group, boys under 16, were also not included. The study investigated several manosphere subcultures, including “red pill” (men who believe the world is unfair to men) and “black pill” (those who believe unattractive men have very limited options for relationships) communities, incels, “men going their own way” (MGTOW), men’s rights activists, pickup artists and “looksmaxxing” groups (where young men share tips about achieving chiselled cheekbones or “hunter eyes” in an attempt to boost their sexual “market value”), as well as topics surrounding self-improvement, masculinity and gender politics. Some of the content trawled for the study was obviously misogynistic, including posts condoning sexual violence against women. In other cases the misogyny was more ambiguous, such as self-help posts about boosting sexual success based on assumptions about women’s sexual preferences. All of the men had engaged with content from Tate, the self-styled misogynist influencer who is facing charges in Britain including rape, human trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain, which he denies. But one participant said they viewed watching clips of Tate as “entertainment” akin to watching a horror movie or playing Call of Duty, and the researchers said none of the interviewees had agreed with Tate’s most extreme misogyny. Incel communities contained the most extremely misogynistic content, the Ofcom study found. They were notably full of messages promoting depressive and suicidal outlooks. “Our research suggests society has overestimated the risk of the manosphere to women,” said De Ionno. “It’s not zero risk, but most of it doesn’t have the power to radicalise people who are pretty discriminating and value-driven.” The research examined the attitudes of men who had become involved in several different corners of the manosphere from relatively mainstream content creators such as Piers Morgan to more niche groups such as those that talk about being “red pilled”. One was the MGTOW movement, which discusses living without women. It has been described as misogynistic, but Ofcom’s interviewees insisted it was not because it was about choosing to live without women, not hating them. One survey participant’s pathway into the MGTOW part of the manosphere began with him being intentionally misidentified as a child’s biological father, known as paternity fraud. Richard became involved in supporting other victims and came to believe that “feminist ideology runs through” the courts system. He stopped dating and said: “Once you’ve red-pilled about all this, you can’t unsee it.” Another man, Matt, said the MGTOW influencers “prey on any … amount of bitterness and resentment you have in your life from a negative situation”. Ofcom said: “A minority of participants described encountering extremely misogynistic content online – with the most extreme examples more likely to be found on closed groups or among incel communities. “These spaces were also notably full of messages promoting ‘black pill’ concepts of self-loathing and hopelessness, as well as depressive and even suicidal outlooks. Participants that were more socially isolated offline tended to have greater depth of engagement within these closed communities, and so may be at greater risk of adopting harmful views or mindsets, due to their strong group identity and the individual’s wider vulnerability.”

Men who engage in the online “manosphere” and the content of Andrew Tate are often able to express a “strong commitment to equal treatment and fairness”, according to research commissioned by Ofcom.
Prompted by growing concerns about internet misogyny, researchers for the UK communications regulator followed the journeys of dozens of men through online content ranging from the US podcaster Joe Rogan to forums for “incels” (involuntary celibates). They found that while a minority encountered “extremely misogynistic content”, many users of the manosphere were critically engaged, selective and capable of discarding messages that did not resonate with their values.
They found it was far from a unified community: many participants felt the various subcultures under the manosphere umbrella were misunderstood, with extreme misogyny being grouped with benign self-improvement content. Several participants were drawn to it by its perceived humour, open debate and irreverence as well as connecting with views they found about traditional gender roles and family dynamics.
“This research does challenge the assumptions about the experiences and perceptions of individuals consuming manosphere content,” Ofcom said.
“Many of the participants expressed a strong commitment to equal treatment and fairness. They showed particular sensitivity to situations they perceived as unjust or discriminatory. This extended to issues specifically concerning men.”
The report’s author, Damon De Ionno, the managing director of Revealing Reality, which was commissioned by Ofcom to produce the study, separately told the Guardian it “suggests society has overestimated” the risk posed by the manosphere.
It comes after rising violence against women and girls (VAWG) in England and Wales. Data published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in July 2024 found that about 3,000 VAWG offences a day were recorded by the police in 2022-23, an increase of 37% since 2018, with one in every 12 women a victim each year.
Separate expert studies have found some evidence that the language of the manosphere can escalate into physical violence. A submission to parliament by a group of UK academics cited cases in which incels had gone on to commit offline acts of violence, including Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista, California, in 2014 and Jake Davison in Plymouth, England, in 2021.
The Ofcom study involved 38 men, and more misogynistic men may have declined to take part. Some potential recruits refused to take part, considering the government-appointed regulator to be part of the “mainstream”. Perhaps the most impressionable group, boys under 16, were also not included.
The study investigated several manosphere subcultures, including “red pill” (men who believe the world is unfair to men) and “black pill” (those who believe unattractive men have very limited options for relationships) communities, incels, “men going their own way” (MGTOW), men’s rights activists, pickup artists and “looksmaxxing” groups (where young men share tips about achieving chiselled cheekbones or “hunter eyes” in an attempt to boost their sexual “market value”), as well as topics surrounding self-improvement, masculinity and gender politics.
Some of the content trawled for the study was obviously misogynistic, including posts condoning sexual violence against women. In other cases the misogyny was more ambiguous, such as self-help posts about boosting sexual success based on assumptions about women’s sexual preferences.
All of the men had engaged with content from Tate, the self-styled misogynist influencer who is facing charges in Britain including rape, human trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain, which he denies.
But one participant said they viewed watching clips of Tate as “entertainment” akin to watching a horror movie or playing Call of Duty, and the researchers said none of the interviewees had agreed with Tate’s most extreme misogyny.
Incel communities contained the most extremely misogynistic content, the Ofcom study found. They were notably full of messages promoting depressive and suicidal outlooks.
“Our research suggests society has overestimated the risk of the manosphere to women,” said De Ionno. “It’s not zero risk, but most of it doesn’t have the power to radicalise people who are pretty discriminating and value-driven.”
The research examined the attitudes of men who had become involved in several different corners of the manosphere from relatively mainstream content creators such as Piers Morgan to more niche groups such as those that talk about being “red pilled”.
One was the MGTOW movement, which discusses living without women. It has been described as misogynistic, but Ofcom’s interviewees insisted it was not because it was about choosing to live without women, not hating them.
One survey participant’s pathway into the MGTOW part of the manosphere began with him being intentionally misidentified as a child’s biological father, known as paternity fraud. Richard became involved in supporting other victims and came to believe that “feminist ideology runs through” the courts system. He stopped dating and said: “Once you’ve red-pilled about all this, you can’t unsee it.”
Another man, Matt, said the MGTOW influencers “prey on any … amount of bitterness and resentment you have in your life from a negative situation”.
Ofcom said: “A minority of participants described encountering extremely misogynistic content online – with the most extreme examples more likely to be found on closed groups or among incel communities.
“These spaces were also notably full of messages promoting ‘black pill’ concepts of self-loathing and hopelessness, as well as depressive and even suicidal outlooks. Participants that were more socially isolated offline tended to have greater depth of engagement within these closed communities, and so may be at greater risk of adopting harmful views or mindsets, due to their strong group identity and the individual’s wider vulnerability.”

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

A young man is scrolling on TikTok. This particular session started with a pre-workout video, moved through a clip about jaw definition, and arrived, without any deliberate navigation, at a podcast where a man explains that emotional sensitivity will make you sexually undesirable. He didn’t go looking for this. The algorithm walked him there, and he stayed, because something in it was speaking to something in him. The conversation about the manosphere – a loose digital ecosystem of male-centred content and communities ranging from self-improvement to overt misogyny – has become circular: moral panic, political condemnation, a new name to demonise, a call for bans, and then quiet until the next incident breaks through. What we have conspicuously failed to do, as researchers, as policymakers, as people who care about young men, is sit with the more uncomfortable question of why this content lands, what it is answering, and what it tells us about the lives of the young men consuming it. Our new research out this week at the Movember Institute of Men’s Health, has taken what should be an obvious but long-overdue step: rather than simulating what young men might encounter online, we looked at what they are actually watching. Using TikTok data uploaded directly by 142 young men aged 16 to 25, we developed the world’s first working structure for classifying manosphere content on a mainstream platform – decoding more than 2400 real videos from their actual feeds. What we found complicates the story we’ve been telling ourselves. Explicit degrading content, including misogyny, violence glorification and suicide normalisation, made up less than 6 per cent of the content. The dominant category, found in nearly 38 per cent of videos, was what we’ve called “cultural touchpoints”: fitness, grooming, gaming, relationships, pop culture. More than half of the videos didn’t meet our manosphere criteria at all. On the surface, this looks like good news. In practice, it is a different kind of warning. Cultural touchpoints are not manosphere content but are the underlying layer where manosphere ideologies become legible and appealing. They carry embedded assumptions that physical dominance is the measure of a man, that emotional self-sufficiency is a virtue rather than a defence mechanism, that relationships are territories to be navigated rather than connections to be built, without ever stating them outright. This is precisely what makes them effective, and what makes the algorithmic pipeline so insidious. Young men don’t need to seek out extreme content for it to shape their sense of masculinity. Once they engage with what interests them, the platform does the rest. But here is our biggest mistake. We have focused so intently on the content, categorising it, condemning it, trying to legislate it away, that we have not asked what need it is meeting. The manosphere does not manufacture insecurity in young men; it finds insecurity that is already there and offers it a framework. Our research tells us that young men are spending upwards of six hours online daily, and a significant proportion of what they encounter is telling them that the solution to feeling lost, overlooked, or inadequate is a particular kind of hardness. That message has such reach not because it is true, but because nothing credible is competing with it. Australia’s social media ban for under-16s, bold as the ambition was, has demonstrated exactly this problem. Several months in, compliance is low, circumvention is easy, and the young people who remain most embedded on these platforms are, by their peers’ own account, the socially influential ones. Banning the platform doesn’t address the conditions that made it necessary. When you suppress a symptom without treating its cause, it tends to find another way out. What would it mean to actually engage with young men’s experience, rather than diagnosing from a distance? It would mean taking seriously that the manosphere speaks to real developmental needs, for belonging, identity, a version of masculinity that feels coherent and achievable, that mainstream institutions have largely stopped trying to meet. It would mean recognising that engagement exists on a spectrum: curiosity is not radicalisation, and most young men encounter these spaces looking for something human before they find something harmful. None of this excuses the misogyny or the real harm done, most often to women and girls. But understanding the draw is not the same as endorsing the destination, and collapsing the two has made it harder, not easier, to reach the young men we’re most concerned about. Our framework was built to help researchers and policymakers understand the full spectrum of this content, from the innocuous to the harmful, so that interventions can be designed with precision rather than panic. Offline, that looks like meeting young men where their needs actually are: programs built around belonging and purpose, not just risk reduction; health practitioners trained to ask what’s going on rather than what’s wrong; and communities that offer a version of masculinity worth showing up for. Online, it means actively feeding algorithms better content, seeking out, watching and sharing creators who offer young men something worth their attention, demanding algorithmic accountability, and equipping young men themselves to notice what they’re being fed, question it, and choose content that actually reflects their values. The manosphere did not create these needs. It simply showed up when we didn’t. Dr Zac Seidler is global director of research at Movember. The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

A young man is scrolling on TikTok. This particular session started with a pre-workout video, moved through a clip about jaw definition, and arrived, without any deliberate navigation, at a podcast where a man explains that emotional sensitivity will make you sexually undesirable. He didn’t go looking for this. The algorithm walked him there, and he stayed, because something in it was speaking to something in him.
The conversation about the manosphere – a loose digital ecosystem of male-centred content and communities ranging from self-improvement to overt misogyny – has become circular: moral panic, political condemnation, a new name to demonise, a call for bans, and then quiet until the next incident breaks through. What we have conspicuously failed to do, as researchers, as policymakers, as people who care about young men, is sit with the more uncomfortable question of why this content lands, what it is answering, and what it tells us about the lives of the young men consuming it.
Our new research out this week at the Movember Institute of Men’s Health, has taken what should be an obvious but long-overdue step: rather than simulating what young men might encounter online, we looked at what they are actually watching. Using TikTok data uploaded directly by 142 young men aged 16 to 25, we developed the world’s first working structure for classifying manosphere content on a mainstream platform – decoding more than 2400 real videos from their actual feeds.
What we found complicates the story we’ve been telling ourselves. Explicit degrading content, including misogyny, violence glorification and suicide normalisation, made up less than 6 per cent of the content. The dominant category, found in nearly 38 per cent of videos, was what we’ve called “cultural touchpoints”: fitness, grooming, gaming, relationships, pop culture. More than half of the videos didn’t meet our manosphere criteria at all. On the surface, this looks like good news. In practice, it is a different kind of warning.
Cultural touchpoints are not manosphere content but are the underlying layer where manosphere ideologies become legible and appealing. They carry embedded assumptions that physical dominance is the measure of a man, that emotional self-sufficiency is a virtue rather than a defence mechanism, that relationships are territories to be navigated rather than connections to be built, without ever stating them outright. This is precisely what makes them effective, and what makes the algorithmic pipeline so insidious. Young men don’t need to seek out extreme content for it to shape their sense of masculinity. Once they engage with what interests them, the platform does the rest.
But here is our biggest mistake. We have focused so intently on the content, categorising it, condemning it, trying to legislate it away, that we have not asked what need it is meeting. The manosphere does not manufacture insecurity in young men; it finds insecurity that is already there and offers it a framework. Our research tells us that young men are spending upwards of six hours online daily, and a significant proportion of what they encounter is telling them that the solution to feeling lost, overlooked, or inadequate is a particular kind of hardness. That message has such reach not because it is true, but because nothing credible is competing with it.
Australia’s social media ban for under-16s, bold as the ambition was, has demonstrated exactly this problem. Several months in, compliance is low, circumvention is easy, and the young people who remain most embedded on these platforms are, by their peers’ own account, the socially influential ones. Banning the platform doesn’t address the conditions that made it necessary. When you suppress a symptom without treating its cause, it tends to find another way out.
What would it mean to actually engage with young men’s experience, rather than diagnosing from a distance? It would mean taking seriously that the manosphere speaks to real developmental needs, for belonging, identity, a version of masculinity that feels coherent and achievable, that mainstream institutions have largely stopped trying to meet. It would mean recognising that engagement exists on a spectrum: curiosity is not radicalisation, and most young men encounter these spaces looking for something human before they find something harmful. None of this excuses the misogyny or the real harm done, most often to women and girls. But understanding the draw is not the same as endorsing the destination, and collapsing the two has made it harder, not easier, to reach the young men we’re most concerned about.
Our framework was built to help researchers and policymakers understand the full spectrum of this content, from the innocuous to the harmful, so that interventions can be designed with precision rather than panic. Offline, that looks like meeting young men where their needs actually are: programs built around belonging and purpose, not just risk reduction; health practitioners trained to ask what’s going on rather than what’s wrong; and communities that offer a version of masculinity worth showing up for. Online, it means actively feeding algorithms better content, seeking out, watching and sharing creators who offer young men something worth their attention, demanding algorithmic accountability, and equipping young men themselves to notice what they’re being fed, question it, and choose content that actually reflects their values. The manosphere did not create these needs. It simply showed up when we didn’t.
Dr Zac Seidler is global director of research at Movember.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

Abstract The manosphere is an international network of social media influencers and communities promoting male supremacy and antifeminist ideologies. Young men are engaging with this extremist content at high rates. Despite growing concerns among educators, policymakers and researchers, systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people's mental health and behaviour remains limited. However, preliminary data suggest that the manosphere is encouraging sexist attitudes, exacerbating existing inequalities in schools, and spreading dangerous messages about mental health. We discuss the current state of research, highlight the challenges of measuring engagement with online misogyny, and propose priorities for future work. Our commentary underscores the urgent need for multilevel interventions to counteract the negative effects of the manosphere on the attitudes of young men, and their downstream consequences for the mental health and well-being of women and girls. Keywords: Manosphere; adolescents; mental health; misogyny; online harm. © 2025 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. References - - Baker, C., Ging, D., & Brandt Andreasen, M. (2024). Recommending toxicity: The role of algorithmic recommender functions on YouTube shorts and TikTok in promoting male supremacist influencers. DCU Anti‐Bullying Centre, Dublin City University. Available from: https://antibullyingcentre.ie/publication/recommending‐toxicity‐the‐role... [last accessed 27 November 2024]. - - Bunce, C., Zendle, D., & Over, H. (2024). Male pupils' engagement with online misogyny predicts sexist discrimination in schools and poor mental health among female teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication. - - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Data summary & trends report 2011–2021. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data‐Summary‐Trends_... - - Costello, T.H., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D.G. (2024). Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science, 385(6714), eadq1814. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq1814 - - Crone, E.A.M., & Konijn, E.A. (2018). Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications, 9, e588. Publication types - Actions MeSH terms - Actions - Actions - Actions - Actions - Actions - Actions - Actions

Abstract
The manosphere is an international network of social media influencers and communities promoting male supremacy and antifeminist ideologies. Young men are engaging with this extremist content at high rates. Despite growing concerns among educators, policymakers and researchers, systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people's mental health and behaviour remains limited. However, preliminary data suggest that the manosphere is encouraging sexist attitudes, exacerbating existing inequalities in schools, and spreading dangerous messages about mental health. We discuss the current state of research, highlight the challenges of measuring engagement with online misogyny, and propose priorities for future work. Our commentary underscores the urgent need for multilevel interventions to counteract the negative effects of the manosphere on the attitudes of young men, and their downstream consequences for the mental health and well-being of women and girls.
Keywords: Manosphere; adolescents; mental health; misogyny; online harm.
© 2025 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
References
-
- Baker, C., Ging, D., & Brandt Andreasen, M. (2024). Recommending toxicity: The role of algorithmic recommender functions on YouTube shorts and TikTok in promoting male supremacist influencers. DCU Anti‐Bullying Centre, Dublin City University. Available from: https://antibullyingcentre.ie/publication/recommending‐toxicity‐the‐role... [last accessed 27 November 2024].
-
- Bunce, C., Zendle, D., & Over, H. (2024). Male pupils' engagement with online misogyny predicts sexist discrimination in schools and poor mental health among female teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
-
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Data summary & trends report 2011–2021. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data‐Summary‐Trends_...
-
- Costello, T.H., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D.G. (2024). Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science, 385(6714), eadq1814. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq1814
-
- Crone, E.A.M., & Konijn, E.A. (2018). Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications, 9, e588.
Publication types
- Actions
MeSH terms
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions

The Manosphere: Preventing Harmful Attitudes in Young Men and Boys Claire Verney and Idil Mignon May 14, 2025 8 min read This article examines the impact of harmful attitudes towards women spread through the manosphere and how this can be identified with recommendations for parents, guardians, educators and professionals on addressing this with young men. Using decades of experience in tackling male violence towards women and working with young people, we have provided an overview of the issues related to the Manosphere as well as recommendations to parents, educators and other professionals about how to address this and prevent harmful attitudes from taking hold. For an understanding of the impact of misogeny within intimate relationships, visit our article Toxic Masculinity: How do we Tackle Misogyny in Domestic Abuse? Misogeny and the Manosphere Brought to prominence this year by the Netflix drama ‘Adolescence,’ extreme misogynistic views amongst young boys are causing rising concern. Providing an exploration of the motivations behind acts of violence against women by young men, ‘Adolescence’ follows 13-year-old Jamie Miller who is arrested for the murder of his classmate. It is evident throughout the story that Jamie has been radicalised by misogynistic content online. He shows sympathy for the incel – short for ‘involuntarily celibate’ – worldview, where women are blamed for the unhappiness and sexual deprivation of sexually unsuccessful men. Alongside incels, controversial ‘alpha male’ influencer Andrew Tate is mentioned by name in the drama. Tate and other similar influencers promote a hyper-masculine, misogynistic worldview under the guise of self-help for disempowered men. Together with ‘Red Pill Culture,’ ‘Pick-Up Artistry,’ and ‘Men’s Rights’ activism, incels and ‘alpha male’ influencers like Andrew Tate make up a family of online content that has been dubbed ‘the Manosphere.’ Manosphere content, easily accessible across social media platforms, fosters hostility toward women, and deliberately and explicitly teaches abuse tactics. The influence of the Manosphere is widespread, as outlined in recent research: The charity Hope not Hate found that 80% of 16-17 year old boys in the UK had consumed content created by Andrew Tate. Internet Matters found that 56% of young fathers (under the age of 35) approved of Andrew Tate. 76% of UK secondary school teachers and 60% of primary teachers indicated they are extremely concerned about how online misogyny is influencing their students (Over et al., 2024). A 2020survey of Incel community websites found that Incels are generally young, white men with 82% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 30. The largest percentage (36%) were between 18 and 21. The impact of the manosphere and it's popularity amoung young men and boys is, however, not yet fully understood: Until recently, this international movement has been a hidden problem. Although some influencers have gained widespread notoriety, many others do not engage with mainstream news channels. As a result, the scale of the manosphere may be underestimated by many adults unless they have regular contact with teenagers and young people. Teenagers and young people are regularly exposed to this content through social media and video sharing platforms including Reddit, TikTok and YouTube. (Over et al. 2024) How do we recognise harmful misogynistic content? Similar to other extremist terrorist groups that operate online, media attention has forced the more violent rhetoric away from mainstream platforms into more private online spaces. However, more subtle misogynistic content is pushed to young men by algorithms on social media platforms. Algorithims are designed to offer users more of the content that they like, meaning that, in combination with systems that block unfavourable comments, young men using these platforms will receive just one highly polarised view of the world. Content can vary from extreme misogynistic views that are easier to identify to more subtle ways of diminishing women that will then drive more extreme content to the user. Examples of more subtle misogynistic content include: Views that denigrate only female celebrities (for example, the 5 meanest celebrities will contain only females), Overly critiquing female celebrities or well-known female personalities, Promotion of views that represent double standards, Using language that is specifically designed to represent unfavourable female qualities, such as 'Karens' or Stacy's, Memes or jokes that contain sexist messages and reinforce gender roles, Alpha male specific content that promotes men as being strong and in control, Focus on wealth generation as a masculine pursuit. Online gaming can also promote an environment where women do not have a voice and can be represented within games as highly sexualised or submissive to men. What is the impact of the manosphere? With content that actively seeks to reduce women's freedoms and excert male dominance it is likely that women and girls will feel the impact of these harmful messages. To understand the impact of the manosphere in UK schools, teachers discussed cases with researchers where students made misogynistic comments and engaged in discriminatory behaviour towards female students and staff. Teachers raised concerns that this was impacting the well-being of female students. Additionally, research showed that the extent to which male pupils engage with the manosphere in specific schools was directly related to the extent to which female teachers within the same school reported depressive symptoms and work-related stress. One secondary school teacher reported an incident in which male pupils told a female pupil “I wouldn’t even rape you” and “You wouldn’t make much money on Only Fans”. A primary school teacher reported an incident in which a male pupil said “It’s ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate says so”. Over et al. 2025 While women and girls may be seen as the primary victims, mental health experts highlight the risk to the mental health of young men. The manosphere contextualises men's experiences within society as a loss, a loss of control, a loss of masculinity and a loss of meaning to their lives. The online content provides a new way for young men to find meaning, take back control from women and restore a sense of masculine identity. This naturally draws lonely and angry young men to a place where they feel accepted and misogynistic influencers often assert that they have a role in helping men with their mental health. However, these same influencers often express contempt for mental health problems with researchers finding that the stigma surrounding seeking help for mental health problems is particularly high among young men who engage with the manosphere. Research is still in it's infancy but there are indications that men engaged with the manosphere often recognise the lack of wholeness that the manosphere cannot provide and do seek other alternatives. The challenge is for researchers, government, educators and parents to present an alternative viewpoint What can be done to change harmful attitudes towards women in young men? Early identification and education is crucial in preventing the escalation of misogynistic behaviour, and it is important to work with young people to equip them with the tools to recognise and challenge these behaviours early on. Adolescents are drawn into this online world at a developmental period where they are often about to experience the disappointment, embarrassment and rejection that almost inevitably accompany dating for the first time. This engages young men and boys with a discriminatory viewpoint when they are particularly vulnerable to it. Parents, educators, and mentors must create and promote a healthy idea of masculinity rooted in emotional intelligence, equality, and respect, as opposed to dominance, control, and emotional suppression. Preventing misogynistic attitudes in youn

The Manosphere: Preventing Harmful Attitudes in Young Men and Boys
Claire Verney and Idil Mignon
May 14, 2025
8 min read
This article examines the impact of harmful attitudes towards women spread through the manosphere and how this can be identified with recommendations for parents, guardians, educators and professionals on addressing this with young men.
Using decades of experience in tackling male violence towards women and working with young people, we have provided an overview of the issues related to the Manosphere as well as recommendations to parents, educators and other professionals about how to address this and prevent harmful attitudes from taking hold. For an understanding of the impact of misogeny within intimate relationships, visit our article Toxic Masculinity: How do we Tackle Misogyny in Domestic Abuse?
Misogeny and the Manosphere
Brought to prominence this year by the Netflix drama ‘Adolescence,’ extreme misogynistic views amongst young boys are causing rising concern. Providing an exploration of the motivations behind acts of violence against women by young men, ‘Adolescence’ follows 13-year-old Jamie Miller who is arrested for the murder of his classmate. It is evident throughout the story that Jamie has been radicalised by misogynistic content online. He shows sympathy for the incel – short for ‘involuntarily celibate’ – worldview, where women are blamed for the unhappiness and sexual deprivation of sexually unsuccessful men.
Alongside incels, controversial ‘alpha male’ influencer Andrew Tate is mentioned by name in the drama. Tate and other similar influencers promote a hyper-masculine, misogynistic worldview under the guise of self-help for disempowered men. Together with ‘Red Pill Culture,’ ‘Pick-Up Artistry,’ and ‘Men’s Rights’ activism, incels and ‘alpha male’ influencers like Andrew Tate make up a family of online content that has been dubbed ‘the Manosphere.’ Manosphere content, easily accessible across social media platforms, fosters hostility toward women, and deliberately and explicitly teaches abuse tactics. The influence of the Manosphere is widespread, as outlined in recent research:
The charity Hope not Hate found that 80% of 16-17 year old boys in the UK had consumed content created by Andrew Tate.
Internet Matters found that 56% of young fathers (under the age of 35) approved of Andrew Tate.
76% of UK secondary school teachers and 60% of primary teachers indicated they are extremely concerned about how online misogyny is influencing their students (Over et al., 2024).
A 2020survey of Incel community websites found that Incels are generally young, white men with 82% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 30. The largest percentage (36%) were between 18 and 21.
The impact of the manosphere and it's popularity amoung young men and boys is, however, not yet fully understood:
Until recently, this international movement has been a hidden problem. Although some influencers have gained widespread notoriety, many others do not engage with mainstream news channels. As a result, the scale of the manosphere may be underestimated by many adults unless they have regular contact with teenagers and young people. Teenagers and young people are regularly exposed to this content through social media and video sharing platforms including Reddit, TikTok and YouTube. (Over et al. 2024)
How do we recognise harmful misogynistic content?
Similar to other extremist terrorist groups that operate online, media attention has forced the more violent rhetoric away from mainstream platforms into more private online spaces. However, more subtle misogynistic content is pushed to young men by algorithms on social media platforms. Algorithims are designed to offer users more of the content that they like, meaning that, in combination with systems that block unfavourable comments, young men using these platforms will receive just one highly polarised view of the world. Content can vary from extreme misogynistic views that are easier to identify to more subtle ways of diminishing women that will then drive more extreme content to the user.
Examples of more subtle misogynistic content include:
Views that denigrate only female celebrities (for example, the 5 meanest celebrities will contain only females),
Overly critiquing female celebrities or well-known female personalities,
Promotion of views that represent double standards,
Using language that is specifically designed to represent unfavourable female qualities, such as 'Karens' or Stacy's,
Memes or jokes that contain sexist messages and reinforce gender roles,
Alpha male specific content that promotes men as being strong and in control,
Focus on wealth generation as a masculine pursuit.
Online gaming can also promote an environment where women do not have a voice and can be represented within games as highly sexualised or submissive to men.
What is the impact of the manosphere?
With content that actively seeks to reduce women's freedoms and excert male dominance it is likely that women and girls will feel the impact of these harmful messages. To understand the impact of the manosphere in UK schools, teachers discussed cases with researchers where students made misogynistic comments and engaged in discriminatory behaviour towards female students and staff. Teachers raised concerns that this was impacting the well-being of female students. Additionally, research showed that the extent to which male pupils engage with the manosphere in specific schools was directly related to the extent to which female teachers within the same school reported depressive symptoms and work-related stress.
One secondary school teacher reported an incident in which male pupils told a female pupil “I wouldn’t even rape you” and “You wouldn’t make much money on Only Fans”. A primary school teacher reported an incident in which a male pupil said “It’s ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate says so”. Over et al. 2025
While women and girls may be seen as the primary victims, mental health experts highlight the risk to the mental health of young men. The manosphere contextualises men's experiences within society as a loss, a loss of control, a loss of masculinity and a loss of meaning to their lives. The online content provides a new way for young men to find meaning, take back control from women and restore a sense of masculine identity. This naturally draws lonely and angry young men to a place where they feel accepted and misogynistic influencers often assert that they have a role in helping men with their mental health. However, these same influencers often express contempt for mental health problems with researchers finding that the stigma surrounding seeking help for mental health problems is particularly high among young men who engage with the manosphere.
Research is still in it's infancy but there are indications that men engaged with the manosphere often recognise the lack of wholeness that the manosphere cannot provide and do seek other alternatives. The challenge is for researchers, government, educators and parents to present an alternative viewpoint
What can be done to change harmful attitudes towards women in young men?
Early identification and education is crucial in preventing the escalation of misogynistic behaviour, and it is important to work with young people to equip them with the tools to recognise and challenge these behaviours early on. Adolescents are drawn into this online world at a developmental period where they are often about to experience the disappointment, embarrassment and rejection that almost inevitably accompany dating for the first time. This engages young men and boys with a discriminatory viewpoint when they are particularly vulnerable to it. Parents, educators, and mentors must create and promote a healthy idea of masculinity rooted in emotional intelligence, equality, and respect, as opposed to dominance, control, and emotional suppression.
Preventing misogynistic attitudes in youn

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

Abstract The misogyny and antifeminism of the manosphere has received considerable academic and journalistic attention. This article addresses a new troubling trend, the mainstreaming of the manosphere by targeting wide audiences via TikTok. We analyse this process with the case of Estonian manfluencers and their use of international ideologies of the manosphere while drawing on the theoretical concepts of gender performativity, hegemonic and hybrid masculinity, and the attention economy logic. The empirical part focuses on the discourse analysis of TikTok videos (N = 24) from three Estonian manfluencers’ accounts to explore how they construct masculinity and adapt globally circulated manosphere content. The results of this study indicate that Estonian manfluencers mix ideologies common in various manosphere communities with minimal regard to their local context. They stress societal decline and men’s grievances, placing blame on what they term ‘woke society’ and women. ‘True manhood’ is to be achieved through discipline, suffering and domination of women and other non-dominant gender identities. The results of this study demonstrate how previously niche ideologies of the manosphere are increasingly mainstreamed transnationally. In the process of reaching mainstream social media platforms, the various discourses and ideologies common in the international manosphere are combined, advancing the manfluencers’ own personal attention-grabbing agenda but, in doing so, also potentially playing a role in the strategic dissemination of gender-based disinformation. Similar content being viewed by others Introduction There is increasing academic awareness of the growing ideological gap between men and women across the world (Ella Mebane et al., 2020; Gillion et al., 2020). Recent statistics show the widening of this gap, especially among so-called ‘generation Z’ youth (Burn-Murdoch, 2024). The problem is reflected in empirical evidence from Estonia, a small digitally advanced postsocialist Baltic country which ranks only 22nd in the EU on the Gender Equality Index (EIGE, 2023). After the fall of the Soviet Union, Estonia has been characterised by broadly shared neoliberal values (individualism, competitiveness, self-responsibilisation) (Marling, 2010). The neoliberal narrative has been perceived as an antidote to the failed Soviet system to aid Estonia’s return to the West. This process was gendered, as equality and solidarity discourses, emphasised yet not followed by the Soviet state (Katz, 2001), were abandoned in favour of a culture of competition and achievement to overcome, among other things, the perceived Soviet ‘masculinity crisis’ that had supposedly deprived men of meaningful agency (Dumančić, 2021). The narrative of male success has started to crumble during the crises of the past ten years when increasing inequality has become undeniable in Estonia. This inequality is gendered, as Estonia has had one of the highest gender wage gaps in the EU for years. Oddly, though, it is men who perceive being victimised. The explanation might be found in the mainstreaming of EU’s gender equality policies in Estonia, which makes women targets of criticism even in strategic (Russian) disinformation narratives about masculinity and femininity (Wong, 2024). A recent study among Estonian 15-year-olds found that boys’ and girls’ attitudes towards gender roles are moving rapidly in opposite directions (Ümarik et al., 2022). Whilst Estonian girls share liberal views, Estonian boys are more aligned with conservative values (Saar, 2023). Similar trends have been described worldwide (Finlay, 2021; ‘Why Young Men and Women’, 2024). In parallel, there are alarming amounts of (online) hate and incivility explicitly directed at women (Banet-Weiser and Miltner, 2016; Bellafante, 2024; Murumaa-Mengel and Muuli, 2021). These two trends converge in the internationally produced manosphere content that seeks to provide simple gendered answers to the present socio-economic precarity. This content has existed on social media for a while, but we address a recent trend, its mainstreaming via TikTok—the native platform of Gen Z (Stahl and Literat, 2023). Similarly to Milanović (2021) and Stoencheva (2022), we show that manosphere ideologies are not only an issue of Western welfare societies due to their progressive politics. Estonia’s socio-political trends make it an instructive case study of how manosphere discourses are adapted even when they conflict with the local social reality. The manosphere, defined as online communities focusing on men’s perspectives, problems, and grievances, with women as frequent targets of hatred, is one of the most virulent misogynist online environments (Farrell et al., 2019). It is united by the idea of taking the Red Pill, a metaphor from the 1999 movie The Matrix, where a person chooses between obliviousness (taking the blue pill) or learning the ugly, shocking truth about society (taking the red pill) (Ging, 2019). The activities of these online communities have serious offline consequences, such as rape and death threats directed at female gamers during the Gamergate movement and various shootings in 2014, 2018 and 2021 (‘Elliot Rodger’, 2018; Lindeman, 2022; Weaver and Morris, 2021). The attractiveness of the manosphere’s ideologies for young men can be viewed as a symptom of neoliberalism, characterised by ‘downward mobility, inflation, wage cuts, wage stagnation, underemployment, overwork and burnout, housing insecurity, the growing cost of education’ (Bujalka et al., 2022, p. 4). Men, unable to live up to the high standards of masculinity, look for explanations and scapegoats in the manosphere, not the public sphere. This phenomenon is acute in Estonia, where lower-income men feel left behind in the country’s overall success narrative (Meriküll and Rõõm, 2023). These insecurities can be exploited by local and international manfluencers (Haslop et al., 2024; Wescott et al., 2024) who offer solutions and products to their audiences. The manosphere’s extreme groups (e.g., incels, MRAs, etc.) have most often been explored on Reddit as the platform’s architecture provides a suitable environment for various misogynist communities (Massanari, 2017). However, the communities have started to spread to more mainstream environments, including the short video platform TikTok. Young people increasingly use TikTok as a source of entertainment and news (Grandinetti and Bruinsma, 2023; Huang, 2022), often without considering the quality of information (Jolley et al., 2021). TikTok has the most advanced algorithm system, especially in terms of participation, content, and types of interaction (Qin et al., 2022). Popularity- and network-based recommender algorithms contribute the most to misinformation diffusion (Pathak et al., 2023), influencing users’ understandings of social realities (Cotter et al., 2022). This study focuses on the mainstreaming of the manosphere by looking at Estonian manfluencers on TikTok. Although extremist and fringe manosphere communities have been relatively well studied (e.g., Farrell et al., 2019; Van Valkenburgh, 2021), the spread of these ideologies into the mainstream through manfluencers and the particular ways they utilise language has received little academic attention. This is a research gap that we seek to fill. We argue that manfluencers have developed new ‘glocalized’ (Roudometof, 2016) platforms for the manosphere’s activity. Importantly, we uncover the ideologies of these manfluencers and demonstrate how the manosphere is transformed into a mainstream format and how it functions within TikTok’s attention economy. The results of this study are crucial for determining the potential transnational proliferation of this type of content and finding opportunities for tackling it. We seek to answer two research questions: How do Estonian TikTok manfluencers position men and masculinity within macro (societal structures), meso (re

Abstract
The misogyny and antifeminism of the manosphere has received considerable academic and journalistic attention. This article addresses a new troubling trend, the mainstreaming of the manosphere by targeting wide audiences via TikTok. We analyse this process with the case of Estonian manfluencers and their use of international ideologies of the manosphere while drawing on the theoretical concepts of gender performativity, hegemonic and hybrid masculinity, and the attention economy logic. The empirical part focuses on the discourse analysis of TikTok videos (N = 24) from three Estonian manfluencers’ accounts to explore how they construct masculinity and adapt globally circulated manosphere content. The results of this study indicate that Estonian manfluencers mix ideologies common in various manosphere communities with minimal regard to their local context. They stress societal decline and men’s grievances, placing blame on what they term ‘woke society’ and women. ‘True manhood’ is to be achieved through discipline, suffering and domination of women and other non-dominant gender identities. The results of this study demonstrate how previously niche ideologies of the manosphere are increasingly mainstreamed transnationally. In the process of reaching mainstream social media platforms, the various discourses and ideologies common in the international manosphere are combined, advancing the manfluencers’ own personal attention-grabbing agenda but, in doing so, also potentially playing a role in the strategic dissemination of gender-based disinformation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
There is increasing academic awareness of the growing ideological gap between men and women across the world (Ella Mebane et al., 2020; Gillion et al., 2020). Recent statistics show the widening of this gap, especially among so-called ‘generation Z’ youth (Burn-Murdoch, 2024). The problem is reflected in empirical evidence from Estonia, a small digitally advanced postsocialist Baltic country which ranks only 22nd in the EU on the Gender Equality Index (EIGE, 2023). After the fall of the Soviet Union, Estonia has been characterised by broadly shared neoliberal values (individualism, competitiveness, self-responsibilisation) (Marling, 2010). The neoliberal narrative has been perceived as an antidote to the failed Soviet system to aid Estonia’s return to the West. This process was gendered, as equality and solidarity discourses, emphasised yet not followed by the Soviet state (Katz, 2001), were abandoned in favour of a culture of competition and achievement to overcome, among other things, the perceived Soviet ‘masculinity crisis’ that had supposedly deprived men of meaningful agency (Dumančić, 2021). The narrative of male success has started to crumble during the crises of the past ten years when increasing inequality has become undeniable in Estonia. This inequality is gendered, as Estonia has had one of the highest gender wage gaps in the EU for years. Oddly, though, it is men who perceive being victimised. The explanation might be found in the mainstreaming of EU’s gender equality policies in Estonia, which makes women targets of criticism even in strategic (Russian) disinformation narratives about masculinity and femininity (Wong, 2024).
A recent study among Estonian 15-year-olds found that boys’ and girls’ attitudes towards gender roles are moving rapidly in opposite directions (Ümarik et al., 2022). Whilst Estonian girls share liberal views, Estonian boys are more aligned with conservative values (Saar, 2023). Similar trends have been described worldwide (Finlay, 2021; ‘Why Young Men and Women’, 2024). In parallel, there are alarming amounts of (online) hate and incivility explicitly directed at women (Banet-Weiser and Miltner, 2016; Bellafante, 2024; Murumaa-Mengel and Muuli, 2021). These two trends converge in the internationally produced manosphere content that seeks to provide simple gendered answers to the present socio-economic precarity. This content has existed on social media for a while, but we address a recent trend, its mainstreaming via TikTok—the native platform of Gen Z (Stahl and Literat, 2023). Similarly to Milanović (2021) and Stoencheva (2022), we show that manosphere ideologies are not only an issue of Western welfare societies due to their progressive politics. Estonia’s socio-political trends make it an instructive case study of how manosphere discourses are adapted even when they conflict with the local social reality.
The manosphere, defined as online communities focusing on men’s perspectives, problems, and grievances, with women as frequent targets of hatred, is one of the most virulent misogynist online environments (Farrell et al., 2019). It is united by the idea of taking the Red Pill, a metaphor from the 1999 movie The Matrix, where a person chooses between obliviousness (taking the blue pill) or learning the ugly, shocking truth about society (taking the red pill) (Ging, 2019). The activities of these online communities have serious offline consequences, such as rape and death threats directed at female gamers during the Gamergate movement and various shootings in 2014, 2018 and 2021 (‘Elliot Rodger’, 2018; Lindeman, 2022; Weaver and Morris, 2021).
The attractiveness of the manosphere’s ideologies for young men can be viewed as a symptom of neoliberalism, characterised by ‘downward mobility, inflation, wage cuts, wage stagnation, underemployment, overwork and burnout, housing insecurity, the growing cost of education’ (Bujalka et al., 2022, p. 4). Men, unable to live up to the high standards of masculinity, look for explanations and scapegoats in the manosphere, not the public sphere. This phenomenon is acute in Estonia, where lower-income men feel left behind in the country’s overall success narrative (Meriküll and Rõõm, 2023). These insecurities can be exploited by local and international manfluencers (Haslop et al., 2024; Wescott et al., 2024) who offer solutions and products to their audiences.
The manosphere’s extreme groups (e.g., incels, MRAs, etc.) have most often been explored on Reddit as the platform’s architecture provides a suitable environment for various misogynist communities (Massanari, 2017). However, the communities have started to spread to more mainstream environments, including the short video platform TikTok. Young people increasingly use TikTok as a source of entertainment and news (Grandinetti and Bruinsma, 2023; Huang, 2022), often without considering the quality of information (Jolley et al., 2021). TikTok has the most advanced algorithm system, especially in terms of participation, content, and types of interaction (Qin et al., 2022). Popularity- and network-based recommender algorithms contribute the most to misinformation diffusion (Pathak et al., 2023), influencing users’ understandings of social realities (Cotter et al., 2022).
This study focuses on the mainstreaming of the manosphere by looking at Estonian manfluencers on TikTok. Although extremist and fringe manosphere communities have been relatively well studied (e.g., Farrell et al., 2019; Van Valkenburgh, 2021), the spread of these ideologies into the mainstream through manfluencers and the particular ways they utilise language has received little academic attention. This is a research gap that we seek to fill. We argue that manfluencers have developed new ‘glocalized’ (Roudometof, 2016) platforms for the manosphere’s activity. Importantly, we uncover the ideologies of these manfluencers and demonstrate how the manosphere is transformed into a mainstream format and how it functions within TikTok’s attention economy. The results of this study are crucial for determining the potential transnational proliferation of this type of content and finding opportunities for tackling it. We seek to answer two research questions: How do Estonian TikTok manfluencers position men and masculinity within macro (societal structures), meso (re

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

Inspired by real cases, the series Adolescence follows a 13-year-old boy arrested for killing a female classmate and explores the impact of online misogyny on young people, sparking social and political debate. In the UK, nearly 70% of boys aged 11–14 have encountered misogynistic content online (Vodafone, 2024). However, academic research into the drivers and risks behind the popularisation of such content among adolescents remains limited. What is Online Misogyny? Online misogyny refers to content and behaviour found online that promotes hatred, abuse, or harmful sexual behaviour towards women and girls (Ofcom, 2025). It is widespread in digital spaces, particularly within the ‘manosphere’, a heterogeneous network of communities across social media, blogs, forums, and channels, which attract thousands of users (Ging D., 2017; Horta Ribeiro M. et al, 2021). Manosphere communities are characterised by rigid beliefs, distinct lexicons and recruitment mechanisms. They propagate misogynistic rhetoric, externalisation of blame, biological determinism and gender essentialism, often based on misinformation. Their gender views are stereotypical and traditional, with masculinity defined by strength, sexual prowess and wealth, while women are depicted as promiscuous, irrational, materialistic, manipulative and seeking to date or marry a partner of higher social status (Ging D., 2017; Maxwell D. et al, 2020; Over H. et al, 2025a; Regehr K. et al, 2024; Solea A.I. & Sugiura L., 2023; Vallerga M. & Zurbriggen E.L., 2022). Manosphere communities originated primarily in the United States and Canada and are predominantly driven by men. Some fractions within these communities have been linked to the alt-right, white nationalist movements, and other forms of hate, including racism and anti-LGBT+ discrimination (Aiolfi I. et al, 2024; Over H. et al, 2025a; Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022). Although these communities seem to be particularly prevalent in North America and Western Europe, online misogyny exists across a large range of communities and countries, representing a global risk (Procope Bell D., 2023; Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022; Sun L. & Dai L., 2024; Uzun B. & Tiryaki S., 2024). Female-led communities also exist, including the Tradwife movement, which promotes anti-feminist ideologies and rigid gender roles, romanticising domesticity through curated aesthetics (Stotzer R.L. & Nelson A., 2025). How Do Adolescent Boys Engage with the Manosphere? Both adolescent boys and girls spend many hours online each day. However, there are gender differences in the content they consume, the apps used, and how they use them (Boniel-Nissim M. et al, 2024; Ofcom, 2023). In the UK, boys spend more time than girls on platforms like Reddit and YouTube, where content moderation is weak and manosphere ideology is prevalent (Horta Ribeiro M. et al, 2021; Ofcom, 2023, 2024; Park J.S. et al, 2022; Yesilada M. & Lewandowsky, S., 2022). Boys are also more likely to falsify their age as 18 or over, increasing their exposure to harmful content (Ofcom, 2024). Boys additionally spend more time playing video games, with some associated chats and forums spreading manosphere content (Boniel-Nissim M. et al, 2024; Schlegel L., 2021). Social media is the most common internet use among young people, and misogynistic content is now readily available on mainstream platforms, whereas previously it had to be actively sought (Bertoni E. et al, 2025; Regehr K. et al, 2024). Young men encounter such content through unrelated searches, as AI algorithms amplify extreme material, and continued use leads to increasingly misogynistic ideologies (Regehr K. et al, 2024; Vodafone, 2024). On platforms like TikTok, this content is gamified, presented as entertainment, often disguised as jokes and delivered in bite-sized chunks. This “micro-dose” effect desensitises viewers and normalises extremist ideas (Regehr K. et al, 2024). Manosphere influencers, some with millions of followers, amplify this content while profiting from engagement and selling products like courses or supplements as solutions to viewers’ concerns (Bujalka E. et al, 2022). According to Hope not Hate (2023), nearly 80% of 16-to-17-year-old British boys consumed content from Andrew Tate, a manosphere influencer who has been banned from several social media platforms for misogynistic views and hate speech (Henley J. et al, 2025). Beyond the Screen: Offline Impact Online misogyny is having an offline impact on young people’s attitudes, beliefs and interactions. A recent poll found that 52% of 16–17-year-old British boys have a positive view of Andrew Tate (Hope not Hate, 2023). Parents report their sons are increasingly using degrading language when speaking about women and girls (Vodafone, 2024). Studies in the UK and Australia show that teachers are also concerned, reporting that boys reference misogynistic influencers or movements, make misogynistic comments, and engage in discriminatory, disrespectful, or harassing behaviour toward female staff and peers, negatively impacting learning and teachers’ work (Over H. et al, 2025b; Vodafone, 2024; Wescott S. et al, 2023). Engagement with the manosphere has been linked to incidents of interpersonal and societal violence, including mass shootings committed by individuals under 25 years old (Hoffman B. et al, 2020; Wood A. et al, 2022). Traditional gender role attitudes, promoted within the manosphere, are also linked to a higher risk of dating violence perpetration among adolescent boys (Reyes H.L. et al, 2016). Not only do some individuals in the manosphere have a history of violence against women, but such violence is often normalised and even encouraged (Aiolfi I. et al, 2024). A Bidirectional Relationship with Mental health? Poor mental health has been reported among members of the manosphere, including conditions such as depression, anxiety and autism. Loneliness, social rejection, hopelessness, suicide and self-harm are also commonly discussed themes within these communities. However, mental health care is viewed with stigma, disappointment and cynicism (Delaney T.W. et al, 2024; Maxwell D. et al, 2020; Over H. et al, 2025a; Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022; Stijelja S. & Mishara B.L., 2022; Vallerga M. & Zurbriggen E.L., 2022). Recent research suggests that initial online searches related to mental health, loneliness, relationship advice or a search for belonging can push young people toward misogynistic content (Regehr K. et al, 2024). Although these communities may offer a sense of belonging and shared hardship, this can come at the expense of adaptive coping mechanisms and may worsen mental health (Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022). Research focused on adolescents is limited, but existing evidence suggests that online misogyny negatively affects their mental health. In a UK survey, 66% of 11–14-year-old boys reported that viewing misogynistic content online made them feel worried, sad or scared (Vodafone, 2024). Teachers have also reported that male pupils’ engagement with the manosphere, and their subsequent behaviour, harms female pupils’ well-being, self-esteem and engagement, and is associated with depressive symptoms and work-related stress among female teachers (Over H. et al, 2025a, 2025b). Given the unique characteristics of ‘the teenage brain’, the developmental context should be considered when researching adolescents’ consumption of online misogyny, as well as when designing interventions and policies (Gilmour J. 2025). Implications for Policy and Practice Given adolescents’ increasing exposure to online misogyny and its associated harms, urgent educational and policy measures are needed, tailored to specific contexts, including: - Legislation to ensure online platforms are safe by design for young people, prioritising their well-being in product development. This includes regulating social media services, holding companies accountable, and enforcing age-appropriate r

Inspired by real cases, the series Adolescence follows a 13-year-old boy arrested for killing a female classmate and explores the impact of online misogyny on young people, sparking social and political debate. In the UK, nearly 70% of boys aged 11–14 have encountered misogynistic content online (Vodafone, 2024). However, academic research into the drivers and risks behind the popularisation of such content among adolescents remains limited.
What is Online Misogyny?
Online misogyny refers to content and behaviour found online that promotes hatred, abuse, or harmful sexual behaviour towards women and girls (Ofcom, 2025). It is widespread in digital spaces, particularly within the ‘manosphere’, a heterogeneous network of communities across social media, blogs, forums, and channels, which attract thousands of users (Ging D., 2017; Horta Ribeiro M. et al, 2021).
Manosphere communities are characterised by rigid beliefs, distinct lexicons and recruitment mechanisms. They propagate misogynistic rhetoric, externalisation of blame, biological determinism and gender essentialism, often based on misinformation. Their gender views are stereotypical and traditional, with masculinity defined by strength, sexual prowess and wealth, while women are depicted as promiscuous, irrational, materialistic, manipulative and seeking to date or marry a partner of higher social status (Ging D., 2017; Maxwell D. et al, 2020; Over H. et al, 2025a; Regehr K. et al, 2024; Solea A.I. & Sugiura L., 2023; Vallerga M. & Zurbriggen E.L., 2022).
Manosphere communities originated primarily in the United States and Canada and are predominantly driven by men. Some fractions within these communities have been linked to the alt-right, white nationalist movements, and other forms of hate, including racism and anti-LGBT+ discrimination (Aiolfi I. et al, 2024; Over H. et al, 2025a; Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022). Although these communities seem to be particularly prevalent in North America and Western Europe, online misogyny exists across a large range of communities and countries, representing a global risk (Procope Bell D., 2023; Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022; Sun L. & Dai L., 2024; Uzun B. & Tiryaki S., 2024). Female-led communities also exist, including the Tradwife movement, which promotes anti-feminist ideologies and rigid gender roles, romanticising domesticity through curated aesthetics (Stotzer R.L. & Nelson A., 2025).
How Do Adolescent Boys Engage with the Manosphere?
Both adolescent boys and girls spend many hours online each day. However, there are gender differences in the content they consume, the apps used, and how they use them (Boniel-Nissim M. et al, 2024; Ofcom, 2023). In the UK, boys spend more time than girls on platforms like Reddit and YouTube, where content moderation is weak and manosphere ideology is prevalent (Horta Ribeiro M. et al, 2021; Ofcom, 2023, 2024; Park J.S. et al, 2022; Yesilada M. & Lewandowsky, S., 2022). Boys are also more likely to falsify their age as 18 or over, increasing their exposure to harmful content (Ofcom, 2024). Boys additionally spend more time playing video games, with some associated chats and forums spreading manosphere content (Boniel-Nissim M. et al, 2024; Schlegel L., 2021).
Social media is the most common internet use among young people, and misogynistic content is now readily available on mainstream platforms, whereas previously it had to be actively sought (Bertoni E. et al, 2025; Regehr K. et al, 2024). Young men encounter such content through unrelated searches, as AI algorithms amplify extreme material, and continued use leads to increasingly misogynistic ideologies (Regehr K. et al, 2024; Vodafone, 2024).
On platforms like TikTok, this content is gamified, presented as entertainment, often disguised as jokes and delivered in bite-sized chunks. This “micro-dose” effect desensitises viewers and normalises extremist ideas (Regehr K. et al, 2024). Manosphere influencers, some with millions of followers, amplify this content while profiting from engagement and selling products like courses or supplements as solutions to viewers’ concerns (Bujalka E. et al, 2022). According to Hope not Hate (2023), nearly 80% of 16-to-17-year-old British boys consumed content from Andrew Tate, a manosphere influencer who has been banned from several social media platforms for misogynistic views and hate speech (Henley J. et al, 2025).
Beyond the Screen: Offline Impact
Online misogyny is having an offline impact on young people’s attitudes, beliefs and interactions. A recent poll found that 52% of 16–17-year-old British boys have a positive view of Andrew Tate (Hope not Hate, 2023). Parents report their sons are increasingly using degrading language when speaking about women and girls (Vodafone, 2024). Studies in the UK and Australia show that teachers are also concerned, reporting that boys reference misogynistic influencers or movements, make misogynistic comments, and engage in discriminatory, disrespectful, or harassing behaviour toward female staff and peers, negatively impacting learning and teachers’ work (Over H. et al, 2025b; Vodafone, 2024; Wescott S. et al, 2023).
Engagement with the manosphere has been linked to incidents of interpersonal and societal violence, including mass shootings committed by individuals under 25 years old (Hoffman B. et al, 2020; Wood A. et al, 2022). Traditional gender role attitudes, promoted within the manosphere, are also linked to a higher risk of dating violence perpetration among adolescent boys (Reyes H.L. et al, 2016). Not only do some individuals in the manosphere have a history of violence against women, but such violence is often normalised and even encouraged (Aiolfi I. et al, 2024).
A Bidirectional Relationship with Mental health?
Poor mental health has been reported among members of the manosphere, including conditions such as depression, anxiety and autism. Loneliness, social rejection, hopelessness, suicide and self-harm are also commonly discussed themes within these communities. However, mental health care is viewed with stigma, disappointment and cynicism (Delaney T.W. et al, 2024; Maxwell D. et al, 2020; Over H. et al, 2025a; Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022; Stijelja S. & Mishara B.L., 2022; Vallerga M. & Zurbriggen E.L., 2022). Recent research suggests that initial online searches related to mental health, loneliness, relationship advice or a search for belonging can push young people toward misogynistic content (Regehr K. et al, 2024). Although these communities may offer a sense of belonging and shared hardship, this can come at the expense of adaptive coping mechanisms and may worsen mental health (Speckhard A. & Ellenberg M., 2022).
Research focused on adolescents is limited, but existing evidence suggests that online misogyny negatively affects their mental health. In a UK survey, 66% of 11–14-year-old boys reported that viewing misogynistic content online made them feel worried, sad or scared (Vodafone, 2024). Teachers have also reported that male pupils’ engagement with the manosphere, and their subsequent behaviour, harms female pupils’ well-being, self-esteem and engagement, and is associated with depressive symptoms and work-related stress among female teachers (Over H. et al, 2025a, 2025b). Given the unique characteristics of ‘the teenage brain’, the developmental context should be considered when researching adolescents’ consumption of online misogyny, as well as when designing interventions and policies (Gilmour J. 2025).
Implications for Policy and Practice
Given adolescents’ increasing exposure to online misogyny and its associated harms, urgent educational and policy measures are needed, tailored to specific contexts, including:
- Legislation to ensure online platforms are safe by design for young people, prioritising their well-being in product development. This includes regulating social media services, holding companies accountable, and enforcing age-appropriate r

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9] A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13] But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8] The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this: - The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3] - Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13] - Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14] - The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14] Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension: - A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9] - A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4] If you want, I can turn this into either: - a **short literature review paragraph**, - a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or - a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

The strongest 2024–2025 academic line is **not** that the manosphere is harmless, but that public debate often **overstates how monolithic, radicalizing, or uniquely new** it is. At the same time, recent research still finds **real risks** for some teenage boys, especially around misogyny, belonging, and masculinity.[1][4][8][9]

A useful critique of “manosphere panic” is that some scholarship frames the issue as a **moral panic**: academic discourse can portray the manosphere as “dangerous and evil,” “wrong and deluded,” and emotionally reactive, which this study argues may reinforce social prejudices and encourage a one-sided response.[5] Related commentary also argues that current debates can scapegoat teenage boys and exaggerate how novel the misogyny is.[13]

But the counter-critique is important: newer studies do **not** support a pure “nothing to see here” position. Research on teen boys and Andrew Tate found that manosphere content can mainstream misogynistic ideas while also appealing through “hope” language, dating advice, entrepreneurship, and fears about boys’ future status.[4] A 2025 review in *Nature* notes that boys often report pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity, and that some researchers worry “boys in crisis” framing can backfire by feeding resentment and hostile views.[8]

The most balanced 2024–2025 reading is this:
- The manosphere is **not one thing**; it includes self-help, fitness, dating, and explicitly misogynistic content.[6][3]
- Academic and media discourse sometimes **overpathologizes** teenage boys and treats the manosphere as a single radicalizing pipeline.[5][13]
- Yet evidence still supports concern about **misogynistic attitudes, social pressures, and mental-health harms** among at least some adolescents.[4][9][14]
- The evidence base is still **limited**, especially on long-term effects and how many boys are involved.[9][14]

Two especially relevant 2025–2024 findings illustrate the tension:
- A 2025 article in *Nature* says “systematic data on the long-term impact of the manosphere on young people’s mental health and behaviour remains limited,” even while “preliminary data suggest” sexist attitudes and harmful messages are spreading.[9]
- A 2024 study of teen boys and Tate argues his content “mainstreams misogynistic ‘manosphere’ ideologies,” but does so by combining domination with “hope” and self-improvement appeals.[4]

If you want, I can turn this into either:
- a **short literature review paragraph**,
- a **critical annotated bibliography** of 2024–2025 sources, or
- a **table contrasting “moral panic” vs “real risk” arguments**.

Harry Garside, an Olympic boxer and positive role model for boys and young men across Australia, is joining the Top Blokes family as our newest ambassador. Known as one of Australia’s top athletes, Harry breaks down barriers around mental health, masculinity, and self-expression. His own journey challenges young men to embrace their true selves, pursue their passions, and prioritise their wellbeing – something that resonates deeply with the Top Blokes values, principles and key messages shared in Top Blokes programs and workshops. We’re excited to welcome Harry to our ambassador team, which already includes NRL Titans player Kieran Foran, TV personality Tim Robards, and Dr. Justin Coulson, a leading parenting expert. “Harry Garside embodies everything we stand for at Top Blokes—vulnerability, authenticity, and resilience. His personal journey challenges societal norms and opens doors to honest conversations, something we deeply value,” says Amy Harvison, Head of Programs and Operations at Top Blokes. “As an elite athlete and passionate mental health advocate, Harry is more than just a role model. He inspires young men to embrace who they are, face their challenges head-on, and seek the support they need. His alignment with our mission of empowering boys to lead healthy and safe lives makes him a perfect fit for our cause. We are honoured to have him as part of the Top Blokes family,” adds Amy. Speaking on Sunrise Harry was officially welcomed as a Top Blokes ambassador with his first public appearance for the Foundation on Sunrise on 7. Harry shared, “I’m such an advocate because I’ve been through it myself. I think there are so many benefits if young people can do more things where they are challenging themselves, building emotional intelligence and emotional literacy… and that’s what Top Blokes is [they are] creating spaces for young people to be themselves.” “It’s [Top Blokes] all about going into areas where young people are at – whether it be a school or somewhere else – and creating a space where young men can be themselves or find out who they are and start that journey. I think if a world can have more young people exploring themselves or being more themselves, we’ll get better outcomes,” says Harry. Masculinity, mental health and resilience Harry recently sat down with two Top Blokes graduates, Daniel and Salim. They chatted openly and honestly about masculinity, mental health, and resilience. Filmed as part of a special series coming soon, the discussion reveals Harry’s own personal struggles and triumphs, as well as the tools he believes are crucial for young men today. The boys shared their stories, creating a raw and honest conversation that challenges stereotypes and provides a pathway for young men to understand the power of vulnerability. Shining a spotlight on Mental Health Awareness Month As October marks Mental Health Awareness Month, Harry’s ambassadorship comes at a crucial time. Now more than ever, the need to focus on young men’s mental health is paramount. With 75% of suicides in Australia involving males, we’re committed to giving young men the tools to live healthy, connected, and safe lives. Added Amy, “Harry’s involvement with Top Blokes will help amplify this message across Australia, breaking the silence and stigma around mental health and encouraging young men to speak up and seek support. His presence as a Top Blokes ambassador will undoubtedly inspire countless young men to embrace their vulnerabilities and take action to improve their mental and emotional wellbeing.” Look out for our special Harry episodes coming soon!

Harry Garside, an Olympic boxer and positive role model for boys and young men across Australia, is joining the Top Blokes family as our newest ambassador. Known as one of Australia’s top athletes, Harry breaks down barriers around mental health, masculinity, and self-expression. His own journey challenges young men to embrace their true selves, pursue their passions, and prioritise their wellbeing – something that resonates deeply with the Top Blokes values, principles and key messages shared in Top Blokes programs and workshops.
We’re excited to welcome Harry to our ambassador team, which already includes NRL Titans player Kieran Foran, TV personality Tim Robards, and Dr. Justin Coulson, a leading parenting expert.
“Harry Garside embodies everything we stand for at Top Blokes—vulnerability, authenticity, and resilience. His personal journey challenges societal norms and opens doors to honest conversations, something we deeply value,” says Amy Harvison, Head of Programs and Operations at Top Blokes.
“As an elite athlete and passionate mental health advocate, Harry is more than just a role model. He inspires young men to embrace who they are, face their challenges head-on, and seek the support they need. His alignment with our mission of empowering boys to lead healthy and safe lives makes him a perfect fit for our cause. We are honoured to have him as part of the Top Blokes family,” adds Amy.
Speaking on Sunrise
Harry was officially welcomed as a Top Blokes ambassador with his first public appearance for the Foundation on Sunrise on 7.
Harry shared, “I’m such an advocate because I’ve been through it myself. I think there are so many benefits if young people can do more things where they are challenging themselves, building emotional intelligence and emotional literacy… and that’s what Top Blokes is [they are] creating spaces for young people to be themselves.”
“It’s [Top Blokes] all about going into areas where young people are at – whether it be a school or somewhere else – and creating a space where young men can be themselves or find out who they are and start that journey. I think if a world can have more young people exploring themselves or being more themselves, we’ll get better outcomes,” says Harry.
Masculinity, mental health and resilience
Harry recently sat down with two Top Blokes graduates, Daniel and Salim. They chatted openly and honestly about masculinity, mental health, and resilience. Filmed as part of a special series coming soon, the discussion reveals Harry’s own personal struggles and triumphs, as well as the tools he believes are crucial for young men today. The boys shared their stories, creating a raw and honest conversation that challenges stereotypes and provides a pathway for young men to understand the power of vulnerability.
Shining a spotlight on Mental Health Awareness Month
As October marks Mental Health Awareness Month, Harry’s ambassadorship comes at a crucial time. Now more than ever, the need to focus on young men’s mental health is paramount. With 75% of suicides in Australia involving males, we’re committed to giving young men the tools to live healthy, connected, and safe lives.
Added Amy, “Harry’s involvement with Top Blokes will help amplify this message across Australia, breaking the silence and stigma around mental health and encouraging young men to speak up and seek support. His presence as a Top Blokes ambassador will undoubtedly inspire countless young men to embrace their vulnerabilities and take action to improve their mental and emotional wellbeing.”
Look out for our special Harry episodes coming soon!

Dr Gill Harrop is a senior lecturer in Forensic Psychology and the university lead for the Bystander Intervention Programme. In this Academic Blog she discusses the importance of 'everyday influencers' in developing a culture of positive masculinity. In February 2024, the Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, outlined plans to place male mentors in schools to work with young men to counter negative attitudes they might be exposed to by influencers online. While there is certainly research that suggests this might have a positive influence in tackling problematic attitudes and behaviour there is a need to look at how we can also make better use of the ‘everyday influencers’ in those young people’s lives. We often mistakenly assume that positive role models are absent from the homes and lives of young males, when the reality is that many do already have access to males who model good behaviours, such as sports coaches and teachers. Therefore, instead of trying to develop new, ‘custom-made’ influencers for young males, a more effective way forward may lie in better recognising the presence and value of these existing role models. By looking at the good work and positive results achieved by these ‘everyday influencers’, we can start to understand what is currently working well in tackling toxic masculinity, and the range of factors that affect the relationships between young males and those who work with them. Who is a role model? Role models are those who serve as an example, and set standards for others by motivating, inspiring or supporting them to behave in a similar way (Payne et al, 2002). While children’s first role models are usually their parents, by the time they become teenagers, other figures start to emerge as people of influence, including celebrities, athletes and gamers. Young (2014) notes that boys are more likely to adopt a role model of the same gender, and the influence of that role model can affect young males’ thoughts, feelings, actions and attitudes as they try to imitate or adopt their behaviour. While this can be extremely positive, it also leaves the door open for some highly influential individuals to model their version of ‘success’ to impressionable young males online. Exposure to such role models can lead to young males believing that misogyny, violence and poor treatment of women is acceptable and perhaps even inevitable steps on the road to achieving wealth and success. It’s therefore vital to make the most of the positive male role models that currently exist in young males’ lives, to ensure that they have strong, relatable and healthy examples to look up to and emulate. The value of role models in developing a culture of positive masculinity Vandello & Bosson (2013) noted the intense pressure faced by many men and boys to constantly assert, prove and maintain their masculinity, with traits such as strength, domination and aggression often being highly prized. This can lead to young males feeling that they have to behave in this way to be seen as a ‘real man’, leading to behaviour and attitudes which are harmful to both young men and society as a whole (Harrop, 2023). Embracing healthy, pro-social behaviour and promoting good mental health for boys and men therefore requires a new approach to what it means to be masculine, focusing on positive behaviours, and role models who can provide a positive, healthy example. “Being a role model is the most important kind of educating.” John Wooden Lyle (2013) noted the key role that figures such as sports coaches can play in positively influencing young players, developing not just their game, but their character and life skills. Soni Parchment is a coach with the Worcester Wolves Basketball Academy and is clear about what he wants to bring to his young players as both a coach and a role model. “For me”, he says, “the main thing is making sure that I remain positive and let them know that if they make a mistake that it’s not the end of the world. I feel like I’ve definitely had an impact on the kids I’ve coached and stuck in their minds in a positive way.” When asked what skills he tries to pass on to his players, he identifies confidence and coping with adversity as being key, making them “have more confidence to speak up, to learn to talk about things rather than argue”. So how does he model those behaviours himself as a coach? “By staying positive, showing the players that there are ways out of issues by talking and they don’t have to argue or have a massive blow-out,” he says. “The earlier they learn this, the more it’ll help them in their personal life as well as their sport”. As well as modelling positive behaviours himself, Soni acknowledges the vital part that role models have played in his own life, particularly the late basketball coach Brian Miller. “He’s an example of a coach who was doing it for others”, says Soni. “I was always going to him for life advice, not just basketball tips, but anything you could think of, and he was always happy to have a say. Because of him, I could see how you can help others just by being there”. He continues: “Often in parts of life, the role models are there, but they might not always be noticed because they’re not famous or on social media. Because of the people around me, I see how they are and their real-life experiences, and I try to be there in the way that others have been there for me.” Developing future role models Positive role models can inspire and motivate, develop good behaviours and habits and help to set and achieve goals. Going forward, it is vital that positive role models are recognised and celebrated, particularly those ‘everyday influencers’ who affect the daily lives of young males by not only teaching them how to behave, but through modelling that good behaviour themselves. In this way, young males can see an alternative to the version of ‘success’ they might see from high profile influencers online, and have a clearer picture of what success looks like through being a good friend, teammate and a positive example of masculinity. By following that positive example, in time, they may even become positive role models themselves and the cycle continues. Of course, there will be times when young males don’t have anyone positive to look up to, and that is when schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours. Young (2009) suggested the following tips for being a good role model: - Genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development. Embrace the development of their character as well as their skills. - Emphasise and reward people’s best efforts - don’t just focus on the end result. - Emphasise and exhibit positive qualities such as determination, hard work, resilience and respect. - Practice what you preach – adopt moral, ethical and healthy behaviours and model these for others. - Treat others as you’d like them to treat you by modelling good attitudes and behaviours, even if you aren’t rewarded for doing so. - Give your best effort. - Take a genuine interest in others and actively listen to what they say. Invite others to share their thoughts, views and questions and let them know that their input has value. To discuss any of the points in this blog further, please email Gill Harrop at g.harrop@worc.ac.uk. Find out more about Psychology at Worcester.

Dr Gill Harrop is a senior lecturer in Forensic Psychology and the university lead for the Bystander Intervention Programme. In this Academic Blog she discusses the importance of 'everyday influencers' in developing a culture of positive masculinity.
In February 2024, the Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, outlined plans to place male mentors in schools to work with young men to counter negative attitudes they might be exposed to by influencers online.
While there is certainly research that suggests this might have a positive influence in tackling problematic attitudes and behaviour there is a need to look at how we can also make better use of the ‘everyday influencers’ in those young people’s lives.
We often mistakenly assume that positive role models are absent from the homes and lives of young males, when the reality is that many do already have access to males who model good behaviours, such as sports coaches and teachers.
Therefore, instead of trying to develop new, ‘custom-made’ influencers for young males, a more effective way forward may lie in better recognising the presence and value of these existing role models. By looking at the good work and positive results achieved by these ‘everyday influencers’, we can start to understand what is currently working well in tackling toxic masculinity, and the range of factors that affect the relationships between young males and those who work with them.
Who is a role model?
Role models are those who serve as an example, and set standards for others by motivating, inspiring or supporting them to behave in a similar way (Payne et al, 2002). While children’s first role models are usually their parents, by the time they become teenagers, other figures start to emerge as people of influence, including celebrities, athletes and gamers.
Young (2014) notes that boys are more likely to adopt a role model of the same gender, and the influence of that role model can affect young males’ thoughts, feelings, actions and attitudes as they try to imitate or adopt their behaviour. While this can be extremely positive, it also leaves the door open for some highly influential individuals to model their version of ‘success’ to impressionable young males online.
Exposure to such role models can lead to young males believing that misogyny, violence and poor treatment of women is acceptable and perhaps even inevitable steps on the road to achieving wealth and success.
It’s therefore vital to make the most of the positive male role models that currently exist in young males’ lives, to ensure that they have strong, relatable and healthy examples to look up to and emulate.
The value of role models in developing a culture of positive masculinity
Vandello & Bosson (2013) noted the intense pressure faced by many men and boys to constantly assert, prove and maintain their masculinity, with traits such as strength, domination and aggression often being highly prized. This can lead to young males feeling that they have to behave in this way to be seen as a ‘real man’, leading to behaviour and attitudes which are harmful to both young men and society as a whole (Harrop, 2023).
Embracing healthy, pro-social behaviour and promoting good mental health for boys and men therefore requires a new approach to what it means to be masculine, focusing on positive behaviours, and role models who can provide a positive, healthy example.
“Being a role model is the most important kind of educating.”
John Wooden
Lyle (2013) noted the key role that figures such as sports coaches can play in positively influencing young players, developing not just their game, but their character and life skills.
Soni Parchment is a coach with the Worcester Wolves Basketball Academy and is clear about what he wants to bring to his young players as both a coach and a role model.
“For me”, he says, “the main thing is making sure that I remain positive and let them know that if they make a mistake that it’s not the end of the world. I feel like I’ve definitely had an impact on the kids I’ve coached and stuck in their minds in a positive way.”
When asked what skills he tries to pass on to his players, he identifies confidence and coping with adversity as being key, making them “have more confidence to speak up, to learn to talk about things rather than argue”.
So how does he model those behaviours himself as a coach? “By staying positive, showing the players that there are ways out of issues by talking and they don’t have to argue or have a massive blow-out,” he says. “The earlier they learn this, the more it’ll help them in their personal life as well as their sport”.
As well as modelling positive behaviours himself, Soni acknowledges the vital part that role models have played in his own life, particularly the late basketball coach Brian Miller.
“He’s an example of a coach who was doing it for others”, says Soni. “I was always going to him for life advice, not just basketball tips, but anything you could think of, and he was always happy to have a say. Because of him, I could see how you can help others just by being there”.
He continues: “Often in parts of life, the role models are there, but they might not always be noticed because they’re not famous or on social media. Because of the people around me, I see how they are and their real-life experiences, and I try to be there in the way that others have been there for me.”
Developing future role models
Positive role models can inspire and motivate, develop good behaviours and habits and help to set and achieve goals. Going forward, it is vital that positive role models are recognised and celebrated, particularly those ‘everyday influencers’ who affect the daily lives of young males by not only teaching them how to behave, but through modelling that good behaviour themselves.
In this way, young males can see an alternative to the version of ‘success’ they might see from high profile influencers online, and have a clearer picture of what success looks like through being a good friend, teammate and a positive example of masculinity. By following that positive example, in time, they may even become positive role models themselves and the cycle continues.
Of course, there will be times when young males don’t have anyone positive to look up to, and that is when schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.
Young (2009) suggested the following tips for being a good role model:
- Genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development. Embrace the development of their character as well as their skills.
- Emphasise and reward people’s best efforts - don’t just focus on the end result.
- Emphasise and exhibit positive qualities such as determination, hard work, resilience and respect.
- Practice what you preach – adopt moral, ethical and healthy behaviours and model these for others.
- Treat others as you’d like them to treat you by modelling good attitudes and behaviours, even if you aren’t rewarded for doing so.
- Give your best effort.
- Take a genuine interest in others and actively listen to what they say. Invite others to share their thoughts, views and questions and let them know that their input has value.
To discuss any of the points in this blog further, please email Gill Harrop at g.harrop@worc.ac.uk.
Find out more about Psychology at Worcester.

The Pixel Project is pleased to welcome our annual guest “16 For 16” article from our partner MenChallenging, an organisation that challenges men to prevent gender-based violence and support its victims and survivors. There are endless examples of positive, healthy and respectful masculinity all around us, but unfortunately, they often go unnoticed or ignored, minimised, or mocked. If we continue to spotlight and normalise them, it will mean another step towards everyone–including men–leading more healthy and non-violent lives. In this article, MenChallenging presents a list of examples of men who exhibit positive masculinity, some more subtle than others, and mostly from the US as that is where we are based and do most of our work. We hope that examples like these are one way we can build a more just and less violent society and world. Important caveat: Having or exhibiting traits of positive masculinity does not mean that a person is incapable of committing gender-based violence, whether street harassment, stalking, sexual violence or relationship abuse. Even anti-gender violence activists and leaders have been and can be violent and abusive. The goal of this article is to celebrate positive masculinity while seeing each person in their entirety. We must recognise potential harm caused by people who take positive actions and recognise humanity even in those who choose to commit violence. We are not trying to celebrate the real and fictional men listed here as “good” or even non-violent, but spotlighting behaviour that we want to see more of and strive to exemplify ourselves. Written by Joe Samalin, Co-Founder of MenChallenging. Example of Positive Masculinity #1: Ted Lasso Ted Lasso is wildly popular for a lot of reasons. The one that stands out more than any other is how every episode showcases micro and macro examples of alternative and positive masculinities, primarily from the lead character, but from others as well. The show highlights Ted and other male characters being vulnerable, empathetic, open-minded, putting others above themselves, creating close male friendships and love, and much more across racial, national, sexual orientation, age, and other lines. These traits help create a team and community that does not promote nor allow gender inequity and violence, all while winning games. Ted Lasso is a classic example of a transformational as opposed to a transactional coach. This is exemplified his line: “For me, success is not about the wins and losses. It’s about helping these young fellas be the best versions of themselves on and off the field.” Example of Positive Masculinity #2: Joe Ehrmann Looking for the real-life Ted Lasso? Even if you are not a coach, read Joe Ehrmann’s book InSideOut Coaching: How Sports Can Transform Lives. It is a game changer (pun intended). Joe has devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity. In addition to being an all-star football player, he is a role model of positive masculinity. His work with young and professional athletes proactively viewing sports as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence is truly inspirational. Example of Positive Masculinity #3: Jeff Perera Canadian Jeff Perera created Higher Unlearning as an online space to explore healthy masculinity and is a brilliant speaker and writer on the topic. He has dedicated himself to both inner self-work and working with men and communities to challenge men’s violence in all forms. Check out his Ted Talks and more on his website. Example of Positive Masculinity #4: Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah’s debut novel Chain Gang All-Stars addresses racism, sexism, and the carceral system, and debuted to great acclaim. When discussing the book in the media, Adjei-Brenyah spoke openly and powerfully about the women in his books and why and how he wrote them. Check out this interview with Seth Meyers, especially around the 5-minute mark, and his appearance on The Daily Show at around the 2-minute mark, to better understand how well he explains the importance of intersectionality. Example of Positive Masculinity #5: Dwayne Wade Dwayne Wade, superstar basketball player and celebrity along with his partner, actress Gabrielle Union, has publicly and vocally supported their trans daughter Zaya since she came out in 2020. This includes advocating for the rights of all trans youth and speaking out when he has the chance, as well as publicly deciding to move with his family out of Florida due to the state’s anti-trans laws. Fighting for equity and respect for people regardless of gender and sexuality and what it might do to your reputation, and being an open-minded and visible ally to others–all of this makes for a beautiful show of positive masculinity. This helps to increase support for women and trans folks, especially trans youth, and boosting their value in society helps to challenge the violence so often done against them. Example of Positive Masculinity #6: Richard Gadd and Baby Reindeer The dark comedic TV show Baby Reindeer is based on the play of the same name by British comedian and actor Richard Gadd, who shares his experiences as a survivor of stalking and sexual assault. It is an intense look at stalking and the effects it can have on people, but also a powerful sharing of Gadd’s story of being drugged and sexually assaulted by another man in the television business. Showing different types of courage, such as sharing stories of vulnerability and weakness, can be a hugely cathartic and important part of positive masculinity and a counter-story to how we usually define courage and strength. In this case it can also help support survivors of sexual assault and stalking, including male survivors, whether or not they ever share their stories. Example of Positive Masculinity #7: Mandy Patinkin Leaving Criminal Minds In the early 2000’s, actor Mandy Patinkin seemingly abruptly left his leading role in television show Criminal Minds. His later public-facing explanation for leaving after a scant two years on the popular show highlights two examples of positive masculinity: self-care and acknowledging the effects of gender-based violence on individuals and society overall. It was only years later that he shared the reasons for his departure from Criminal Minds: “The biggest public mistake I ever made was that I chose to do Criminal Minds in the first place,” he says. “I thought it was something very different. I never thought they were going to kill and rape all these women every night, every day, week after week, year after year. It was very destructive to my soul and my personality. After that, I didn’t think I would get to work in television again.” Example of Positive Masculinity #8: Eric and Otis in Sex Education The friendship between Otis and Eric in the British hit Sex Education is to a large extent the heart of this show. Their love for and bond with each other is powerful to see, especially given how different their personalities and identities are, and the missteps they make. Research and lived experience shows us that boys tend to have very close relationships with each other only up to a point, so the Eric-Otis friendship is a refreshing one that normalises bucking that trend. Their bond is threatened at times yet they are able to hold each other accountable for problematic behaviour, language and actions. This type of bond is a critical piece of creating communities free from men’s violence and abuse–relationships and friendships between men of all ages that are strong enough to allow individuals to step up and speak out against what we know is wrong. Example of Positive Masculinity #9: Brian Anderson Brian Anderson is the co-founder of Fathering Together, an online community of dads around the world supporting each other to be better dads and men. It is a great organisation and one example of Brian’s commitment to positive masculini

The Pixel Project is pleased to welcome our annual guest “16 For 16” article from our partner MenChallenging, an organisation that challenges men to prevent gender-based violence and support its victims and survivors.
There are endless examples of positive, healthy and respectful masculinity all around us, but unfortunately, they often go unnoticed or ignored, minimised, or mocked. If we continue to spotlight and normalise them, it will mean another step towards everyone–including men–leading more healthy and non-violent lives. In this article, MenChallenging presents a list of examples of men who exhibit positive masculinity, some more subtle than others, and mostly from the US as that is where we are based and do most of our work. We hope that examples like these are one way we can build a more just and less violent society and world.
Important caveat: Having or exhibiting traits of positive masculinity does not mean that a person is incapable of committing gender-based violence, whether street harassment, stalking, sexual violence or relationship abuse. Even anti-gender violence activists and leaders have been and can be violent and abusive. The goal of this article is to celebrate positive masculinity while seeing each person in their entirety. We must recognise potential harm caused by people who take positive actions and recognise humanity even in those who choose to commit violence. We are not trying to celebrate the real and fictional men listed here as “good” or even non-violent, but spotlighting behaviour that we want to see more of and strive to exemplify ourselves.
Written by Joe Samalin, Co-Founder of MenChallenging.
Example of Positive Masculinity #1: Ted Lasso
Ted Lasso is wildly popular for a lot of reasons. The one that stands out more than any other is how every episode showcases micro and macro examples of alternative and positive masculinities, primarily from the lead character, but from others as well. The show highlights Ted and other male characters being vulnerable, empathetic, open-minded, putting others above themselves, creating close male friendships and love, and much more across racial, national, sexual orientation, age, and other lines. These traits help create a team and community that does not promote nor allow gender inequity and violence, all while winning games. Ted Lasso is a classic example of a transformational as opposed to a transactional coach. This is exemplified his line: “For me, success is not about the wins and losses. It’s about helping these young fellas be the best versions of themselves on and off the field.”
Example of Positive Masculinity #2: Joe Ehrmann
Looking for the real-life Ted Lasso? Even if you are not a coach, read Joe Ehrmann’s book InSideOut Coaching: How Sports Can Transform Lives. It is a game changer (pun intended). Joe has devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity. In addition to being an all-star football player, he is a role model of positive masculinity. His work with young and professional athletes proactively viewing sports as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence is truly inspirational.
Example of Positive Masculinity #3: Jeff Perera
Canadian Jeff Perera created Higher Unlearning as an online space to explore healthy masculinity and is a brilliant speaker and writer on the topic. He has dedicated himself to both inner self-work and working with men and communities to challenge men’s violence in all forms. Check out his Ted Talks and more on his website.
Example of Positive Masculinity #4: Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah
Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah’s debut novel Chain Gang All-Stars addresses racism, sexism, and the carceral system, and debuted to great acclaim. When discussing the book in the media, Adjei-Brenyah spoke openly and powerfully about the women in his books and why and how he wrote them. Check out this interview with Seth Meyers, especially around the 5-minute mark, and his appearance on The Daily Show at around the 2-minute mark, to better understand how well he explains the importance of intersectionality.
Example of Positive Masculinity #5: Dwayne Wade
Dwayne Wade, superstar basketball player and celebrity along with his partner, actress Gabrielle Union, has publicly and vocally supported their trans daughter Zaya since she came out in 2020. This includes advocating for the rights of all trans youth and speaking out when he has the chance, as well as publicly deciding to move with his family out of Florida due to the state’s anti-trans laws. Fighting for equity and respect for people regardless of gender and sexuality and what it might do to your reputation, and being an open-minded and visible ally to others–all of this makes for a beautiful show of positive masculinity. This helps to increase support for women and trans folks, especially trans youth, and boosting their value in society helps to challenge the violence so often done against them.
Example of Positive Masculinity #6: Richard Gadd and Baby Reindeer
The dark comedic TV show Baby Reindeer is based on the play of the same name by British comedian and actor Richard Gadd, who shares his experiences as a survivor of stalking and sexual assault. It is an intense look at stalking and the effects it can have on people, but also a powerful sharing of Gadd’s story of being drugged and sexually assaulted by another man in the television business. Showing different types of courage, such as sharing stories of vulnerability and weakness, can be a hugely cathartic and important part of positive masculinity and a counter-story to how we usually define courage and strength. In this case it can also help support survivors of sexual assault and stalking, including male survivors, whether or not they ever share their stories.
Example of Positive Masculinity #7: Mandy Patinkin Leaving Criminal Minds
In the early 2000’s, actor Mandy Patinkin seemingly abruptly left his leading role in television show Criminal Minds. His later public-facing explanation for leaving after a scant two years on the popular show highlights two examples of positive masculinity: self-care and acknowledging the effects of gender-based violence on individuals and society overall. It was only years later that he shared the reasons for his departure from Criminal Minds: “The biggest public mistake I ever made was that I chose to do Criminal Minds in the first place,” he says. “I thought it was something very different. I never thought they were going to kill and rape all these women every night, every day, week after week, year after year. It was very destructive to my soul and my personality. After that, I didn’t think I would get to work in television again.”
Example of Positive Masculinity #8: Eric and Otis in Sex Education
The friendship between Otis and Eric in the British hit Sex Education is to a large extent the heart of this show. Their love for and bond with each other is powerful to see, especially given how different their personalities and identities are, and the missteps they make. Research and lived experience shows us that boys tend to have very close relationships with each other only up to a point, so the Eric-Otis friendship is a refreshing one that normalises bucking that trend. Their bond is threatened at times yet they are able to hold each other accountable for problematic behaviour, language and actions. This type of bond is a critical piece of creating communities free from men’s violence and abuse–relationships and friendships between men of all ages that are strong enough to allow individuals to step up and speak out against what we know is wrong.
Example of Positive Masculinity #9: Brian Anderson
Brian Anderson is the co-founder of Fathering Together, an online community of dads around the world supporting each other to be better dads and men. It is a great organisation and one example of Brian’s commitment to positive masculini

Role modelling positive masculinity The challenge Given current social commentary, including debate around ‘toxic masculinity’, intervention is needed to encourage boys to embody healthy expressions and identities of masculinity. (Wilson et al. 2021) What we know Positive masculinity is about showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’. The aim is to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men. This is important to create broader gender equity – a world where everyone feels respected and valued. Creating a culture of positive masculinity is a team effort. Parents, teachers, coaches, officials and other adults need to set a good example through their own actions. When boys see positive role models, they learn how to break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills. This re-shaping of stereotypical gender norms is especially important today when boys face a lot of pressure to ‘prove’ their masculinity, are exposed to high rates of aggression and violence, and hear mixed messages about what it means to be a man. Boys and young men can grow into healthy, confident adults when they learn to be: - connected – forming positive relationships - authentic – being inclusive and kind - motivated – contributing to society as good people. Insights for coaches and officials You have a strong influence on the boys and young men through sport. If you notice someone is struggling to manage their emotions, connect with others or maintain friendships, consider a conversation with parents or a guardian. They may be able to share more information so you can work together to support him. Other ways you can help include: - Coaches – highlight positive male role models who show emotional intelligence, express themselves opening, build positive relationships, take responsibility and stay resilient. Create supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best. - Officials – focus on people who can model positive masculinity including respectful communication and healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements. Be aware of your influence and use it to promote what positive masculinity looks like in action. More resources Source article: Operationalizing positive masculinity: a theoretical synthesis and school-based framework to engage boys and young men | Health Promotion International | Oxford Academic Information and resources: https://positivemasculinity.org.au/

Role modelling positive masculinity
The challenge
Given current social commentary, including debate around ‘toxic masculinity’, intervention is needed to encourage boys to embody healthy expressions and identities of masculinity. (Wilson et al. 2021)
What we know
Positive masculinity is about showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’. The aim is to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men. This is important to create broader gender equity – a world where everyone feels respected and valued.
Creating a culture of positive masculinity is a team effort. Parents, teachers, coaches, officials and other adults need to set a good example through their own actions. When boys see positive role models, they learn how to break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills.
This re-shaping of stereotypical gender norms is especially important today when boys face a lot of pressure to ‘prove’ their masculinity, are exposed to high rates of aggression and violence, and hear mixed messages about what it means to be a man.
Boys and young men can grow into healthy, confident adults when they learn to be:
- connected – forming positive relationships
- authentic – being inclusive and kind
- motivated – contributing to society as good people.
Insights for coaches and officials
You have a strong influence on the boys and young men through sport. If you notice someone is struggling to manage their emotions, connect with others or maintain friendships, consider a conversation with parents or a guardian. They may be able to share more information so you can work together to support him. Other ways you can help include:
- Coaches – highlight positive male role models who show emotional intelligence, express themselves opening, build positive relationships, take responsibility and stay resilient. Create supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.
- Officials – focus on people who can model positive masculinity including respectful communication and healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements. Be aware of your influence and use it to promote what positive masculinity looks like in action.
More resources
Source article: Operationalizing positive masculinity: a theoretical synthesis and school-based framework to engage boys and young men | Health Promotion International | Oxford Academic
Information and resources: https://positivemasculinity.org.au/

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9] Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions. --- ### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type: - The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4] - Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4] - A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6] Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include: - Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6] - Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6] - Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9] - Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6] - Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6] This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys. --- ### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes - A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2] - It stresses that good role models: - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development” - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills” - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect” - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2] - A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12] For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical. --- ### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026) Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance. **a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity** - The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9] - It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9] - HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6] **b. Concrete, current examples you can reference** These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status): - **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1] - **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3] He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3] You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content: - A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8] This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others. When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to: - speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny** - supporting **community/charity work** - showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health) - treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect** This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame. --- ### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes. **Guidance for educators** - A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11] - The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools: - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes** - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours” - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2] **Guidance for coaches and sports staff** The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials: - Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show: - **emotional intelligence** - the ability to **express themselves openly** - **build positive relationships** - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4] - They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4] - Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4] **Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):** Drawing from multiple role‑model guides: - **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9]

Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions.

---

### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance

Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type:

- The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4]
- Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4]
- A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6]

Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include:

- Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6]  
- Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6]  
- Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9]  
- Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6]  
- Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6]

This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys.

---

### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes

- A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2]
- It stresses that good role models:
  - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development”
  - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills”
  - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect”
  - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2]
- A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12]

For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical.

---

### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026)

Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance.

**a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity**

- The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9]
- It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9]
- HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6]

**b. Concrete, current examples you can reference**

These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status):

- **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1]
- **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3]  
  He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3]

You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content:

- A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8]  
  This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others.

When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to:

- speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny**
- supporting **community/charity work**
- showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health)
- treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect**

This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame.

---

### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models

Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes.

**Guidance for educators**

- A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11]
- The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools:
  - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes**
  - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours”
  - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2]

**Guidance for coaches and sports staff**

The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials:

- Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show:
  - **emotional intelligence**
  - the ability to **express themselves openly**
  - **build positive relationships**
  - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4]
- They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4]
- Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4]

**Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):**

Drawing from multiple role‑model guides:

- **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9] Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions. --- ### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type: - The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4] - Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4] - A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6] Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include: - Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6] - Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6] - Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9] - Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6] - Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6] This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys. --- ### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes - A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2] - It stresses that good role models: - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development” - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills” - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect” - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2] - A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12] For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical. --- ### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026) Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance. **a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity** - The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9] - It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9] - HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6] **b. Concrete, current examples you can reference** These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status): - **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1] - **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3] He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3] You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content: - A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8] This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others. When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to: - speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny** - supporting **community/charity work** - showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health) - treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect** This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame. --- ### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes. **Guidance for educators** - A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11] - The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools: - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes** - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours” - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2] **Guidance for coaches and sports staff** The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials: - Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show: - **emotional intelligence** - the ability to **express themselves openly** - **build positive relationships** - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4] - They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4] - Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4] **Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):** Drawing from multiple role‑model guides: - **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9]

Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions.

---

### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance

Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type:

- The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4]
- Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4]
- A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6]

Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include:

- Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6]  
- Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6]  
- Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9]  
- Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6]  
- Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6]

This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys.

---

### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes

- A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2]
- It stresses that good role models:
  - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development”
  - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills”
  - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect”
  - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2]
- A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12]

For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical.

---

### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026)

Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance.

**a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity**

- The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9]
- It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9]
- HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6]

**b. Concrete, current examples you can reference**

These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status):

- **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1]
- **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3]  
  He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3]

You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content:

- A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8]  
  This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others.

When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to:

- speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny**
- supporting **community/charity work**
- showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health)
- treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect**

This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame.

---

### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models

Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes.

**Guidance for educators**

- A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11]
- The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools:
  - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes**
  - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours”
  - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2]

**Guidance for coaches and sports staff**

The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials:

- Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show:
  - **emotional intelligence**
  - the ability to **express themselves openly**
  - **build positive relationships**
  - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4]
- They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4]
- Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4]

**Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):**

Drawing from multiple role‑model guides:

- **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

Violence against women (VAW) is largely deemed a women’s issue to be tackled by women and for women. However, VAW has a negative impact on entire communities and societies and is therefore impossible to eradicate without having men and boys on board efforts to do so. For this year’s 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence campaign, we present our fifth edition of “16 Male Role Models Helping to Stop Violence Against Women” featuring a diverse list of men who are doing their bit to create a more gender-equal world. The men in this list believe that ending VAW is a fight and issue that should involve everyone and not just women. Many of these men are activists who have recognised that toxic masculinity and patriarchy are harmful to young boys and men. Some of them work directly with boys and men to empower them to prevent VAW from the roots. Others are high-profile men who use their celebrity platform to raise awareness about sexism, misogyny, toxic masculinity, women’s rights, and VAW. The list also looks at men who have spoken up against VAW through various mediums like the media, demonstrations, and music, using their voice to show their solidarity and bring issues of gender-based violence to the forefront. In this post-Weinstein world where so many prominent men have been revealed as domestic abusers and sexual predators, we hope our fifth edition of 16 male role models against violence against women will provide living examples of positive masculinity that inspire and galvanise men and boys worldwide to become a part of the solution. It’s time to stop violence against women. Together. Note: Information for all role model profiles is sourced via online research and is based on one or more news sources, articles and/or The Pixel Project’s own interviews with them. The main articles/reports from which these profiles have been sourced can be directly accessed via the hyperlinked titles. Please do click through to learn more about these remarkable men. Introduction by Regina Yau. Written, researched and compiled by Anushia Kandasivam. Additional content by Regina Yau. Additional research by Regina Yau and Bernardo Rosa Rodrigues. Inspired to support The Pixel Project’s anti-violence against women work? Make a donation to us today OR buy a copy of our 1st poetry collection, UNDER HER EYE. All donations and net proceeds from book sales go towards supporting our campaigns, programmes, and initiatives. Male Role Model #1: Adilur Rahman Khan – Bangladesh Adilur Rahman Khan is a human rights lawyer and lead of Bangladesh-based human rights organisation Odhikar that monitors, researches and reports on various human rights violations in the country, including violence against women, child marriage and sexual violence, amongst others. Through Odhikar, Khan works closely with Girls Not Brides to end child marriage in Bangladesh. As a prominent lawyer, Khan has also worked on high profile freedom of speech cases involving human rights defenders, whistleblowers, and journalists exposing human rights abuses to the public; cases against the authorities for corruption and torture; and defended fellow activists; and represented families of victims of enforced disappearances. He himself has been detained multiple times in the course of his activism and daily work, triggering international calls for his release. Male Role Model #2: Bad Bunny – Puerto Rico Puerto Rican rapper, singer and record producer Bad Bunny (Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio) is one of the biggest Latin music artists in the world and known as the “King of Latin Trap”. He has consistently called out machismo, misogyny and sexual harassment, calling for fans to come together to “[s]top sexist violence, stop violence against women. Let’s educate right now, in the present, to have a better future”. Daring to redefine the traditional machismo of his culture, he has shown open support of the gay and drag community and released feminist songs such as “Yo Perreo Sola” (“I Twerk Alone”) about women who want to dance alone at the club, unbothered by men (appearing in drag in the music video), and “Andrea”, inspired by a real-life Puerto Rican femicide case where a woman was killed by her ex-boyfriend. Male Role Model #3: Benedict Cumberbatch – United Kingdom British actor Benedict Cumberbatch has for years been a vocal proponent for equal pay for equal work, believing that “[e]qual pay and a place at the table are the central tenets of feminism” and urging the film industry to reject projects in which female actors are paid less than their male counterparts. He himself has taken a strong stand on the subject and refuses projects if his female co-stars will not receive equal pay. Cumberbatch uses his huge platform as a world-famous actor to speak frankly about gender equality and his sizable influence as a producer and investment draw to promote the same agenda and “use that attention for a raft of female projects”. Male Role Model #4: Ben Hurst – United Kingdom Ben Hurst is an actor, educator and activist and the Head of Facilitations and Training at Beyond Equality, a UK-based organisation that engages men and boys in gender equality conversations. Hurst’s work focuses on promoting healthy relationships and promoting positive personhood, dismantling gendered stereotypes that men inhabit and encouraging them to explore their own relationships with masculinity. He has also spoken about the importance of allyship beyond the performative, and that men should take some space to “sort their own [stuff] out first” before they can become better allies. Male Role Model #5: Dean Peacock – South Africa Dean Peacock is co-founder and Co-Executive Director of Sonke Gender Justice, a multi-award winning South African NGO working in twenty five countries in Africa and globally to prevent gender-based violence, reduce the spread and impact of HIV and AIDS, and promote gender equality and human rights. Peacock challenges entrenched gender inequality in his native South Africa by “engaging men as change agents to tackle health and violence issues that stem from the way they relate to women and, in doing so…building a broad civic movement to re-shape the framework of manhood in Africa.” Peacock has worked for about 25 years on issues related to gender equality, men and constructions of masculinities, HIV and AIDS and social justice, and has also worked with and established other NGOs and education programmes in the US focusing on intimate partner violence perpetrators and youth. Male Role Model #6: Édgar Pérez – Guatemala Édgar Pérez is the head of Bufete de Derechos Humanos (the Human Rights Law Firm) in Guatemala, and an internationally renowned litigator. He is currently still seeking justice in the case of the 41 girls who died in a fire in a state-run children’s home in 2017. The victims had been locked in a room as punishment for protests against the cramped living conditions and sexual abuse by staff. “[The home] should have been protecting these children, but started to take advantage of their vulnerability,” he says. He has previously represented victims of genocide and other human rights atrocities, mostly pro bono, relying on international support to fund his work. Male Role Model #7: Humberto Carolo – Canada Humberto Carolo is the CEO of White Ribbon, a global movement of men and boys working to end VAW and promote gender equity and healthy masculinity. A globally-recognised gender-based violence prevention expert, Carolo works to engage men and boys as allies and provides technical assistance and expert guidance to organisations, governments, UN agencies and industry sectors worldwide. He speaks frankly about the harmfulness of traditional masculinity that is constructed within strict confines and challenges of change to the system of gender discrimination and patriarchy, which impacts both men and women: “We need to break the silence and treat gender-based violence as a human rights, public safety, and

Violence against women (VAW) is largely deemed a women’s issue to be tackled by women and for women. However, VAW has a negative impact on entire communities and societies and is therefore impossible to eradicate without having men and boys on board efforts to do so.
For this year’s 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence campaign, we present our fifth edition of “16 Male Role Models Helping to Stop Violence Against Women” featuring a diverse list of men who are doing their bit to create a more gender-equal world.
The men in this list believe that ending VAW is a fight and issue that should involve everyone and not just women. Many of these men are activists who have recognised that toxic masculinity and patriarchy are harmful to young boys and men. Some of them work directly with boys and men to empower them to prevent VAW from the roots. Others are high-profile men who use their celebrity platform to raise awareness about sexism, misogyny, toxic masculinity, women’s rights, and VAW.
The list also looks at men who have spoken up against VAW through various mediums like the media, demonstrations, and music, using their voice to show their solidarity and bring issues of gender-based violence to the forefront.
In this post-Weinstein world where so many prominent men have been revealed as domestic abusers and sexual predators, we hope our fifth edition of 16 male role models against violence against women will provide living examples of positive masculinity that inspire and galvanise men and boys worldwide to become a part of the solution.
It’s time to stop violence against women. Together.
Note: Information for all role model profiles is sourced via online research and is based on one or more news sources, articles and/or The Pixel Project’s own interviews with them. The main articles/reports from which these profiles have been sourced can be directly accessed via the hyperlinked titles. Please do click through to learn more about these remarkable men.
Introduction by Regina Yau. Written, researched and compiled by Anushia Kandasivam. Additional content by Regina Yau. Additional research by Regina Yau and Bernardo Rosa Rodrigues.
Inspired to support The Pixel Project’s anti-violence against women work? Make a donation to us today OR buy a copy of our 1st poetry collection, UNDER HER EYE. All donations and net proceeds from book sales go towards supporting our campaigns, programmes, and initiatives.
Male Role Model #1: Adilur Rahman Khan – Bangladesh
Adilur Rahman Khan is a human rights lawyer and lead of Bangladesh-based human rights organisation Odhikar that monitors, researches and reports on various human rights violations in the country, including violence against women, child marriage and sexual violence, amongst others. Through Odhikar, Khan works closely with Girls Not Brides to end child marriage in Bangladesh. As a prominent lawyer, Khan has also worked on high profile freedom of speech cases involving human rights defenders, whistleblowers, and journalists exposing human rights abuses to the public; cases against the authorities for corruption and torture; and defended fellow activists; and represented families of victims of enforced disappearances. He himself has been detained multiple times in the course of his activism and daily work, triggering international calls for his release.
Male Role Model #2: Bad Bunny – Puerto Rico
Puerto Rican rapper, singer and record producer Bad Bunny (Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio) is one of the biggest Latin music artists in the world and known as the “King of Latin Trap”. He has consistently called out machismo, misogyny and sexual harassment, calling for fans to come together to “[s]top sexist violence, stop violence against women. Let’s educate right now, in the present, to have a better future”. Daring to redefine the traditional machismo of his culture, he has shown open support of the gay and drag community and released feminist songs such as “Yo Perreo Sola” (“I Twerk Alone”) about women who want to dance alone at the club, unbothered by men (appearing in drag in the music video), and “Andrea”, inspired by a real-life Puerto Rican femicide case where a woman was killed by her ex-boyfriend.
Male Role Model #3: Benedict Cumberbatch – United Kingdom
British actor Benedict Cumberbatch has for years been a vocal proponent for equal pay for equal work, believing that “[e]qual pay and a place at the table are the central tenets of feminism” and urging the film industry to reject projects in which female actors are paid less than their male counterparts. He himself has taken a strong stand on the subject and refuses projects if his female co-stars will not receive equal pay. Cumberbatch uses his huge platform as a world-famous actor to speak frankly about gender equality and his sizable influence as a producer and investment draw to promote the same agenda and “use that attention for a raft of female projects”.
Male Role Model #4: Ben Hurst – United Kingdom
Ben Hurst is an actor, educator and activist and the Head of Facilitations and Training at Beyond Equality, a UK-based organisation that engages men and boys in gender equality conversations. Hurst’s work focuses on promoting healthy relationships and promoting positive personhood, dismantling gendered stereotypes that men inhabit and encouraging them to explore their own relationships with masculinity. He has also spoken about the importance of allyship beyond the performative, and that men should take some space to “sort their own [stuff] out first” before they can become better allies.
Male Role Model #5: Dean Peacock – South Africa
Dean Peacock is co-founder and Co-Executive Director of Sonke Gender Justice, a multi-award winning South African NGO working in twenty five countries in Africa and globally to prevent gender-based violence, reduce the spread and impact of HIV and AIDS, and promote gender equality and human rights. Peacock challenges entrenched gender inequality in his native South Africa by “engaging men as change agents to tackle health and violence issues that stem from the way they relate to women and, in doing so…building a broad civic movement to re-shape the framework of manhood in Africa.” Peacock has worked for about 25 years on issues related to gender equality, men and constructions of masculinities, HIV and AIDS and social justice, and has also worked with and established other NGOs and education programmes in the US focusing on intimate partner violence perpetrators and youth.
Male Role Model #6: Édgar Pérez – Guatemala
Édgar Pérez is the head of Bufete de Derechos Humanos (the Human Rights Law Firm) in Guatemala, and an internationally renowned litigator. He is currently still seeking justice in the case of the 41 girls who died in a fire in a state-run children’s home in 2017. The victims had been locked in a room as punishment for protests against the cramped living conditions and sexual abuse by staff. “[The home] should have been protecting these children, but started to take advantage of their vulnerability,” he says. He has previously represented victims of genocide and other human rights atrocities, mostly pro bono, relying on international support to fund his work.
Male Role Model #7: Humberto Carolo – Canada
Humberto Carolo is the CEO of White Ribbon, a global movement of men and boys working to end VAW and promote gender equity and healthy masculinity. A globally-recognised gender-based violence prevention expert, Carolo works to engage men and boys as allies and provides technical assistance and expert guidance to organisations, governments, UN agencies and industry sectors worldwide. He speaks frankly about the harmfulness of traditional masculinity that is constructed within strict confines and challenges of change to the system of gender discrimination and patriarchy, which impacts both men and women: “We need to break the silence and treat gender-based violence as a human rights, public safety, and 

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9] Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions. --- ### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type: - The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4] - Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4] - A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6] Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include: - Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6] - Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6] - Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9] - Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6] - Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6] This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys. --- ### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes - A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2] - It stresses that good role models: - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development” - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills” - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect” - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2] - A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12] For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical. --- ### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026) Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance. **a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity** - The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9] - It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9] - HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6] **b. Concrete, current examples you can reference** These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status): - **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1] - **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3] He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3] You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content: - A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8] This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others. When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to: - speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny** - supporting **community/charity work** - showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health) - treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect** This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame. --- ### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes. **Guidance for educators** - A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11] - The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools: - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes** - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours” - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2] **Guidance for coaches and sports staff** The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials: - Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show: - **emotional intelligence** - the ability to **express themselves openly** - **build positive relationships** - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4] - They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4] - Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4] **Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):** Drawing from multiple role‑model guides: - **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9]

Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions.

---

### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance

Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type:

- The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4]
- Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4]
- A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6]

Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include:

- Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6]  
- Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6]  
- Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9]  
- Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6]  
- Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6]

This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys.

---

### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes

- A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2]
- It stresses that good role models:
  - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development”
  - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills”
  - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect”
  - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2]
- A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12]

For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical.

---

### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026)

Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance.

**a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity**

- The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9]
- It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9]
- HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6]

**b. Concrete, current examples you can reference**

These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status):

- **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1]
- **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3]  
  He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3]

You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content:

- A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8]  
  This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others.

When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to:

- speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny**
- supporting **community/charity work**
- showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health)
- treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect**

This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame.

---

### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models

Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes.

**Guidance for educators**

- A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11]
- The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools:
  - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes**
  - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours”
  - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2]

**Guidance for coaches and sports staff**

The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials:

- Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show:
  - **emotional intelligence**
  - the ability to **express themselves openly**
  - **build positive relationships**
  - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4]
- They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4]
- Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4]

**Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):**

Drawing from multiple role‑model guides:

- **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

This MenEngage-UNFPA advocacy brief explores ideas on how to transform sport - an important part of the lives of most boys and many men - to encourage gender equitable attitudes and behaviors, to end harmful forms of masculinity, and to transform masculinity in positive ways. This brief has three parts. The first part examines "The History of Sport and the Making of Men," examines why and how sport has taken a central role in men's conceptions of masculinity. The second part looks at "How Sport Constructs Manhood and its Impact on Men and Boys," explores the potential positive and negative effects of sport, including its influence on violence, homophobia, and emotional and physical well-being. The last section focuses on "Recommendations for Policy and Sport Practices," provides advice to policymakers and program staff on how to harness the positive and transformative aspects of sport in the lives of men and boys.

This MenEngage-UNFPA advocacy brief explores ideas on how to transform sport - an important part of the lives of most boys and many men - to encourage gender equitable attitudes and behaviors, to end harmful forms of masculinity, and to transform masculinity in positive ways. This brief has three parts. The first part examines "The History of Sport and the Making of Men," examines why and how sport has taken a central role in men's conceptions of masculinity. The second part looks at "How Sport Constructs Manhood and its Impact on Men and Boys," explores the potential positive and negative effects of sport, including its influence on violence, homophobia, and emotional and physical well-being. The last section focuses on "Recommendations for Policy and Sport Practices," provides advice to policymakers and program staff on how to harness the positive and transformative aspects of sport in the lives of men and boys.

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9] Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions. --- ### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type: - The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4] - Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4] - A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6] Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include: - Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6] - Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6] - Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9] - Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6] - Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6] This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys. --- ### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes - A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2] - It stresses that good role models: - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development” - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills” - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect” - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2] - A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12] For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical. --- ### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026) Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance. **a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity** - The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9] - It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9] - HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6] **b. Concrete, current examples you can reference** These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status): - **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1] - **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3] He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3] You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content: - A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8] This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others. When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to: - speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny** - supporting **community/charity work** - showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health) - treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect** This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame. --- ### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes. **Guidance for educators** - A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11] - The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools: - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes** - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours” - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2] **Guidance for coaches and sports staff** The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials: - Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show: - **emotional intelligence** - the ability to **express themselves openly** - **build positive relationships** - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4] - They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4] - Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4] **Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):** Drawing from multiple role‑model guides: - **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9]

Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions.

---

### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance

Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type:

- The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4]
- Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4]
- A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6]

Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include:

- Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6]  
- Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6]  
- Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9]  
- Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6]  
- Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6]

This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys.

---

### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes

- A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2]
- It stresses that good role models:
  - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development”
  - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills”
  - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect”
  - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2]
- A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12]

For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical.

---

### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026)

Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance.

**a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity**

- The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9]
- It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9]
- HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6]

**b. Concrete, current examples you can reference**

These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status):

- **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1]
- **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3]  
  He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3]

You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content:

- A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8]  
  This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others.

When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to:

- speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny**
- supporting **community/charity work**
- showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health)
- treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect**

This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame.

---

### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models

Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes.

**Guidance for educators**

- A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11]
- The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools:
  - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes**
  - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours”
  - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2]

**Guidance for coaches and sports staff**

The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials:

- Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show:
  - **emotional intelligence**
  - the ability to **express themselves openly**
  - **build positive relationships**
  - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4]
- They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4]
- Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4]

**Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):**

Drawing from multiple role‑model guides:

- **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

6 Things Educators Should Know About Positive Masculinity Even years later, my initial work in Next Gen Men’s after-school program remains a touchpoint for educators’ deep impact on boys’ engagement in the movement for gender justice. Next Gen Men’s entire school program revolved around the idea of transformation—expanding the realm of possibility for manhood as preteen boys started to envision themselves as young men. Over three months, we would talk about gender stereotypes, mental health, peer relationships and gender equality and other topics at the roots of who they were growing up to be. I still remember an afternoon when a Grade 8 student who was normally highly engaged threw his backpack over his shoulder, and left early without saying a word. As the group transitioned from the staff room to the gym, I found him sitting by the office, his backpack still unzipped and over one shoulder. He wasn’t talking with friends, or playing on his phone. I wasn’t sure what he was doing, so I knelt beside him. Before I could think of what to say, he took a breath. “You have no idea how much my teacher yelled at me today,” he whispered. Masculinity isn’t toxic. The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ originated in the mythopoetic men’s movement in the 1980s and 1990s, and gained popularity with the rise of the #MeToo movement. I usually tell educators it’s an ill-defined phrase that makes for a catchy hashtag and leads to polarization rather than thoughtful discussion. It also doesn’t resonate with boys and young men. As a young man myself, I can say that I never felt toxic growing up. I did, however, know intimately that my identity and status as a young man could be called into question at any time—which meant that I had to be ready to prove myself. Paying attention to this pressure—which researchers like Joseph Vandello and Judy Chu refer to as ‘precarious masculinity’—means that educators can encourage boys to prove themselves in ways that lead to healthy and positive outcomes for themselves and the people around them, rather than harm. Boys might prove that they’re strong by dominating someone else, but they can also prove that they’re strong by lifting someone up. That takes strength too. They want to know how to be masculine without being toxic. As educators, our calling is to envision that alongside them. Boys fall behind because of relational disengagement. Before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship. When boys aren’t held in positive, trusting relationships, they fall through the cracks. We know what that looks like. But let’s be clear: the devil-may-care student who is at best indifferent, and at worst disruptive or disrespectful, is not a ‘problematic’ boy or an example of ‘toxic’ masculinity. He’s disconnected. One of the ways I demonstrate this in professional development sessions with educators is with a text conversation I had with a seventh grader who was undiagnosed with dyslexia. So whether we’re talking about engaging boys in literacy or in the movement for gender justice, relationship is the key. Before we do anything else, we have to recognize that boys are deeply emotional, effortlessly observant, highly aware and inherently relational people. Even the ones who are struggling. Especially the ones who are struggling. The best way to safeguard boys from anti-feminist influences is to meet their core needs. One of the ways I introduce Andrew Tate in professional development sessions with educators is by talking about Charly Mazuel, a young self-described entrepreneur. He’s creative, ambitious and driven, and some of his content is clearly adjacent to the narrative of rise-and-grind grifters like Andrew Tate. We usually bring the conversation to the Circle of Courage framework, which identifies the core needs of belonging, mastery, independence and generosity in the lives of young people. When their needs aren’t being met, boys gravitate to successful role models who act as an entry point to anti-feminist online spaces that offer a veneer of support as a cover for exploitation. Among grifters like Andrew Tate, Hamza Ahmed and Adin Ross is the implicit message: “Success comes from power, and I can teach you how to get it—just buy into my ideological beliefs…or pay to join my online community.” But it costs even more than that, because anti-feminist influencers aren’t actually dedicated to boys’ well-being, and implicitly call on boys to give up one or more core needs. I was checking on Charly Mazuel’s TikTok feed the other day and I came across a day-in-the-life compilation. He’s been holding onto a lot of stress, he says, “since I started my entrepreneurship journey around a year and a bit ago, especially since for the first year or so I didn’t see any success. And I’ve been acting from a position in which I’m like, if this doesn’t work, what am I going to do? It hasn’t worked for like a year.” He describes being at school and struggling with himself. “I was really doubting my abilities to do what I wanted to do,” he says. “Then I just came back home.” No one has his back. His online persona appears to be parentless, school clearly doesn’t resonate with where he’s at, and his online audience largely alternates between praising him for grinding or making fun of his failures. Belonging—not just being part of an ‘in’ group but being held in authentic trusting relationships—is a core need. It’s a crucial part of how a young man like him stays afloat through the rough waters of adolescence. For boys to access one core need at the cost of another is like giving up oxygen to drink water. It might as well cost everything. As dominant as he has been, Andrew Tate doesn’t fit with boys’ core needs. That’s educators’ entry point. We can support boys’ mental health by nurturing their close friendships. For decades, suicide has been second only to ‘accidents’ as the leading cause of death for teenage boys. This is due in no small part to the fact that young adolescent boys think they’re expected to toughen up when they feel sad or scared, and they know boys will be made fun of if they cry. Part of how we can support boys’ well-being is to challenge those beliefs. But Judy Chu points out that it is only when combined with having a close friendship that a boy’s resistance to masculine norms can be protective—and we know that something else happens at the exact same time as the rise in male suicide in mid-adolescence. Boys disconnect from their friends. Developmental psychologist Niobe Way has documented this firsthand with countless young adolescent boys. Time and time again, the same boys who were once so articulate about their close friendships close themselves off. Most schools are neutral towards boys’ friendships, if not actively discouraging of peer connection. How many boys can you think of who weren’t allowed to sit next to their closest friends in class, or work together on assignments, because they would be ‘distracting’? Sure, we want boys to be able to focus in class. But a boy who’s struggling with mental health or disconnection isn’t going to be able to focus anyway. I’ll say it again: relationship comes first. Boys are feeling incredibly high stakes with regard to consent. If we’re prioritizing relationships, we can’t ignore effective consent education. While I recognize that schools are doing their best to engage in harm prevention, I’ve come to realize that consent education is often not as realistic, relevant or resonant with young teenage boys as it could or should be. We need to be talking about creating consent culture. Read more: Ever wondered what The Fast and the Furious has to do with porn literacy? Read the latest Learnings & Unlearnings, How Driver’s Ed Can Inspire the Way We Teach Consent to Middle School Boys. The sticking point for many boys and young men is that they feel caught between two contradictory messages. On one hand, they’re supposed to fit within the st

6 Things Educators Should Know About Positive Masculinity
Even years later, my initial work in Next Gen Men’s after-school program remains a touchpoint for educators’ deep impact on boys’ engagement in the movement for gender justice.
Next Gen Men’s entire school program revolved around the idea of transformation—expanding the realm of possibility for manhood as preteen boys started to envision themselves as young men. Over three months, we would talk about gender stereotypes, mental health, peer relationships and gender equality and other topics at the roots of who they were growing up to be.
I still remember an afternoon when a Grade 8 student who was normally highly engaged threw his backpack over his shoulder, and left early without saying a word.
As the group transitioned from the staff room to the gym, I found him sitting by the office, his backpack still unzipped and over one shoulder. He wasn’t talking with friends, or playing on his phone. I wasn’t sure what he was doing, so I knelt beside him.
Before I could think of what to say, he took a breath.
“You have no idea how much my teacher yelled at me today,” he whispered.
Masculinity isn’t toxic.
The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ originated in the mythopoetic men’s movement in the 1980s and 1990s, and gained popularity with the rise of the #MeToo movement. I usually tell educators it’s an ill-defined phrase that makes for a catchy hashtag and leads to polarization rather than thoughtful discussion.
It also doesn’t resonate with boys and young men.
As a young man myself, I can say that I never felt toxic growing up. I did, however, know intimately that my identity and status as a young man could be called into question at any time—which meant that I had to be ready to prove myself.
Paying attention to this pressure—which researchers like Joseph Vandello and Judy Chu refer to as ‘precarious masculinity’—means that educators can encourage boys to prove themselves in ways that lead to healthy and positive outcomes for themselves and the people around them, rather than harm.
Boys might prove that they’re strong by dominating someone else, but they can also prove that they’re strong by lifting someone up. That takes strength too.
They want to know how to be masculine without being toxic. As educators, our calling is to envision that alongside them.
Boys fall behind because of relational disengagement.
Before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.
When boys aren’t held in positive, trusting relationships, they fall through the cracks. We know what that looks like. But let’s be clear: the devil-may-care student who is at best indifferent, and at worst disruptive or disrespectful, is not a ‘problematic’ boy or an example of ‘toxic’ masculinity. He’s disconnected.
One of the ways I demonstrate this in professional development sessions with educators is with a text conversation I had with a seventh grader who was undiagnosed with dyslexia.
So whether we’re talking about engaging boys in literacy or in the movement for gender justice, relationship is the key. Before we do anything else, we have to recognize that boys are deeply emotional, effortlessly observant, highly aware and inherently relational people.
Even the ones who are struggling. Especially the ones who are struggling.
The best way to safeguard boys from anti-feminist influences is to meet their core needs.
One of the ways I introduce Andrew Tate in professional development sessions with educators is by talking about Charly Mazuel, a young self-described entrepreneur. He’s creative, ambitious and driven, and some of his content is clearly adjacent to the narrative of rise-and-grind grifters like Andrew Tate.
We usually bring the conversation to the Circle of Courage framework, which identifies the core needs of belonging, mastery, independence and generosity in the lives of young people.
When their needs aren’t being met, boys gravitate to successful role models who act as an entry point to anti-feminist online spaces that offer a veneer of support as a cover for exploitation. Among grifters like Andrew Tate, Hamza Ahmed and Adin Ross is the implicit message: “Success comes from power, and I can teach you how to get it—just buy into my ideological beliefs…or pay to join my online community.”
But it costs even more than that, because anti-feminist influencers aren’t actually dedicated to boys’ well-being, and implicitly call on boys to give up one or more core needs.
I was checking on Charly Mazuel’s TikTok feed the other day and I came across a day-in-the-life compilation.
He’s been holding onto a lot of stress, he says, “since I started my entrepreneurship journey around a year and a bit ago, especially since for the first year or so I didn’t see any success. And I’ve been acting from a position in which I’m like, if this doesn’t work, what am I going to do? It hasn’t worked for like a year.”
He describes being at school and struggling with himself. “I was really doubting my abilities to do what I wanted to do,” he says.
“Then I just came back home.”
No one has his back. His online persona appears to be parentless, school clearly doesn’t resonate with where he’s at, and his online audience largely alternates between praising him for grinding or making fun of his failures.
Belonging—not just being part of an ‘in’ group but being held in authentic trusting relationships—is a core need. It’s a crucial part of how a young man like him stays afloat through the rough waters of adolescence. For boys to access one core need at the cost of another is like giving up oxygen to drink water. It might as well cost everything.
As dominant as he has been, Andrew Tate doesn’t fit with boys’ core needs. That’s educators’ entry point.
We can support boys’ mental health by nurturing their close friendships.
For decades, suicide has been second only to ‘accidents’ as the leading cause of death for teenage boys. This is due in no small part to the fact that young adolescent boys think they’re expected to toughen up when they feel sad or scared, and they know boys will be made fun of if they cry.
Part of how we can support boys’ well-being is to challenge those beliefs.
But Judy Chu points out that it is only when combined with having a close friendship that a boy’s resistance to masculine norms can be protective—and we know that something else happens at the exact same time as the rise in male suicide in mid-adolescence.
Boys disconnect from their friends.
Developmental psychologist Niobe Way has documented this firsthand with countless young adolescent boys. Time and time again, the same boys who were once so articulate about their close friendships close themselves off.
Most schools are neutral towards boys’ friendships, if not actively discouraging of peer connection. How many boys can you think of who weren’t allowed to sit next to their closest friends in class, or work together on assignments, because they would be ‘distracting’?
Sure, we want boys to be able to focus in class. But a boy who’s struggling with mental health or disconnection isn’t going to be able to focus anyway. I’ll say it again: relationship comes first.
Boys are feeling incredibly high stakes with regard to consent.
If we’re prioritizing relationships, we can’t ignore effective consent education. While I recognize that schools are doing their best to engage in harm prevention, I’ve come to realize that consent education is often not as realistic, relevant or resonant with young teenage boys as it could or should be.
We need to be talking about creating consent culture.
Read more: Ever wondered what The Fast and the Furious has to do with porn literacy? Read the latest Learnings & Unlearnings, How Driver’s Ed Can Inspire the Way We Teach Consent to Middle School Boys.
The sticking point for many boys and young men is that they feel caught between two contradictory messages. On one hand, they’re supposed to fit within the st

Abstract In Australia, and throughout the world, it is evident that the mental health and wellbeing of young males aged 15–24, is not a priority. In Australia suicide is the leading cause of death in people aged 15–24 years and 75% are male (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian hospital statistics 2011–12, 2021). It is clear young males as well as those who identify as indigenous or LGBTIQ are at risk groups with respect to self arm and suicide (Drummond, MJN, et al. 2019). It is the transition period from adolescence to adluthood that is of particular concern. Often young males must pass through this phase of life with minimal guidance or direction and without a “safe space” where they can attain emotional support. Sport is a significant part of boys’ and young males' lives and offers that “safe space”. Sport can play a substantial role in protective mental health through socialization and engagement in a socially endorsed activity that seemingly has far more positive outcomes than negative ones. This research is underpinned by both quantitative and qualitative research with young males involved masculinised sporting clubs. Its aim is to provide insights into how we can create safe spaces for males and influence positive forms of masculinities that can enhance mental health promotion among young males. This mixed methods research explores issues around mental health in young males involved across two male dominated sporting codes in Australian (Australian football and cricket). Surveys and interviews with young males age 15–24 as well as parents, coaches and key stakeholders underpin this research. While the data is designed to assist in the development of educational resources for males to influence positive forms of masculinities that can enhance mental health promotion among young males involved in these sporting codes, this paper reports on the exploratory nature of the data and raises important issues emerging among young males with respect to mental health and the role of the sporting club. Background The mental health and wellbeing of young males aged 15–24, globally, is not being adequately addressed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that intentional self-harm is the leading cause of death among Australian children and young people aged 15–24 years, with 75% being male [1]. Young males have a significant risk of self-harm and suicide, while those who identify as Indigenous and LGBTIQ are at even greater risk [2]. Unlike the transition period from childhood to adolescence, where boys are relatively insulated within the constructs of their school and family environment [3], the transition phase through adolescence to early adulthood is less controlled and requires immediate attention. Many young males must navigate this part of their lives alone without ‘safe spaces’ where they can attain support for various physical and emotional needs [3]. Sport is a significant part of boys’ and young males' lives and offers that safe space. Sport can play a substantial role in protective mental health through socialization and engagement in a socially endorsed activity that seemingly has far more positive outcomes than negative ones[3]. However, while sport is viewed favourably as a site for the social construction of masculinity in young males [3–6], there are aspects of certain sports that are recognized as traditionally hegemonic masculine environments, which champion characteristics such as heterosexuality, muscularity, and non-feminist ideologies (e.g. prize money for men should be more) to name a few [7–11]. These are particularly so for Australian football, rugby, and cricket and other historically male dominated sports where fraternal bonding is traditionally strong [12, 13]. Consequently, these socially constructed masculinised spaces can establish, endorse, and perpetuate hegemonic masculine ideals (e.g. strength, power, dominance, stoicism) that may ultimately provide barriers to a more open and fluid masculine ideology [3]. Given that mental health concerns are often perceived as feminised conditions [14], reframing the meaning of masculinities through fraternal settings such as masculinised sporting environments offers a significant opportunity to redress traditional notions of masculinity and mental wellbeing within these masculinised spaces. Sport is seen as a rite of passage for many young males [3]. Engaging boys and young males in sport and keeping them involved in activity is crucial to physical health [3]. However, having them remain engaged in a nurturing and socially responsible environment is key to ongoing mental health and wellbeing. Sporting clubs, particularly masculinised sports, have tended to espouse traditional hegemonic masculinised ideologies, which do not promote tolerance, inclusivity [12] and mental health and wellbeing. By changing these traditional hegemonic masculinised environments, these sporting clubs could potentially have the opportunity to offer spaces for young men to thrive emotionally within inclusive and understanding environments. Young males are also described as developing limited mental health capacities, particularly concerning self-awareness, interpersonal relationship, self-regard, and empathy [15]. While sporting cultures are traditionally strong in supporting the growth of young men’s physical and social capacity [3], we need to explore how versions of manhood contribute to young males’ mental health. The research that underpins this paper focuses on the mental health literacy of young men to mental health. Competencies surrounding mental health and wellbeing are the foundation to how young men understand their relationships with themselves and others [16]. People with limited mental health literacy can fail to disclose or share mental health and vulnerability to friends, peers, and family. However, allowing young males to explore their mental health and wellbeing with a view to developing positive mental health needs to occur through multi-layers and levels. Indeed, the basis of this paper suggests that sport can provide a unique site in which this can take place. Further, the data that has been collected will provide the information to build the “tools” for this to occur. Aims The underpinning aim of this study was to explore the views of young males and key stakeholders within sporting club settings to better understand young males’ mental health and wellbeing needs. Specifically, the research aimed: To listen to the voices of young males around mental health and wellbeing within masculinised sporting cultures To explore how sporting clubs currently work with young males around mental health and wellbeing To investigate how masculinities are created, maintained, and perpetuated within masculinised sporting clubs Method The study used a mixed-method approach, comprising two phases. Phase One involved a quantitative online survey that explored the perceived issues faced by young males in contemporary society across two sports and examined potential differences across these sports. Phase Two used qualitative interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the issues presented in Phase One. Phase One Procedure Phase One of the study used an online questionnaire (approximately 15–20 min) within two South Australian sporting clubs; one cricket club and one Australian Rules Football club tailored to young people (15–24 years) who participate in club sport. The questionnaire included items on mood in the last month, how much support was received from their family and other members of their sporting club, attitudes toward mental health issues in general and their perception of societal norms and roles of men and women. The sample size was based on the number of athletes available in the two clubs. Given the small pool of potential participants, no specific hypotheses were made, and the results are described descriptively. Following ethics approval from the University’s Human Re

Abstract
In Australia, and throughout the world, it is evident that the mental health and wellbeing of young males aged 15–24, is not a priority. In Australia suicide is the leading cause of death in people aged 15–24 years and 75% are male (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian hospital statistics 2011–12, 2021). It is clear young males as well as those who identify as indigenous or LGBTIQ are at risk groups with respect to self arm and suicide (Drummond, MJN, et al. 2019). It is the transition period from adolescence to adluthood that is of particular concern. Often young males must pass through this phase of life with minimal guidance or direction and without a “safe space” where they can attain emotional support. Sport is a significant part of boys’ and young males' lives and offers that “safe space”. Sport can play a substantial role in protective mental health through socialization and engagement in a socially endorsed activity that seemingly has far more positive outcomes than negative ones. This research is underpinned by both quantitative and qualitative research with young males involved masculinised sporting clubs. Its aim is to provide insights into how we can create safe spaces for males and influence positive forms of masculinities that can enhance mental health promotion among young males. This mixed methods research explores issues around mental health in young males involved across two male dominated sporting codes in Australian (Australian football and cricket). Surveys and interviews with young males age 15–24 as well as parents, coaches and key stakeholders underpin this research. While the data is designed to assist in the development of educational resources for males to influence positive forms of masculinities that can enhance mental health promotion among young males involved in these sporting codes, this paper reports on the exploratory nature of the data and raises important issues emerging among young males with respect to mental health and the role of the sporting club.
Background
The mental health and wellbeing of young males aged 15–24, globally, is not being adequately addressed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that intentional self-harm is the leading cause of death among Australian children and young people aged 15–24 years, with 75% being male [1]. Young males have a significant risk of self-harm and suicide, while those who identify as Indigenous and LGBTIQ are at even greater risk [2]. Unlike the transition period from childhood to adolescence, where boys are relatively insulated within the constructs of their school and family environment [3], the transition phase through adolescence to early adulthood is less controlled and requires immediate attention. Many young males must navigate this part of their lives alone without ‘safe spaces’ where they can attain support for various physical and emotional needs [3].
Sport is a significant part of boys’ and young males' lives and offers that safe space. Sport can play a substantial role in protective mental health through socialization and engagement in a socially endorsed activity that seemingly has far more positive outcomes than negative ones[3]. However, while sport is viewed favourably as a site for the social construction of masculinity in young males [3–6], there are aspects of certain sports that are recognized as traditionally hegemonic masculine environments, which champion characteristics such as heterosexuality, muscularity, and non-feminist ideologies (e.g. prize money for men should be more) to name a few [7–11]. These are particularly so for Australian football, rugby, and cricket and other historically male dominated sports where fraternal bonding is traditionally strong [12, 13]. Consequently, these socially constructed masculinised spaces can establish, endorse, and perpetuate hegemonic masculine ideals (e.g. strength, power, dominance, stoicism) that may ultimately provide barriers to a more open and fluid masculine ideology [3]. Given that mental health concerns are often perceived as feminised conditions [14], reframing the meaning of masculinities through fraternal settings such as masculinised sporting environments offers a significant opportunity to redress traditional notions of masculinity and mental wellbeing within these masculinised spaces.
Sport is seen as a rite of passage for many young males [3]. Engaging boys and young males in sport and keeping them involved in activity is crucial to physical health [3]. However, having them remain engaged in a nurturing and socially responsible environment is key to ongoing mental health and wellbeing. Sporting clubs, particularly masculinised sports, have tended to espouse traditional hegemonic masculinised ideologies, which do not promote tolerance, inclusivity [12] and mental health and wellbeing. By changing these traditional hegemonic masculinised environments, these sporting clubs could potentially have the opportunity to offer spaces for young men to thrive emotionally within inclusive and understanding environments.
Young males are also described as developing limited mental health capacities, particularly concerning self-awareness, interpersonal relationship, self-regard, and empathy [15]. While sporting cultures are traditionally strong in supporting the growth of young men’s physical and social capacity [3], we need to explore how versions of manhood contribute to young males’ mental health. The research that underpins this paper focuses on the mental health literacy of young men to mental health. Competencies surrounding mental health and wellbeing are the foundation to how young men understand their relationships with themselves and others [16]. People with limited mental health literacy can fail to disclose or share mental health and vulnerability to friends, peers, and family. However, allowing young males to explore their mental health and wellbeing with a view to developing positive mental health needs to occur through multi-layers and levels. Indeed, the basis of this paper suggests that sport can provide a unique site in which this can take place. Further, the data that has been collected will provide the information to build the “tools” for this to occur.
Aims
The underpinning aim of this study was to explore the views of young males and key stakeholders within sporting club settings to better understand young males’ mental health and wellbeing needs.
Specifically, the research aimed:
To listen to the voices of young males around mental health and wellbeing within masculinised sporting cultures
To explore how sporting clubs currently work with young males around mental health and wellbeing
To investigate how masculinities are created, maintained, and perpetuated within masculinised sporting clubs
Method
The study used a mixed-method approach, comprising two phases. Phase One involved a quantitative online survey that explored the perceived issues faced by young males in contemporary society across two sports and examined potential differences across these sports. Phase Two used qualitative interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the issues presented in Phase One.
Phase One
Procedure
Phase One of the study used an online questionnaire (approximately 15–20 min) within two South Australian sporting clubs; one cricket club and one Australian Rules Football club tailored to young people (15–24 years) who participate in club sport. The questionnaire included items on mood in the last month, how much support was received from their family and other members of their sporting club, attitudes toward mental health issues in general and their perception of societal norms and roles of men and women. The sample size was based on the number of athletes available in the two clubs. Given the small pool of potential participants, no specific hypotheses were made, and the results are described descriptively.
Following ethics approval from the University’s Human Re

By: Casey Parr, Community Outreach and Marketing Specialist, Penfield Children’s Center Hector is an Early Education teacher at Penfield Children’s Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As a male, he is rare in his field. According to the National Education Association, more than 75% of teachers in the United States are female and more than half-worldwide. Those percentages increase with younger children. “It is extremely important to have positive male role models in children’s lives,” Hector states, “It affects how children grow and how they perceive what being a positive male in other peoples’ lives means. Some children unfortunately don’t have an example of it, and that’s why it is very important for [male teachers] to set the example for the children that we see every day.” Anyone can be a role model. Male role models for children are found at school, church, or a community group. They can be immediate or extended family members. Some nonprofits exist solely to provide free mentorship to children in need of role models. Here are some things to keep in mind as a male role model. Give back to your community. Pick a cause that you care about and do something about it. You could volunteer at a homeless shelter, give to an animal shelter, or call up your favorite nonprofit and ask them what donations they need. By showing up for the community you are a part of, you show the child in your life that being manly means giving back. Be respectful to others. Children will always model the behavior they observe. When they see you being polite and considerate, they are more likely to treat their friends the same way. Show your emotions. By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys and men have feelings. It is healthy for children to be able to express what they are going through and you, as a role model, can help listen and affirm. Talk about your real life. Especially without father figures, children might not have a great representation of different aspects of life. Talk about what it is like to buy a house or get a new job, help them see things from a different perspective that they might be able to look back on with increased knowledge and confidence. Have fun together! Play basketball, see a movie, or check out a local festival. You can teach skills and give them a chance to relax and unwind. Whether or not you realize it, you have an impact on the children you interact with in your daily life. “We’re shaping the youth that will one day become the future of the world. That makes me feel honored and privileged,” Hector said. However, that does not mean you should feel a lot of pressure to plan special activities. There is a lot you can teach a child just by showing up and including them in your life. Hector explains, “Our job as teachers is to be the best versions of us that we can be and that will further develop the growth of the children we serve.” Even just showing up as a positive person is helpful to kids in need of role models. “As long as I’m able to guide children and put a smile on their faces every day, I feel like I’ve done my job,” Hector said. What do you look for in a role model? Sources: https://www.bet.com/shows/mancave/content/season-1/listicle/7-ways-to-be-a-positive-male-role-model.html https://www.mentoring.org/get-involved/become-a-mentor/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2K27h_Pb5wIVSL7ACh2bPgHsEAAYASAAEgJ0TfD_BwE https://www.caycon.com/blog/2010/10/seven-actions-of-a-true-role-model-entrepreneur Statistics from Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

By: Casey Parr, Community Outreach and Marketing Specialist, Penfield Children’s Center
Hector is an Early Education teacher at Penfield Children’s Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As a male, he is rare in his field. According to the National Education Association, more than 75% of teachers in the United States are female and more than half-worldwide. Those percentages increase with younger children. “It is extremely important to have positive male role models in children’s lives,” Hector states, “It affects how children grow and how they perceive what being a positive male in other peoples’ lives means. Some children unfortunately don’t have an example of it, and that’s why it is very important for [male teachers] to set the example for the children that we see every day.”
Anyone can be a role model. Male role models for children are found at school, church, or a community group. They can be immediate or extended family members. Some nonprofits exist solely to provide free mentorship to children in need of role models. Here are some things to keep in mind as a male role model.
Give back to your community. Pick a cause that you care about and do something about it. You could volunteer at a homeless shelter, give to an animal shelter, or call up your favorite nonprofit and ask them what donations they need. By showing up for the community you are a part of, you show the child in your life that being manly means giving back.
Be respectful to others. Children will always model the behavior they observe. When they see you being polite and considerate, they are more likely to treat their friends the same way.
Show your emotions. By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys and men have feelings. It is healthy for children to be able to express what they are going through and you, as a role model, can help listen and affirm.
Talk about your real life. Especially without father figures, children might not have a great representation of different aspects of life. Talk about what it is like to buy a house or get a new job, help them see things from a different perspective that they might be able to look back on with increased knowledge and confidence.
Have fun together! Play basketball, see a movie, or check out a local festival. You can teach skills and give them a chance to relax and unwind.
Whether or not you realize it, you have an impact on the children you interact with in your daily life. “We’re shaping the youth that will one day become the future of the world. That makes me feel honored and privileged,” Hector said. However, that does not mean you should feel a lot of pressure to plan special activities. There is a lot you can teach a child just by showing up and including them in your life. Hector explains, “Our job as teachers is to be the best versions of us that we can be and that will further develop the growth of the children we serve.” Even just showing up as a positive person is helpful to kids in need of role models. “As long as I’m able to guide children and put a smile on their faces every day, I feel like I’ve done my job,” Hector said.
What do you look for in a role model?
Sources:
https://www.bet.com/shows/mancave/content/season-1/listicle/7-ways-to-be-a-positive-male-role-model.html
https://www.mentoring.org/get-involved/become-a-mentor/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2K27h_Pb5wIVSL7ACh2bPgHsEAAYASAAEgJ0TfD_BwE
https://www.caycon.com/blog/2010/10/seven-actions-of-a-true-role-model-entrepreneur
Statistics from Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9] Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions. --- ### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type: - The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4] - Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4] - A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6] Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include: - Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6] - Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6] - Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9] - Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6] - Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6] This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys. --- ### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes - A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2] - It stresses that good role models: - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development” - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills” - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect” - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2] - A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12] For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical. --- ### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026) Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance. **a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity** - The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9] - It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9] - HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6] **b. Concrete, current examples you can reference** These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status): - **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1] - **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3] He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3] You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content: - A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8] This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others. When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to: - speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny** - supporting **community/charity work** - showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health) - treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect** This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame. --- ### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes. **Guidance for educators** - A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11] - The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools: - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes** - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours” - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2] **Guidance for coaches and sports staff** The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials: - Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show: - **emotional intelligence** - the ability to **express themselves openly** - **build positive relationships** - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4] - They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4] - Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4] **Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):** Drawing from multiple role‑model guides: - **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9]

Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions.

---

### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance

Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type:

- The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4]
- Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4]
- A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6]

Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include:

- Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6]  
- Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6]  
- Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9]  
- Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6]  
- Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6]

This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys.

---

### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes

- A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2]
- It stresses that good role models:
  - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development”
  - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills”
  - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect”
  - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2]
- A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12]

For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical.

---

### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026)

Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance.

**a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity**

- The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9]
- It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9]
- HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6]

**b. Concrete, current examples you can reference**

These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status):

- **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1]
- **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3]  
  He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3]

You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content:

- A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8]  
  This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others.

When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to:

- speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny**
- supporting **community/charity work**
- showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health)
- treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect**

This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame.

---

### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models

Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes.

**Guidance for educators**

- A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11]
- The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools:
  - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes**
  - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours”
  - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2]

**Guidance for coaches and sports staff**

The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials:

- Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show:
  - **emotional intelligence**
  - the ability to **express themselves openly**
  - **build positive relationships**
  - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4]
- They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4]
- Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4]

**Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):**

Drawing from multiple role‑model guides:

- **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9] Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions. --- ### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type: - The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4] - Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4] - A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6] Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include: - Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6] - Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6] - Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9] - Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6] - Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6] This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys. --- ### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes - A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2] - It stresses that good role models: - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development” - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills” - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect” - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2] - A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12] For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical. --- ### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026) Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance. **a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity** - The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9] - It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9] - HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6] **b. Concrete, current examples you can reference** These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status): - **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1] - **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3] He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3] You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content: - A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8] This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others. When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to: - speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny** - supporting **community/charity work** - showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health) - treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect** This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame. --- ### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes. **Guidance for educators** - A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11] - The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools: - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes** - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours” - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2] **Guidance for coaches and sports staff** The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials: - Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show: - **emotional intelligence** - the ability to **express themselves openly** - **build positive relationships** - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4] - They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4] - Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4] **Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):** Drawing from multiple role‑model guides: - **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

For teenage boys in 2024–2026, **the most effective “positive masculinity” role models are not just famous athletes, but everyday men (teachers, coaches, community leaders, fathers/father-figures) who model respect, emotional openness, gender equity and non‑violence, and who actively challenge harmful stereotypes.**[4][5][6][9]

Below is a synthesis you can draw on for curricula, assemblies, or PSHE-style sessions.

---

### 1. What “positive masculinity” means in current evidence and guidance

Authoritative education and sport bodies now define positive or healthy masculinity as *behaviours and attitudes* rather than a personality type:

- The Australian Sports Commission describes **positive masculinity** as “showing healthy, respectful and kind attitudes and behaviours rather than the old tough ‘traditional masculinity’” with the aim “to stop behaviours that are harmful for boys and young men.”[4]
- Their guidance states that when boys see **positive role models**, they learn to “break old stereotypes, handle their emotions, and build strong social skills” and can grow into “healthy, confident adults.”[4]
- A White House–supported “Healthy Masculinity Campus Athletic Project” (HMCAP) manual defines **healthy masculinity** as men using their strength “to practice healthy, nonviolent behaviors in relationships,” becoming leaders who take a stand for safe communities, and becoming **“upstanders”** who speak up when others are at risk or treated as “less than.”[6]

Across these documents, **key characteristics** of positive/healthy masculinity include:

- Recognising and rejecting **harmful aspects of masculinity** that hurt self and others[6]  
- Practising **empathy** and emotional literacy[6]  
- Supporting **gender equity and other forms of equity**[6][9]  
- Replacing risky/violent attitudes with **emotionally intelligent, respectful behaviours**[6]  
- Using social skills to **challenge unhealthy masculine behaviour safely**[6]

This provides a concrete frame for selecting and presenting role models to teenage boys.

---

### 2. Why role models matter for boys’ wellbeing and attitudes

- A UK university blog on **positive male role models** notes that, when boys lack someone positive to look up to, “schools, parents and friends need to step in to actively seek out healthy, positive role models, to ensure that all young men have the chance to experience and witness positive and healthy masculinity and behaviours.”[2]
- It stresses that good role models:
  - “genuinely care about young people and prioritise their development”
  - “embrace the development of their character as well as their skills”
  - model “determination, hard work, resilience and respect”
  - “practice what [they] preach” and “treat others as you’d like them to treat you”[2]
- A peer‑reviewed study of young males and mental wellbeing found that **sport clubs** are powerful environments: “sporting clubs, with their mix of older and younger males…are the ideal men to provide mentorship and role modelling.”[12] Young men in these settings generally “respect authority such as coaches,” making coaches well-placed to model healthier norms.[12]

For safeguarding and violence prevention, this means **whose behaviour is visible** to boys at school, in clubs, and online is critical.

---

### 3. Athletes as positive masculinity role models (2024–2026)

Sports figures are particularly salient for teenage boys. The key is to highlight *how* they use their platform, not just their performance.

**a. General guidance on athletes and masculinity**

- The MenEngage–UNFPA brief “Sports and the Making of Men” argues that sport plays “an important part of the lives of most boys and many men” and can be transformed to encourage **gender‑equitable attitudes and behaviours**, ending harmful forms of masculinity.[9]
- It emphasises that coaches, governing bodies and star players can help “transform masculinity in positive ways” when they promote respect, inclusion and gender equality through sport.[9]
- HMCAP training stresses that male athletes and coaches can “model behaviors that present an alternative to violence” and visibly role‑model healthy norms for “entire campuses,” including intervening when others are at risk.[6]

**b. Concrete, current examples you can reference**

These examples are from 2024-focused initiatives and can be used in lessons or assemblies (focusing on their actions, not celebrity status):

- **Harry Garside (Olympic boxer, Australia)** – In 2024 he partnered with youth organisation Top Blokes as an ambassador to “help shape the next generation of men,” actively presenting himself as a positive role model for boys and young men.[1] His public advocacy around emotional openness and respectful behaviour can be used to contrast with hyper‑aggressive sports stereotypes.[1]
- **Joe Ehrmann (former American football player, coach, educator)** – Highlighted in a 2024 article on positive masculinity as someone who has “devoted decades to making sure there is no room among athletes and athletics at any level for gender-based violence and inequity” and who uses sport “as a vehicle to create a world free from gender violence.”[3]  
  He is presented as “a role model of positive masculinity” because he combines athletic achievement with long‑term work challenging sexism and violence.[3]

You can also use more UK‑relevant or mainstream names already being positioned as positive role models in PSHE content:

- A 2024 PSHE video for students introduces high‑profile men such as **Marcus Rashford**, **Stormzy**, and **Chris Hemsworth**, alongside teachers and coaches, as examples of men who show “strength, kindness, and real leadership” rather than dominance or aggression.[8]  
  This framing is useful: it explicitly links public figures to traits like kindness, activism, and standing up for others.

When using any individual athlete, link them explicitly to:

- speaking out against **violence, racism or misogyny**
- supporting **community/charity work**
- showing **emotion and vulnerability** (e.g. talking about mental health)
- treating opponents, officials and teammates with **respect**

This keeps the focus on **behaviour and values**, not fame.

---

### 4. Educators and coaches as everyday role models

Most boys will be influenced far more by educators and coaches they see every week than by elite athletes.

**Guidance for educators**

- A resource for educators on positive masculinity stresses that “before educators can build up positive masculinity within and among male students, we have to build relationship.”[11] Relationships of trust are presented as the basis for challenging harmful norms and building healthier ones.[11]
- The University of Worcester guidance recommends that male role models in schools:
  - **emphasise effort, not just outcomes**
  - model “moral, ethical and healthy behaviours”
  - actively listen and invite boys to share their “thoughts, views and questions” so they know their input has value[2]

**Guidance for coaches and sports staff**

The Australian Sports Commission gives concrete advice targeted at coaches and officials:

- Coaches are encouraged to **highlight positive male role models** who show:
  - **emotional intelligence**
  - the ability to **express themselves openly**
  - **build positive relationships**
  - **take responsibility** and stay **resilient**[4]
- They are told to create “supportive environments that welcome everyone and support young men and boys to be their best.”[4]
- Officials are advised to model **respectful communication** and “healthy relationships, even when there are disagreements,” and to recognise their influence in showing “what positive masculinity looks like in action.”[4]

**Practical traits educators/coaches can model daily (for lesson materials):**

Drawing from multiple role‑model guides:

- **Show emotions and talk about them** – “By being honest about what you are feeling, you normalize the reality that boys a

Young fans of self-styled “manfluencers” like Andrew Tate, currently facing charges including rape in a Romanian court, are increasingly bringing misogynist views into Australian schools, leaving other children, teachers and parents searching for answers. In response, the Australian government is offering 3.5 million Australian dollars ($2.3m) in grants in a trial aimed at tackling “harmful gender stereotypes perpetuated online”. Recommended Stories list of 3 items- list 1 of 3Influencer Andrew Tate can be extradited to the UK after Romanian trial - list 2 of 3From ‘The War Room’ to Romania, what’s Andrew Tate’s appeal? - list 3 of 3As he awaits trial, Andrew Tate continues to influence Romanian boys The manosphere’s reach into Australian schools has gotten so bad that some Australian teachers are quitting their jobs, according to a recent study published by Monash University in Melbourne. The Monash researchers found that students were openly expressing “male supremacist” views in class. One teacher says a student told her “I hate women”, while another said boys as young as 13 were made “sexual moaning noises” in her class. “People are crying out for what to do,” Naomi Barnes, a senior lecturer in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership at the Queensland University of Technology, told Al Jazeera. A former teacher who now lectures aspiring teachers, Barnes says that teachers and parents have come to her asking what to do about the ideas peddled by people like Tate, and how to discuss them with their children, Drawing on her research on how misinformation from bad faith actors spreads, Barnes developed guidelines she’s used in her own classrooms. But she acknowledges it is not easy. “Andrew Tate has already given them all the comebacks,” she said, noting how Tate tries to use arguments of free speech in response to critics, even when what is being said is not true, and potentially harmful. She encourages parents and teachers to be prepared to listen and to try to understand what a child is trying to say. Young people may be more likely to respond when a conversation is brought up by a trusted adult, Barnes adds, including on questions like what it “means to be a part of a fair and just society”. In her classrooms, she tries to “open up a space where students feel comfortable to tell me what they’re really thinking”. Instead of telling students their ideas are wrong, she asks them to explain their thinking. “Be careful. Think through what you said,” she advises, as well as telling them, “You’ve taken a group of people’s humanity away.” ‘He has your children’ Currently facing charges of rape, human trafficking and being part of an organised crime group, Tate’s particular brand of toxic masculinity has attracted some 9 million followers on X, and billions of views on TikTok and YouTube. A former kickboxer, Tate gained notoriety after he was removed from the United Kingdom’s version of the Big Brother reality television show after a video showing him attacking a woman emerged. He then turned his attention to social media, where bans from major platforms have done little to dampen his popularity. “You can listen to 20 hours of Andrew Tate, and not hear anything misogynistic. But his fans listen to hundreds of hours. And these things cohere together into a narrative that he’ll never say in one soundbite,” explained author and senior lecturer Tyson Yunkaporta. Yunkaporta’s most recent book Right Story, Wrong Story delves into the spread of disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking to high school students late last year he says he asked them to “put your hands up, who’s into Andrew Tate?” “Almost all of the boys. And surprisingly, more than half of the girls put their fists in the air [and] cheered,” Yunkaporta told Al Jazeera. Yunkaporta says the English teachers he spoke to from the school were aware of Tate’s influence. “English teachers are the best with staying on top of the problematic discourses that infect the world,” he said. But he noted some of the other teachers had no idea who Tate was. “He’s in the top five most influential people on the planet right now. And he has your children,” he told them. But it is not only schools where followers of the manosphere are making themselves known. Sharna Bremner, the founder of End Rape on Campus Australia, says similar ideas are now “flowing onto university campuses”. And Bremner says it’s not just students who are sharing Tate’s views in class. “It’s something that people are hearing from their classmates or sometimes even from their tutors,” she told Al Jazeera. Homegrown misogyny While much of the recent focus has been on Andrew Tate, who is currently awaiting trial in Romania and extradition to the United Kingdom, the ideas he is spreading are hardly new to Australia, which has long struggled with sexism and gendered violence. “Manfluencers or manosphere-type” influencers “have been around forever”, said Barnes, who thinks Tate will inevitably be replaced by someone else. In recent years, sexual abuse and domestic violence have attracted significant discussion in Australia, something Bremner attributes to the “Rosie Batty effect”. Batty became a prominent advocate against domestic violence after her 11-year-old son Luke Batty was murdered by his father. She was named Australian of the Year in 2015. But the problems have persisted, including in Australia’s parliament where reports of widespread sexism led to protests across the country in 2021 and efforts to address gender inequality in Australia continue to be met with resistance. Last month, Australian senator Matt Canavan referenced Tate in response to new data on the gender wage gap in Australia. “I’m sick and tired of this bulls***,” Canavan, a member of the Nationals party, told reporters. “Young men in particular feel like they are now being discriminated against and that’s why they are going to watch the likes of Andrew Tate.” Minister for Families and Social Services Amanda Rishworth described Canavan’s comments as “dangerous”. “Linking Australia’s first major report on the gender pay gap to influencers like Andrew Tate who glorify violence against women is unacceptable,” she said. “By contrast, we’re investing 3.5 million [Australian dollars; $2.28m] to counter harmful gender stereotypes perpetuated online as part of our record funding to address family, domestic and sexual violence,” Rishworth, a member of the centre-left Labor government, added. Bremner, whose campaigning has led to recent reforms in how Australian universities address sexual violence, says there are signs of improvement in government funding models. After years of funding going to “awareness raising” morning teas, she says there is now “greater recognition in Australia of the need for evidence-based programmes”. But, she says, there’s a long way to go. “We haven’t yet got to a point where Australia is willing to have the really hard conversations that we need to have on the drivers of gendered violence,” she said. “I also think there is an enormous amount of backlash, and Andrew Tate is almost the poster boy for that backlash,” she adds. For Barnes, one place where these conversations should take place is in social studies classes like “civics and citizenship”. But she notes this is also “one of the most under-resourced subject areas in the whole of the Australian curriculum”. Barnes says such classes offer opportunities to talk through the “dangerous ideas” teenagers are often drawn to. She acknowledges she herself regrets the Evangelical Christian preachers she followed in her teenage years. Drawing on her experiences, Barnes encourages parents and teachers to help children think through what they’re saying fully, and help them find ways to express themselves that do not “render a whole group of people inhuman”.

Young fans of self-styled “manfluencers” like Andrew Tate, currently facing charges including rape in a Romanian court, are increasingly bringing misogynist views into Australian schools, leaving other children, teachers and parents searching for answers.
In response, the Australian government is offering 3.5 million Australian dollars ($2.3m) in grants in a trial aimed at tackling “harmful gender stereotypes perpetuated online”.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 items- list 1 of 3Influencer Andrew Tate can be extradited to the UK after Romanian trial
- list 2 of 3From ‘The War Room’ to Romania, what’s Andrew Tate’s appeal?
- list 3 of 3As he awaits trial, Andrew Tate continues to influence Romanian boys
The manosphere’s reach into Australian schools has gotten so bad that some Australian teachers are quitting their jobs, according to a recent study published by Monash University in Melbourne.
The Monash researchers found that students were openly expressing “male supremacist” views in class.
One teacher says a student told her “I hate women”, while another said boys as young as 13 were made “sexual moaning noises” in her class.
“People are crying out for what to do,” Naomi Barnes, a senior lecturer in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership at the Queensland University of Technology, told Al Jazeera.
A former teacher who now lectures aspiring teachers, Barnes says that teachers and parents have come to her asking what to do about the ideas peddled by people like Tate, and how to discuss them with their children,
Drawing on her research on how misinformation from bad faith actors spreads, Barnes developed guidelines she’s used in her own classrooms.
But she acknowledges it is not easy.
“Andrew Tate has already given them all the comebacks,” she said, noting how Tate tries to use arguments of free speech in response to critics, even when what is being said is not true, and potentially harmful.
She encourages parents and teachers to be prepared to listen and to try to understand what a child is trying to say.
Young people may be more likely to respond when a conversation is brought up by a trusted adult, Barnes adds, including on questions like what it “means to be a part of a fair and just society”.
In her classrooms, she tries to “open up a space where students feel comfortable to tell me what they’re really thinking”.
Instead of telling students their ideas are wrong, she asks them to explain their thinking.
“Be careful. Think through what you said,” she advises, as well as telling them, “You’ve taken a group of people’s humanity away.”
‘He has your children’
Currently facing charges of rape, human trafficking and being part of an organised crime group, Tate’s particular brand of toxic masculinity has attracted some 9 million followers on X, and billions of views on TikTok and YouTube.
A former kickboxer, Tate gained notoriety after he was removed from the United Kingdom’s version of the Big Brother reality television show after a video showing him attacking a woman emerged. He then turned his attention to social media, where bans from major platforms have done little to dampen his popularity.
“You can listen to 20 hours of Andrew Tate, and not hear anything misogynistic. But his fans listen to hundreds of hours. And these things cohere together into a narrative that he’ll never say in one soundbite,” explained author and senior lecturer Tyson Yunkaporta.
Yunkaporta’s most recent book Right Story, Wrong Story delves into the spread of disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Speaking to high school students late last year he says he asked them to “put your hands up, who’s into Andrew Tate?”
“Almost all of the boys. And surprisingly, more than half of the girls put their fists in the air [and] cheered,” Yunkaporta told Al Jazeera.
Yunkaporta says the English teachers he spoke to from the school were aware of Tate’s influence.
“English teachers are the best with staying on top of the problematic discourses that infect the world,” he said.
But he noted some of the other teachers had no idea who Tate was.
“He’s in the top five most influential people on the planet right now. And he has your children,” he told them.
But it is not only schools where followers of the manosphere are making themselves known.
Sharna Bremner, the founder of End Rape on Campus Australia, says similar ideas are now “flowing onto university campuses”.
And Bremner says it’s not just students who are sharing Tate’s views in class.
“It’s something that people are hearing from their classmates or sometimes even from their tutors,” she told Al Jazeera.
Homegrown misogyny
While much of the recent focus has been on Andrew Tate, who is currently awaiting trial in Romania and extradition to the United Kingdom, the ideas he is spreading are hardly new to Australia, which has long struggled with sexism and gendered violence.
“Manfluencers or manosphere-type” influencers “have been around forever”, said Barnes, who thinks Tate will inevitably be replaced by someone else.
In recent years, sexual abuse and domestic violence have attracted significant discussion in Australia, something Bremner attributes to the “Rosie Batty effect”.
Batty became a prominent advocate against domestic violence after her 11-year-old son Luke Batty was murdered by his father. She was named Australian of the Year in 2015.
But the problems have persisted, including in Australia’s parliament where reports of widespread sexism led to protests across the country in 2021 and efforts to address gender inequality in Australia continue to be met with resistance.
Last month, Australian senator Matt Canavan referenced Tate in response to new data on the gender wage gap in Australia. “I’m sick and tired of this bulls***,” Canavan, a member of the Nationals party, told reporters.
“Young men in particular feel like they are now being discriminated against and that’s why they are going to watch the likes of Andrew Tate.”
Minister for Families and Social Services Amanda Rishworth described Canavan’s comments as “dangerous”.
“Linking Australia’s first major report on the gender pay gap to influencers like Andrew Tate who glorify violence against women is unacceptable,” she said.
“By contrast, we’re investing 3.5 million [Australian dollars; $2.28m] to counter harmful gender stereotypes perpetuated online as part of our record funding to address family, domestic and sexual violence,” Rishworth, a member of the centre-left Labor government, added.
Bremner, whose campaigning has led to recent reforms in how Australian universities address sexual violence, says there are signs of improvement in government funding models.
After years of funding going to “awareness raising” morning teas, she says there is now “greater recognition in Australia of the need for evidence-based programmes”.
But, she says, there’s a long way to go.
“We haven’t yet got to a point where Australia is willing to have the really hard conversations that we need to have on the drivers of gendered violence,” she said.
“I also think there is an enormous amount of backlash, and Andrew Tate is almost the poster boy for that backlash,” she adds.
For Barnes, one place where these conversations should take place is in social studies classes like “civics and citizenship”.
But she notes this is also “one of the most under-resourced subject areas in the whole of the Australian curriculum”.
Barnes says such classes offer opportunities to talk through the “dangerous ideas” teenagers are often drawn to.
She acknowledges she herself regrets the Evangelical Christian preachers she followed in her teenage years.
Drawing on her experiences, Barnes encourages parents and teachers to help children think through what they’re saying fully, and help them find ways to express themselves that do not “render a whole group of people inhuman”.

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14] Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports: - **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile** - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6] - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6] - **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”** - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3] - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3] - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3] - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3] - **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content** - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3] - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4] - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14] - **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments** - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include: - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4] - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14] - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5] - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3] - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12] - **Psychological and educational impact on girls** - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3] - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe: - **Anxiety** - **Reduced class participation** - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6] - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14] - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8] - **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate** - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use. - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions. - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments. - **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences** - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within: - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4] - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12] - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them. For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14]

Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports:

- **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile**
  - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6]
  - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6]

- **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”**
  - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3]
  - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3]
  - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3]
  - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3]

- **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content**
  - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3]
  - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4]
  - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14]

- **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments**
  - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include:
    - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4]
    - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14]
    - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5]
    - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3]
  - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12]

- **Psychological and educational impact on girls**
  - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3]
  - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe:
    - **Anxiety**
    - **Reduced class participation**
    - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6]
  - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14]
  - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8]

- **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate**
  - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use.
  - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions.
  - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments.

- **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences**
  - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within:
    - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4]
    - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12]
  - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them.

For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

Opinion: Girls’ voices are needed to tackle misogyny and the manosphere – but they are being ignored 9 May 2025 Reflecting on the conversations sparked by Netflix's 'Adolescence', Professor Jessica Ringrose and PhD Candidate Chiara Fehr (both IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society) call for the voices of women and girls to be more central in discussions about misogyny. The Netflix series Adolescence has sparked important conversations about the role of social media in spreading harmful content. It has widened the public’s understanding of the rampant uptake of digitally disseminated misogyny, the legacies of Andrew Tate and those like him, and the violence perpetuated by the manosphere. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even supported a plan to show the series to young people in schools. But when the term “misogyny” is brought up in reference to the manosphere, girls and women often become abstract representations of victimhood. Their voices are missing. Conversation around Adolescence, as well as wider coverage on the online misogyny, tends to prioritise the opinions, behaviour and experiences of boys and how they can be supported. Very little so far has been said about how those victimised feel towards the cultural uptake of misogyny. We need to know how this is playing out in real time in and around schools for girls, and what structures of support are necessary for them. The crux of online misogyny lies in the systemic dehumanisation of women and girls. We need this to be a part of the discussion and to find solutions. In 2021, in the wake of COVID-19, an Ofsted review explored sexual abuse in schools and colleges. Girls were asked about the types of sexual behaviour they experienced among their peer group. 92% of girls mentioned sexist name calling, and 88% said that they or their peers had received unsolicited explicit pictures or videos. Similarly, one of us (Jessica) has carried out research with colleagues on over 600 young people on their experiences of sexual violence online and at school. The research found that 78% of all participants had experienced harms that included misogynistic, sexually harassing or homophobic comments, and image-based sexual abuse. For almost all the young people in the study – 98.5% – these experiences had increased during COVID-19. The other of us (Chiara), is conducting doctoral research into teenage girls’ online experiences. So far this research has found that most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline. For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school. The girls recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found “unsettling” and “scary” as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts. Much of this related to the standards boys in their schools would set for girls’ appearance. The girls also discussed how boys at their school did not understand the seriousness of their misogynist behaviour. “They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,” one girl said. This aligns with previous research by Jessica and her colleagues on manosphere messages and the sharing of nude images in school. Misogyny is legitimised as part of lad banter. “It’s normalised with boys to like to behave that way, I think,” a year-nine girl (aged 13-14) in one study said. An everyday reality Young people are already very familiar with, and regularly deal with, the mundane reality of misogyny in their everyday lives. They do not need to be shown a television show, like Adolescence, which sensationalises and dramatises misogyny through the murder of a young girl. This show was not intended for educational purposes and would do little to change misogynist attitude of boys while potentially terrify girls. When addressing the radicalisation of boys online, the experiences of those who have been victimised need to be included. Young people should be taught to recognise patriarchal power structures and to be critical of online media, so they can better identify manosphere type messaging that legitimises misogyny. Unfortunately, although relationships and sex education is now a compulsory subject in UK schools, it is often poorly resourced and low priority. It does not necessarily cover issues such as sexual violence and misogyny, nor does it typically connect the dots to how sexual violence is normalised in digital and non-digital environments. Jessica and colleagues have co-produced relationships and sex education lessons that cover the complexity of online and offline sexual harassment, abuse and misogyny. Politicians across the UK need to make a systematic and concerted effort to support and regulate high-quality relationships and sex education. Training for teachers is necessary to address issues of sexual violence in a wider and more comprehensive way. Relying on a TV show that sensationalises misogyny and the manosphere, re-centres masculinity and erases the experiences of those victimised including girls and gender diverse youth, will not solve any of the pressing contemporary issues around the influx of digitally exacerbated misogyny. Links - Article in The Conversation

Opinion: Girls’ voices are needed to tackle misogyny and the manosphere – but they are being ignored
9 May 2025
Reflecting on the conversations sparked by Netflix's 'Adolescence', Professor Jessica Ringrose and PhD Candidate Chiara Fehr (both IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society) call for the voices of women and girls to be more central in discussions about misogyny.
The Netflix series Adolescence has sparked important conversations about the role of social media in spreading harmful content. It has widened the public’s understanding of the rampant uptake of digitally disseminated misogyny, the legacies of Andrew Tate and those like him, and the violence perpetuated by the manosphere. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even supported a plan to show the series to young people in schools.
But when the term “misogyny” is brought up in reference to the manosphere, girls and women often become abstract representations of victimhood. Their voices are missing. Conversation around Adolescence, as well as wider coverage on the online misogyny, tends to prioritise the opinions, behaviour and experiences of boys and how they can be supported.
Very little so far has been said about how those victimised feel towards the cultural uptake of misogyny. We need to know how this is playing out in real time in and around schools for girls, and what structures of support are necessary for them.
The crux of online misogyny lies in the systemic dehumanisation of women and girls. We need this to be a part of the discussion and to find solutions.
In 2021, in the wake of COVID-19, an Ofsted review explored sexual abuse in schools and colleges. Girls were asked about the types of sexual behaviour they experienced among their peer group. 92% of girls mentioned sexist name calling, and 88% said that they or their peers had received unsolicited explicit pictures or videos.
Similarly, one of us (Jessica) has carried out research with colleagues on over 600 young people on their experiences of sexual violence online and at school. The research found that 78% of all participants had experienced harms that included misogynistic, sexually harassing or homophobic comments, and image-based sexual abuse.
For almost all the young people in the study – 98.5% – these experiences had increased during COVID-19.
The other of us (Chiara), is conducting doctoral research into teenage girls’ online experiences. So far this research has found that most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline. For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.
The girls recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found “unsettling” and “scary” as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts. Much of this related to the standards boys in their schools would set for girls’ appearance.
The girls also discussed how boys at their school did not understand the seriousness of their misogynist behaviour. “They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,” one girl said.
This aligns with previous research by Jessica and her colleagues on manosphere messages and the sharing of nude images in school. Misogyny is legitimised as part of lad banter. “It’s normalised with boys to like to behave that way, I think,” a year-nine girl (aged 13-14) in one study said.
An everyday reality
Young people are already very familiar with, and regularly deal with, the mundane reality of misogyny in their everyday lives. They do not need to be shown a television show, like Adolescence, which sensationalises and dramatises misogyny through the murder of a young girl. This show was not intended for educational purposes and would do little to change misogynist attitude of boys while potentially terrify girls.
When addressing the radicalisation of boys online, the experiences of those who have been victimised need to be included. Young people should be taught to recognise patriarchal power structures and to be critical of online media, so they can better identify manosphere type messaging that legitimises misogyny.
Unfortunately, although relationships and sex education is now a compulsory subject in UK schools, it is often poorly resourced and low priority. It does not necessarily cover issues such as sexual violence and misogyny, nor does it typically connect the dots to how sexual violence is normalised in digital and non-digital environments. Jessica and colleagues have co-produced relationships and sex education lessons that cover the complexity of online and offline sexual harassment, abuse and misogyny.
Politicians across the UK need to make a systematic and concerted effort to support and regulate high-quality relationships and sex education. Training for teachers is necessary to address issues of sexual violence in a wider and more comprehensive way.
Relying on a TV show that sensationalises misogyny and the manosphere, re-centres masculinity and erases the experiences of those victimised including girls and gender diverse youth, will not solve any of the pressing contemporary issues around the influx of digitally exacerbated misogyny.
Links
- Article in The Conversation

In early 2023, the UK media began reporting the presence of Andrew Tate’s ideas and messaging in schools, with a seemingly connected change in behaviour of boy cohorts towards women teachers. Articles were published detailing how British teachers ‘see misogyny every day’, that schools were planning to ‘re-educate’ teenagers brainwashed by Andrew Tate, and that teachers had been advised not to discuss Andrew Tate with their students. As researchers located in Australia, we observed this reporting on the presence of Andrew Tate’s ideology in UK schools with interest, and wondered in what ways, if any, was Andrew Tate reaching, and possibly changing, boys in Australian schools. While there is a long history of research into sexism in Australian schools, the recent rise in popularity of ‘manfluencer’ figures—internet personalities who share extremist ideas about masculinity and sexist ideas about women—of which Andrew Tate is a particular popular figurehead, calls for renewed investigation into the way these personalities might be informing boys’ views on girls and women. In our just-published paper on this topic we report on our ongoing project—the first known study on the influence of Andrew Tate’s influence on boys in Australian schools. Drawing on interviews with 30 women from across Australia, who teach in both primary and secondary settings and across the Catholic, government and Independent sectors, we explore accounts of a widespread, discernible shift in boys’ attitudes and behaviours towards women and girls. This shift was identified by each of our participants, characterised by behaviour overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology, underpinned by a palpable masculinist supremacy, and culminating in accounts of unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny encountered at participants’ schools. We explore each of our key findings below. Infiltration of Tate ideology Teachers unanimously reported during our interviews that changes in boys’ behaviour intersected with the growth of Tate’s popularity online. They shared that many of their students use Andrew Tate’s name to provoke girls and women in the classroom, that boys express freely how much they admire him, that they often share some of Andrew Tate’s beliefs about women (for example, ‘Andrew Tate says women shouldn’t be able to drive because they get into more accidents than men’), and that they have adopted Andrew Tate’s belief that men are victims of women’s increasing power and status in society. Teachers also reported their students aligning with Andrew Tate’s belief that the charges laid against him are the result of a global conspiracy and that Tate is being unfairly vilified for his views on women. This makes it particularly difficult for teachers to challenge boys on their respect for Tate, when concern can be dismissed as part of the same conspiracy responsible for Tate’s arrest. One of the key issues with Andrew Tate’s ideology in schools is that superficially, he presents as espousing a type of masculine success—wealthy, athletic and dominant with very clear rules on how to enact masculinity in the world. Disturbingly though, alongside boys’ engagement with Tate’s messaging on wealth, fitness and success, are other narrow and dangerous versions of masculinity that are founded on power, aggression and misogyny. Male supremacy Participants in our study described a resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy. Women reported increasing expressions of aggression and domination, unreasonable demands made of women teachers, and boys patronising girls and women. These behaviours have been accompanied by the use of Tate’s phrases to belittle and dehumanise women and girls, as well as the use of Tate’s mannerisms and ideas to wield dominant power in classroom interactions. One of our participants reported that it is common for boys to demand more labour from women teachers, another described experiencing frequent expressions of male superiority, such as boys placing their feet on furniture or surrounding women teachers on yard duty, deliberately derailing lessons and dominating time and discussion, while another described the presence of an overwhelming culture of ‘entitlement and audacity’ from cohorts of boys that her school was unable to counter. These examples, as well as others provided by women teachers, which include dismissing English texts written by women as not worthy of study, behaviour that constitutes gaslighting, belittling and dehumanisation, profoundly affect women at work. Women reported frequently engaging in combative interactions that challenge and undermine their gender, their political orientations, and their stance on Tate. This behaviour, which women largely attribute to boys’ consumption of Andrew Tate content, led to one of our participants observing that ‘schools are not a safe place for teachers.’ Sexual harassment and misogyny Although education research has long documented sexual harassment of teachers and girls, participants reported a wave of renewed and targeted harassment. This behaviour is causing huge disruptions to work and education, and in some cases prompted teachers’ resignations. In our paper we report an instance of a student spitting in his teacher’s water bottle, objectification of women teachers’ bodies, sexual moaning noises, sexual harassment at school functions and in the classroom, and gendered slurs yelled at girls across the classroom. One of our participants observed that she ‘can see the influence of [Tate] in how my male students talk about girls.’ These examples serve as indications of the denigration of girls and women through sexual harassment, expressions of dominance in the classroom, and strategies that legitimate gender inequality. Where to next? In response to these findings, We argue that there is an urgent need to invite conversations in schools about sexism and sexual harassment, and to allow women and girls to be heard. There is a need for open discussion about the impact of misogynist influencers on boys and their behaviour, developing relationships and identities. School-level responses to this issue must be broader, long-term and more comprehensive to have an impact on the kinds of behaviour we have reported on in this article. We are also interested in furthering the emerging research agenda examining ‘manfluencer’ culture and its consequences for educational settings; in particular, how leadership-level responses and school-wide policy approaches, for example, can tackle systemic and cultural problems in school that perpetuate violence against girls and women. Stephanie Wescott is a lecturer in Humanities in Social Sciences in the School of Education, Culture and Society, Monash University Faculty of Education. Her research explores socio-political phenomena and their intersections with education policy and practice. Steven Roberts is a professor of Education and Social Justice in the School of Education, Culture and Society at Monash University Faculty of Education. He is a sociologist and has published widely in the areas of Critical Studies of Men and Masculinities and Critical Youth Studies.

In early 2023, the UK media began reporting the presence of Andrew Tate’s ideas and messaging in schools, with a seemingly connected change in behaviour of boy cohorts towards women teachers. Articles were published detailing how British teachers ‘see misogyny every day’, that schools were planning to ‘re-educate’ teenagers brainwashed by Andrew Tate, and that teachers had been advised not to discuss Andrew Tate with their students.
As researchers located in Australia, we observed this reporting on the presence of Andrew Tate’s ideology in UK schools with interest, and wondered in what ways, if any, was Andrew Tate reaching, and possibly changing, boys in Australian schools. While there is a long history of research into sexism in Australian schools, the recent rise in popularity of ‘manfluencer’ figures—internet personalities who share extremist ideas about masculinity and sexist ideas about women—of which Andrew Tate is a particular popular figurehead, calls for renewed investigation into the way these personalities might be informing boys’ views on girls and women.
In our just-published paper on this topic we report on our ongoing project—the first known study on the influence of Andrew Tate’s influence on boys in Australian schools. Drawing on interviews with 30 women from across Australia, who teach in both primary and secondary settings and across the Catholic, government and Independent sectors, we explore accounts of a widespread, discernible shift in boys’ attitudes and behaviours towards women and girls.
This shift was identified by each of our participants, characterised by behaviour overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology, underpinned by a palpable masculinist supremacy, and culminating in accounts of unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny encountered at participants’ schools. We explore each of our key findings below.
Infiltration of Tate ideology
Teachers unanimously reported during our interviews that changes in boys’ behaviour intersected with the growth of Tate’s popularity online. They shared that many of their students use Andrew Tate’s name to provoke girls and women in the classroom, that boys express freely how much they admire him, that they often share some of Andrew Tate’s beliefs about women (for example, ‘Andrew Tate says women shouldn’t be able to drive because they get into more accidents than men’), and that they have adopted Andrew Tate’s belief that men are victims of women’s increasing power and status in society.
Teachers also reported their students aligning with Andrew Tate’s belief that the charges laid against him are the result of a global conspiracy and that Tate is being unfairly vilified for his views on women. This makes it particularly difficult for teachers to challenge boys on their respect for Tate, when concern can be dismissed as part of the same conspiracy responsible for Tate’s arrest.
One of the key issues with Andrew Tate’s ideology in schools is that superficially, he presents as espousing a type of masculine success—wealthy, athletic and dominant with very clear rules on how to enact masculinity in the world. Disturbingly though, alongside boys’ engagement with Tate’s messaging on wealth, fitness and success, are other narrow and dangerous versions of masculinity that are founded on power, aggression and misogyny.
Male supremacy
Participants in our study described a resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy. Women reported increasing expressions of aggression and domination, unreasonable demands made of women teachers, and boys patronising girls and women. These behaviours have been accompanied by the use of Tate’s phrases to belittle and dehumanise women and girls, as well as the use of Tate’s mannerisms and ideas to wield dominant power in classroom interactions.
One of our participants reported that it is common for boys to demand more labour from women teachers, another described experiencing frequent expressions of male superiority, such as boys placing their feet on furniture or surrounding women teachers on yard duty, deliberately derailing lessons and dominating time and discussion, while another described the presence of an overwhelming culture of ‘entitlement and audacity’ from cohorts of boys that her school was unable to counter.
These examples, as well as others provided by women teachers, which include dismissing English texts written by women as not worthy of study, behaviour that constitutes gaslighting, belittling and dehumanisation, profoundly affect women at work. Women reported frequently engaging in combative interactions that challenge and undermine their gender, their political orientations, and their stance on Tate.
This behaviour, which women largely attribute to boys’ consumption of Andrew Tate content, led to one of our participants observing that ‘schools are not a safe place for teachers.’
Sexual harassment and misogyny
Although education research has long documented sexual harassment of teachers and girls, participants reported a wave of renewed and targeted harassment. This behaviour is causing huge disruptions to work and education, and in some cases prompted teachers’ resignations.
In our paper we report an instance of a student spitting in his teacher’s water bottle, objectification of women teachers’ bodies, sexual moaning noises, sexual harassment at school functions and in the classroom, and gendered slurs yelled at girls across the classroom. One of our participants observed that she ‘can see the influence of [Tate] in how my male students talk about girls.’
These examples serve as indications of the denigration of girls and women through sexual harassment, expressions of dominance in the classroom, and strategies that legitimate gender inequality.
Where to next?
In response to these findings, We argue that there is an urgent need to invite conversations in schools about sexism and sexual harassment, and to allow women and girls to be heard. There is a need for open discussion about the impact of misogynist influencers on boys and their behaviour, developing relationships and identities. School-level responses to this issue must be broader, long-term and more comprehensive to have an impact on the kinds of behaviour we have reported on in this article.
We are also interested in furthering the emerging research agenda examining ‘manfluencer’ culture and its consequences for educational settings; in particular, how leadership-level responses and school-wide policy approaches, for example, can tackle systemic and cultural problems in school that perpetuate violence against girls and women.
Stephanie Wescott is a lecturer in Humanities in Social Sciences in the School of Education, Culture and Society, Monash University Faculty of Education. Her research explores socio-political phenomena and their intersections with education policy and practice.
Steven Roberts is a professor of Education and Social Justice in the School of Education, Culture and Society at Monash University Faculty of Education. He is a sociologist and has published widely in the areas of Critical Studies of Men and Masculinities and Critical Youth Studies.

'Andrew Tate phenomena' fuelling wave of misogyny in schools, teachers warn Toxic social media influencers like Andrew Tate are fueling misogyny and sexism in Britain’s schools, teachers have warned. Listen to this article Nearly 6,000 teachers were polled by the NASUWT teaching union, and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils' behaviour. The findings come as part of the Union’s annual report, which has been released alongside its conference this weekend. During the conference, teachers will debate a motion which says far-right and populist movements have shifted their recruitment on to social media, messaging and online gaming platforms. It calls for the Union and teachers to work together to address the rise of the far-right and misogyny online and in the classroom. It adds that the union should work with the Government “to support teachers in challenging far-right and populist narratives” presented to young people. A number of teachers who responded to the NASUWT’s survey on behaviour referenced the negative influence that Tate has had on male pupils. One teacher said: “I have had boys refuse to speak to me and speak to a male teaching assistant instead because I am a woman and they follow Andrew Tate and think he is amazing with all his cars and women and how women should be treated. These were 10-year-olds.” Another added: “In an all-boys school, low socio-economic area, the ‘Andrew Tate’ phenomena had a huge impact on how they interacted with females and males they did not see as ‘masculine’.” While a third said: “We had some incidents in school with derogatory language towards female staff (e.g. boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways so they couldn’t leave the classroom), as a direct result of Andrew Tate videos.” Union boss Patrick Roach has warned teachers "cannot be left alone to deal with these problems". "There is an urgent need for concerted action involving schools, colleges and other agencies to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists," he said. A Department for Education (DfE) spokesperson said: “We know the rise of dangerous influencers is having a damaging impact on our children, which is why are supporting the sector in their crucial role building young people’s resilience to extremism as part of our Plan for Change. “Education can be the antidote to hate, and the classroom should be a safe environment for sensitive topics to be discussed and where critical thinking is encouraged. “That’s why we provide a range of resources to support teachers to navigate these challenging issues, and why our curriculum review will look at the skills children need to thrive in a fast-changing online world. “This is on top of wider protections being brought in for children with the Online Safety Act, to ensure children have an age-appropriate experience online.” This comes after Tory leader Kemi Badenoch revealed her young cousin took their own life after "falling down the online rabbit hole." She said: "It's heartbreaking. My views about the dangers of social media are not just about children. I know even as adults we can get dangerously addicted."

'Andrew Tate phenomena' fuelling wave of misogyny in schools, teachers warn
Toxic social media influencers like Andrew Tate are fueling misogyny and sexism in Britain’s schools, teachers have warned.
Listen to this article
Nearly 6,000 teachers were polled by the NASUWT teaching union, and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils' behaviour.
The findings come as part of the Union’s annual report, which has been released alongside its conference this weekend.
During the conference, teachers will debate a motion which says far-right and populist movements have shifted their recruitment on to social media, messaging and online gaming platforms.
It calls for the Union and teachers to work together to address the rise of the far-right and misogyny online and in the classroom.
It adds that the union should work with the Government “to support teachers in challenging far-right and populist narratives” presented to young people.
A number of teachers who responded to the NASUWT’s survey on behaviour referenced the negative influence that Tate has had on male pupils.
One teacher said: “I have had boys refuse to speak to me and speak to a male teaching assistant instead because I am a woman and they follow Andrew Tate and think he is amazing with all his cars and women and how women should be treated. These were 10-year-olds.”
Another added: “In an all-boys school, low socio-economic area, the ‘Andrew Tate’ phenomena had a huge impact on how they interacted with females and males they did not see as ‘masculine’.”
While a third said: “We had some incidents in school with derogatory language towards female staff (e.g. boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways so they couldn’t leave the classroom), as a direct result of Andrew Tate videos.”
Union boss Patrick Roach has warned teachers "cannot be left alone to deal with these problems".
"There is an urgent need for concerted action involving schools, colleges and other agencies to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists," he said.
A Department for Education (DfE) spokesperson said: “We know the rise of dangerous influencers is having a damaging impact on our children, which is why are supporting the sector in their crucial role building young people’s resilience to extremism as part of our Plan for Change.
“Education can be the antidote to hate, and the classroom should be a safe environment for sensitive topics to be discussed and where critical thinking is encouraged.
“That’s why we provide a range of resources to support teachers to navigate these challenging issues, and why our curriculum review will look at the skills children need to thrive in a fast-changing online world.
“This is on top of wider protections being brought in for children with the Online Safety Act, to ensure children have an age-appropriate experience online.”
This comes after Tory leader Kemi Badenoch revealed her young cousin took their own life after "falling down the online rabbit hole."
She said: "It's heartbreaking. My views about the dangers of social media are not just about children. I know even as adults we can get dangerously addicted."

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14] Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports: - **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile** - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6] - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6] - **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”** - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3] - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3] - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3] - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3] - **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content** - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3] - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4] - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14] - **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments** - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include: - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4] - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14] - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5] - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3] - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12] - **Psychological and educational impact on girls** - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3] - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe: - **Anxiety** - **Reduced class participation** - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6] - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14] - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8] - **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate** - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use. - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions. - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments. - **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences** - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within: - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4] - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12] - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them. For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14]

Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports:

- **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile**
  - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6]
  - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6]

- **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”**
  - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3]
  - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3]
  - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3]
  - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3]

- **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content**
  - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3]
  - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4]
  - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14]

- **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments**
  - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include:
    - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4]
    - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14]
    - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5]
    - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3]
  - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12]

- **Psychological and educational impact on girls**
  - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3]
  - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe:
    - **Anxiety**
    - **Reduced class participation**
    - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6]
  - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14]
  - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8]

- **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate**
  - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use.
  - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions.
  - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments.

- **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences**
  - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within:
    - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4]
    - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12]
  - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them.

For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

News stories about the rise of misogynistic behaviour in schools are inescapable at the moment. Female teachers and students are facing harassment and sexual abuse in classrooms across the country. It's a trend that has risen in the dark shadow of social media personality Andrew Tate and other anti-feminist or anti-women content influencers in the so-called 'manosphere', and it's pushing some female teachers to breaking point. Alex, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, is a high school teacher who has experienced abuse in the classroom in Australia. She has been teaching for over a decade, but began to notice a change in the behaviour of some boys in the last few years. That means sexist remarks, comments about female bodies and pushback from male students against a woman telling them what to do. "I've been told to 'f**k off, bitch' … I've been told to 'shut up, bitch'. Imagine standing in front of a class full of high school students and having that kind of abuse hurled at you," Alex says. "It just started happening more and more regularly that there was this real escalation in how they would respond to female authority." Initially Alex tried to rise above it, but an incident with a 14-year-old boy completely rattled her. It even caused her to leave teaching for a while. "One particular student, after multiple requests to stop gaming, refused to do so," she says. "I went to help another student, and I actually sat down in a chair beside that student and I looked over and the boy was just staring at me. "He got up out of his chair and walked over to me and stood over me enough that I was having to lean back in my chair and look up at him, and he balled his fists up in my face and then just kept repeating, 'You've made me so angry' over and over. "He picked up a metal water bottle and started banging it into his hand and looking at me. "At that point, I felt myself starting to panic. It was actually quite scary. I've never had a male stand over me like that before, and teenage boys are not small. "They look capable of hurting you if they wanted to. I've never felt that fear before. It shook me, and I actually walked out of school that afternoon and I never went back. "After that incident, I actually had two girls from that classroom email me to apologise. It actually almost made it worse, because I realised that at 14 years old, they were already apologising for male behaviour. And it broke me on a new level." A growing problem What Alex experienced isn't isolated. In response to a callout for an episode on teen misogyny in schools, current and former teachers contacted the Parental As Anything podcast to share their stories of what boys, some as young as 10, were doing and saying in classrooms and schoolyards. The stories were abhorrent, and many teachers like Alex were afraid to be recorded on this episode because of the repercussions they feared they could face. Stephanie Wescott is a former teacher and now a researcher, who is looking at how toxic male influences are impacting behaviour in Australian schools. As part of her research at Monash University, Dr Wescott spoke to 30 female teachers from across Australia and from all sectors including independent, faith-based and government schools. She says teachers are facing a rise in misogynistic behaviour. "There was also a level of sexism and sexual harassment that teachers were experiencing that they hadn't previously. For some women, it was constant and unrelenting in nearly every class that they taught," Dr Wescott says. "One woman reported to us that a student said to her, 'Miss, your boobs look really good today'. A male student spat in his teacher's water bottle. As well as gendered slurs like, 'Why are the girls here? They don't need an education. They can just make an OnlyFans account'. "These are some examples, but there are so many and many more that I don't like to repeat. They're very disgusting and disturbing." Dr Wescott says parents may not see the full picture of how their sons behave. They may see a charming, angelic version of their son at home, only for their son to behave in a sexist and misogynistic way at school. "I think many parents would be shocked not only about what their boys are seeing online, but also how it is informing their attitudes towards girls and women and how they're expressing those things," she says. "It's this message that when women are either studying, getting an education, taking a job, getting a promotion, that somehow they are stealing it from men. "They're taught that feminism has taken power from men, and that women are now their oppressors … and so they actually feel slighted by women and angry at them." She says that social media feeds, including YouTube and TikTok, will show this content to boys of a particular age group whether they search for it or not. "We've called it radicalisation in our study, and we use that word because of the very sharp change that women reported [witnessing]," Dr Wescott says. Her team's research found that the rise coincided with a return from remote working and after the COVID lockdowns. "So we can hypothesise that the amount of screen time that young people had to have during that time because they were in remote schooling [played a role]," she says. "A lot of teachers refer to boys presenting different versions of themselves for different audiences. "They might be a school leader, for example, and therefore be able to make powerful speeches on things like gender equity and diversity. But then they will be aware that that boy might be sharing Andrew Tate content on their social media. So there's a bit of switching of personas that can occur." What can parents do? Parents need to recognise that this is happening, that even if their sons aren't actively seeking out this content, social media platforms and YouTube are probably already feeding it to them via their algorithms. Boundaries should be put in place around what they're watching. That could mean curating their social media and including some fun, silly, interesting accounts to try and skew their feeds. There are good men out there and its worth boys seeing them. Here's another expert tip: If you have a tween or a teen who has an iPad or a laptop for school, look at the messaging app and search for the word 'bitch' and see what comes up Dr Wescott says language is so important in recognising how serious this is. "We do think we need to start using very specific language around this issue too, we're pushing for it to be referred to as gender-based violence against women and girls," she says. It's also important to talk to boys about what they're seeing online. Parents should try to be curious and non-judgemental, but let their sons know that those views are extreme and unacceptable, and they certainly shouldn't be shared. Parents should also pay attention to how their sons and their friends speak about women, perhaps offering to drive these young men around and listen to how they talk about women and girls. Letting them know that if they are seeing anti-women, anti-feminist content online, it's manipulating how they view women and girls in a way that isn't reflective of reality is vital. And if teachers report to parents that their son is acting in a sexist way, it's important to believe them. Lastly, parents must tell their sons that it is never okay to use threatening behaviour or language towards women anywhere that includes at home, online and at school. "I think conversations with young people about what they're seeing online without reprimand and judgement is really useful because if there's just this silence around what they're viewing and they're taking it on without any adults mediating or moderating those views, that's when it becomes really dangerous," Dr Wescott says.

News stories about the rise of misogynistic behaviour in schools are inescapable at the moment. Female teachers and students are facing harassment and sexual abuse in classrooms across the country.
It's a trend that has risen in the dark shadow of social media personality Andrew Tate and other anti-feminist or anti-women content influencers in the so-called 'manosphere', and it's pushing some female teachers to breaking point.
Alex, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, is a high school teacher who has experienced abuse in the classroom in Australia.
She has been teaching for over a decade, but began to notice a change in the behaviour of some boys in the last few years.
That means sexist remarks, comments about female bodies and pushback from male students against a woman telling them what to do.
"I've been told to 'f**k off, bitch' … I've been told to 'shut up, bitch'. Imagine standing in front of a class full of high school students and having that kind of abuse hurled at you," Alex says.
"It just started happening more and more regularly that there was this real escalation in how they would respond to female authority."
Initially Alex tried to rise above it, but an incident with a 14-year-old boy completely rattled her. It even caused her to leave teaching for a while.
"One particular student, after multiple requests to stop gaming, refused to do so," she says.
"I went to help another student, and I actually sat down in a chair beside that student and I looked over and the boy was just staring at me.
"He got up out of his chair and walked over to me and stood over me enough that I was having to lean back in my chair and look up at him, and he balled his fists up in my face and then just kept repeating, 'You've made me so angry' over and over.
"He picked up a metal water bottle and started banging it into his hand and looking at me.
"At that point, I felt myself starting to panic. It was actually quite scary. I've never had a male stand over me like that before, and teenage boys are not small.
"They look capable of hurting you if they wanted to. I've never felt that fear before. It shook me, and I actually walked out of school that afternoon and I never went back.
"After that incident, I actually had two girls from that classroom email me to apologise. It actually almost made it worse, because I realised that at 14 years old, they were already apologising for male behaviour. And it broke me on a new level."
A growing problem
What Alex experienced isn't isolated.
In response to a callout for an episode on teen misogyny in schools, current and former teachers contacted the Parental As Anything podcast to share their stories of what boys, some as young as 10, were doing and saying in classrooms and schoolyards.
The stories were abhorrent, and many teachers like Alex were afraid to be recorded on this episode because of the repercussions they feared they could face.
Stephanie Wescott is a former teacher and now a researcher, who is looking at how toxic male influences are impacting behaviour in Australian schools.
As part of her research at Monash University, Dr Wescott spoke to 30 female teachers from across Australia and from all sectors including independent, faith-based and government schools. She says teachers are facing a rise in misogynistic behaviour.
"There was also a level of sexism and sexual harassment that teachers were experiencing that they hadn't previously. For some women, it was constant and unrelenting in nearly every class that they taught," Dr Wescott says.
"One woman reported to us that a student said to her, 'Miss, your boobs look really good today'. A male student spat in his teacher's water bottle. As well as gendered slurs like, 'Why are the girls here? They don't need an education. They can just make an OnlyFans account'.
"These are some examples, but there are so many and many more that I don't like to repeat. They're very disgusting and disturbing."
Dr Wescott says parents may not see the full picture of how their sons behave. They may see a charming, angelic version of their son at home, only for their son to behave in a sexist and misogynistic way at school.
"I think many parents would be shocked not only about what their boys are seeing online, but also how it is informing their attitudes towards girls and women and how they're expressing those things," she says.
"It's this message that when women are either studying, getting an education, taking a job, getting a promotion, that somehow they are stealing it from men.
"They're taught that feminism has taken power from men, and that women are now their oppressors … and so they actually feel slighted by women and angry at them."
She says that social media feeds, including YouTube and TikTok, will show this content to boys of a particular age group whether they search for it or not.
"We've called it radicalisation in our study, and we use that word because of the very sharp change that women reported [witnessing]," Dr Wescott says.
Her team's research found that the rise coincided with a return from remote working and after the COVID lockdowns.
"So we can hypothesise that the amount of screen time that young people had to have during that time because they were in remote schooling [played a role]," she says.
"A lot of teachers refer to boys presenting different versions of themselves for different audiences.
"They might be a school leader, for example, and therefore be able to make powerful speeches on things like gender equity and diversity. But then they will be aware that that boy might be sharing Andrew Tate content on their social media. So there's a bit of switching of personas that can occur."
What can parents do?
Parents need to recognise that this is happening, that even if their sons aren't actively seeking out this content, social media platforms and YouTube are probably already feeding it to them via their algorithms.
Boundaries should be put in place around what they're watching. That could mean curating their social media and including some fun, silly, interesting accounts to try and skew their feeds. There are good men out there and its worth boys seeing them.
Here's another expert tip: If you have a tween or a teen who has an iPad or a laptop for school, look at the messaging app and search for the word 'bitch' and see what comes up
Dr Wescott says language is so important in recognising how serious this is.
"We do think we need to start using very specific language around this issue too, we're pushing for it to be referred to as gender-based violence against women and girls," she says.
It's also important to talk to boys about what they're seeing online. Parents should try to be curious and non-judgemental, but let their sons know that those views are extreme and unacceptable, and they certainly shouldn't be shared.
Parents should also pay attention to how their sons and their friends speak about women, perhaps offering to drive these young men around and listen to how they talk about women and girls.
Letting them know that if they are seeing anti-women, anti-feminist content online, it's manipulating how they view women and girls in a way that isn't reflective of reality is vital.
And if teachers report to parents that their son is acting in a sexist way, it's important to believe them.
Lastly, parents must tell their sons that it is never okay to use threatening behaviour or language towards women anywhere that includes at home, online and at school.
"I think conversations with young people about what they're seeing online without reprimand and judgement is really useful because if there's just this silence around what they're viewing and they're taking it on without any adults mediating or moderating those views, that's when it becomes really dangerous," Dr Wescott says.

The Manosphere: Preventing Harmful Attitudes in Young Men and Boys Claire Verney and Idil Mignon May 14, 2025 8 min read This article examines the impact of harmful attitudes towards women spread through the manosphere and how this can be identified with recommendations for parents, guardians, educators and professionals on addressing this with young men. Using decades of experience in tackling male violence towards women and working with young people, we have provided an overview of the issues related to the Manosphere as well as recommendations to parents, educators and other professionals about how to address this and prevent harmful attitudes from taking hold. For an understanding of the impact of misogeny within intimate relationships, visit our article Toxic Masculinity: How do we Tackle Misogyny in Domestic Abuse? Misogeny and the Manosphere Brought to prominence this year by the Netflix drama ‘Adolescence,’ extreme misogynistic views amongst young boys are causing rising concern. Providing an exploration of the motivations behind acts of violence against women by young men, ‘Adolescence’ follows 13-year-old Jamie Miller who is arrested for the murder of his classmate. It is evident throughout the story that Jamie has been radicalised by misogynistic content online. He shows sympathy for the incel – short for ‘involuntarily celibate’ – worldview, where women are blamed for the unhappiness and sexual deprivation of sexually unsuccessful men. Alongside incels, controversial ‘alpha male’ influencer Andrew Tate is mentioned by name in the drama. Tate and other similar influencers promote a hyper-masculine, misogynistic worldview under the guise of self-help for disempowered men. Together with ‘Red Pill Culture,’ ‘Pick-Up Artistry,’ and ‘Men’s Rights’ activism, incels and ‘alpha male’ influencers like Andrew Tate make up a family of online content that has been dubbed ‘the Manosphere.’ Manosphere content, easily accessible across social media platforms, fosters hostility toward women, and deliberately and explicitly teaches abuse tactics. The influence of the Manosphere is widespread, as outlined in recent research: The charity Hope not Hate found that 80% of 16-17 year old boys in the UK had consumed content created by Andrew Tate. Internet Matters found that 56% of young fathers (under the age of 35) approved of Andrew Tate. 76% of UK secondary school teachers and 60% of primary teachers indicated they are extremely concerned about how online misogyny is influencing their students (Over et al., 2024). A 2020survey of Incel community websites found that Incels are generally young, white men with 82% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 30. The largest percentage (36%) were between 18 and 21. The impact of the manosphere and it's popularity amoung young men and boys is, however, not yet fully understood: Until recently, this international movement has been a hidden problem. Although some influencers have gained widespread notoriety, many others do not engage with mainstream news channels. As a result, the scale of the manosphere may be underestimated by many adults unless they have regular contact with teenagers and young people. Teenagers and young people are regularly exposed to this content through social media and video sharing platforms including Reddit, TikTok and YouTube. (Over et al. 2024) How do we recognise harmful misogynistic content? Similar to other extremist terrorist groups that operate online, media attention has forced the more violent rhetoric away from mainstream platforms into more private online spaces. However, more subtle misogynistic content is pushed to young men by algorithms on social media platforms. Algorithims are designed to offer users more of the content that they like, meaning that, in combination with systems that block unfavourable comments, young men using these platforms will receive just one highly polarised view of the world. Content can vary from extreme misogynistic views that are easier to identify to more subtle ways of diminishing women that will then drive more extreme content to the user. Examples of more subtle misogynistic content include: Views that denigrate only female celebrities (for example, the 5 meanest celebrities will contain only females), Overly critiquing female celebrities or well-known female personalities, Promotion of views that represent double standards, Using language that is specifically designed to represent unfavourable female qualities, such as 'Karens' or Stacy's, Memes or jokes that contain sexist messages and reinforce gender roles, Alpha male specific content that promotes men as being strong and in control, Focus on wealth generation as a masculine pursuit. Online gaming can also promote an environment where women do not have a voice and can be represented within games as highly sexualised or submissive to men. What is the impact of the manosphere? With content that actively seeks to reduce women's freedoms and excert male dominance it is likely that women and girls will feel the impact of these harmful messages. To understand the impact of the manosphere in UK schools, teachers discussed cases with researchers where students made misogynistic comments and engaged in discriminatory behaviour towards female students and staff. Teachers raised concerns that this was impacting the well-being of female students. Additionally, research showed that the extent to which male pupils engage with the manosphere in specific schools was directly related to the extent to which female teachers within the same school reported depressive symptoms and work-related stress. One secondary school teacher reported an incident in which male pupils told a female pupil “I wouldn’t even rape you” and “You wouldn’t make much money on Only Fans”. A primary school teacher reported an incident in which a male pupil said “It’s ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate says so”. Over et al. 2025 While women and girls may be seen as the primary victims, mental health experts highlight the risk to the mental health of young men. The manosphere contextualises men's experiences within society as a loss, a loss of control, a loss of masculinity and a loss of meaning to their lives. The online content provides a new way for young men to find meaning, take back control from women and restore a sense of masculine identity. This naturally draws lonely and angry young men to a place where they feel accepted and misogynistic influencers often assert that they have a role in helping men with their mental health. However, these same influencers often express contempt for mental health problems with researchers finding that the stigma surrounding seeking help for mental health problems is particularly high among young men who engage with the manosphere. Research is still in it's infancy but there are indications that men engaged with the manosphere often recognise the lack of wholeness that the manosphere cannot provide and do seek other alternatives. The challenge is for researchers, government, educators and parents to present an alternative viewpoint What can be done to change harmful attitudes towards women in young men? Early identification and education is crucial in preventing the escalation of misogynistic behaviour, and it is important to work with young people to equip them with the tools to recognise and challenge these behaviours early on. Adolescents are drawn into this online world at a developmental period where they are often about to experience the disappointment, embarrassment and rejection that almost inevitably accompany dating for the first time. This engages young men and boys with a discriminatory viewpoint when they are particularly vulnerable to it. Parents, educators, and mentors must create and promote a healthy idea of masculinity rooted in emotional intelligence, equality, and respect, as opposed to dominance, control, and emotional suppression. Preventing misogynistic attitudes in youn

The Manosphere: Preventing Harmful Attitudes in Young Men and Boys
Claire Verney and Idil Mignon
May 14, 2025
8 min read
This article examines the impact of harmful attitudes towards women spread through the manosphere and how this can be identified with recommendations for parents, guardians, educators and professionals on addressing this with young men.
Using decades of experience in tackling male violence towards women and working with young people, we have provided an overview of the issues related to the Manosphere as well as recommendations to parents, educators and other professionals about how to address this and prevent harmful attitudes from taking hold. For an understanding of the impact of misogeny within intimate relationships, visit our article Toxic Masculinity: How do we Tackle Misogyny in Domestic Abuse?
Misogeny and the Manosphere
Brought to prominence this year by the Netflix drama ‘Adolescence,’ extreme misogynistic views amongst young boys are causing rising concern. Providing an exploration of the motivations behind acts of violence against women by young men, ‘Adolescence’ follows 13-year-old Jamie Miller who is arrested for the murder of his classmate. It is evident throughout the story that Jamie has been radicalised by misogynistic content online. He shows sympathy for the incel – short for ‘involuntarily celibate’ – worldview, where women are blamed for the unhappiness and sexual deprivation of sexually unsuccessful men.
Alongside incels, controversial ‘alpha male’ influencer Andrew Tate is mentioned by name in the drama. Tate and other similar influencers promote a hyper-masculine, misogynistic worldview under the guise of self-help for disempowered men. Together with ‘Red Pill Culture,’ ‘Pick-Up Artistry,’ and ‘Men’s Rights’ activism, incels and ‘alpha male’ influencers like Andrew Tate make up a family of online content that has been dubbed ‘the Manosphere.’ Manosphere content, easily accessible across social media platforms, fosters hostility toward women, and deliberately and explicitly teaches abuse tactics. The influence of the Manosphere is widespread, as outlined in recent research:
The charity Hope not Hate found that 80% of 16-17 year old boys in the UK had consumed content created by Andrew Tate.
Internet Matters found that 56% of young fathers (under the age of 35) approved of Andrew Tate.
76% of UK secondary school teachers and 60% of primary teachers indicated they are extremely concerned about how online misogyny is influencing their students (Over et al., 2024).
A 2020survey of Incel community websites found that Incels are generally young, white men with 82% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 30. The largest percentage (36%) were between 18 and 21.
The impact of the manosphere and it's popularity amoung young men and boys is, however, not yet fully understood:
Until recently, this international movement has been a hidden problem. Although some influencers have gained widespread notoriety, many others do not engage with mainstream news channels. As a result, the scale of the manosphere may be underestimated by many adults unless they have regular contact with teenagers and young people. Teenagers and young people are regularly exposed to this content through social media and video sharing platforms including Reddit, TikTok and YouTube. (Over et al. 2024)
How do we recognise harmful misogynistic content?
Similar to other extremist terrorist groups that operate online, media attention has forced the more violent rhetoric away from mainstream platforms into more private online spaces. However, more subtle misogynistic content is pushed to young men by algorithms on social media platforms. Algorithims are designed to offer users more of the content that they like, meaning that, in combination with systems that block unfavourable comments, young men using these platforms will receive just one highly polarised view of the world. Content can vary from extreme misogynistic views that are easier to identify to more subtle ways of diminishing women that will then drive more extreme content to the user.
Examples of more subtle misogynistic content include:
Views that denigrate only female celebrities (for example, the 5 meanest celebrities will contain only females),
Overly critiquing female celebrities or well-known female personalities,
Promotion of views that represent double standards,
Using language that is specifically designed to represent unfavourable female qualities, such as 'Karens' or Stacy's,
Memes or jokes that contain sexist messages and reinforce gender roles,
Alpha male specific content that promotes men as being strong and in control,
Focus on wealth generation as a masculine pursuit.
Online gaming can also promote an environment where women do not have a voice and can be represented within games as highly sexualised or submissive to men.
What is the impact of the manosphere?
With content that actively seeks to reduce women's freedoms and excert male dominance it is likely that women and girls will feel the impact of these harmful messages. To understand the impact of the manosphere in UK schools, teachers discussed cases with researchers where students made misogynistic comments and engaged in discriminatory behaviour towards female students and staff. Teachers raised concerns that this was impacting the well-being of female students. Additionally, research showed that the extent to which male pupils engage with the manosphere in specific schools was directly related to the extent to which female teachers within the same school reported depressive symptoms and work-related stress.
One secondary school teacher reported an incident in which male pupils told a female pupil “I wouldn’t even rape you” and “You wouldn’t make much money on Only Fans”. A primary school teacher reported an incident in which a male pupil said “It’s ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate says so”. Over et al. 2025
While women and girls may be seen as the primary victims, mental health experts highlight the risk to the mental health of young men. The manosphere contextualises men's experiences within society as a loss, a loss of control, a loss of masculinity and a loss of meaning to their lives. The online content provides a new way for young men to find meaning, take back control from women and restore a sense of masculine identity. This naturally draws lonely and angry young men to a place where they feel accepted and misogynistic influencers often assert that they have a role in helping men with their mental health. However, these same influencers often express contempt for mental health problems with researchers finding that the stigma surrounding seeking help for mental health problems is particularly high among young men who engage with the manosphere.
Research is still in it's infancy but there are indications that men engaged with the manosphere often recognise the lack of wholeness that the manosphere cannot provide and do seek other alternatives. The challenge is for researchers, government, educators and parents to present an alternative viewpoint
What can be done to change harmful attitudes towards women in young men?
Early identification and education is crucial in preventing the escalation of misogynistic behaviour, and it is important to work with young people to equip them with the tools to recognise and challenge these behaviours early on. Adolescents are drawn into this online world at a developmental period where they are often about to experience the disappointment, embarrassment and rejection that almost inevitably accompany dating for the first time. This engages young men and boys with a discriminatory viewpoint when they are particularly vulnerable to it. Parents, educators, and mentors must create and promote a healthy idea of masculinity rooted in emotional intelligence, equality, and respect, as opposed to dominance, control, and emotional suppression.
Preventing misogynistic attitudes in youn

Rape jokes. Violent threats. Sharing of intimate photos. Misogyny is running rife in British schools, with social media, the ever-expanding manosphere and anti-feminist influencers having a knock-on effect – for students and educators alike, of all ages. It's a reality that was thrown into sharp relief when Adolescence hit Netflix, driving a global conversation about the rise of violent - deadly - misogyny in young boys, and how they're being radicalised online. The four-parter tells the story of a family whose world is up-ended when their 13-year-old son is arrested for the murder of a girl in his class at school. Its impact is such that today it's been announced the show will be made available to be screened in schools, following a roundtable with the show's creators and children's charities, hosted by PM Keir Starmer (whose colleagues are calling for the extension of statutory relationships, sex and health education from 16 to 18). But while the drama has brought the conversation to the top of the political and media agenda, young men being radicalised by misogynistic content online - with potentially deadly consequences - is nothing new. (As Cosmopolitan has long reported.) Research from Vodafone last year found 70% of teachers report witnessing a rise in sexist language in the classroom over the past year, and one in five parents say they've also noticed a gradual change in the language their sons use to talk about women and girls. At the same time, a stark ideological gap between the sexes is emerging globally, according to a Financial Times analysis, with the UK seeing a 25-percentage point gap between men and women's political stances, with women becoming more liberal and men growing more conservative in their viewpoints. At times it feels, in the words of one Cosmopolitan editor, like the world is increasingly splitting down men vs women lines. Research from Ipsos and King’s College London also suggests one in five UK men aged 16 to 29 hold a favourable view of Andrew Tate, the self-proclaimed "king of toxic masculinity" who faces charges of human trafficking and rape, though he denies the allegations against him. One in six young men also now say feminism has done more harm than good (compared to one in eleven young women). While these opinions thankfully aren’t held by the majority of young people, the overall picture is still one of growing division. This sentiment is evident to students, teachers, and charities, who are all seeing the repercussions of this divide playing out in schools, colleges, and universities. Before the conversation was trending, back in February 2024, we asked 12 students and teachers: what’s it really like going to school in the era of Andrew Tate? And how do we close the divide? "We’ve had issues with students making jokes about rape" Sophie*, a secondary school teacher from South Wales "In my school, we’ve had issues with boys who are 14 and 15 making jokes about rape, sexual assault, and violence towards women. There’s a particular group that shared a sexual image of a girl in the school, who’d already been spoken to multiple times. As part of their ‘punishment’ they were then sent to a local football club to try to help improve their views of women. They had time off school and when they came back they were saying the exact same things. It was like they’d been rewarded. What the hell kind of a message is that sending?" "Men are struggling with feelings of vulnerability" Tomas*, a 21-year-old student from London "The notion that you should get a good job, make a lot of money and therefore be someone who can provide is idolised by society. Young men get this idea that we have to be strong and we can’t share everything we’re experiencing with everyone. It means some men struggle with feelings of vulnerability and fail to build close relationships." "Feminism is a chore to us" Arushi, a 20-year-old medical student based in London "At my med school, we are encouraged to talk about gender equality. While this freedom is needed and appreciated, it has shown me quite alarming views are held by my peers. Every time I talk about intersectionality and the way feminism falls behind in some aspects, I’m reminded that most people are not ready for this conversation. They’re too stuck on ‘do we need feminism’ to even get to making feminism more inclusive. "I had a conversation with a few of my friends recently about how we discovered feminism in our pre teens, and how back then it made us feel like we had a second shot at life and we were hopeful about our place in the world. Now, in our twenties, feminism is a chore to us. "We’re so tired, every day it feels like we’re starting on square one. It’s starting to feel like an unending battle - but it’s not a battle we’re unwilling to fight in." "A boy in my class threatened to stab a girl" Caspar*, a primary school teacher in Sussex "I worry that some children are being raised largely by the internet, which is an increasingly toxic place. Last year, an 8-year-old boy in my class was violent towards girls on a few occasions, including writing a note threatenin "As a teacher, you can talk about actions having consequences until you’re blue in the face, but our society seems to increasingly reward pig-headed men who fail upwards. That said, that boy was one in a class of 25 and most of the other boys were lovely and caring. They’d play football with the girls, happily made posters on gender stereotypes and felt comfortable crying without feeling emasculated." "It is getting harder for women again" Alaw, a 21-year-old student from North Wales "I feel like in our current climate the world is getting harder for women again. I’m a queer woman, I’m pansexual, and I see a lot of things said and done against people who are transgender. "One of my close friends got attacked about a month ago. She was just walking down the street with her girlfriend in Manchester. It’s crazy to me. I feel like we’re going back in time. Going down that road of people being killed for being themselves." "Students have been indoctrinated into disrespecting women" Amy*, a teacher in West London "Many students don't agree with feminism and hold Andrew Tate as a role model, although the Tate references have improved since he’s been in prison as he hasn't been on their phones as much. At one point when Tate was in the media every day there were multiple incidents of boys asking female teachers what ‘colour is their Bugatti’ [a clapback in response to criticism implying ‘I’m superior to you’]. The real turning point was during the pandemic; students were spending more and more time online and on TikTok without supervision and the algorithm funnels them down a very anti-women rabbit hole. "We address these topics in form time and PSHE lessons, and we have some excellent male teachers who will self-identify as feminists. They are invaluable and have very frank conversations with boys who are showing misogynistic opinions." "A lot of young people feel there isn't much of a future for them" Henry*, a senior school teacher who works in West London "A lot of young boys are being left on their own and turning to negative influences to satisfy a need for guidance they're not getting. I do feel this is enhanced by parents who are increasingly [and understandably] having to work longer hours, especially visible in London. I’ve also heard staff say a lot of young people, especially boys, are feeling like there isn't much of a future for them in the world due to economic circumstances, and they feel their own identity will hold them back. These topics need to be handled carefully and boys need to feel they’re allowed to discuss rather than be preached to. Some male students often stay quiet on these topics, meaning the angrier voices drown them out. It's a hard balance; they don't want to get singled out as different amongst their peers." "The girls are calling it out" Joe*, a secondary school teacher from the South East "A

Rape jokes. Violent threats. Sharing of intimate photos. Misogyny is running rife in British schools, with social media, the ever-expanding manosphere and anti-feminist influencers having a knock-on effect – for students and educators alike, of all ages.
It's a reality that was thrown into sharp relief when Adolescence hit Netflix, driving a global conversation about the rise of violent - deadly - misogyny in young boys, and how they're being radicalised online.
The four-parter tells the story of a family whose world is up-ended when their 13-year-old son is arrested for the murder of a girl in his class at school.
Its impact is such that today it's been announced the show will be made available to be screened in schools, following a roundtable with the show's creators and children's charities, hosted by PM Keir Starmer (whose colleagues are calling for the extension of statutory relationships, sex and health education from 16 to 18).
But while the drama has brought the conversation to the top of the political and media agenda, young men being radicalised by misogynistic content online - with potentially deadly consequences - is nothing new. (As Cosmopolitan has long reported.)
Research from Vodafone last year found 70% of teachers report witnessing a rise in sexist language in the classroom over the past year, and one in five parents say they've also noticed a gradual change in the language their sons use to talk about women and girls.
At the same time, a stark ideological gap between the sexes is emerging globally, according to a Financial Times analysis, with the UK seeing a 25-percentage point gap between men and women's political stances, with women becoming more liberal and men growing more conservative in their viewpoints. At times it feels, in the words of one Cosmopolitan editor, like the world is increasingly splitting down men vs women lines.
Research from Ipsos and King’s College London also suggests one in five UK men aged 16 to 29 hold a favourable view of Andrew Tate, the self-proclaimed "king of toxic masculinity" who faces charges of human trafficking and rape, though he denies the allegations against him. One in six young men also now say feminism has done more harm than good (compared to one in eleven young women).
While these opinions thankfully aren’t held by the majority of young people, the overall picture is still one of growing division. This sentiment is evident to students, teachers, and charities, who are all seeing the repercussions of this divide playing out in schools, colleges, and universities.
Before the conversation was trending, back in February 2024, we asked 12 students and teachers: what’s it really like going to school in the era of Andrew Tate? And how do we close the divide?
"We’ve had issues with students making jokes about rape"
Sophie*, a secondary school teacher from South Wales
"In my school, we’ve had issues with boys who are 14 and 15 making jokes about rape, sexual assault, and violence towards women. There’s a particular group that shared a sexual image of a girl in the school, who’d already been spoken to multiple times. As part of their ‘punishment’ they were then sent to a local football club to try to help improve their views of women. They had time off school and when they came back they were saying the exact same things. It was like they’d been rewarded. What the hell kind of a message is that sending?"
"Men are struggling with feelings of vulnerability"
Tomas*, a 21-year-old student from London
"The notion that you should get a good job, make a lot of money and therefore be someone who can provide is idolised by society. Young men get this idea that we have to be strong and we can’t share everything we’re experiencing with everyone. It means some men struggle with feelings of vulnerability and fail to build close relationships."
"Feminism is a chore to us"
Arushi, a 20-year-old medical student based in London
"At my med school, we are encouraged to talk about gender equality. While this freedom is needed and appreciated, it has shown me quite alarming views are held by my peers. Every time I talk about intersectionality and the way feminism falls behind in some aspects, I’m reminded that most people are not ready for this conversation. They’re too stuck on ‘do we need feminism’ to even get to making feminism more inclusive.
"I had a conversation with a few of my friends recently about how we discovered feminism in our pre teens, and how back then it made us feel like we had a second shot at life and we were hopeful about our place in the world. Now, in our twenties, feminism is a chore to us.
"We’re so tired, every day it feels like we’re starting on square one. It’s starting to feel like an unending battle - but it’s not a battle we’re unwilling to fight in."
"A boy in my class threatened to stab a girl"
Caspar*, a primary school teacher in Sussex
"I worry that some children are being raised largely by the internet, which is an increasingly toxic place. Last year, an 8-year-old boy in my class was violent towards girls on a few occasions, including writing a note threatenin
"As a teacher, you can talk about actions having consequences until you’re blue in the face, but our society seems to increasingly reward pig-headed men who fail upwards. That said, that boy was one in a class of 25 and most of the other boys were lovely and caring. They’d play football with the girls, happily made posters on gender stereotypes and felt comfortable crying without feeling emasculated."
"It is getting harder for women again"
Alaw, a 21-year-old student from North Wales
"I feel like in our current climate the world is getting harder for women again. I’m a queer woman, I’m pansexual, and I see a lot of things said and done against people who are transgender.
"One of my close friends got attacked about a month ago. She was just walking down the street with her girlfriend in Manchester. It’s crazy to me. I feel like we’re going back in time. Going down that road of people being killed for being themselves."
"Students have been indoctrinated into disrespecting women"
Amy*, a teacher in West London
"Many students don't agree with feminism and hold Andrew Tate as a role model, although the Tate references have improved since he’s been in prison as he hasn't been on their phones as much. At one point when Tate was in the media every day there were multiple incidents of boys asking female teachers what ‘colour is their Bugatti’ [a clapback in response to criticism implying ‘I’m superior to you’]. The real turning point was during the pandemic; students were spending more and more time online and on TikTok without supervision and the algorithm funnels them down a very anti-women rabbit hole.
"We address these topics in form time and PSHE lessons, and we have some excellent male teachers who will self-identify as feminists. They are invaluable and have very frank conversations with boys who are showing misogynistic opinions."
"A lot of young people feel there isn't much of a future for them"
Henry*, a senior school teacher who works in West London
"A lot of young boys are being left on their own and turning to negative influences to satisfy a need for guidance they're not getting. I do feel this is enhanced by parents who are increasingly [and understandably] having to work longer hours, especially visible in London. I’ve also heard staff say a lot of young people, especially boys, are feeling like there isn't much of a future for them in the world due to economic circumstances, and they feel their own identity will hold them back. These topics need to be handled carefully and boys need to feel they’re allowed to discuss rather than be preached to. Some male students often stay quiet on these topics, meaning the angrier voices drown them out. It's a hard balance; they don't want to get singled out as different amongst their peers."
"The girls are calling it out"
Joe*, a secondary school teacher from the South East
"A

If you aren't familiar with "manosphere" influencer Andrew Tate — congrats, I'm jealous of you. Tate is a self-proclaimed misogynist who's been charged with rape and human trafficking; he also has millions of followers online and is popular among young boys. Tate, unfortunately, isn't alone. Sexist "alpha male" content has increased in popularity over the last few years — and it's had a chilling effect on children and young people's beliefs towards gender and relationships, according to Influencers and Attitudes, a new report by UK domestic abuse charity Women's Aid. "The popularity of Tate is not a phenomenon in and of itself and, instead, is a current representation of existing misogyny," the report states. "The content also correlates with a wider increase in the prevalence of so-called 'incel' ideology, hatred against women and girls and backlash against the feminist movement, alongside other media influencers that assert these viewpoints." You May Also Like AdultFriendFinder — readers’ pick for casual connections Tinder — top pick for finding hookups Hinge — popular choice for regular meetups Women's Aid, therefore, describes "Andrew Tate content" in its report as a proxy for his and similar content, and for the acceptance of misogyny and sexism more widely. Forty percent of 1,000 7-18 year-olds surveyed by Women's Aid and polling agency ORB International have seen Tate's videos or posts; that breaks down to 21 percent of 7-11 year-olds; 43 percent of 11-14 year-olds, 44 percent of 14-16 year olds; and 53 percent of 16-18 year-olds. Children and young people who've been exposed to misogynistic content were five times more likely to agree that "hurting someone physically is okay if you say sorry after hurting them" (19 percent) than those who hadn't (four percent). More 7-11-year-old boys (27 percent) have been exposed to Tate's content than girls of the same age (13 percent). Correlation isn't causation, but Women's Aid found that being exposed to misogynistic content such as Tate's was clearly linked with children and young people having more harmful perceptions of relationships, and a greater tolerance of doing harm. Nearly a third (31 percent) of children and young people exposed to Tate's content agreed that "there should always be one more dominant person in a relationship," for example, compared to 14 percent who hadn't seen such content. Children and young people who've been exposed to misogynistic content were five times more likely to agree that "hurting someone physically is okay if you say sorry after hurting them" (19 percent) than those who hadn't (four percent). Want more sex and dating stories in your inbox? Sign up for Mashable's new weekly After Dark newsletter. Problematic and potentially abusive behavior like lovebombing was more acceptable to children and young people who have seen Tate-like content, as well. Thirty-five percent of that group believe that "it is romantic for the person you're going out with to constantly buy you loads of gifts and randomly turn up everywhere you go." Only 13 percent of non-exposed youth believe this. Furthermore, young people who've seen Tate's or others' misogynistic content were more likely to believe gendered stereotypes. Sixty-one percent of this group agreed that "women are naturally more caring in a relationship," compared to 52 percent of young people who haven't seen it. Women's Aid recommends the UK's Relationships, Sex and Health Education programs begin early in a child's education and designed based on an understanding of gender inequality, with sensitivity to pre-existing beliefs. Counter-messaging, it said, should be positive and centered on empowerment. Read the Women's Aid Influencers and Attitudes report in full. Anna Iovine is the associate editor of features at Mashable. Previously, as the sex and relationships reporter, she covered topics ranging from dating apps to pelvic pain. Before Mashable, Anna was a social editor at VICE and freelanced for publications such as Slate and the Columbia Journalism Review. Follow her on Bluesky.

If you aren't familiar with "manosphere" influencer Andrew Tate — congrats, I'm jealous of you. Tate is a self-proclaimed misogynist who's been charged with rape and human trafficking; he also has millions of followers online and is popular among young boys.
Tate, unfortunately, isn't alone. Sexist "alpha male" content has increased in popularity over the last few years — and it's had a chilling effect on children and young people's beliefs towards gender and relationships, according to Influencers and Attitudes, a new report by UK domestic abuse charity Women's Aid.
"The popularity of Tate is not a phenomenon in and of itself and, instead, is a current representation of existing misogyny," the report states. "The content also correlates with a wider increase in the prevalence of so-called 'incel' ideology, hatred against women and girls and backlash against the feminist movement, alongside other media influencers that assert these viewpoints."
You May Also Like
AdultFriendFinder — readers’ pick for casual connections
Tinder — top pick for finding hookups
Hinge — popular choice for regular meetups
Women's Aid, therefore, describes "Andrew Tate content" in its report as a proxy for his and similar content, and for the acceptance of misogyny and sexism more widely.
Forty percent of 1,000 7-18 year-olds surveyed by Women's Aid and polling agency ORB International have seen Tate's videos or posts; that breaks down to 21 percent of 7-11 year-olds; 43 percent of 11-14 year-olds, 44 percent of 14-16 year olds; and 53 percent of 16-18 year-olds.
Children and young people who've been exposed to misogynistic content were five times more likely to agree that "hurting someone physically is okay if you say sorry after hurting them" (19 percent) than those who hadn't (four percent).
More 7-11-year-old boys (27 percent) have been exposed to Tate's content than girls of the same age (13 percent).
Correlation isn't causation, but Women's Aid found that being exposed to misogynistic content such as Tate's was clearly linked with children and young people having more harmful perceptions of relationships, and a greater tolerance of doing harm.
Nearly a third (31 percent) of children and young people exposed to Tate's content agreed that "there should always be one more dominant person in a relationship," for example, compared to 14 percent who hadn't seen such content.
Children and young people who've been exposed to misogynistic content were five times more likely to agree that "hurting someone physically is okay if you say sorry after hurting them" (19 percent) than those who hadn't (four percent).
Want more sex and dating stories in your inbox? Sign up for Mashable's new weekly After Dark newsletter.
Problematic and potentially abusive behavior like lovebombing was more acceptable to children and young people who have seen Tate-like content, as well. Thirty-five percent of that group believe that "it is romantic for the person you're going out with to constantly buy you loads of gifts and randomly turn up everywhere you go." Only 13 percent of non-exposed youth believe this.
Furthermore, young people who've seen Tate's or others' misogynistic content were more likely to believe gendered stereotypes. Sixty-one percent of this group agreed that "women are naturally more caring in a relationship," compared to 52 percent of young people who haven't seen it.
Women's Aid recommends the UK's Relationships, Sex and Health Education programs begin early in a child's education and designed based on an understanding of gender inequality, with sensitivity to pre-existing beliefs. Counter-messaging, it said, should be positive and centered on empowerment.
Read the Women's Aid Influencers and Attitudes report in full.
Anna Iovine is the associate editor of features at Mashable. Previously, as the sex and relationships reporter, she covered topics ranging from dating apps to pelvic pain. Before Mashable, Anna was a social editor at VICE and freelanced for publications such as Slate and the Columbia Journalism Review. Follow her on Bluesky.

'My boyfriend threatened to kill me unless we watched manosphere films together' Manosphere influencers peddling toxic masculinity have tripled their followers in Latin America and Africa in the last year, marking a worrying rise in global misogyny Earlier this year, Louis Theroux’s Netflix show, Inside the Manosphere, examined the growing influence of the ultra-masculine network, led by influencers like self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, across the US and the UK. But for the BBC World Service documentary, Manosphere Messiahs, disinformation reporter Jacqui Wakefield spent a year examining the influence of manosphere heavyweights El Temach (Luis Castilleja) in Mexico, who has over 7.3 million followers on TikTok and 2 million on Instagram; and Andrew Kibe, in Kenya, who has 464,000 followers on Instagram and has had 530 million TikTok views. She tells The Mirror: “Content creators in developing countries are seeing the success of people like Andrew Tate and HS TikkyTokky, and wanting a piece of it for themselves; the fame, money and influence that comes with it.” The same manosphere slang words appear, popularised by Andrew Tate - currently facing allegations including sexual intercourse with a minor. Jacqui says it’s unclear whether influencers like former DJ Kibe - who calls himself ‘Jesus’, tells fans to ‘worship me’, and asks how he can respect a woman he wants to sleep with - believe what they say, or if they are just touting for followers. But, after speaking to women who’ve been affected, she says the adverse impact is substantial. Kenyan student Joy says women recently standing for the student union had to have a male student stand with them, or they wouldn’t get elected. She says: “It’s getting worse.” Kibe followers, she says, feel women are “less capable, less deserving of those leadership positions.” Kenyan superfan Ryan, says: “I first discovered Andrew Kibe when I was 18. My father had died 10 years ago and I was in a dilemma of being masculine or remaining just a boy.” Saying he lacked a father’s influence, he continues: “Kibe states that women are just a distraction in your journey to greatness as a man.” Dr Awino Okech, a professor of Feminist Studies at SOAS University, explains the social difficulties facing men and boys who are drawn to Kibe. She says: ”They are tapping into young men and boys with real mental health challenges … in societies where unemployment rates are high, people do not have the resources to be able to live a meaningful life.” Instead of blaming the state, she says they see women as the problem. Similarly in Mexico, failed pastor and actor El Temach is pumping out testosterone-fuelled propaganda about self-improvement to 11 million followers. His younger sister Alex says: “It's astonishing to see him now because he was a totally different person.” Once close, they no longer talk. She adds: “He copied everything from Andrew Tate. I don’t think he actually has a clear idea of what feminism entails. I think he just decided it was the best enemy for his content.” In one video, El Temach says: “A liberal wife is the worst mistake you can make as a man.” But in Mexico City, doctor Fernanda, says Manosphere teachings led to her former boyfriend - who she met while she was a medical student - threatening to kill her. Fernanda says: “He started to become obsessed, He went from one video to the next - he’d spend hours watching them. It wasn’t just El Temach, it was other creators too with similar ideas. He took it as absolute truth. He’d use him to justify me not being allowed to speak to single women, because they might ‘put ideas in your head’ about cheating. “He’d only let me wear clothes that he thought weren’t too revealing. I think he was already a sexist when we met. But he hid it. El Temach made him feel he didn’t have to feel bad about it.” The final straw came when he forced her to spend hours watching El Temach videos. She says: “He wouldn’t let me leave the house. He broke my phone. He was physically aggressive. I was afraid for my life. He did actually threaten to kill me. But the only way I could stay safe was to sit there and watch.” Eventually he let her go. Blaming Manosphere influencers for brainwashing men like her ex, who would justify appalling behaviour saying ‘El Temach says I’m right,’ she adds: “Some people can’t separate a video from real life.” Meanwhile, Jacqui concludes: “Social media has created a breeding ground for misogyny which is much more global than we first thought and it’s growing exponentially.” *Manosphere Messiahs is available on BBC Sounds

'My boyfriend threatened to kill me unless we watched manosphere films together'
Manosphere influencers peddling toxic masculinity have tripled their followers in Latin America and Africa in the last year, marking a worrying rise in global misogyny
Earlier this year, Louis Theroux’s Netflix show, Inside the Manosphere, examined the growing influence of the ultra-masculine network, led by influencers like self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, across the US and the UK. But for the BBC World Service documentary, Manosphere Messiahs, disinformation reporter Jacqui Wakefield spent a year examining the influence of manosphere heavyweights El Temach (Luis Castilleja) in Mexico, who has over 7.3 million followers on TikTok and 2 million on Instagram; and Andrew Kibe, in Kenya, who has 464,000 followers on Instagram and has had 530 million TikTok views.
She tells The Mirror: “Content creators in developing countries are seeing the success of people like Andrew Tate and HS TikkyTokky, and wanting a piece of it for themselves; the fame, money and influence that comes with it.”
The same manosphere slang words appear, popularised by Andrew Tate - currently facing allegations including sexual intercourse with a minor. Jacqui says it’s unclear whether influencers like former DJ Kibe - who calls himself ‘Jesus’, tells fans to ‘worship me’, and asks how he can respect a woman he wants to sleep with - believe what they say, or if they are just touting for followers.
But, after speaking to women who’ve been affected, she says the adverse impact is substantial. Kenyan student Joy says women recently standing for the student union had to have a male student stand with them, or they wouldn’t get elected. She says: “It’s getting worse.”
Kibe followers, she says, feel women are “less capable, less deserving of those leadership positions.” Kenyan superfan Ryan, says: “I first discovered Andrew Kibe when I was 18. My father had died 10 years ago and I was in a dilemma of being masculine or remaining just a boy.” Saying he lacked a father’s influence, he continues: “Kibe states that women are just a distraction in your journey to greatness as a man.”
Dr Awino Okech, a professor of Feminist Studies at SOAS University, explains the social difficulties facing men and boys who are drawn to Kibe. She says: ”They are tapping into young men and boys with real mental health challenges … in societies where unemployment rates are high, people do not have the resources to be able to live a meaningful life.”
Instead of blaming the state, she says they see women as the problem. Similarly in Mexico, failed pastor and actor El Temach is pumping out testosterone-fuelled propaganda about self-improvement to 11 million followers.
His younger sister Alex says: “It's astonishing to see him now because he was a totally different person.” Once close, they no longer talk. She adds: “He copied everything from Andrew Tate. I don’t think he actually has a clear idea of what feminism entails. I think he just decided it was the best enemy for his content.”
In one video, El Temach says: “A liberal wife is the worst mistake you can make as a man.” But in Mexico City, doctor Fernanda, says Manosphere teachings led to her former boyfriend - who she met while she was a medical student - threatening to kill her.
Fernanda says: “He started to become obsessed, He went from one video to the next - he’d spend hours watching them. It wasn’t just El Temach, it was other creators too with similar ideas. He took it as absolute truth. He’d use him to justify me not being allowed to speak to single women, because they might ‘put ideas in your head’ about cheating.
“He’d only let me wear clothes that he thought weren’t too revealing. I think he was already a sexist when we met. But he hid it. El Temach made him feel he didn’t have to feel bad about it.”
The final straw came when he forced her to spend hours watching El Temach videos. She says: “He wouldn’t let me leave the house. He broke my phone. He was physically aggressive. I was afraid for my life. He did actually threaten to kill me. But the only way I could stay safe was to sit there and watch.”
Eventually he let her go. Blaming Manosphere influencers for brainwashing men like her ex, who would justify appalling behaviour saying ‘El Temach says I’m right,’ she adds: “Some people can’t separate a video from real life.”
Meanwhile, Jacqui concludes: “Social media has created a breeding ground for misogyny which is much more global than we first thought and it’s growing exponentially.”
*Manosphere Messiahs is available on BBC Sounds

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14] Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports: - **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile** - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6] - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6] - **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”** - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3] - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3] - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3] - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3] - **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content** - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3] - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4] - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14] - **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments** - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include: - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4] - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14] - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5] - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3] - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12] - **Psychological and educational impact on girls** - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3] - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe: - **Anxiety** - **Reduced class participation** - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6] - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14] - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8] - **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate** - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use. - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions. - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments. - **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences** - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within: - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4] - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12] - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them. For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14]

Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports:

- **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile**
  - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6]
  - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6]

- **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”**
  - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3]
  - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3]
  - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3]
  - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3]

- **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content**
  - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3]
  - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4]
  - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14]

- **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments**
  - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include:
    - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4]
    - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14]
    - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5]
    - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3]
  - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12]

- **Psychological and educational impact on girls**
  - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3]
  - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe:
    - **Anxiety**
    - **Reduced class participation**
    - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6]
  - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14]
  - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8]

- **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate**
  - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use.
  - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions.
  - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments.

- **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences**
  - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within:
    - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4]
    - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12]
  - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them.

For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

1. Tate is a social media influencer and a self-described misogynist Andrew Tate is a British-American former kickboxer and reality television star with millions of social media followers – over 10 million on X (formerly Twitter) alone. He uses his platform to cannily deliver his disturbing views on rape, relationships and power. Many in his audience are teenagers who are just beginning to understand their own sexuality. Tate, who says he is “absolutely a misogynist,” teaches his acolytes that women are inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused. This is typical of Pick Up Artists (or PUAs), who are part of the largely online misogynist “manosphere.” Tate posts instructional videos online and directs followers to his paid “Hustler’s University” and “War Room” courses, which run subscribers $50 a month and $8,000 annually, respectively. Among the lessons: If a woman accuses a man of cheating, there’s one appropriate response, according to Tate, who posted the following to his TikTok account: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face, you grip her up by the neck, ‘WHAT’S UP BITCH’...you go fuck her. That’s how it goes, you go slap, slap, grab, choke, ‘shut up bitch,’ sex.” TikTok videos of Tate have been viewed some 11.6 billion times, according to reporting by The Guardian. While some of Tate’s social media accounts have been removed, his content lives on, thanks to reposts and dozens of fan accounts. 2. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Tate has pushed antisemitic, racist, pro-terror content Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Tate has leaned heavily into unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuating Holocaust revisionism, spreading conspiracy theories about Israel, praising Hamas, performing Nazi salutes and encouraging people to embrace and openly engage in racism. A cursory examination of Tate’s X account provides numerous expressions of his hateful language and beliefs. He consistently makes antisemitic and racist comments, including using “Jew” as a pejorative towards his critics (regardless of whether or not they’re Jewish), hurling slurs, and promoting numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories, such as implying that American support for Israel is a psyop by the Mossad and claiming that people who are called racist or antisemitic are actually “realists” with “pattern recognition.” On March 5, 2025, Tate appeared on a livestream of the "Full Send" podcast, where he told host Kyle Forgeard, “This is an interesting conversation because America believes it has free speech. It doesn't. But every single country in the world has things you cannot talk about..... If you speak out against the Jews in America, you're going to get in a lot of trouble." Tate has also expressed support for terrorism on multiple occasions. In November 2023, he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show, where he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and refused to condemn Hamas. He’s also praised the terror group and tied it into his manosphere worldview, describing Hamas as “the masculine spirit of resistance.” In October 2024, following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Tate posted on X: “I can only pray for a death as heroic as Yahya Sinwar. Brave, defiant in the face of evil and dedicated to his lifes [sic] purpose.” He also appears to support an Islamist Great Britain; in July 2023, he responded to the news of a new mosque in London, posting on X: “Allah is the best of planners and I look forward to seeing the Islamic republic [sic] of Great Britistan [sic] in her final form. Alhamdulillah Britain will be fully Islamic soon.” Another recent and concerning trend in Tate’s tweets is his promotion of Holocaust revisionism, which occasionally veers into outright Holocaust denial. He has implied that World War II was a lie on multiple occasions, mocked people who accept the historical consensus on WWII, implied that Jews are purposefully “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement Theory) and in the same tweet encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler. He has also stated that “we should bring the Nazi salute back” then proudly performed the salute in a video and encouraged his followers to embrace it and continue engaging in racism. Tate also associates with other right-wing personalities. On his X account, Tate regularly “jokes” and engages with notorious antisemite Nick Fuentes. Tate has also previously sat down for interviews with Candace Owens – another far-right personality known for her antisemitism and Holocaust denial. 3. In 2023, Tate was indicted on charges of sex trafficking and rape Tate and his brother face multiple charges in Romania, including sex trafficking, rape and forming an organized criminal group. They were arrested in December 2022 and are accused of exploiting seven women from Romania, the U.S. and Britain by seducing them with the promise of a relationship, then holding them against their will, filming them engaging in sex acts and selling the videos. Prosecutors allege that Tate raped at least one of the women repeatedly, controlled them by threatening them with violence and financial ruin and posted pornographic videos to the women’s social media accounts. The Tate brothers claim the June 2023 indictment, which has been submitted to a Romanian judge for further legal action, is a farce, and demonstrates the power of the “matrix,” a term they use to describe the forces putatively allied against them (which include feminism and international law). In August 2023, leaked chats from Tate’s “War Room” appeared to show how subscribers are taught to “manage” women, and in some case groom them for online sex work. Tate and his brother were arrested again on March 11, 2024, in Bucharest, Romania, on warrants issued by the U.K. and tied to allegations of sexual aggression. The Tates will be extradited to face the U.K. charges, brought by four women who accuse Andrew Tate of sexual violence and physical abuse, once their legal proceedings in Romania have concluded. In February 2025, the U.S. lifted its travel ban on the brothers, and the Tates flew to the U.S. They will return to Romania for their trial(s). 4. Tate wields considerable power within the manosphere – and beyond Tate first appeared on the international stage in 2016 as a controversial contestant on the UK’s “Big Brother” series, and was removed from the show after he was accused of assaulting a woman. He translated his reality television notoriety into a social media following comprised of young men who were eager to achieve the lifestyle he was selling: hypermasculinity, sexual and financial success and a lot of fast cars. Today, Tate is a prominent denizen of the manosphere, the toxic online communities where men gather to bemoan their victimhood and blame women for the world’s problems. Some of the groups under this umbrella include involuntary celibates (incels) and so-called Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). The impact of the manosphere’s misogyny shows up in the wreckage of our worst national tragedies: incel language in the manifestos and online footprint of mass shooters, “men’s rights” activists targeting women in shooting sprees across major cities. It’s also reflected in many white supremacist spaces, where men who feel victimized by a changing society target the theoretical beneficiaries of those changes: non-white people and women. These groups attract men and boys who are angry, depressed and/or feel victimized by women and society, and reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinity. Rather than teaching lonely boys and men how to be emotionally resilient, they teach them to lean into their anger, and supplement it with lists of perceived grievances against girls and women. Unfortunately, their impact registers well beyond the manosphere. 5. Tate both personifies and

1. Tate is a social media influencer and a self-described misogynist
Andrew Tate is a British-American former kickboxer and reality television star with millions of social media followers – over 10 million on X (formerly Twitter) alone. He uses his platform to cannily deliver his disturbing views on rape, relationships and power. Many in his audience are teenagers who are just beginning to understand their own sexuality.
Tate, who says he is “absolutely a misogynist,” teaches his acolytes that women are inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused. This is typical of Pick Up Artists (or PUAs), who are part of the largely online misogynist “manosphere.”
Tate posts instructional videos online and directs followers to his paid “Hustler’s University” and “War Room” courses, which run subscribers $50 a month and $8,000 annually, respectively. Among the lessons: If a woman accuses a man of cheating, there’s one appropriate response, according to Tate, who posted the following to his TikTok account: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face, you grip her up by the neck, ‘WHAT’S UP BITCH’...you go fuck her. That’s how it goes, you go slap, slap, grab, choke, ‘shut up bitch,’ sex.” TikTok videos of Tate have been viewed some 11.6 billion times, according to reporting by The Guardian.
While some of Tate’s social media accounts have been removed, his content lives on, thanks to reposts and dozens of fan accounts.
2. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Tate has pushed antisemitic, racist, pro-terror content
Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Tate has leaned heavily into unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuating Holocaust revisionism, spreading conspiracy theories about Israel, praising Hamas, performing Nazi salutes and encouraging people to embrace and openly engage in racism.
A cursory examination of Tate’s X account provides numerous expressions of his hateful language and beliefs. He consistently makes antisemitic and racist comments, including using “Jew” as a pejorative towards his critics (regardless of whether or not they’re Jewish), hurling slurs, and promoting numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories, such as implying that American support for Israel is a psyop by the Mossad and claiming that people who are called racist or antisemitic are actually “realists” with “pattern recognition.”
On March 5, 2025, Tate appeared on a livestream of the "Full Send" podcast, where he told host Kyle Forgeard, “This is an interesting conversation because America believes it has free speech. It doesn't. But every single country in the world has things you cannot talk about..... If you speak out against the Jews in America, you're going to get in a lot of trouble."
Tate has also expressed support for terrorism on multiple occasions. In November 2023, he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show, where he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and refused to condemn Hamas. He’s also praised the terror group and tied it into his manosphere worldview, describing Hamas as “the masculine spirit of resistance.”
In October 2024, following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Tate posted on X: “I can only pray for a death as heroic as Yahya Sinwar. Brave, defiant in the face of evil and dedicated to his lifes [sic] purpose.”
He also appears to support an Islamist Great Britain; in July 2023, he responded to the news of a new mosque in London, posting on X: “Allah is the best of planners and I look forward to seeing the Islamic republic [sic] of Great Britistan [sic] in her final form. Alhamdulillah Britain will be fully Islamic soon.”
Another recent and concerning trend in Tate’s tweets is his promotion of Holocaust revisionism, which occasionally veers into outright Holocaust denial. He has implied that World War II was a lie on multiple occasions, mocked people who accept the historical consensus on WWII, implied that Jews are purposefully “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement Theory) and in the same tweet encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.
He has also stated that “we should bring the Nazi salute back” then proudly performed the salute in a video and encouraged his followers to embrace it and continue engaging in racism.
Tate also associates with other right-wing personalities. On his X account, Tate regularly “jokes” and engages with notorious antisemite Nick Fuentes. Tate has also previously sat down for interviews with Candace Owens – another far-right personality known for her antisemitism and Holocaust denial.
3. In 2023, Tate was indicted on charges of sex trafficking and rape
Tate and his brother face multiple charges in Romania, including sex trafficking, rape and forming an organized criminal group. They were arrested in December 2022 and are accused of exploiting seven women from Romania, the U.S. and Britain by seducing them with the promise of a relationship, then holding them against their will, filming them engaging in sex acts and selling the videos.
Prosecutors allege that Tate raped at least one of the women repeatedly, controlled them by threatening them with violence and financial ruin and posted pornographic videos to the women’s social media accounts.
The Tate brothers claim the June 2023 indictment, which has been submitted to a Romanian judge for further legal action, is a farce, and demonstrates the power of the “matrix,” a term they use to describe the forces putatively allied against them (which include feminism and international law).
In August 2023, leaked chats from Tate’s “War Room” appeared to show how subscribers are taught to “manage” women, and in some case groom them for online sex work.
Tate and his brother were arrested again on March 11, 2024, in Bucharest, Romania, on warrants issued by the U.K. and tied to allegations of sexual aggression. The Tates will be extradited to face the U.K. charges, brought by four women who accuse Andrew Tate of sexual violence and physical abuse, once their legal proceedings in Romania have concluded.
In February 2025, the U.S. lifted its travel ban on the brothers, and the Tates flew to the U.S. They will return to Romania for their trial(s).
4. Tate wields considerable power within the manosphere – and beyond
Tate first appeared on the international stage in 2016 as a controversial contestant on the UK’s “Big Brother” series, and was removed from the show after he was accused of assaulting a woman. He translated his reality television notoriety into a social media following comprised of young men who were eager to achieve the lifestyle he was selling: hypermasculinity, sexual and financial success and a lot of fast cars.
Today, Tate is a prominent denizen of the manosphere, the toxic online communities where men gather to bemoan their victimhood and blame women for the world’s problems. Some of the groups under this umbrella include involuntary celibates (incels) and so-called Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs).
The impact of the manosphere’s misogyny shows up in the wreckage of our worst national tragedies: incel language in the manifestos and online footprint of mass shooters, “men’s rights” activists targeting women in shooting sprees across major cities. It’s also reflected in many white supremacist spaces, where men who feel victimized by a changing society target the theoretical beneficiaries of those changes: non-white people and women.
These groups attract men and boys who are angry, depressed and/or feel victimized by women and society, and reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinity. Rather than teaching lonely boys and men how to be emotionally resilient, they teach them to lean into their anger, and supplement it with lists of perceived grievances against girls and women. Unfortunately, their impact registers well beyond the manosphere.
5. Tate both personifies and 

Abstract Young people are increasingly exposed to toxic online misogyny through social media. However, to date, it is not clear how exposure to online misogyny might be influencing the behaviour and experiences of adolescents and children. As a first step towards answering this question, we gathered data on how such influences are perceived by surveying 200 teachers, 100 of whom were based in secondary schools (working with children aged 11 and above) and 100 of whom were based in primary schools (working with children aged 4–11). 76% of secondary school teachers and 60% of primary school teachers reported that they were extremely concerned about the influence of online misogyny in their schools. When asked to describe an example of the ways in which online misogyny was influencing the behaviour and experiences of male pupils in their schools, teachers referenced cases in which male pupils praised misogynistic influencers, made misogynistic comments and engaged in discriminatory behaviour towards female peers and staff. When asked to describe an example of the ways in which online misogyny was influencing the behaviour and experiences of female pupils in their schools, teachers referenced cases in which female pupils were the victims of misogynistic behaviour and their well-being was adversely affected. 90% of secondary school teachers and 68% of primary school teachers felt that their school would benefit from dedicated teaching materials to address the impact of online misogynists within their schools. Implications of these data for interventions to combat the rise of online misogyny are discussed. Introduction Extreme misogyny is increasingly finding an audience on social media in the ‘manosphere’, a broad community of individuals which has emerged over the last 15 years. The manosphere incorporates a variety of groups including self-styled pick-up artists, incels (short for involuntary celibates), MGTOW (short for “men going their own way”) and proponents of the red and black pill. Pick-up artists purport to teach men how to seduce women, often advocating the use of deceptive and even coercive tactics [1]. Incels claim to be doomed to a life of singledom often expressing extreme resentment at the women who they imagine deny them sex [2, 3]. MGTOW claim that women, particularly White Western women, are so influenced by feminist ideologies that they should be avoided completely in favour of a life of solitude or a partner from a country with more conservative gender attitudes [4]. Advocates of red and black pill ideologies draw on scenes from the Matrix film franchise in order to explain their relationship to contemporary society. In the Matrix, the protagonist is offered a choice between different coloured pills in order to understand reality or remain in the dark. These groups claim to have taken a pill which has allowed them to see the truth about gender politics, that society is fundamentally biased in favour of women [2]. While red pill and black pill ideologies are closely related, the black pill is typically understood as a more extreme and nihilistic perspective on gender politics [2]. What unites these different groups within the manosphere is a fundamental belief that women are inferior to men and ought to be subordinated to them. Women are often derogated as innately illogical, selfish, greedy and scheming. These attributions are used to justify harassment, coercive control, and discriminatory behaviour [2, 4]. For example, self-styled ‘life coach’ Andrew Tate regularly suggests that women belong in the kitchen and owe their male partners service and gratitude [5]. Other misogynistic influencers, such as Pearl Davis, campaign to restrict voting rights to men [6]. Some influencers within the manosphere explicitly advocate violence against women and appear to have inspired real world attacks against them [3]. These communities are increasingly politicised and often advocate for far-right politicians [7]. Until recently, this international movement has been a hidden problem. Although some influencers have gained widespread notoriety, many others do not engage with mainstream news channels. As a result, the scale of the manosphere may be underestimated by many adults unless they have regular contact with teenagers and young people. Teenagers and young people are regularly exposed to this content through social media and video sharing platforms including Reddit, TikTok and YouTube. While there is relatively little academic research on the extent of exposure, a poll commissioned by the charity Hope not Hate in 2023 found that 80% of 16- and 17-year-old British boys had consumed content created by Andrew Tate. In contrast, only 60% of boys in the same age group had heard of the British Prime Minister [8]. A recent poll by YouGov revealed that 27% of young men in the UK (aged between 18 and 29) hold a positive view of Andrew Tate, and 24% agree with his views about women [9]. A related poll conducted by Internet Matters (2023) suggested that 56% of fathers under the age of 35 approve of Andrew Tate [10]. The dynamics of social media create a context in which misogynistic views are able to flourish. Influencers compete for hits and shares within a limited marketplace of attention. Within this marketplace, controversial and extreme opinions are particularly likely to receive attention, leading to a radicalisation of viewpoints. Algorithms designed to offer users more of the content that they like, combined with systems for blocking unfavourable comments, create echo chambers in which individuals are presented with an increasingly homogenous and polarised world view [11]. To date, there is little evidence relating to how online influencers are affecting the behaviour and experiences of children. As a first step towards answering this question, we conducted a survey with 200 school teachers working in British schools. We surveyed 100 secondary school teachers (working with children aged 11+) and 100 primary school teachers (working with children aged 4–11). We asked participants a series of questions about online misogyny in their schools. We asked them to rate how concerned they were about this problem and to describe the last time they 1) witnessed online misogyny influencing the behaviour or experiences of male pupils in their schools 2) witnessed online misogyny influencing the behaviour of or experiences female pupils in their schools 3) were personally affected by the influence of online misogyny over their pupils. We also asked them what their school was currently doing to tackle the influence of online misogyny and what they thought could be done to tackle this problem within schools. Finally, we asked them to what extent they felt their school would benefit from dedicated teaching materials to tackle the influence of online misogyny over their pupils. Method Open science and ethical review This study was pre-registered. The pre-registration details can be found here https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=W45_DTB. The survey, coding scheme, anonymised summary data, and second coding are available on OSF: https://osf.io/6udpt/. The study received ethical clearance from the Department of Psychology at the University of York (approval number 2281). Participants Participants were recruited through the online testing platform Prolific and were pre-screened to ensure that they were working as teachers in British schools. The survey itself was built with Qualtrics. All participants provided their written informed consent. 100 participants (61 female, 38 male, 1 non-binary, mean age 39.7, age range = 22–64) worked at British secondary schools (accepting children aged 11–16 or 11–18). Of these teachers, 86 reported that they worked in state-sponsored schools and 14 reported that they worked in fee paying schools. 94 of these participants worked in schools with a mixed gender intake accepting male and female pupils, 2 worked in single-sex boys schools

Abstract
Young people are increasingly exposed to toxic online misogyny through social media. However, to date, it is not clear how exposure to online misogyny might be influencing the behaviour and experiences of adolescents and children. As a first step towards answering this question, we gathered data on how such influences are perceived by surveying 200 teachers, 100 of whom were based in secondary schools (working with children aged 11 and above) and 100 of whom were based in primary schools (working with children aged 4–11). 76% of secondary school teachers and 60% of primary school teachers reported that they were extremely concerned about the influence of online misogyny in their schools. When asked to describe an example of the ways in which online misogyny was influencing the behaviour and experiences of male pupils in their schools, teachers referenced cases in which male pupils praised misogynistic influencers, made misogynistic comments and engaged in discriminatory behaviour towards female peers and staff. When asked to describe an example of the ways in which online misogyny was influencing the behaviour and experiences of female pupils in their schools, teachers referenced cases in which female pupils were the victims of misogynistic behaviour and their well-being was adversely affected. 90% of secondary school teachers and 68% of primary school teachers felt that their school would benefit from dedicated teaching materials to address the impact of online misogynists within their schools. Implications of these data for interventions to combat the rise of online misogyny are discussed.
Introduction
Extreme misogyny is increasingly finding an audience on social media in the ‘manosphere’, a broad community of individuals which has emerged over the last 15 years. The manosphere incorporates a variety of groups including self-styled pick-up artists, incels (short for involuntary celibates), MGTOW (short for “men going their own way”) and proponents of the red and black pill. Pick-up artists purport to teach men how to seduce women, often advocating the use of deceptive and even coercive tactics [1]. Incels claim to be doomed to a life of singledom often expressing extreme resentment at the women who they imagine deny them sex [2, 3]. MGTOW claim that women, particularly White Western women, are so influenced by feminist ideologies that they should be avoided completely in favour of a life of solitude or a partner from a country with more conservative gender attitudes [4]. Advocates of red and black pill ideologies draw on scenes from the Matrix film franchise in order to explain their relationship to contemporary society. In the Matrix, the protagonist is offered a choice between different coloured pills in order to understand reality or remain in the dark. These groups claim to have taken a pill which has allowed them to see the truth about gender politics, that society is fundamentally biased in favour of women [2]. While red pill and black pill ideologies are closely related, the black pill is typically understood as a more extreme and nihilistic perspective on gender politics [2].
What unites these different groups within the manosphere is a fundamental belief that women are inferior to men and ought to be subordinated to them. Women are often derogated as innately illogical, selfish, greedy and scheming. These attributions are used to justify harassment, coercive control, and discriminatory behaviour [2, 4]. For example, self-styled ‘life coach’ Andrew Tate regularly suggests that women belong in the kitchen and owe their male partners service and gratitude [5]. Other misogynistic influencers, such as Pearl Davis, campaign to restrict voting rights to men [6]. Some influencers within the manosphere explicitly advocate violence against women and appear to have inspired real world attacks against them [3]. These communities are increasingly politicised and often advocate for far-right politicians [7].
Until recently, this international movement has been a hidden problem. Although some influencers have gained widespread notoriety, many others do not engage with mainstream news channels. As a result, the scale of the manosphere may be underestimated by many adults unless they have regular contact with teenagers and young people. Teenagers and young people are regularly exposed to this content through social media and video sharing platforms including Reddit, TikTok and YouTube. While there is relatively little academic research on the extent of exposure, a poll commissioned by the charity Hope not Hate in 2023 found that 80% of 16- and 17-year-old British boys had consumed content created by Andrew Tate. In contrast, only 60% of boys in the same age group had heard of the British Prime Minister [8]. A recent poll by YouGov revealed that 27% of young men in the UK (aged between 18 and 29) hold a positive view of Andrew Tate, and 24% agree with his views about women [9]. A related poll conducted by Internet Matters (2023) suggested that 56% of fathers under the age of 35 approve of Andrew Tate [10].
The dynamics of social media create a context in which misogynistic views are able to flourish. Influencers compete for hits and shares within a limited marketplace of attention. Within this marketplace, controversial and extreme opinions are particularly likely to receive attention, leading to a radicalisation of viewpoints. Algorithms designed to offer users more of the content that they like, combined with systems for blocking unfavourable comments, create echo chambers in which individuals are presented with an increasingly homogenous and polarised world view [11].
To date, there is little evidence relating to how online influencers are affecting the behaviour and experiences of children. As a first step towards answering this question, we conducted a survey with 200 school teachers working in British schools. We surveyed 100 secondary school teachers (working with children aged 11+) and 100 primary school teachers (working with children aged 4–11). We asked participants a series of questions about online misogyny in their schools. We asked them to rate how concerned they were about this problem and to describe the last time they 1) witnessed online misogyny influencing the behaviour or experiences of male pupils in their schools 2) witnessed online misogyny influencing the behaviour of or experiences female pupils in their schools 3) were personally affected by the influence of online misogyny over their pupils. We also asked them what their school was currently doing to tackle the influence of online misogyny and what they thought could be done to tackle this problem within schools. Finally, we asked them to what extent they felt their school would benefit from dedicated teaching materials to tackle the influence of online misogyny over their pupils.
Method
Open science and ethical review
This study was pre-registered. The pre-registration details can be found here https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=W45_DTB. The survey, coding scheme, anonymised summary data, and second coding are available on OSF: https://osf.io/6udpt/. The study received ethical clearance from the Department of Psychology at the University of York (approval number 2281).
Participants
Participants were recruited through the online testing platform Prolific and were pre-screened to ensure that they were working as teachers in British schools. The survey itself was built with Qualtrics. All participants provided their written informed consent.
100 participants (61 female, 38 male, 1 non-binary, mean age 39.7, age range = 22–64) worked at British secondary schools (accepting children aged 11–16 or 11–18). Of these teachers, 86 reported that they worked in state-sponsored schools and 14 reported that they worked in fee paying schools. 94 of these participants worked in schools with a mixed gender intake accepting male and female pupils, 2 worked in single-sex boys schools 

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14] Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports: - **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile** - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6] - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6] - **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”** - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3] - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3] - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3] - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3] - **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content** - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3] - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4] - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14] - **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments** - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include: - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4] - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14] - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5] - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3] - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12] - **Psychological and educational impact on girls** - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3] - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe: - **Anxiety** - **Reduced class participation** - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6] - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14] - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8] - **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate** - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use. - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions. - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments. - **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences** - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within: - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4] - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12] - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them. For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

Andrew Tate and wider **manosphere** content are linked to girls feeling more **unsafe, unsettled, scared and harassed** at school, and to a measurable deterioration in their wellbeing, comfort and participation in the classroom in 2024–2025.[3][4][6][8][14]

Key patterns emerging from recent research and reports:

- **Girls describe school as less safe and more hostile**
  - A 2024 Australian high‑school study (summarised in an ANROWS guide) found **“1 in 4 girls felt unsafe at school due to boys’ behaviours”**, with reported impacts including *anxiety, reduced class participation and skipping class or school*.[6]
  - Girls and young women report experiencing **physical and sexual abuse by boys and young men, including online and at school**.[6]

- **Girls’ own words: “unsettling” and “scary”**
  - UCL researchers gathering girls’ perspectives in the UK report that **“most participants had been negatively affected by rhetoric of online misogyny influencers, both online and offline.”**[3]
  - **“For most, these negative experiences involved behaviour from their male peers at school.”**[3]
  - Girls **“recounted seeing a lot of manosphere content online and hearing discussions at school, which they found ‘unsettling’ and ‘scary’ as they promoted harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts.”**[3]
  - Much of this related to boys’ **standards for girls’ appearance** and expectations about sexual behaviour.[3]

- **Everyday school interactions shaped by Tate/manosphere content**
  - Girls report that boys treat misogynistic behaviour as entertainment: **“They do it to wind us up, to get a reaction from us … to them it’s all a joke,”** one girl explained about boys’ use of online misogynistic rhetoric at school.[3]
  - In Australian schools, young women describe **“unrelenting sexual harassment and misogyny”** from boys whose behaviour is “overtly informed by Andrew Tate’s ideology,” including gendered slurs at girls across classrooms and at school events.[4]
  - Teachers in UK schools similarly report female pupils being **victims of misogynistic behaviour**, with their **well‑being adversely affected**.[14]

- **Misogynistic behaviours girls encounter in school environments**
  - Documented behaviours associated with Tate/manosphere influence include:
    - Boys using Tate’s name and phrases to **provoke, belittle and dehumanise girls**.[4]
    - **Sexual harassment**, including sexualised noises, comments, objectification, and gendered slurs directed at girls.[1][4][7][14]
    - Aggression and domination in interactions, with boys **patronising girls and making unreasonable demands** of women staff.[4][5]
    - Boys setting **strict appearance standards** for girls, informed by online content.[3]
  - Teachers in UK and Australian studies report that such behaviour is often **explicitly linked by students to Andrew Tate and similar “manfluencers.”**[1][4][5][7][8][12]

- **Psychological and educational impact on girls**
  - UCL’s work notes that online misogyny and manosphere content shape **“harmful body image and toxic sexual scripts”** for girls, affecting how they view themselves and what they think is expected of them in relationships.[3]
  - The ANROWS guide reports that girls experiencing such behaviours describe:
    - **Anxiety**
    - **Reduced class participation**
    - **Missing classes or avoiding school** to escape harassment or discomfort.[6]
  - UK research on online misogyny in schools similarly finds that female pupils’ **wellbeing is adversely affected** by misogynistic behaviour from male peers.[14]
  - A UK organisation summarising evidence on the manosphere notes that teachers are concerned about the **impact on female pupils’ wellbeing**, as misogynistic comments and discriminatory behaviour towards girls become more common.[8]

- **Broader gender‑attitude shifts that girls must navigate**
  - Andrew Tate openly identifies as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and teaches that women are *“inferior and morally deficient beings who are good only for sex and status building, and who deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.”*[13] This ideology circulates widely in the online spaces young people use.
  - Exposure to Tate‑like content is associated with young people being more likely to endorse **violence in relationships** (e.g. agreeing that physical harm can be acceptable if followed by an apology) and **dominance in relationships**, as well as rigid gender stereotypes.[10] Girls then have to manage peers whose beliefs about relationships and gender power are shifting in these directions.
  - UK polling submitted to Parliament shows worrying levels of internalised misogyny among young women themselves: **22% thought that feminism had gone too far** and **20% agreed that women “cry rape after having sex they regret.”**[15] These attitudes shape how girls anticipate being believed or supported if they experience abuse, increasing discomfort and fear in school social environments.

- **Compounded discomfort for girls from staff experiences**
  - Female teachers’ accounts show a **wider misogynistic climate** that girls are observing and living within:
    - Women teachers in Australia describe a **“resurgence of behaviour they described as male supremacy”**, including spitting in a teacher’s water bottle, sexual moaning noises in class, and gendered slurs at girls.[4]
    - UK teachers describe an **“Andrew Tate phenomena” fuelling sexism in the classroom**, including boys barking at female staff and blocking doorways.[5][12]
  - This climate can reinforce girls’ perceptions that school is not fully safe or supportive for them.

For a child‑safeguarding education team, the key takeaway from 2024–2025 evidence is that **girls consistently report feeling more unsafe, anxious, unsettled and “scared” at school** in relation to boys’ engagement with Andrew Tate/manosphere content, and that this is already impacting **their wellbeing, sense of safety, and participation in learning**.[3][4][6][8][14]

[MOCK] Exa provider is stubbed until an API key is configured.