toxic masculinity v4.1

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.

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

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).

Abstract This study explores the rhetoric used by Andrew Tate, known as a 'misogyny influencer', and its impact on his followers. Tate released a vlog in response to his ban from social media. This vlog was analyzed along with his followers' comments (n = 300) on the video. Through hegemonic masculinity and social identity frameworks, we offer a thematic analysis of Tate's rhetoric. Results contribute to the growing body of literature on online manospheric communities and why followers may be drawn to Tate's leadership styles. Findings also extend literature regarding themes that may appear in other radicalized spaces. Keywords: extremism; incels; manosphere; masculinity; online communities; sexism. Conflict of interest statement Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. MeSH terms - Actions - Actions - Actions - Actions - Actions

Abstract
This study explores the rhetoric used by Andrew Tate, known as a 'misogyny influencer', and its impact on his followers. Tate released a vlog in response to his ban from social media. This vlog was analyzed along with his followers' comments (n = 300) on the video. Through hegemonic masculinity and social identity frameworks, we offer a thematic analysis of Tate's rhetoric. Results contribute to the growing body of literature on online manospheric communities and why followers may be drawn to Tate's leadership styles. Findings also extend literature regarding themes that may appear in other radicalized spaces.
Keywords: extremism; incels; manosphere; masculinity; online communities; sexism.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
MeSH terms
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions
- Actions

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.

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 

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6] Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere Across the period, several elements are stable: - He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6] - He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4] - Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9] These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure. --- ## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact ### Rhetoric and platform strategy - In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1] - His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3] - Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys: - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3] - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3] - He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6] A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10] ### Impact on teenage boys in 2022 - The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1] - A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3] - The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3] For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens. --- ## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims ### Shifts in tone and framing After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023: - In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6] - He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6] - Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7] In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs. ### Ongoing impact on boys and schools - Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1] - Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5] For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic. --- ## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4] ### Expansion beyond gender According to the ADL’s 2024 profile: - Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4] - He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4] - He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4] - On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4] By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining: - **Misogyny and manosphere ideology** - **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives** - **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4] This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial). ### Legal and publicity context - Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4] These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5] --- ## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer” ### Influence in the manosphere and beyond The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points: - Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6]  

Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere

Across the period, several elements are stable:

- He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6]  
- He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4]  
- Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9]  

These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure.

---

## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact

### Rhetoric and platform strategy

- In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1]  
- His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3]  
- Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys:
  - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3]  
  - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3]  
- He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6]  

A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10]  

### Impact on teenage boys in 2022

- The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1]  
- A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3]  
- The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3]  

For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens.

---

## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims

### Shifts in tone and framing

After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023:

- In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6]  
- He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6]  
- Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7]  

In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs.

### Ongoing impact on boys and schools

- Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1]  
- Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5]  

For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic.

---

## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric

A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4]  

### Expansion beyond gender

According to the ADL’s 2024 profile:

- Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4]  
- He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4]  
- He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4]  
- On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4]  

By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining:

- **Misogyny and manosphere ideology**  
- **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives**  
- **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4]  

This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial).

### Legal and publicity context

- Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4]  

These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5]

---

## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer”

### Influence in the manosphere and beyond

The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points:

- Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

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 has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6] Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere Across the period, several elements are stable: - He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6] - He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4] - Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9] These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure. --- ## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact ### Rhetoric and platform strategy - In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1] - His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3] - Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys: - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3] - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3] - He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6] A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10] ### Impact on teenage boys in 2022 - The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1] - A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3] - The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3] For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens. --- ## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims ### Shifts in tone and framing After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023: - In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6] - He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6] - Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7] In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs. ### Ongoing impact on boys and schools - Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1] - Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5] For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic. --- ## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4] ### Expansion beyond gender According to the ADL’s 2024 profile: - Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4] - He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4] - He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4] - On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4] By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining: - **Misogyny and manosphere ideology** - **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives** - **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4] This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial). ### Legal and publicity context - Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4] These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5] --- ## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer” ### Influence in the manosphere and beyond The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points: - Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6]  

Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere

Across the period, several elements are stable:

- He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6]  
- He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4]  
- Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9]  

These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure.

---

## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact

### Rhetoric and platform strategy

- In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1]  
- His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3]  
- Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys:
  - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3]  
  - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3]  
- He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6]  

A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10]  

### Impact on teenage boys in 2022

- The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1]  
- A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3]  
- The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3]  

For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens.

---

## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims

### Shifts in tone and framing

After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023:

- In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6]  
- He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6]  
- Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7]  

In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs.

### Ongoing impact on boys and schools

- Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1]  
- Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5]  

For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic.

---

## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric

A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4]  

### Expansion beyond gender

According to the ADL’s 2024 profile:

- Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4]  
- He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4]  
- He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4]  
- On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4]  

By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining:

- **Misogyny and manosphere ideology**  
- **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives**  
- **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4]  

This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial).

### Legal and publicity context

- Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4]  

These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5]

---

## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer”

### Influence in the manosphere and beyond

The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points:

- Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6] Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere Across the period, several elements are stable: - He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6] - He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4] - Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9] These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure. --- ## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact ### Rhetoric and platform strategy - In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1] - His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3] - Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys: - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3] - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3] - He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6] A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10] ### Impact on teenage boys in 2022 - The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1] - A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3] - The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3] For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens. --- ## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims ### Shifts in tone and framing After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023: - In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6] - He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6] - Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7] In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs. ### Ongoing impact on boys and schools - Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1] - Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5] For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic. --- ## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4] ### Expansion beyond gender According to the ADL’s 2024 profile: - Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4] - He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4] - He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4] - On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4] By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining: - **Misogyny and manosphere ideology** - **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives** - **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4] This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial). ### Legal and publicity context - Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4] These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5] --- ## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer” ### Influence in the manosphere and beyond The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points: - Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6]  

Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere

Across the period, several elements are stable:

- He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6]  
- He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4]  
- Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9]  

These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure.

---

## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact

### Rhetoric and platform strategy

- In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1]  
- His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3]  
- Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys:
  - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3]  
  - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3]  
- He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6]  

A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10]  

### Impact on teenage boys in 2022

- The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1]  
- A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3]  
- The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3]  

For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens.

---

## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims

### Shifts in tone and framing

After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023:

- In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6]  
- He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6]  
- Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7]  

In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs.

### Ongoing impact on boys and schools

- Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1]  
- Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5]  

For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic.

---

## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric

A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4]  

### Expansion beyond gender

According to the ADL’s 2024 profile:

- Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4]  
- He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4]  
- He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4]  
- On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4]  

By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining:

- **Misogyny and manosphere ideology**  
- **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives**  
- **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4]  

This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial).

### Legal and publicity context

- Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4]  

These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5]

---

## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer”

### Influence in the manosphere and beyond

The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points:

- Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6] Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere Across the period, several elements are stable: - He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6] - He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4] - Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9] These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure. --- ## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact ### Rhetoric and platform strategy - In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1] - His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3] - Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys: - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3] - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3] - He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6] A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10] ### Impact on teenage boys in 2022 - The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1] - A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3] - The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3] For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens. --- ## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims ### Shifts in tone and framing After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023: - In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6] - He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6] - Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7] In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs. ### Ongoing impact on boys and schools - Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1] - Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5] For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic. --- ## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4] ### Expansion beyond gender According to the ADL’s 2024 profile: - Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4] - He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4] - He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4] - On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4] By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining: - **Misogyny and manosphere ideology** - **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives** - **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4] This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial). ### Legal and publicity context - Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4] These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5] --- ## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer” ### Influence in the manosphere and beyond The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points: - Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6]  

Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere

Across the period, several elements are stable:

- He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6]  
- He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4]  
- Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9]  

These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure.

---

## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact

### Rhetoric and platform strategy

- In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1]  
- His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3]  
- Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys:
  - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3]  
  - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3]  
- He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6]  

A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10]  

### Impact on teenage boys in 2022

- The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1]  
- A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3]  
- The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3]  

For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens.

---

## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims

### Shifts in tone and framing

After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023:

- In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6]  
- He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6]  
- Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7]  

In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs.

### Ongoing impact on boys and schools

- Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1]  
- Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5]  

For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic.

---

## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric

A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4]  

### Expansion beyond gender

According to the ADL’s 2024 profile:

- Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4]  
- He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4]  
- He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4]  
- On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4]  

By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining:

- **Misogyny and manosphere ideology**  
- **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives**  
- **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4]  

This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial).

### Legal and publicity context

- Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4]  

These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5]

---

## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer”

### Influence in the manosphere and beyond

The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points:

- Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6] Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere Across the period, several elements are stable: - He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6] - He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4] - Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9] These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure. --- ## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact ### Rhetoric and platform strategy - In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1] - His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3] - Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys: - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3] - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3] - He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6] A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10] ### Impact on teenage boys in 2022 - The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1] - A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3] - The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3] For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens. --- ## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims ### Shifts in tone and framing After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023: - In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6] - He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6] - Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7] In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs. ### Ongoing impact on boys and schools - Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1] - Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5] For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic. --- ## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4] ### Expansion beyond gender According to the ADL’s 2024 profile: - Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4] - He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4] - He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4] - On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4] By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining: - **Misogyny and manosphere ideology** - **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives** - **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4] This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial). ### Legal and publicity context - Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4] These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5] --- ## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer” ### Influence in the manosphere and beyond The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points: - Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Andrew Tate’s rhetoric has remained consistently rooted in **misogyny, hyper‑masculinity and conspiracy‑tinged grievance**, but between 2022–2026 it has **broadened and hardened**: from mostly gendered, “self‑help” and lifestyle content aimed at boys/young men (2022–23), to a more explicit mix of **manosphere ideology, antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror/post‑Oct‑7 narratives** (2023–26), while his influence on teenage boys and school cultures has become a formal safeguarding concern in several countries.[1][4][6]  

Below is a concise, chronological synthesis focused on (a) rhetorical evolution and (b) impact on adolescent boys/manosphere dynamics, to support child‑safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. Baseline: Tate’s core rhetoric and position in the manosphere

Across the period, several elements are stable:

- He self‑describes as **“absolutely a misogynist”** and links “realism” with being sexist.[6]  
- He teaches that **women are inferior and morally deficient**, good only for sex and status, and that they “deserve to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused” – a pattern the ADL identifies as typical of **pick‑up artists (PUAs) within the misogynist “manosphere.”**[4]  
- Research finds his brand is that of a **“manfluencer”** or **patriarchal authority** who claims to “fix the woes of the modern man,” using **flashy visuals and aggressive language** and connecting followers to a **wider right‑wing ideological ecosystem.**[5][7][9]  

These constants matter: changes from 2022–26 are less about abandonment of misogyny and more about **what gets added and amplified (e.g., geopolitics, antisemitism) and how he repackages himself** in response to bans and legal pressure.

---

## 2. 2022: Viral misogyny, TikTok growth and early school‑age impact

### Rhetoric and platform strategy

- In 2022, Tate “rocketed to fame” via **TikTok and other platforms**, with videos viewed over **12 billion times** in a short period.[1]  
- His 2022 content ranged from **cryptocurrency and hustle advice** to **“overt calls for violence against women,”** repackaged as “speaking the truth” or “needed edgy opinion.”[1][3]  
- Examples of 2022 statements that circulated heavily among teenage boys:
  - Comparing responsibility for a girlfriend to controlling a dog: “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.”[3]  
  - Calling a girlfriend a **“product,”** and repeatedly referring to women as **objects.**[3]  
- He was banned from platforms (Twitter earlier; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch in Aug 2022) for **“dangerous remarks”** and comments that women should “bear responsibility” for being sexually assaulted.[3][6]  

A critical discourse analysis of his motivational speeches notes that his 2022 messaging **frames masculinity as under siege**, recommends domination and emotional suppression, and presents empathy and equality as weaknesses, aligning him with **toxic strands of the manosphere**.[9][10]  

### Impact on teenage boys in 2022

- The Conversation describes 2022 as a moment when **“social media misogyny”** was repackaged and amplified through algorithmic virality, with Tate as a central figure.[1]  
- A high‑school level account from 2022 observes Tate appealing strongly to **“impressionable teenage boys trying to be ‘man enough’”**, with his misogynistic content creating **“a new generation of sexism.”**[3]  
- The same piece reports observable school‑climate effects: boys **mocking girls’ voices**, giving presentations calling Tate “the voice of our generation,” and dismissing girls’ sports.[3]  

For safeguarding teams, 2022 marks the **start of widespread classroom‑level visibility** of Tate rhetoric among younger teens.

---

## 3. 2023: Partial rebrand, defensive rhetoric, and “force for good” claims

### Shifts in tone and framing

After widespread bans and his December 2022 arrest in Romania on sex‑trafficking and rape charges,[4] several changes appeared in 2023:

- In a combative BBC interview in June 2023, when challenged on whether his views harm young people, Tate **claimed he is a “force for good” and “acting under the instruction of God to do good things.”**[6]  
- He simultaneously **downplayed or reframed** prior misogynistic statements but did not retract key beliefs. BBC reporting shows that he has, in private texts, used extreme language such as “I love raping you,” and has spoken publicly of women as “intrinsically lazy” with “no such thing as an independent female.”[6]  
- Academic work on his discourse notes that even when he adopts more “self‑help” language, the underlying frame remains one of **hierarchical gender roles, male entitlement, and grievance politics.**[5][7]  

In essence, 2023 brought a **surface‑level moral repositioning** (“I help men,” “I’m misunderstood,” “I’m religious now”) without substantive moderation of core misogynistic beliefs.

### Ongoing impact on boys and schools

- Even after bans, The Conversation and other sources stress that Tate content **continued circulating via reposts and fan edits**, meaning his message “hasn’t stopped resonating.”[1]  
- Researchers and practitioners in 2023 increasingly discussed Tate as part of a **radicalisation pipeline** for young men, linking misogyny to broader extremist ideas.[4][5]  

For educators, 2023 often meant **responding to more “sanitised” or pseudo‑religious justifications** of the same harmful ideas, making them harder for some boys to recognise as problematic.

---

## 4. 2023–24: Integration with antisemitism, racism and pro‑terror rhetoric

A major evolution documented by the Anti‑Defamation League (ADL) is that, **after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks**, Tate’s online output increasingly mixed manosphere themes with **antisemitic, racist and pro‑terror narratives.**[4]  

### Expansion beyond gender

According to the ADL’s 2024 profile:

- Since October 2023, he has “leaned heavily into **unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric**,” including **Holocaust revisionism**, conspiracy theories about Israel, and use of “Jew” as a pejorative.[4]  
- He has implied that WWII was a lie, suggested Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide” (a version of **Great Replacement** conspiracy theory), and encouraged people to “question” criticism of Hitler.[4]  
- He performed a **Nazi salute in a video**, telling followers “we should bring the Nazi salute back,” and urged them to **“embrace” racism.**[4]  
- On Piers Morgan’s show in November 2023 he accused Israel of “genociding” Palestinians and **refused to condemn Hamas**, later describing Hamas as **“the masculine spirit of resistance,”** explicitly linking violent extremism to his gendered ideal of masculinity.[4]  

By 2024, the ADL describes his content as combining:

- **Misogyny and manosphere ideology**  
- **White‑supremacist and antisemitic narratives**  
- **Support for or praise of designated terrorist actors**[4]  

This is a clear rhetorical shift: **gender hatred becomes a gateway into broader extremist frames** (racial, geopolitical, conspiratorial).

### Legal and publicity context

- Tate and his brother continued to face charges in Romania for **sex trafficking, rape and forming an organised criminal group**, and were arrested again in March 2024 on UK warrants related to alleged sexual aggression.[4]  

These cases feed his narrative of **victimhood and persecution**, which he often presents as evidence of a corrupt system targeting “strong men,” a common manosphere and far‑right trope.[4][5]

---

## 5. 2024–26: Consolidation as a multi‑issue extremist “manfluencer”

### Influence in the manosphere and beyond

The ADL in 2024 describes him as a **“prominent denizen of the manosphere”** whose influence “registers well beyond” that space.[4] Key points:

- Manosphere communities (PUAs, incels, some Men’s Rights Activists) attract men and boys who feel **angry, depressed, or victimised**, then **reinforce the worst possible iterations of masculinit

Recent research indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommender systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys and young men**, even when accounts do not initially seek it out.[1][4][5][7] The strongest 2024–2025 evidence in your results comes from studies and reports showing that short-form video algorithms can push users from benign “self-improvement” or gender-normative material toward more overtly anti-feminist, incel, and extremist content after only a small amount of engagement.[1][4][5] The key findings are consistent across sources: - A DCU study reported that male-identified accounts on **TikTok and YouTube Shorts** were fed masculinist and anti-feminist content regardless of whether they initially searched for it, and that once they watched such content, recommendations became more overtly misogynist and toxic.[1][5] - The same DCU report said that by the end of the experiment, **“the vast majority”** of recommended content was toxic, with **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%** in the manosphere or related toxic categories.[1][5] - UCL researchers found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days in an algorithmic modelling study, with recommendations shifting from themes like loneliness or self-improvement toward anger and blame directed at women.[4] - A Monash analysis explains that this amplification happens because recommender systems are designed to **optimize engagement**, using machine-learning feedback loops that learn from users’ behavior and preferentially surface emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.[2] - ISD reports that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations can promote misogynistic and extremist content to Australian boys and young men, reinforcing the concern that recommendation systems help move manosphere content into mainstream feeds.[7] For your specific query, the most defensible 2024–2025 synthesis is: - **Algorithmic amplification is real and documented** for manosphere content on TikTok and YouTube Shorts.[1][4][5][7] - **Teenage boys are a key exposure group**, because multiple studies and reports focus on male-identified or teenage accounts and show rapid escalation in harmful recommendations.[1][4][5] - **Engagement drives escalation**: viewing, liking, or lingering on related clips increases the likelihood of receiving more extreme content.[1][2][5] - **YouTube Shorts may optimize more aggressively** than conventional YouTube in response to user behavior, according to the DCU study.[1] If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence table** with columns for platform, sample, finding, and implication for safeguarding.

Recent research indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommender systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys and young men**, even when accounts do not initially seek it out.[1][4][5][7] The strongest 2024–2025 evidence in your results comes from studies and reports showing that short-form video algorithms can push users from benign “self-improvement” or gender-normative material toward more overtly anti-feminist, incel, and extremist content after only a small amount of engagement.[1][4][5]

The key findings are consistent across sources:

- A DCU study reported that male-identified accounts on **TikTok and YouTube Shorts** were fed masculinist and anti-feminist content regardless of whether they initially searched for it, and that once they watched such content, recommendations became more overtly misogynist and toxic.[1][5]
- The same DCU report said that by the end of the experiment, **“the vast majority”** of recommended content was toxic, with **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%** in the manosphere or related toxic categories.[1][5]
- UCL researchers found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days in an algorithmic modelling study, with recommendations shifting from themes like loneliness or self-improvement toward anger and blame directed at women.[4]
- A Monash analysis explains that this amplification happens because recommender systems are designed to **optimize engagement**, using machine-learning feedback loops that learn from users’ behavior and preferentially surface emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.[2]
- ISD reports that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations can promote misogynistic and extremist content to Australian boys and young men, reinforcing the concern that recommendation systems help move manosphere content into mainstream feeds.[7]

For your specific query, the most defensible 2024–2025 synthesis is:

- **Algorithmic amplification is real and documented** for manosphere content on TikTok and YouTube Shorts.[1][4][5][7]
- **Teenage boys are a key exposure group**, because multiple studies and reports focus on male-identified or teenage accounts and show rapid escalation in harmful recommendations.[1][4][5]
- **Engagement drives escalation**: viewing, liking, or lingering on related clips increases the likelihood of receiving more extreme content.[1][2][5]
- **YouTube Shorts may optimize more aggressively** than conventional YouTube in response to user behavior, according to the DCU study.[1]

If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence table** with columns for platform, sample, finding, and implication for safeguarding.

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.

Recent research indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommender systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys and young men**, even when accounts do not initially seek it out.[1][4][5][7] The strongest 2024–2025 evidence in your results comes from studies and reports showing that short-form video algorithms can push users from benign “self-improvement” or gender-normative material toward more overtly anti-feminist, incel, and extremist content after only a small amount of engagement.[1][4][5] The key findings are consistent across sources: - A DCU study reported that male-identified accounts on **TikTok and YouTube Shorts** were fed masculinist and anti-feminist content regardless of whether they initially searched for it, and that once they watched such content, recommendations became more overtly misogynist and toxic.[1][5] - The same DCU report said that by the end of the experiment, **“the vast majority”** of recommended content was toxic, with **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%** in the manosphere or related toxic categories.[1][5] - UCL researchers found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days in an algorithmic modelling study, with recommendations shifting from themes like loneliness or self-improvement toward anger and blame directed at women.[4] - A Monash analysis explains that this amplification happens because recommender systems are designed to **optimize engagement**, using machine-learning feedback loops that learn from users’ behavior and preferentially surface emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.[2] - ISD reports that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations can promote misogynistic and extremist content to Australian boys and young men, reinforcing the concern that recommendation systems help move manosphere content into mainstream feeds.[7] For your specific query, the most defensible 2024–2025 synthesis is: - **Algorithmic amplification is real and documented** for manosphere content on TikTok and YouTube Shorts.[1][4][5][7] - **Teenage boys are a key exposure group**, because multiple studies and reports focus on male-identified or teenage accounts and show rapid escalation in harmful recommendations.[1][4][5] - **Engagement drives escalation**: viewing, liking, or lingering on related clips increases the likelihood of receiving more extreme content.[1][2][5] - **YouTube Shorts may optimize more aggressively** than conventional YouTube in response to user behavior, according to the DCU study.[1] If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence table** with columns for platform, sample, finding, and implication for safeguarding.

Recent research indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommender systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys and young men**, even when accounts do not initially seek it out.[1][4][5][7] The strongest 2024–2025 evidence in your results comes from studies and reports showing that short-form video algorithms can push users from benign “self-improvement” or gender-normative material toward more overtly anti-feminist, incel, and extremist content after only a small amount of engagement.[1][4][5]

The key findings are consistent across sources:

- A DCU study reported that male-identified accounts on **TikTok and YouTube Shorts** were fed masculinist and anti-feminist content regardless of whether they initially searched for it, and that once they watched such content, recommendations became more overtly misogynist and toxic.[1][5]
- The same DCU report said that by the end of the experiment, **“the vast majority”** of recommended content was toxic, with **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%** in the manosphere or related toxic categories.[1][5]
- UCL researchers found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days in an algorithmic modelling study, with recommendations shifting from themes like loneliness or self-improvement toward anger and blame directed at women.[4]
- A Monash analysis explains that this amplification happens because recommender systems are designed to **optimize engagement**, using machine-learning feedback loops that learn from users’ behavior and preferentially surface emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.[2]
- ISD reports that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations can promote misogynistic and extremist content to Australian boys and young men, reinforcing the concern that recommendation systems help move manosphere content into mainstream feeds.[7]

For your specific query, the most defensible 2024–2025 synthesis is:

- **Algorithmic amplification is real and documented** for manosphere content on TikTok and YouTube Shorts.[1][4][5][7]
- **Teenage boys are a key exposure group**, because multiple studies and reports focus on male-identified or teenage accounts and show rapid escalation in harmful recommendations.[1][4][5]
- **Engagement drives escalation**: viewing, liking, or lingering on related clips increases the likelihood of receiving more extreme content.[1][2][5]
- **YouTube Shorts may optimize more aggressively** than conventional YouTube in response to user behavior, according to the DCU study.[1]

If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence table** with columns for platform, sample, finding, and implication for safeguarding.

Recent research indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommender systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys and young men**, even when accounts do not initially seek it out.[1][4][5][7] The strongest 2024–2025 evidence in your results comes from studies and reports showing that short-form video algorithms can push users from benign “self-improvement” or gender-normative material toward more overtly anti-feminist, incel, and extremist content after only a small amount of engagement.[1][4][5] The key findings are consistent across sources: - A DCU study reported that male-identified accounts on **TikTok and YouTube Shorts** were fed masculinist and anti-feminist content regardless of whether they initially searched for it, and that once they watched such content, recommendations became more overtly misogynist and toxic.[1][5] - The same DCU report said that by the end of the experiment, **“the vast majority”** of recommended content was toxic, with **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%** in the manosphere or related toxic categories.[1][5] - UCL researchers found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days in an algorithmic modelling study, with recommendations shifting from themes like loneliness or self-improvement toward anger and blame directed at women.[4] - A Monash analysis explains that this amplification happens because recommender systems are designed to **optimize engagement**, using machine-learning feedback loops that learn from users’ behavior and preferentially surface emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.[2] - ISD reports that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations can promote misogynistic and extremist content to Australian boys and young men, reinforcing the concern that recommendation systems help move manosphere content into mainstream feeds.[7] For your specific query, the most defensible 2024–2025 synthesis is: - **Algorithmic amplification is real and documented** for manosphere content on TikTok and YouTube Shorts.[1][4][5][7] - **Teenage boys are a key exposure group**, because multiple studies and reports focus on male-identified or teenage accounts and show rapid escalation in harmful recommendations.[1][4][5] - **Engagement drives escalation**: viewing, liking, or lingering on related clips increases the likelihood of receiving more extreme content.[1][2][5] - **YouTube Shorts may optimize more aggressively** than conventional YouTube in response to user behavior, according to the DCU study.[1] If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence table** with columns for platform, sample, finding, and implication for safeguarding.

Recent research indicates that **TikTok and YouTube Shorts recommender systems can rapidly amplify manosphere, misogynistic, and male-supremacist content to teenage boys and young men**, even when accounts do not initially seek it out.[1][4][5][7] The strongest 2024–2025 evidence in your results comes from studies and reports showing that short-form video algorithms can push users from benign “self-improvement” or gender-normative material toward more overtly anti-feminist, incel, and extremist content after only a small amount of engagement.[1][4][5]

The key findings are consistent across sources:

- A DCU study reported that male-identified accounts on **TikTok and YouTube Shorts** were fed masculinist and anti-feminist content regardless of whether they initially searched for it, and that once they watched such content, recommendations became more overtly misogynist and toxic.[1][5]
- The same DCU report said that by the end of the experiment, **“the vast majority”** of recommended content was toxic, with **TikTok 76%** and **YouTube Shorts 78%** in the manosphere or related toxic categories.[1][5]
- UCL researchers found a **fourfold increase** in misogynistic content on TikTok’s “For You” page over five days in an algorithmic modelling study, with recommendations shifting from themes like loneliness or self-improvement toward anger and blame directed at women.[4]
- A Monash analysis explains that this amplification happens because recommender systems are designed to **optimize engagement**, using machine-learning feedback loops that learn from users’ behavior and preferentially surface emotionally charged, novel, or controversial content.[2]
- ISD reports that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations can promote misogynistic and extremist content to Australian boys and young men, reinforcing the concern that recommendation systems help move manosphere content into mainstream feeds.[7]

For your specific query, the most defensible 2024–2025 synthesis is:

- **Algorithmic amplification is real and documented** for manosphere content on TikTok and YouTube Shorts.[1][4][5][7]
- **Teenage boys are a key exposure group**, because multiple studies and reports focus on male-identified or teenage accounts and show rapid escalation in harmful recommendations.[1][4][5]
- **Engagement drives escalation**: viewing, liking, or lingering on related clips increases the likelihood of receiving more extreme content.[1][2][5]
- **YouTube Shorts may optimize more aggressively** than conventional YouTube in response to user behavior, according to the DCU study.[1]

If you want, I can turn this into a **2024–2026 evidence table** with columns for platform, sample, finding, and implication for safeguarding.

Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ... Click here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds.

Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ...
Click
here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds.

Bevor Sie zu YouTube weitergehen Wir verwenden Cookies und Daten, um - Google-Dienste zu erbringen und zu betreiben - Ausfälle zu prüfen und Maßnahmen gegen Spam, Betrug und Missbrauch zu ergreifen - Zielgruppeninteraktionen zu messen und Websitestatistiken zu erhalten, damit wir verstehen, wie unsere Dienste verwendet werden, und die Qualität dieser Dienste verbessern können Wenn Sie „Alle akzeptieren“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten auch, um - neue Dienste zu entwickeln und zu verbessern - Werbung auszuliefern und ihre Effektivität zu messen - je nach Ihren Einstellungen personalisierte Inhalte anzuzeigen - personalisierte Werbung anzuzeigen, abhängig von Ihren Einstellungen Wenn Sie „Alle ablehnen“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies nicht für diese zusätzlichen Zwecke. Nicht personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung werden u. a. von Inhalten, die Sie sich gerade ansehen, und Ihrem Standort beeinflusst (welche Werbung Sie sehen, basiert auf Ihrem ungefähren Standort). Personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung können auch Videoempfehlungen, eine individuelle YouTube-Startseite und individuelle Werbung enthalten, die auf früheren Aktivitäten wie auf YouTube angesehenen Videos und Suchanfragen auf YouTube beruhen. Sofern relevant, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten außerdem, um Inhalte und Werbung altersgerecht zu gestalten. Wählen Sie „Weitere Optionen“ aus, um sich zusätzliche Informationen anzusehen, einschließlich Details zum Verwalten Ihrer Datenschutzeinstellungen. Sie können auch jederzeit g.co/privacytools besuchen.

Bevor Sie zu YouTube weitergehen
Wir verwenden Cookies und Daten, um
- Google-Dienste zu erbringen und zu betreiben
- Ausfälle zu prüfen und Maßnahmen gegen Spam, Betrug und Missbrauch zu ergreifen
- Zielgruppeninteraktionen zu messen und Websitestatistiken zu erhalten, damit wir verstehen, wie unsere Dienste verwendet werden, und die Qualität dieser Dienste verbessern können
Wenn Sie „Alle akzeptieren“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten auch, um
- neue Dienste zu entwickeln und zu verbessern
- Werbung auszuliefern und ihre Effektivität zu messen
- je nach Ihren Einstellungen personalisierte Inhalte anzuzeigen
- personalisierte Werbung anzuzeigen, abhängig von Ihren Einstellungen
Wenn Sie „Alle ablehnen“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies nicht für diese zusätzlichen Zwecke.
Nicht personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung werden u. a. von Inhalten, die Sie sich gerade ansehen, und Ihrem Standort beeinflusst (welche Werbung Sie sehen, basiert auf Ihrem ungefähren Standort). Personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung können auch Videoempfehlungen, eine individuelle YouTube-Startseite und individuelle Werbung enthalten, die auf früheren Aktivitäten wie auf YouTube angesehenen Videos und Suchanfragen auf YouTube beruhen. Sofern relevant, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten außerdem, um Inhalte und Werbung altersgerecht zu gestalten.
Wählen Sie „Weitere Optionen“ aus, um sich zusätzliche Informationen anzusehen, einschließlich Details zum Verwalten Ihrer Datenschutzeinstellungen. Sie können auch jederzeit g.co/privacytools besuchen.

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

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.

Sir Gareth Southgate has warned “callous, manipulative and toxic” online influencers have led a to “crisis” facing a generation of young men. The former England manager highlighted the dangers of social media and discussed his experiences in football as he delivered the Richard Dimbleby Lecture. Southgate’s address, titled ‘The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation', highlighted the importance of role models but said young men are “suffering” in the age of social media. And Southgate, who led England to the finals of two European Championships and the semi-finals of the World Cup, said the current generation of young men need to be saved from a particular type of influencer. “As real-world communities and mentorship declines, young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk or express their emotions,” Southgate said at the University of London. “They spend more time online searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives like gaming, gambling and pornography. And this void is filled by a new kind of role model who does 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.” Southgate, 54, followed famous authors, actors, entrepreneurs in delivering the 46th Richard Dimbleby Lecture. He said he had spent time visiting community centres, schools and a prison since stepping down following England’s defeat to Spain in the Euro 2024 final last summer. The former defender spoke about the importance of “belief and resilience” and used his missed penalty against Germany at Euro 96 as an example of how he had grown from difficult experiences. Southgate transformed the culture of the England team after taking charge in 2016 and he said encouraging his players to be open with their emotions and feelings created strong bonds and connections in the team. He said the absence of real-life role models and father figures has left young men struggling with their sense of masculinity and that social media is creating additional pressures. "Today, young people are bombarded by information at all times of the day,” Southgate said. “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. "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 Richard Dimbleby Lecture with Sir Gareth Southgate is available now on BBC iPlayer and on BBC One at 10:40pm on Wednesday 19 March.

Sir Gareth Southgate has warned “callous, manipulative and toxic” online influencers have led a to “crisis” facing a generation of young men.
The former England manager highlighted the dangers of social media and discussed his experiences in football as he delivered the Richard Dimbleby Lecture.
Southgate’s address, titled ‘The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation', highlighted the importance of role models but said young men are “suffering” in the age of social media.
And Southgate, who led England to the finals of two European Championships and the semi-finals of the World Cup, said the current generation of young men need to be saved from a particular type of influencer.
“As real-world communities and mentorship declines, young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk or express their emotions,” Southgate said at the University of London.
“They spend more time online searching for direction and are falling into unhealthy alternatives like gaming, gambling and pornography. And this void is filled by a new kind of role model who does 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.”
Southgate, 54, followed famous authors, actors, entrepreneurs in delivering the 46th Richard Dimbleby Lecture. He said he had spent time visiting community centres, schools and a prison since stepping down following England’s defeat to Spain in the Euro 2024 final last summer.
The former defender spoke about the importance of “belief and resilience” and used his missed penalty against Germany at Euro 96 as an example of how he had grown from difficult experiences.
Southgate transformed the culture of the England team after taking charge in 2016 and he said encouraging his players to be open with their emotions and feelings created strong bonds and connections in the team.
He said the absence of real-life role models and father figures has left young men struggling with their sense of masculinity and that social media is creating additional pressures.
"Today, young people are bombarded by information at all times of the day,” Southgate said. “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.
"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 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 recent heartfelt plea on behalf of young men in his Richard Dimbleby Lecture paints a sorrowful picture. Young men, the former England manager suggested, are isolated and withdrawn. They are seduced by gaming, pornography, and gambling, and are prey to “callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”. As they grapple with masculinity itself and their “broader place” in society, as well as the decline of real-world communities and mentors, Southgate claimed that young men need not only better role models but different measures of success. Real success, Southgate says, is the ability to look back and say: “I gave my best, I stayed true to myself, and I made a difference.” All very nice, but he needs to go much deeper than these lifestyle-tier platitudes. There’s no “self” to be true to without values, and values are relational and social: for young men to flourish, they need a world in which masculinity itself is tied to the good, and where being a good son, brother, husband, friend, worker and father is both possible and encouraged. As for the problem of influencers, Southgate, like the recent hit show Adolescence, over-eggs it. Most masculinist influencers promote objectively healthy behaviour, such as staying fit, eating well and starting a family — Andrew Tate is an outlier even in the “manosphere”. Recent Tate posts on X include jokes about crimes he and his brother stand accused of: “I am sick and tired of every hot girl in the world coming up to me begging to be human trafficked I HAVE RETIRED!!!!!!!!!!” Most men do not wish to be (alleged) human traffickers, nor pimps, nor possess a harem. One pleasant woman with the possibility of a family will be more than sufficient. Southgate is correct, of course, that character matters a great deal, but what matters more than silly men making money from unpleasant videos online is the context in which concepts such as “character” make sense. The ancient Greeks, for example, thought of character as an imprint on the soul, a kind of social training. In a country where almost one in five (and in the States, one in four) children grow up without a father at home, how are young men to develop the moral and social character they need to be good men? Coupled with an economy that values service and post-industrial labour, and gives jobs to whoever can be paid the least, not to mention a culture which treats young white men as abject, it’s not surprising that some retreat into virtual or fantasy worlds in which they are not painted as the source of all evil. For good character to make sense, there would have to be meaningful roles for young men in the real world. There is little point in striving to improve if there is no work, no recognition, and little hope of marriage and a family. Character-formation is a social and material process, not a one-off decision or an identity. Liberal individualism, and the sexual revolution in particular, promoted selfishness over duty, desire over fidelity, and pretended that men and women were far more alike than they actually ever could be. The cad — the man for whom consequences were irrelevant — triumphed, but at great cost to sons, daughters and wives everywhere. Many young men know this, and are seeking — in increasing numbers, through church attendance, self-discipline and a refusal to emulate the worst excesses of postwar culture — to avoid the traps and lures of a hedonic life. Young men, like all of us, will make mistakes, and Southgate is right that not everyone will be a winner according to worldly values, but blaming social influencers is shallow when the rot goes much deeper. Restoring dignity to masculinity requires, among other things, positively revaluing fatherhood and celebrating virtue. Character can only flourish in a context in which there is meaning, social roles, recognition — and a future for young men beyond being the object of scorn.

Gareth Southgate’s recent heartfelt plea on behalf of young men in his Richard Dimbleby Lecture paints a sorrowful picture. Young men, the former England manager suggested, are isolated and withdrawn. They are seduced by gaming, pornography, and gambling, and are prey to “callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”.
As they grapple with masculinity itself and their “broader place” in society, as well as the decline of real-world communities and mentors, Southgate claimed that young men need not only better role models but different measures of success. Real success, Southgate says, is the ability to look back and say: “I gave my best, I stayed true to myself, and I made a difference.” All very nice, but he needs to go much deeper than these lifestyle-tier platitudes. There’s no “self” to be true to without values, and values are relational and social: for young men to flourish, they need a world in which masculinity itself is tied to the good, and where being a good son, brother, husband, friend, worker and father is both possible and encouraged.
As for the problem of influencers, Southgate, like the recent hit show Adolescence, over-eggs it. Most masculinist influencers promote objectively healthy behaviour, such as staying fit, eating well and starting a family — Andrew Tate is an outlier even in the “manosphere”. Recent Tate posts on X include jokes about crimes he and his brother stand accused of: “I am sick and tired of every hot girl in the world coming up to me begging to be human trafficked I HAVE RETIRED!!!!!!!!!!” Most men do not wish to be (alleged) human traffickers, nor pimps, nor possess a harem. One pleasant woman with the possibility of a family will be more than sufficient.
Southgate is correct, of course, that character matters a great deal, but what matters more than silly men making money from unpleasant videos online is the context in which concepts such as “character” make sense. The ancient Greeks, for example, thought of character as an imprint on the soul, a kind of social training. In a country where almost one in five (and in the States, one in four) children grow up without a father at home, how are young men to develop the moral and social character they need to be good men?
Coupled with an economy that values service and post-industrial labour, and gives jobs to whoever can be paid the least, not to mention a culture which treats young white men as abject, it’s not surprising that some retreat into virtual or fantasy worlds in which they are not painted as the source of all evil. For good character to make sense, there would have to be meaningful roles for young men in the real world. There is little point in striving to improve if there is no work, no recognition, and little hope of marriage and a family. Character-formation is a social and material process, not a one-off decision or an identity.
Liberal individualism, and the sexual revolution in particular, promoted selfishness over duty, desire over fidelity, and pretended that men and women were far more alike than they actually ever could be. The cad — the man for whom consequences were irrelevant — triumphed, but at great cost to sons, daughters and wives everywhere. Many young men know this, and are seeking — in increasing numbers, through church attendance, self-discipline and a refusal to emulate the worst excesses of postwar culture — to avoid the traps and lures of a hedonic life.
Young men, like all of us, will make mistakes, and Southgate is right that not everyone will be a winner according to worldly values, but blaming social influencers is shallow when the rot goes much deeper. Restoring dignity to masculinity requires, among other things, positively revaluing fatherhood and celebrating virtue. Character can only flourish in a context in which there is meaning, social roles, recognition — and a future for young men beyond being the object of scorn.

Sir Gareth Southgate’s **2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture** argued that many **young men and boys** are struggling with **isolation, masculinity, and online influence**, and that they need **positive role models**, **mentors**, and healthier ideas of **leadership** and success.[2][10] Southgate said that as **real-world communities and mentorship decline**, young men can withdraw and look online for direction, where “**callous, manipulative and toxic**” influencers may fill the gap.[2] He warned that these influencers teach boys that success is about “**money or dominance**,” “**never showing emotion**,” and seeing “**the world, including women, is against them**.”[2] A central theme of the lecture was that boys need **better male role models** beyond celebrity culture or social media, including **coaches, teachers, youth workers, and fathers**.[1][2] Southgate also linked this to leadership by saying that good teams and communities are built through **openness, communication, and expressing difficult feelings**, not emotional suppression.[1][2] The lecture was titled **“The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation”** and used Southgate’s own experience, including his missed penalty at Euro 96, to show how people can grow from setback and build **belief** and **resilience**.[2] If you want, I can also turn this into: - a **1-paragraph summary** for a briefing note - **key quotes** from the lecture - a **child safeguarding analysis** of the lecture’s implications for boys and online radicalization

Sir Gareth Southgate’s **2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture** argued that many **young men and boys** are struggling with **isolation, masculinity, and online influence**, and that they need **positive role models**, **mentors**, and healthier ideas of **leadership** and success.[2][10]

Southgate said that as **real-world communities and mentorship decline**, young men can withdraw and look online for direction, where “**callous, manipulative and toxic**” influencers may fill the gap.[2] He warned that these influencers teach boys that success is about “**money or dominance**,” “**never showing emotion**,” and seeing “**the world, including women, is against them**.”[2]

A central theme of the lecture was that boys need **better male role models** beyond celebrity culture or social media, including **coaches, teachers, youth workers, and fathers**.[1][2] Southgate also linked this to leadership by saying that good teams and communities are built through **openness, communication, and expressing difficult feelings**, not emotional suppression.[1][2]

The lecture was titled **“The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation”** and used Southgate’s own experience, including his missed penalty at Euro 96, to show how people can grow from setback and build **belief** and **resilience**.[2]

If you want, I can also turn this into:
- a **1-paragraph summary** for a briefing note
- **key quotes** from the lecture
- a **child safeguarding analysis** of the lecture’s implications for boys and online radicalization

We’d love to show you around a local Youth Zone, allowing you to see for yourself the impact that these centres make. Simply fill in your details below and a member of the team will be in touch to arrange a visit. Take a Virtual Tour– as our CEO Jamie calls for more positive real life spaces and youth workers to address toxic masculinity. Sir Gareth Southgate has cautioned against the “callous, manipulative, toxic” influencers preying on young men online – and praised OnSide Youth Zones in his Dimbleby Lecture recorded for the BBC which aired last night. In his talk, the former England football manager explored the importance of building resilience; ensuring that young men have strong role models; and why as a society, we must provide safe, real life spaces for all young people to flourish and grow. Ahead of the talk, Southgate visited our Mahdlo Youth Zone in Oldham. Making reference to the visit in his speech he said: “I went to a brilliant community centre, one of OnSide’s [Youth] Zones a couple of weeks ago and I saw children from all backgrounds playing, talking, and having fun. I don’t believe that young people just want to be on mobile devices or online. If we can create the right environments for them they will still want to go and play, and that might be a very important message.” Sir Gareth’s call to arms comes as the Netflix drama Adolescence, which focuses on similar themes, becomes the streaming service’s most-watched show in 70 countries. Commenting on the Dimbleby lecture, and toxic masculinity more broadly, Jamie Masraff, OnSide CEO said “Netflix’s Adolescence gives a powerful glimpse into the challenges young men face today, from isolation to the pull of online toxic masculinity culture. But sadly, this isn’t fiction. OnSide’s Generation Isolation 2024 research shows young people are spending more time than ever alone and online, disconnected from real-world support. “As Sir Gareth Southgate highlighted so powerfully in his Dimbleby Lecture last night, young men need stronger connections, purpose, and positive role models, and youth work is an untapped solution. Youth workers play a vital role as trusted mentors, helping young men build confidence, belonging, and healthy identities and offering the kind of guidance algorithms never will. In a world where toxic communities are just a click away, we urgently need more positive offline spaces, youth workers, and more real-life role models for young men to turn to. Youth centres offer all of this and more” To watch the Dimbleby lecture back visit https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00293l5/the-richard-dimbleby-lecture-sir-gareth-southgate

We’d love to show you around a local Youth Zone, allowing you to see for yourself the impact that these centres make. Simply fill in your details below and a member of the team will be in touch to arrange a visit.
Take a Virtual Tour– as our CEO Jamie calls for more positive real life spaces and youth workers to address toxic masculinity.
Sir Gareth Southgate has cautioned against the “callous, manipulative, toxic” influencers preying on young men online – and praised OnSide Youth Zones in his Dimbleby Lecture recorded for the BBC which aired last night.
In his talk, the former England football manager explored the importance of building resilience; ensuring that young men have strong role models; and why as a society, we must provide safe, real life spaces for all young people to flourish and grow.
Ahead of the talk, Southgate visited our Mahdlo Youth Zone in Oldham. Making reference to the visit in his speech he said: “I went to a brilliant community centre, one of OnSide’s [Youth] Zones a couple of weeks ago and I saw children from all backgrounds playing, talking, and having fun. I don’t believe that young people just want to be on mobile devices or online. If we can create the right environments for them they will still want to go and play, and that might be a very important message.”
Sir Gareth’s call to arms comes as the Netflix drama Adolescence, which focuses on similar themes, becomes the streaming service’s most-watched show in 70 countries.
Commenting on the Dimbleby lecture, and toxic masculinity more broadly, Jamie Masraff, OnSide CEO said “Netflix’s Adolescence gives a powerful glimpse into the challenges young men face today, from isolation to the pull of online toxic masculinity culture. But sadly, this isn’t fiction. OnSide’s Generation Isolation 2024 research shows young people are spending more time than ever alone and online, disconnected from real-world support.
“As Sir Gareth Southgate highlighted so powerfully in his Dimbleby Lecture last night, young men need stronger connections, purpose, and positive role models, and youth work is an untapped solution. Youth workers play a vital role as trusted mentors, helping young men build confidence, belonging, and healthy identities and offering the kind of guidance algorithms never will. In a world where toxic communities are just a click away, we urgently need more positive offline spaces, youth workers, and more real-life role models for young men to turn to. Youth centres offer all of this and more”
To watch the Dimbleby lecture back visit https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00293l5/the-richard-dimbleby-lecture-sir-gareth-southgate

Sir Gareth Southgate’s **2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture** argued that many **young men and boys** are struggling with **isolation, masculinity, and online influence**, and that they need **positive role models**, **mentors**, and healthier ideas of **leadership** and success.[2][10] Southgate said that as **real-world communities and mentorship decline**, young men can withdraw and look online for direction, where “**callous, manipulative and toxic**” influencers may fill the gap.[2] He warned that these influencers teach boys that success is about “**money or dominance**,” “**never showing emotion**,” and seeing “**the world, including women, is against them**.”[2] A central theme of the lecture was that boys need **better male role models** beyond celebrity culture or social media, including **coaches, teachers, youth workers, and fathers**.[1][2] Southgate also linked this to leadership by saying that good teams and communities are built through **openness, communication, and expressing difficult feelings**, not emotional suppression.[1][2] The lecture was titled **“The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation”** and used Southgate’s own experience, including his missed penalty at Euro 96, to show how people can grow from setback and build **belief** and **resilience**.[2] If you want, I can also turn this into: - a **1-paragraph summary** for a briefing note - **key quotes** from the lecture - a **child safeguarding analysis** of the lecture’s implications for boys and online radicalization

Sir Gareth Southgate’s **2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture** argued that many **young men and boys** are struggling with **isolation, masculinity, and online influence**, and that they need **positive role models**, **mentors**, and healthier ideas of **leadership** and success.[2][10]

Southgate said that as **real-world communities and mentorship decline**, young men can withdraw and look online for direction, where “**callous, manipulative and toxic**” influencers may fill the gap.[2] He warned that these influencers teach boys that success is about “**money or dominance**,” “**never showing emotion**,” and seeing “**the world, including women, is against them**.”[2]

A central theme of the lecture was that boys need **better male role models** beyond celebrity culture or social media, including **coaches, teachers, youth workers, and fathers**.[1][2] Southgate also linked this to leadership by saying that good teams and communities are built through **openness, communication, and expressing difficult feelings**, not emotional suppression.[1][2]

The lecture was titled **“The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation”** and used Southgate’s own experience, including his missed penalty at Euro 96, to show how people can grow from setback and build **belief** and **resilience**.[2]

If you want, I can also turn this into:
- a **1-paragraph summary** for a briefing note
- **key quotes** from the lecture
- a **child safeguarding analysis** of the lecture’s implications for boys and online radicalization

Sir Gareth Southgate’s **2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture** argued that many **young men and boys** are struggling with **isolation, masculinity, and online influence**, and that they need **positive role models**, **mentors**, and healthier ideas of **leadership** and success.[2][10] Southgate said that as **real-world communities and mentorship decline**, young men can withdraw and look online for direction, where “**callous, manipulative and toxic**” influencers may fill the gap.[2] He warned that these influencers teach boys that success is about “**money or dominance**,” “**never showing emotion**,” and seeing “**the world, including women, is against them**.”[2] A central theme of the lecture was that boys need **better male role models** beyond celebrity culture or social media, including **coaches, teachers, youth workers, and fathers**.[1][2] Southgate also linked this to leadership by saying that good teams and communities are built through **openness, communication, and expressing difficult feelings**, not emotional suppression.[1][2] The lecture was titled **“The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation”** and used Southgate’s own experience, including his missed penalty at Euro 96, to show how people can grow from setback and build **belief** and **resilience**.[2] If you want, I can also turn this into: - a **1-paragraph summary** for a briefing note - **key quotes** from the lecture - a **child safeguarding analysis** of the lecture’s implications for boys and online radicalization

Sir Gareth Southgate’s **2024 Richard Dimbleby Lecture** argued that many **young men and boys** are struggling with **isolation, masculinity, and online influence**, and that they need **positive role models**, **mentors**, and healthier ideas of **leadership** and success.[2][10]

Southgate said that as **real-world communities and mentorship decline**, young men can withdraw and look online for direction, where “**callous, manipulative and toxic**” influencers may fill the gap.[2] He warned that these influencers teach boys that success is about “**money or dominance**,” “**never showing emotion**,” and seeing “**the world, including women, is against them**.”[2]

A central theme of the lecture was that boys need **better male role models** beyond celebrity culture or social media, including **coaches, teachers, youth workers, and fathers**.[1][2] Southgate also linked this to leadership by saying that good teams and communities are built through **openness, communication, and expressing difficult feelings**, not emotional suppression.[1][2]

The lecture was titled **“The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation”** and used Southgate’s own experience, including his missed penalty at Euro 96, to show how people can grow from setback and build **belief** and **resilience**.[2]

If you want, I can also turn this into:
- a **1-paragraph summary** for a briefing note
- **key quotes** from the lecture
- a **child safeguarding analysis** of the lecture’s implications for boys and online radicalization

I haven’t spoken much publicly since stepping down as England Manager in July 2024. But when I was invited by the BBC to deliver the 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture, it felt like an opportunity to step up and step out of my comfort zone. That’s because, since 1972, the Lecture has been delivered by some of the most illustrious names in history. Bill Gates, Sir Tim Berners Lee, Dame Sarah Gilbert, Christine Lagarde, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles, before he was King, are all past speakers. And they’ve tackled some of the most important issues facing our nation today. It was a bold selection to choose a former England Manager to be the 46th! I was determined to use this unique platform to move away from football, and discuss a range of topics I’m passionate about. Specifically, leadership, resilience, belief, especially around our young people. I spent months travelling the length and breadth of the country, visiting schools, businesses, community centres, military academies, sports facilities and even a prison. In all those interactions, there’s one topic that keeps being brought to my attention. Young men are struggling and falling behind. And whilst I care deeply and equally about the plight of young women, it was women themselves who urged me to explore what was happening with young men. I’ve developed young men all my life and there are a host of learnings from football that can be applied to life. I hope you enjoy watching and if you’d prefer to read the full transcript, I’ll be sharing that later. Thank you. 'The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation', is now available on BBC iPlayer: https://lnkd.in/dN-JkEbX and will be broadcast on BBC1 at 22.40 GMT

I haven’t spoken much publicly since stepping down as England Manager in July 2024. But when I was invited by the BBC to deliver the 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture, it felt like an opportunity to step up and step out of my comfort zone. That’s because, since 1972, the Lecture has been delivered by some of the most illustrious names in history. Bill Gates, Sir Tim Berners Lee, Dame Sarah Gilbert, Christine Lagarde, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles, before he was King, are all past speakers. And they’ve tackled some of the most important issues facing our nation today. It was a bold selection to choose a former England Manager to be the 46th! I was determined to use this unique platform to move away from football, and discuss a range of topics I’m passionate about. Specifically, leadership, resilience, belief, especially around our young people. I spent months travelling the length and breadth of the country, visiting schools, businesses, community centres, military academies, sports facilities and even a prison. In all those interactions, there’s one topic that keeps being brought to my attention. Young men are struggling and falling behind. And whilst I care deeply and equally about the plight of young women, it was women themselves who urged me to explore what was happening with young men. I’ve developed young men all my life and there are a host of learnings from football that can be applied to life. I hope you enjoy watching and if you’d prefer to read the full transcript, I’ll be sharing that later. Thank you. 'The Beautiful Game: Building Belief and Resilience in a Younger Generation', is now available on BBC iPlayer: https://lnkd.in/dN-JkEbX and will be broadcast on BBC1 at 22.40 GMT

Bevor Sie zu YouTube weitergehen Wir verwenden Cookies und Daten, um - Google-Dienste zu erbringen und zu betreiben - Ausfälle zu prüfen und Maßnahmen gegen Spam, Betrug und Missbrauch zu ergreifen - Zielgruppeninteraktionen zu messen und Websitestatistiken zu erhalten, damit wir verstehen, wie unsere Dienste verwendet werden, und die Qualität dieser Dienste verbessern können Wenn Sie „Alle akzeptieren“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten auch, um - neue Dienste zu entwickeln und zu verbessern - Werbung auszuliefern und ihre Effektivität zu messen - je nach Ihren Einstellungen personalisierte Inhalte anzuzeigen - personalisierte Werbung anzuzeigen, abhängig von Ihren Einstellungen Wenn Sie „Alle ablehnen“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies nicht für diese zusätzlichen Zwecke. Nicht personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung werden u. a. von Inhalten, die Sie sich gerade ansehen, und Ihrem Standort beeinflusst (welche Werbung Sie sehen, basiert auf Ihrem ungefähren Standort). Personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung können auch Videoempfehlungen, eine individuelle YouTube-Startseite und individuelle Werbung enthalten, die auf früheren Aktivitäten wie auf YouTube angesehenen Videos und Suchanfragen auf YouTube beruhen. Sofern relevant, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten außerdem, um Inhalte und Werbung altersgerecht zu gestalten. Wählen Sie „Weitere Optionen“ aus, um sich zusätzliche Informationen anzusehen, einschließlich Details zum Verwalten Ihrer Datenschutzeinstellungen. Sie können auch jederzeit g.co/privacytools besuchen.

Bevor Sie zu YouTube weitergehen
Wir verwenden Cookies und Daten, um
- Google-Dienste zu erbringen und zu betreiben
- Ausfälle zu prüfen und Maßnahmen gegen Spam, Betrug und Missbrauch zu ergreifen
- Zielgruppeninteraktionen zu messen und Websitestatistiken zu erhalten, damit wir verstehen, wie unsere Dienste verwendet werden, und die Qualität dieser Dienste verbessern können
Wenn Sie „Alle akzeptieren“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten auch, um
- neue Dienste zu entwickeln und zu verbessern
- Werbung auszuliefern und ihre Effektivität zu messen
- je nach Ihren Einstellungen personalisierte Inhalte anzuzeigen
- personalisierte Werbung anzuzeigen, abhängig von Ihren Einstellungen
Wenn Sie „Alle ablehnen“ auswählen, verwenden wir Cookies nicht für diese zusätzlichen Zwecke.
Nicht personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung werden u. a. von Inhalten, die Sie sich gerade ansehen, und Ihrem Standort beeinflusst (welche Werbung Sie sehen, basiert auf Ihrem ungefähren Standort). Personalisierte Inhalte und Werbung können auch Videoempfehlungen, eine individuelle YouTube-Startseite und individuelle Werbung enthalten, die auf früheren Aktivitäten wie auf YouTube angesehenen Videos und Suchanfragen auf YouTube beruhen. Sofern relevant, verwenden wir Cookies und Daten außerdem, um Inhalte und Werbung altersgerecht zu gestalten.
Wählen Sie „Weitere Optionen“ aus, um sich zusätzliche Informationen anzusehen, einschließlich Details zum Verwalten Ihrer Datenschutzeinstellungen. Sie können auch jederzeit g.co/privacytools besuchen.

Former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate reflects on his personal journey as a leader and the importance of belief and resilience. Former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate delivers the 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture. Gareth reflects on his personal journey, what he has lived through and what he has learned as a leader. He will explore the concept of belief, examine the power of unity and highlight the importance of resilience, especially for young people in a fast-changing and challenging world. Following the lecture, there will be a Q&A with the invited audience, providing further insight into Gareth’s perspective on leadership, how he transformed the culture of the national team and the importance of inclusivity and integrity. Introduced by David Dimbleby from Senate House at the University of London.

Former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate reflects on his personal journey as a leader and the importance of belief and resilience.
Former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate delivers the 2025 Richard Dimbleby Lecture. Gareth reflects on his personal journey, what he has lived through and what he has learned as a leader. He will explore the concept of belief, examine the power of unity and highlight the importance of resilience, especially for young people in a fast-changing and challenging world.
Following the lecture, there will be a Q&A with the invited audience, providing further insight into Gareth’s perspective on leadership, how he transformed the culture of the national team and the importance of inclusivity and integrity.
Introduced by David Dimbleby from Senate House at the University of London.

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

Misogyny and gender bias in schools is growing at a concerning rate. A 2024 BBC News survey revealed nearly 40% of secondary school teachers in the United Kingdom witnessed at least one incident of misogynistic behavior by a pupil within a single week — and one in 10 observed more than three. Additionally, more than 60% of long-time educators said such behavior has increased since they began teaching. Educators across the world echo this experience — young boys parroting violent rhetoric and girls growing increasingly fearful of their male classmates. But what is responsible for this uptick in vitriol? Experts attribute much of this shift to the rise of the sprawling “manosphere” — a digital ecosystem that promotes male victimhood narratives, anti-feminism and hatred towards women. Within this network, influencers like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate act as pseudo-intellectual role models, twisting gender equality into an attack on masculinity while monetizing male vulnerability. The most prominent groups in the manosphere include incels, Men’s Rights Activists, pick-up artists and Men Going Their Own Way. Each subsection is complete with their own unique rhetoric, lexicon and methods of indoctrination. Many also share a clear ideological and recruitment overlap with white-supremacist and far-right extremist networks. This ideology spreads most efficiently through social media platforms like TikTok, Youtube and Instagram — where algorithms reward inflammatory content through gamified systems. Harmful rhetoric is often masqueraded as a “joke,” allowing misogyny to advance under the guise of irony. The Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at the Southern Poverty Law Center warns this kind of humor can “desensitize, dehumanize, normalize and legitimize hate.” As a result, misogyny becomes both entertainment and a method of insider-signaling. A poll by YouGov revealed that 27% of men aged 18 to 29 view Tate positively, and nearly a quarter agree with his views about women. It’s “ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate does it,” said one young male student in a 2023 study published in PLOS One. Research from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue discovered spikes in misogynistic language following the 2024 presidential election, including a 4,600% increase in phrases like “get in the kitchen” and “your body, my choice.” In an interview with ABC, a female teacher described how the classroom dynamic has shifted in recent years — recalling moments when male students told her to “f**k off” and called her other profane names. “Imagine standing in front of a class full of high school students and having that kind of abuse hurled at you,” she remarked. Indoctrination leading to radicalization by the manosphere is often a subtle, silent process. As one 22-year-old told BBC News, becoming radicalized as a teenager was “very easy.” Extremist groups offered a sense of belonging and identity in a time when he lacked direction. “I thought I was finding some sense of belonging,” the teenager said. “What I was actually being given was a very harmful and very radical set of political views, which is almost like the trade-off for belonging to these people.” The result of the manosphere is a generation of men manipulated into feeling disempowered, taught to direct their frustration towards women — rather than broader social or economic structures. Primary school girls are afraid to attend class in fear of being mocked or touched, while boys are mis-educated about sex, consent and relationships by influencers who promote control and dominance as signs of strength. For example, the pick-up artists community, or PUA, preach that women are targets meant to be “seduced” and promote strategies for obtaining sexual access such as choking and emotional manipulation. This dynamic lays a dangerous foundation for gender-based violence and long-term inequality. Despite all this, schools remain disappointedly unprepared. According to BBC, nearly half of teachers in the U.K. want clearer government-administered guidance on addressing misogyny, yet 40% say they aren’t even aware what the current policy is. Interventions that do exist primarily target “stranger danger” and misinformation — although most digital harm today comes from peer-to-peer ideology, not anonymous predators. Teachers overwhelmingly agree that online misogyny is one of the fastest-growing behavioral issues among their pupils, yet systemic responses are years behind. This isn’t an inevitable crisis. Prevention is entirely possible — but only through early and comprehensive education. PERIL’s 2024 report “Not Just a Joke” emphasizes the need for “whole-of-community,” approaches that promote inclusion and counter harmful stereotypes. Parents need to be talking to their kids about gender and identity before 10 when beliefs calcify. Schools must integrate social-emotional learning and comprehensive sexual education that affirm young people’s identities, teach consent, emphasize empathy and lead boys to spaces where they can discuss masculinity in trustworthy ways. This problem isn’t confined to being purely digital — it’s shaping the next generation’s behaviors, relationships and politics. The longer parents and educators overlook it, the more likely it is that the manosphere — not us — will define what children and teenagers believe about gender and respect.

Misogyny and gender bias in schools is growing at a concerning rate.
A 2024 BBC News survey revealed nearly 40% of secondary school teachers in the United Kingdom witnessed at least one incident of misogynistic behavior by a pupil within a single week — and one in 10 observed more than three. Additionally, more than 60% of long-time educators said such behavior has increased since they began teaching.
Educators across the world echo this experience — young boys parroting violent rhetoric and girls growing increasingly fearful of their male classmates. But what is responsible for this uptick in vitriol?
Experts attribute much of this shift to the rise of the sprawling “manosphere” — a digital ecosystem that promotes male victimhood narratives, anti-feminism and hatred towards women. Within this network, influencers like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate act as pseudo-intellectual role models, twisting gender equality into an attack on masculinity while monetizing male vulnerability.
The most prominent groups in the manosphere include incels, Men’s Rights Activists, pick-up artists and Men Going Their Own Way. Each subsection is complete with their own unique rhetoric, lexicon and methods of indoctrination. Many also share a clear ideological and recruitment overlap with white-supremacist and far-right extremist networks.
This ideology spreads most efficiently through social media platforms like TikTok, Youtube and Instagram — where algorithms reward inflammatory content through gamified systems.
Harmful rhetoric is often masqueraded as a “joke,” allowing misogyny to advance under the guise of irony. The Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at the Southern Poverty Law Center warns this kind of humor can “desensitize, dehumanize, normalize and legitimize hate.” As a result, misogyny becomes both entertainment and a method of insider-signaling.
A poll by YouGov revealed that 27% of men aged 18 to 29 view Tate positively, and nearly a quarter agree with his views about women. It’s “ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate does it,” said one young male student in a 2023 study published in PLOS One.
Research from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue discovered spikes in misogynistic language following the 2024 presidential election, including a 4,600% increase in phrases like “get in the kitchen” and “your body, my choice.”
In an interview with ABC, a female teacher described how the classroom dynamic has shifted in recent years — recalling moments when male students told her to “f**k off” and called her other profane names.
“Imagine standing in front of a class full of high school students and having that kind of abuse hurled at you,” she remarked.
Indoctrination leading to radicalization by the manosphere is often a subtle, silent process. As one 22-year-old told BBC News, becoming radicalized as a teenager was “very easy.” Extremist groups offered a sense of belonging and identity in a time when he lacked direction.
“I thought I was finding some sense of belonging,” the teenager said. “What I was actually being given was a very harmful and very radical set of political views, which is almost like the trade-off for belonging to these people.”
The result of the manosphere is a generation of men manipulated into feeling disempowered, taught to direct their frustration towards women — rather than broader social or economic structures.
Primary school girls are afraid to attend class in fear of being mocked or touched, while boys are mis-educated about sex, consent and relationships by influencers who promote control and dominance as signs of strength.
For example, the pick-up artists community, or PUA, preach that women are targets meant to be “seduced” and promote strategies for obtaining sexual access such as choking and emotional manipulation. This dynamic lays a dangerous foundation for gender-based violence and long-term inequality.
Despite all this, schools remain disappointedly unprepared.
According to BBC, nearly half of teachers in the U.K. want clearer government-administered guidance on addressing misogyny, yet 40% say they aren’t even aware what the current policy is. Interventions that do exist primarily target “stranger danger” and misinformation — although most digital harm today comes from peer-to-peer ideology, not anonymous predators.
Teachers overwhelmingly agree that online misogyny is one of the fastest-growing behavioral issues among their pupils, yet systemic responses are years behind.
This isn’t an inevitable crisis. Prevention is entirely possible — but only through early and comprehensive education. PERIL’s 2024 report “Not Just a Joke” emphasizes the need for “whole-of-community,” approaches that promote inclusion and counter harmful stereotypes.
Parents need to be talking to their kids about gender and identity before 10 when beliefs calcify. Schools must integrate social-emotional learning and comprehensive sexual education that affirm young people’s identities, teach consent, emphasize empathy and lead boys to spaces where they can discuss masculinity in trustworthy ways.
This problem isn’t confined to being purely digital — it’s shaping the next generation’s behaviors, relationships and politics. The longer parents and educators overlook it, the more likely it is that the manosphere — not us — will define what children and teenagers believe about gender and respect.

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ... Click here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds.

Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ...
Click
here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds.

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

Adolescence, the gripping Netflix drama, has stopped parents, teachers and parenting experts in their tracks. Suddenly everyone’s talking about toxic masculinity, the gender divide and whether there’s a crisis of modern boyhood. Female teachers and students report being sworn at, sexually harassed and physically threatened in schools by male students, due in part to the influence of Andrew Tate and others like him in the “manosphere”. Why do these “manfluencers” have such a big impact on our boys? And what can we do to guide them away from hateful, misogynistic and extremist beliefs of the “red pill community” that’s being fed to them by online algorithms? Dr Stephanie Wescott is a former teacher who has studied Andrew Tate’s and other influencers' impact on teens. She joins Bec Sparrow and a teacher who shares what’s going on in your child’s classroom. The advice provided in this podcast is general in nature and does not take into account your personal situation. If you require further advice specific to your needs, please consult a professional. - Guest: Dr Stephanie Wescott - Producers: Hannah Reich, Josie Sargent - Supervising Producer: Tamar Cranswick - Executive Producer: Alex Lollback - Sound design: Ann-Marie de Bettencor

Adolescence, the gripping Netflix drama, has stopped parents, teachers and parenting experts in their tracks. Suddenly everyone’s talking about toxic masculinity, the gender divide and whether there’s a crisis of modern boyhood.
Female teachers and students report being sworn at, sexually harassed and physically threatened in schools by male students, due in part to the influence of Andrew Tate and others like him in the “manosphere”.
Why do these “manfluencers” have such a big impact on our boys? And what can we do to guide them away from hateful, misogynistic and extremist beliefs of the “red pill community” that’s being fed to them by online algorithms?
Dr Stephanie Wescott is a former teacher who has studied Andrew Tate’s and other influencers' impact on teens. She joins Bec Sparrow and a teacher who shares what’s going on in your child’s classroom.
The advice provided in this podcast is general in nature and does not take into account your personal situation. If you require further advice specific to your needs, please consult a professional.
- Guest: Dr Stephanie Wescott
- Producers: Hannah Reich, Josie Sargent
- Supervising Producer: Tamar Cranswick
- Executive Producer: Alex Lollback
- Sound design: Ann-Marie de Bettencor

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10] Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026. --- ## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools - UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7] - A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8] - A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10] Research and sector reports converge on several points: - **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8] - **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7] - **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7] - **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10] --- ## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026) From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported: 1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons** - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8] - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6] 2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship** - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2] - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7] 3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities** - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10] - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8] 4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing** - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8] --- ## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10 While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures. - **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content** - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6] - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1] - **Staff training and scripts** - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8] - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8] - **Consistent response to “banter”** - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8] - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8] - **Student leadership and peer norms** - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8] --- ## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10 Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research. ### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5] For Year 9–10: - **Starter mapping task** - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10] - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6] - **Define key concepts** - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10] - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8] ### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7] For Year 9–10: - **Algorithm and engagement lesson** - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10] - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask: - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why? - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10]

There is now emerging evidence (2023–2025) that **explicit, structured school interventions** can reduce the influence of Andrew Tate/manosphere content on adolescents when they combine: critical media literacy, gender‑equality education, whole‑school policy, and space for boys to talk about masculinity and vulnerability.[7][8][10] For Year 9–10 specifically, research recommends **dialogue‑based, rights‑based, and peer‑norm–focused classroom strategies**, rather than one‑off assemblies or purely punitive approaches.[7][8][9][10]

Below is a synthesis of current evidence and practical classroom strategies you can use from 2024–2026.

---

## 1. What the evidence says about Tate/manosphere influence in schools

- UK parliamentary evidence notes that male influencers in the **“manosphere”, including Andrew Tate, have “fostered a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  
- A 2024–2025 qualitative study on online misogyny in schools reports that teachers see **“the influence of online misogynistic content on boys’ attitudes and peer cultures”** and that this is increasingly shaping classroom dynamics and harassment.[7]  
- A 2025 paper on **“a hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology in secondary schools”** argues that Tate/manosphere ideas are often transmitted **informally through peer talk, jokes and banter**, and warns that if schools do not engage critically, these narratives can become normalised as part of school culture.[8]  
- A 2024 study, **“Exploring How Teen Boys Navigate the Andrew Tate Effect”**, finds that many boys experience Tate as simultaneously “entertaining,” “aspirational,” and “obviously sexist,” and that they **oscillate between ironic endorsement and genuine admiration**.[10] The authors highlight the importance of spaces where boys can **“critically reflect on what they find appealing”** about Tate while also discussing harm and inequality.[10]  

Research and sector reports converge on several points:

- **Online misogyny is prevalent and normalised** in Year 9–10 peer cultures.[7][8]  
- **Soft harms** (normalising sexist jokes, devaluing girls, hostility to “non‑masculine” boys) are now a bigger challenge than clear‑cut hate incidents.[2][7]  
- **Teachers report feeling under‑prepared**; UK union surveys and media reports show staff calling for training and whole‑school support, not just individual teacher initiative.[3][6][7]  
- **Purely punitive or message‑only interventions (e.g. “Tate is bad”) are ineffective**; boys often respond defensively or treat it as a status symbol.[7][8][10]  

---

## 2. Principles for effective school interventions (2024–2026)

From the emerging research on online misogyny, gender‑based violence prevention and digital citizenship, several design principles are supported:

1. **Whole‑school, not one‑off lessons**  
   - Evidence on preventing gender‑based violence in schools shows that **programmes integrated across curriculum, policy, staff training and student leadership** are more effective than stand‑alone workshops.[7][8]  
   - A UK guidance submission stresses the need for **“clear policies, consistent responses and a culture that does not tolerate misogyny”** rather than ad‑hoc reactions to incidents.[6]  

2. **Critical media literacy, not censorship**  
   - Studies of teen boys and Tate emphasise that bans or ridicule tend to backfire; instead, effective approaches **“equip boys to recognise manipulative tactics, exaggeration and algorithmic amplification”**.[10][2]  
   - Online misogyny research in schools recommends **explicit teaching on how platforms monetise outrage and polarisation**, and how influencers build loyalty.[7]  

3. **Engage boys’ needs and vulnerabilities**  
   - Research on the “Andrew Tate effect” finds that boys are often drawn in by promises of **status, belonging, certainty, and solutions to insecurity**, not just misogyny.[10]  
   - The manosphere “hidden curriculum” paper argues that schools need to address **boys’ anxieties about failure, masculinity and relationships** or the manosphere will continue to occupy that space.[8]  

4. **Rights‑based, intersectional framing**  
   - Gender‑equality education that frames issues around **human rights, consent, respect and mutual flourishing**, and recognises race/class/sexuality, is more acceptable to boys and more protective for marginalised groups.[7][8]  

---

## 3. Whole‑school strategies relevant to Year 9–10

While you asked about classroom strategies, those work best when supported by whole‑school measures.

- **Clear policy naming online misogyny and manosphere content**  
  - A UK safeguarding submission recommends explicitly recognising **“misogynistic online content and influencers”** in anti‑bullying and behaviour policies, including expectations for respectful language and peer intervention.[6]  
  - Specialist guidance for schools suggests: **“Create a clear policy protecting students and staff”** and **“Educate students on what is not acceptable”** in relation to Tate and misogynistic content.[1]  

- **Staff training and scripts**  
  - Professional development resources stress giving teachers **basic literacy in manosphere narratives** and practical response frameworks: “describe the behaviour, name the harm, link to school values, invite reflection.”[1][7][8]  
  - Research notes that teachers often avoid engaging because they feel out of their depth; training increases likelihood of early, low‑level interventions before norms harden.[7][8]  

- **Consistent response to “banter”**  
  - Studies describe how sexist “jokes” and Tate references form part of a **“hidden curriculum of manosphere ideology”** that normalises inequality.[8]  
  - Recommended practice: treat repeated “banter” as a pattern of harassment, not isolated remarks; link responses to school policy and restorative discussions.[7][8]  

- **Student leadership and peer norms**  
  - Guidance for tackling misogyny emphasises **“Teach boys to call each other out”** and creating boy‑led, staff‑supported initiatives that challenge sexist comments and support respectful relationships.[1][7][8]  

---

## 4. Evidence‑informed classroom strategies for Year 9–10

Below are concrete strategies you can use in PSHE/RSE, English, humanities or tutor time, grounded in current research.

### 4.1. Explicitly naming and unpacking the manosphere

Research warns that **silence leaves a vacuum filled by online influencers**.[5][8] One article puts it bluntly: **“What we don’t teach, the manosphere will.”**[5]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Starter mapping task**  
  - Ask students (anonymously if needed) what online figures they think of when they hear *“self‑improvement for men / advice for boys”*. Expect answers like Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.[10]  
  - Use this to introduce the term **“manosphere”** as a network of online spaces that often **“foster a culture of hatred and dehumanisation towards women”**.[6]  

- **Define key concepts**  
  - Introduce terms such as *misogyny*, *incel*, *red pill*, *hypergamy*, *high‑value man*, etc., and ask students to **locate these ideas in their feeds or peer talk**.[7][8][10]  
  - Use short, carefully chosen screenshots/quotes (with context and content warnings) to show how these concepts appear in real posts, then unpack them critically.[7][8]  

### 4.2. Critical media literacy around Tate content

Studies on teen boys and Tate emphasise that **analysing Tate as media/content** is more effective than moral lectures.[10][7]  

For Year 9–10:

- **Algorithm and engagement lesson**  
  - Explain how platforms show content that gets **watch time, comments, and strong emotion**; link this to why controversial figures like Tate go viral.[2][7][10]  
  - Activity: show two anonymised short clips: one promoting extreme gender stereotypes, one offering balanced advice. Ask:
    - Which one is the algorithm more likely to promote? Why?  
    - Who benefits from this (money, fame, influence)?[7][10] 

Boys to be sent on courses to tackle misogyny in schools Teachers will be given training to spot and tackle misogyny in the classroom, while high-risk pupils could be sent on behavioural courses as part of the government's long-awaited strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in the next decade. Teachers will get specialist training around issues such as consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images. Responding to the announcement, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, said the commitments did "not go far enough". She said while the strategy recognised the scale of the challenge, the level of investment "falls seriously short". The £20m package will also see teachers get training around how to identify positive role models, and how to challenge unhealthy myths about women and relationships. It will include a new helpline for teenagers to get support for concerns about abuse in their own relationships. The government hopes that by tackling the early roots of misogyny, it will prevent young men from becoming violent abusers. Under the new plans, schools will send high-risk students to get extra care and support, including behavioural courses to tackle their prejudice against women and girls. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the move, accusing the government of "silly gimmicks". She told the BBC the plans were only being rolled out because "the government spent most of the summer watching Adolescence" - the Netflix drama that explored the impact of social media and influencers on teenage boys. She instead called for more police officers, saying "we need to remove people from our country who shouldn't be here - especially those who come from cultures where women are treated as third class citizens. That would be a much smarter place to begin". Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he did not intend to "diminish the focus on the men that are the perpetrators of this violence", but said the government must address the misogyny and inequality that were the root cause. He added part of that was showing a "positive, aspirational vision for boys and men". Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips described violence against women and girls as a "national emergency", adding the government's aim was to be "so ambitious that we change culture". Liberal Democrats spokeswoman for women and equalities Marie Goldman welcomed training for teachers but said unless it was accompanied by steps to "properly moderate online content" she had no doubt it would fail. As part of the wider strategy, the Home Office has also announced a ban on "nudification" tools, which use generative AI to turn images of real people into fake nude pictures and videos without their permission. How this will work has not been made clear. Phillips said the government would work with tech companies to make it impossible for children to take, view or share nude images through "nudity detection filters". Schools to take part in the teacher training pilot will be chosen next year, while ministers will aim for all secondary schools to teach healthy relationship sessions by the end of this Parliament. The taxpayer will foot £16m of the bill, while the government says it is working closely with philanthropists and other partners on an innovation fund for the remaining £4m. The funding covers the three-year spending review period. Nearly 40% of teenagers in relationships are victims of abuse, domestic abuse charity Reducing the Risk has said. Online influencers are partly blamed for feeding this, with nearly one in five boys aged 13 to 15 said to hold a positive view of the self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, according to a YouGov poll. Schools in England are already required to identify and tackle misogyny and some teachers said schools were already doing the kind of work in the new measures. Sukhjot Dhami, principal at Beacon Hill Academy in Dudley, said: "The challenge isn't starting from scratch: it's ensuring that this £20m is spent wisely and in partnership with schools already leading the way." Pressed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on which measures were new, Phillips said teachers currently did not have anywhere "specialist or targeted" to send pupils who were showing signs of sexually harmful behaviour. The Department for Education's statutory guidance already says secondary pupils should be taught about consent, the negative impacts of pornography on sexual relationships, and that sharing and viewing of indecent images of children is a crime. Updated guidance, due to be rolled out from September, specifies that pupils "should be equipped to recognise misogyny", as well as its links to violence against women and girls, and understand the importance of challenging it. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders' union NAHT, said it was positive the government was recognising the importance of training and support for school staff but said schools were "just part of the solution". Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was essential the government introduced "effective measures to prevent at source the spread of online misogynistic content which is served up to young people by social media algorithms". Nicola Mclafferty, 42, a victim of domestic violence, said survivors of domestic abuse, both men and women, should go into school assemblies to speak to children about it and share their lived experience. The government has announced a raft of measures in its overall VAWG strategy, including the introduction of specialist investigators to every police force to oversee rape and sexual offence cases and the wider rollout of domestic abuse protection orders after a trial. These mean individuals can be banned from contacting a victim, visiting their home or posting harmful content online. Announcing the package in the Commons, Phillips said the strategy would deploy "the full force of the state" across local and national government to prevent VAWG. She said the strategy was backed by £1bn funding for victims support, including for safe housing. Other measures include better NHS support for child and adult survivors of abuse, and a funding boost for councils to provide safe housing for domestic abuse survivors.

Boys to be sent on courses to tackle misogyny in schools
Teachers will be given training to spot and tackle misogyny in the classroom, while high-risk pupils could be sent on behavioural courses as part of the government's long-awaited strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in the next decade.
Teachers will get specialist training around issues such as consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images.
Responding to the announcement, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, said the commitments did "not go far enough".
She said while the strategy recognised the scale of the challenge, the level of investment "falls seriously short".
The £20m package will also see teachers get training around how to identify positive role models, and how to challenge unhealthy myths about women and relationships.
It will include a new helpline for teenagers to get support for concerns about abuse in their own relationships.
The government hopes that by tackling the early roots of misogyny, it will prevent young men from becoming violent abusers.
Under the new plans, schools will send high-risk students to get extra care and support, including behavioural courses to tackle their prejudice against women and girls.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the move, accusing the government of "silly gimmicks".
She told the BBC the plans were only being rolled out because "the government spent most of the summer watching Adolescence" - the Netflix drama that explored the impact of social media and influencers on teenage boys.
She instead called for more police officers, saying "we need to remove people from our country who shouldn't be here - especially those who come from cultures where women are treated as third class citizens. That would be a much smarter place to begin".
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he did not intend to "diminish the focus on the men that are the perpetrators of this violence", but said the government must address the misogyny and inequality that were the root cause. He added part of that was showing a "positive, aspirational vision for boys and men".
Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips described violence against women and girls as a "national emergency", adding the government's aim was to be "so ambitious that we change culture".
Liberal Democrats spokeswoman for women and equalities Marie Goldman welcomed training for teachers but said unless it was accompanied by steps to "properly moderate online content" she had no doubt it would fail.
As part of the wider strategy, the Home Office has also announced a ban on "nudification" tools, which use generative AI to turn images of real people into fake nude pictures and videos without their permission. How this will work has not been made clear.
Phillips said the government would work with tech companies to make it impossible for children to take, view or share nude images through "nudity detection filters".
Schools to take part in the teacher training pilot will be chosen next year, while ministers will aim for all secondary schools to teach healthy relationship sessions by the end of this Parliament.
The taxpayer will foot £16m of the bill, while the government says it is working closely with philanthropists and other partners on an innovation fund for the remaining £4m.
The funding covers the three-year spending review period.
Nearly 40% of teenagers in relationships are victims of abuse, domestic abuse charity Reducing the Risk has said.
Online influencers are partly blamed for feeding this, with nearly one in five boys aged 13 to 15 said to hold a positive view of the self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, according to a YouGov poll.
Schools in England are already required to identify and tackle misogyny and some teachers said schools were already doing the kind of work in the new measures.
Sukhjot Dhami, principal at Beacon Hill Academy in Dudley, said: "The challenge isn't starting from scratch: it's ensuring that this £20m is spent wisely and in partnership with schools already leading the way."
Pressed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on which measures were new, Phillips said teachers currently did not have anywhere "specialist or targeted" to send pupils who were showing signs of sexually harmful behaviour.
The Department for Education's statutory guidance already says secondary pupils should be taught about consent, the negative impacts of pornography on sexual relationships, and that sharing and viewing of indecent images of children is a crime.
Updated guidance, due to be rolled out from September, specifies that pupils "should be equipped to recognise misogyny", as well as its links to violence against women and girls, and understand the importance of challenging it.
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders' union NAHT, said it was positive the government was recognising the importance of training and support for school staff but said schools were "just part of the solution".
Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was essential the government introduced "effective measures to prevent at source the spread of online misogynistic content which is served up to young people by social media algorithms".
Nicola Mclafferty, 42, a victim of domestic violence, said survivors of domestic abuse, both men and women, should go into school assemblies to speak to children about it and share their lived experience.
The government has announced a raft of measures in its overall VAWG strategy, including the introduction of specialist investigators to every police force to oversee rape and sexual offence cases and the wider rollout of domestic abuse protection orders after a trial.
These mean individuals can be banned from contacting a victim, visiting their home or posting harmful content online.
Announcing the package in the Commons, Phillips said the strategy would deploy "the full force of the state" across local and national government to prevent VAWG.
She said the strategy was backed by £1bn funding for victims support, including for safe housing.
Other measures include better NHS support for child and adult survivors of abuse, and a funding boost for councils to provide safe housing for domestic abuse survivors.

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 **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3] Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4. --- ### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks - The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach: - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2] - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2] - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2] - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2] - Government guidance emphasises: - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2] - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2] For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way. --- ### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils. You can frame: - **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3] - **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*): - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3] - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5] - **Manosphere / influencers**: - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5] - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5] Language for this age group should: - Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”. - Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.” --- ### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3] - **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers** - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3] - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3] - **Teach within an established safe learning environment** - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3] - **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language** - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3] - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3] - **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding** - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1] - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1] For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment. --- ### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus) Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are: 1. **Respect, equality and sexism** - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3] - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2] 2. **Misogyny and VAWG** - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1] - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse. 3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing** - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2] - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5] 4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography** - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2] - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5] 5. **Consent, power and control** - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2] - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general. 6. **Help‑seeking and reporting** - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1] --- ### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5] - **Use critical media analysis** - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3] - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5] - **Offer alternative, positive role models** - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3]

Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4.

---

### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks

- The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach:
  - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2]
  - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2]
  - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2]
  - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2]

- Government guidance emphasises:
  - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2]
  - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2]

For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way.

---

### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions

With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils.

You can frame:

- **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3]
- **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*):
  - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3]
  - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5]
- **Manosphere / influencers**:
  - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5]
  - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5]

Language for this age group should:

- Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”.
- Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.”

---

### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery

The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3]

- **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers**
  - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3]
  - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3]

- **Teach within an established safe learning environment**
  - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3]

- **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language**
  - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3]
  - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3]

- **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding**
  - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1]
  - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1]

For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment.

---

### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus)

Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are:

1. **Respect, equality and sexism**
   - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3]
   - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2]

2. **Misogyny and VAWG**
   - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1]
   - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse.

3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing**
   - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2]
   - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5]

4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography**
   - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2]
   - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5]

5. **Consent, power and control**
   - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2]
   - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general.

6. **Help‑seeking and reporting**
   - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1]

---

### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s

The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5]

- **Use critical media analysis**
  - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3]
  - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5]

- **Offer alternative, positive role models**
  - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear 

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3] Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4. --- ### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks - The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach: - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2] - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2] - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2] - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2] - Government guidance emphasises: - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2] - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2] For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way. --- ### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils. You can frame: - **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3] - **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*): - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3] - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5] - **Manosphere / influencers**: - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5] - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5] Language for this age group should: - Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”. - Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.” --- ### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3] - **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers** - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3] - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3] - **Teach within an established safe learning environment** - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3] - **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language** - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3] - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3] - **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding** - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1] - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1] For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment. --- ### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus) Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are: 1. **Respect, equality and sexism** - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3] - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2] 2. **Misogyny and VAWG** - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1] - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse. 3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing** - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2] - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5] 4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography** - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2] - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5] 5. **Consent, power and control** - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2] - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general. 6. **Help‑seeking and reporting** - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1] --- ### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5] - **Use critical media analysis** - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3] - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5] - **Offer alternative, positive role models** - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3]

Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4.

---

### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks

- The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach:
  - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2]
  - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2]
  - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2]
  - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2]

- Government guidance emphasises:
  - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2]
  - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2]

For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way.

---

### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions

With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils.

You can frame:

- **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3]
- **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*):
  - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3]
  - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5]
- **Manosphere / influencers**:
  - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5]
  - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5]

Language for this age group should:

- Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”.
- Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.”

---

### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery

The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3]

- **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers**
  - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3]
  - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3]

- **Teach within an established safe learning environment**
  - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3]

- **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language**
  - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3]
  - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3]

- **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding**
  - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1]
  - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1]

For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment.

---

### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus)

Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are:

1. **Respect, equality and sexism**
   - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3]
   - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2]

2. **Misogyny and VAWG**
   - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1]
   - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse.

3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing**
   - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2]
   - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5]

4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography**
   - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2]
   - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5]

5. **Consent, power and control**
   - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2]
   - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general.

6. **Help‑seeking and reporting**
   - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1]

---

### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s

The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5]

- **Use critical media analysis**
  - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3]
  - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5]

- **Offer alternative, positive role models**
  - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear 

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.

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3] Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4. --- ### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks - The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach: - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2] - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2] - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2] - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2] - Government guidance emphasises: - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2] - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2] For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way. --- ### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils. You can frame: - **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3] - **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*): - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3] - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5] - **Manosphere / influencers**: - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5] - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5] Language for this age group should: - Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”. - Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.” --- ### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3] - **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers** - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3] - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3] - **Teach within an established safe learning environment** - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3] - **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language** - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3] - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3] - **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding** - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1] - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1] For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment. --- ### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus) Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are: 1. **Respect, equality and sexism** - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3] - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2] 2. **Misogyny and VAWG** - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1] - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse. 3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing** - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2] - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5] 4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography** - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2] - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5] 5. **Consent, power and control** - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2] - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general. 6. **Help‑seeking and reporting** - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1] --- ### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5] - **Use critical media analysis** - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3] - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5] - **Offer alternative, positive role models** - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3]

Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4.

---

### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks

- The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach:
  - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2]
  - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2]
  - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2]
  - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2]

- Government guidance emphasises:
  - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2]
  - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2]

For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way.

---

### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions

With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils.

You can frame:

- **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3]
- **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*):
  - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3]
  - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5]
- **Manosphere / influencers**:
  - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5]
  - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5]

Language for this age group should:

- Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”.
- Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.”

---

### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery

The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3]

- **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers**
  - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3]
  - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3]

- **Teach within an established safe learning environment**
  - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3]

- **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language**
  - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3]
  - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3]

- **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding**
  - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1]
  - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1]

For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment.

---

### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus)

Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are:

1. **Respect, equality and sexism**
   - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3]
   - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2]

2. **Misogyny and VAWG**
   - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1]
   - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse.

3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing**
   - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2]
   - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5]

4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography**
   - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2]
   - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5]

5. **Consent, power and control**
   - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2]
   - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general.

6. **Help‑seeking and reporting**
   - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1]

---

### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s

The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5]

- **Use critical media analysis**
  - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3]
  - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5]

- **Offer alternative, positive role models**
  - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear 

School workshops aimed at boys need to listen to boys In 2021 the inspector for education in England, Ofsted, held focus groups with over 900 children and young people in 32 schools and colleges, and found various types of sexual harassment were rated as occurring “a lot or sometimes”. For example, “nearly 90% of girls, and nearly 50% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “explicit pictures or videos of things they did not want to see”, and “92% of girls, and 74% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “sexist name-calling”. The shocking Ofsted report was conducted in response to concerns about the sexual abuse of schoolgirls highlighted by the Everyone’s Invited website in 2020. Obviously, nobody wants to tolerate the sexual abuse of schoolgirls, and understandably there has been a rush to create school workshops that will address this issue, often involving the idea of challenging ‘masculinity norms’. Regarding the school workshops on this topic available in 2020, the Ofsted report heard “Children and young people were rarely positive about the RSHE [Relationships, Sex and Health Education] they had received. They felt that it was too little, too late and that the curriculum was not equipping them with the information and advice they needed to navigate the reality of their lives”. Ofsted recommended schools create an environment where children “are confident to ask for help and support when they need it. Central to this should be a carefully planned and implemented RSHE curriculum” which should include “listening to pupil voice.” I have been very interested in how masculinity is discussed in school workshops for a number of years. Athough these workshops come from good intentions, I think there is good reason to doubt that challenging masculinity norms is an effective strategy. One of my concerns is that such workshops can be prone to unintended consequences, or may even backfire. A pilot survey in 2020 by myself and colleagues found 85% of adults agreed that boys might be harmed by exposure to ideas like ‘toxic masculinity’. My survey with over 4,000 men found that thinking masculinity makes you do bad things is associated with lower mental wellbeing. Even without mentioning masculinity, there is a risk that if boys feel browbeaten, the workshops might backfire, as has been found with male college students where a programme designed to improve attitudes to sexual harassment actually made some young men’s attitudes worse. However my attempts to locate the contents of school workshops related to masculinity have usually found very little information is forthcoming. This might be related to the recent newspaper article reporting that people in this field have been distancing themselves from the term ‘toxic masculinity’ for the past year or two precisely because so many people find it offensive. In my search, I have found myself directed to various assessments of educational workshops, but found these tend to have limited relevance to school-aged children, especially boys. That’s because many of the studies are of college-age or older males, the number of participants is small, and the analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative (e.g. interviews rather than statistics). Furthermore the assessments usually measure what participants have learned about gender stereotypes, but don’t measure the impact on boys, for example, changes in self-esteem before and after attending a workshop designed to reshape their view of masculinity. “The best safeguard we have that our good intentions will lead to good outcomes is to test our ideas with good research. Unfortunately good research is a much rarer thing than you would guess.” I generally believe that the best safeguard we have that our good intentions will lead to good outcomes is to test our ideas with good research. Unfortunately good research on school masculinity workshops is a much rarer thing than you would guess, and the reality is a cottage industry of workshop providers – often independent of the schools - running free with little or no empirical evidence of the safety or efficacy of what they are doing. For this reason I was pleasantly surprised to find a paper by Ringrose et al (2025) that ticked at least some of the boxes that other research misses. The paper describes a intervention workshop about sexual violence and bystanders, aimed at school pupils aged 13–18. This was run in three countries with respectably large number of attendees (England, n=1000; Ireland, n=60; and Canada, n=108). The main focus wasn’t masculinity, but is of relevance because masculinity was a prominent theme in the paper. The paper starts on a cautionary note, stating that for previous studies on this topic “the degree of success of interventions varies considerably”. Ringrose et al suggest that part of the lack of success is because “sexist assumptions and sexual double standards are held not only by students, but are part of wider school cultures, including being condoned by some teachers”. In other words, it’s not just boys who attend the workshops that need to change, the advocate a ‘whole school approach’ where everyone needs to change. The project consisted of workshops, which were compulsory as part of the schools regular RSE (Relationship and Sex Education) sessions. In the workshops, issues around being an active and effective bystander were discussed and debated with school pupils. Ringrose et al make the good point that the ‘real world’ and online world overlap more than most previous research takes account of, and students need to learn how to react as a bystander in the digital world as well as the real world. The workshops use various scenarios for discussion, for example, a schoolboy who sees nudes of girls being shared on a WhatsApp group, but he doesn’t speak up because he fears being called gay. Another strategy used in workshops was interactive post-it notes, asking participants to write ideas for ways that social media platforms, schools, families, and government, society, and the participants themselves, can challenge sexual violence. Participants were also told about ‘digital defence strategies’, such as how to report content, and “self-care strategies when using social media, including an arts-based pedagogy task where young people can create their own social media campaign to challenge everyday sexual violence”. (I have concerns this is encouraging activism rather than self-care, and might even backfire by inciting heated online exchanges resulting in distress, but perhaps this is too pessimistic). The workshops were supplemented by focus groups and interviews, which were optional based on parental consent for pupils who volunteered. “Rather than disciplinary measures of reporting and punishment, young people appreciated learning that they can respond [by] helping the victim”. Ringrose et al grouped the key findings from their workshops under three themes: 1/ the benefits of the workshop, 2/ challenges to it working (which were subgrouped into “a. sexism; b. masculine defensiveness; c. elitism; d. racism; e. reluctance to report digital issues”), and 3/ ideas for making schools safer. 1/ The benefits were that participants learned what to do when they saw sexual harassment or abuse. Knowledge increased enormously among participants e.g. in England from 58% to 98%. “Rather than disciplinary measures of reporting and punishment, young people appreciated learning that they can respond [by] helping the victim”. For example, Helena (all names in the paper are pseudonyms) said: “Yeah, a lot of the time it’s more like you’re trying to stop the perpetration. You kind of forget that maybe the victim needs support, and you say it’s not ok for the person to do that, and if you need help, I’m here.” I think this is a very positive aspect of the study, and I am guessing there is probably a higher success rate in successfully supporting a victim than successfully punishing a perpetrator. 2/ Ringro

School workshops aimed at boys need to listen to boys
In 2021 the inspector for education in England, Ofsted, held focus groups with over 900 children and young people in 32 schools and colleges, and found various types of sexual harassment were rated as occurring “a lot or sometimes”. For example, “nearly 90% of girls, and nearly 50% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “explicit pictures or videos of things they did not want to see”, and “92% of girls, and 74% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “sexist name-calling”.
The shocking Ofsted report was conducted in response to concerns about the sexual abuse of schoolgirls highlighted by the Everyone’s Invited website in 2020. Obviously, nobody wants to tolerate the sexual abuse of schoolgirls, and understandably there has been a rush to create school workshops that will address this issue, often involving the idea of challenging ‘masculinity norms’.
Regarding the school workshops on this topic available in 2020, the Ofsted report heard “Children and young people were rarely positive about the RSHE [Relationships, Sex and Health Education] they had received. They felt that it was too little, too late and that the curriculum was not equipping them with the information and advice they needed to navigate the reality of their lives”. Ofsted recommended schools create an environment where children “are confident to ask for help and support when they need it. Central to this should be a carefully planned and implemented RSHE curriculum” which should include “listening to pupil voice.”
I have been very interested in how masculinity is discussed in school workshops for a number of years. Athough these workshops come from good intentions, I think there is good reason to doubt that challenging masculinity norms is an effective strategy. One of my concerns is that such workshops can be prone to unintended consequences, or may even backfire. A pilot survey in 2020 by myself and colleagues found 85% of adults agreed that boys might be harmed by exposure to ideas like ‘toxic masculinity’. My survey with over 4,000 men found that thinking masculinity makes you do bad things is associated with lower mental wellbeing. Even without mentioning masculinity, there is a risk that if boys feel browbeaten, the workshops might backfire, as has been found with male college students where a programme designed to improve attitudes to sexual harassment actually made some young men’s attitudes worse.
However my attempts to locate the contents of school workshops related to masculinity have usually found very little information is forthcoming. This might be related to the recent newspaper article reporting that people in this field have been distancing themselves from the term ‘toxic masculinity’ for the past year or two precisely because so many people find it offensive.
In my search, I have found myself directed to various assessments of educational workshops, but found these tend to have limited relevance to school-aged children, especially boys. That’s because many of the studies are of college-age or older males, the number of participants is small, and the analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative (e.g. interviews rather than statistics). Furthermore the assessments usually measure what participants have learned about gender stereotypes, but don’t measure the impact on boys, for example, changes in self-esteem before and after attending a workshop designed to reshape their view of masculinity.
“The best safeguard we have that our good intentions will lead to good outcomes is to test our ideas with good research. Unfortunately good research is a much rarer thing than you would guess.”
I generally believe that the best safeguard we have that our good intentions will lead to good outcomes is to test our ideas with good research. Unfortunately good research on school masculinity workshops is a much rarer thing than you would guess, and the reality is a cottage industry of workshop providers – often independent of the schools - running free with little or no empirical evidence of the safety or efficacy of what they are doing. For this reason I was pleasantly surprised to find a paper by Ringrose et al (2025) that ticked at least some of the boxes that other research misses.
The paper describes a intervention workshop about sexual violence and bystanders, aimed at school pupils aged 13–18. This was run in three countries with respectably large number of attendees (England, n=1000; Ireland, n=60; and Canada, n=108). The main focus wasn’t masculinity, but is of relevance because masculinity was a prominent theme in the paper.
The paper starts on a cautionary note, stating that for previous studies on this topic “the degree of success of interventions varies considerably”. Ringrose et al suggest that part of the lack of success is because “sexist assumptions and sexual double standards are held not only by students, but are part of wider school cultures, including being condoned by some teachers”. In other words, it’s not just boys who attend the workshops that need to change, the advocate a ‘whole school approach’ where everyone needs to change.
The project consisted of workshops, which were compulsory as part of the schools regular RSE (Relationship and Sex Education) sessions. In the workshops, issues around being an active and effective bystander were discussed and debated with school pupils. Ringrose et al make the good point that the ‘real world’ and online world overlap more than most previous research takes account of, and students need to learn how to react as a bystander in the digital world as well as the real world. The workshops use various scenarios for discussion, for example, a schoolboy who sees nudes of girls being shared on a WhatsApp group, but he doesn’t speak up because he fears being called gay.
Another strategy used in workshops was interactive post-it notes, asking participants to write ideas for ways that social media platforms, schools, families, and government, society, and the participants themselves, can challenge sexual violence. Participants were also told about ‘digital defence strategies’, such as how to report content, and “self-care strategies when using social media, including an arts-based pedagogy task where young people can create their own social media campaign to challenge everyday sexual violence”. (I have concerns this is encouraging activism rather than self-care, and might even backfire by inciting heated online exchanges resulting in distress, but perhaps this is too pessimistic). The workshops were supplemented by focus groups and interviews, which were optional based on parental consent for pupils who volunteered.
“Rather than disciplinary measures of reporting and punishment, young people appreciated learning that they can respond [by] helping the victim”.
Ringrose et al grouped the key findings from their workshops under three themes: 1/ the benefits of the workshop, 2/ challenges to it working (which were subgrouped into “a. sexism; b. masculine defensiveness; c. elitism; d. racism; e. reluctance to report digital issues”), and 3/ ideas for making schools safer.
1/ The benefits were that participants learned what to do when they saw sexual harassment or abuse. Knowledge increased enormously among participants e.g. in England from 58% to 98%. “Rather than disciplinary measures of reporting and punishment, young people appreciated learning that they can respond [by] helping the victim”. For example, Helena (all names in the paper are pseudonyms) said: “Yeah, a lot of the time it’s more like you’re trying to stop the perpetration. You kind of forget that maybe the victim needs support, and you say it’s not ok for the person to do that, and if you need help, I’m here.” I think this is a very positive aspect of the study, and I am guessing there is probably a higher success rate in successfully supporting a victim than successfully punishing a perpetrator.
2/ Ringro

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3] Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4. --- ### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks - The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach: - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2] - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2] - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2] - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2] - Government guidance emphasises: - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2] - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2] For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way. --- ### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils. You can frame: - **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3] - **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*): - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3] - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5] - **Manosphere / influencers**: - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5] - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5] Language for this age group should: - Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”. - Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.” --- ### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3] - **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers** - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3] - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3] - **Teach within an established safe learning environment** - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3] - **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language** - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3] - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3] - **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding** - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1] - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1] For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment. --- ### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus) Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are: 1. **Respect, equality and sexism** - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3] - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2] 2. **Misogyny and VAWG** - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1] - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse. 3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing** - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2] - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5] 4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography** - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2] - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5] 5. **Consent, power and control** - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2] - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general. 6. **Help‑seeking and reporting** - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1] --- ### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5] - **Use critical media analysis** - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3] - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5] - **Offer alternative, positive role models** - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear

For 13–15 year olds in UK schools, discussions of **misogyny and “toxic masculinity”** should be framed in statutory RSHE/PSHE content (respect, equality, consent, online influence, pornography, stereotyping) and delivered through *age-appropriate, sequenced, safeguarding‑led* teaching with clear ground rules, robust reporting, and staff training.[2][3]

Below is practical, safeguarding‑oriented guidance synthesised from UK government, PSHE and specialist sources, tailored to KS3/early KS4.

---

### 1. Start from statutory and policy frameworks

- The updated **statutory Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance** requires secondary schools to teach:
  - How to **recognise misogyny** and its link to **violence against women and girls (VAWG)**.[1][2]
  - The influence of the **“manosphere”**, including incel culture, and how online content shapes sexual ethics and behaviour.[2]
  - The harms of **pornography**, including its links to misogyny and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control.[1][2]
  - **Positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity**, and identifying **positive male role models**.[2]

- Government guidance emphasises:
  - A **“strong new emphasis on age-appropriate and sequenced teaching, differentiated between primary and secondary”**, without fixing exact ages per topic so that teachers can respond to what pupils are encountering online.[2]
  - Protecting children from **misogynism, deepfake porn and unhealthy attitudes to consent, power and control**.[2]

For safeguarding, this means that with 13–15s you are well within statutory expectations if you address misogyny, harmful masculine norms, online influencers, and pornography explicitly, but in a carefully staged, developmentally appropriate way.

---

### 2. Use clear, age-appropriate definitions

With 13–15 year olds, focus on **behaviours and attitudes** rather than labels applied to individual pupils.

You can frame:

- **Misogyny**: hostile, belittling or controlling attitudes, language or behaviour towards women and girls, including online harassment, sexist jokes, and blaming victims.[1][2][3]
- **Toxic masculinity** (avoid as a label for boys; present as a *set of harmful norms*):
  - The PSHE Association‑aligned guidance suggests addressing “toxic world views” packaged as advice to boys, especially online, rather than demonising boys.[3]
  - Talk about **“harmful gender stereotypes”** or **“unhealthy ideas about what it means to be a man”** – e.g. that men must be dominant, never show emotion, or control partners.[3][5]
- **Manosphere / influencers**:
  - Children’s Society notes that the **“manosphere… consists of misogynist ideas spread through online spaces”** that can lead young people to adopt hostile views and sometimes act on them.[5]
  - Research cited by Children’s Society suggests **gender attitudes can be largely formed by around age 7**, so adolescent work is about *challenging and reshaping* those attitudes and building critical digital literacy.[5]

Language for this age group should:

- Name the issues (misogyny, sexism, harmful stereotypes) but avoid blanket terms like “boys are toxic”.
- Emphasise **choices and critical thinking**: “Some online influencers promote harmful ideas about women and about what a ‘real man’ is. Let’s look at those critically.”

---

### 3. Safeguarding principles for classroom delivery

The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough PSHE guidance (based on PSHE Association advice) stresses several safeguarding‑critical points:[3]

- **Do not glamorise or amplify harmful influencers**
  - Staff “should not encourage the naming of other influencers with similar views” (e.g. Andrew Tate) and should explain that searching for such content feeds algorithms and “possibly creat[es] the false impression that these sorts of views are widely held.”[3]
  - Focus on **the ideas and behaviours**, not on building influencer “brands” in pupils’ minds.[3]

- **Teach within an established safe learning environment**
  - Use PSHE ground rules, clarify that personal disclosures may trigger safeguarding action, and set expectations for respectful language and listening.[3]

- **Respond consistently to sexist/misogynistic language**
  - The same guidance states: “It is essential that all discriminatory language and behaviour is responded to consistently by all adults in our schools.”[3]
  - Misogynistic or sexually harassing language should be recorded and reported using existing safeguarding routes (e.g. local prejudice reporting tools).[3]

- **Embed in whole‑school safeguarding**
  - Government plans include teacher training on **consent, intimate image‑sharing, and identifying positive role models** to “confront harmful stereotypes regarding women and relationships.”[1]
  - Schools are expected to “recognise and address misogyny” and to refer “high-risk students for additional support, including behavioural programs designed to address their biases.”[1]

For 13–15s, make the safeguarding frame explicit: these sessions are about **safety, respect and rights**, not punishment.

---

### 4. What “age‑appropriate” looks like for 13–15s (content focus)

Using statutory guidance and PSHE/third‑sector advice, key themes for this age range are:

1. **Respect, equality and sexism**
   - Secondary PSHE should cover “treating others respectfully, awareness of online and media influences, identifying discrimination and radicalisation.”[3]
   - Government RSHE guidance requires that children “expect consent and kindness” in relationships.[2]

2. **Misogyny and VAWG**
   - Updated DfE guidance: pupils should be “equipped to recognize misogyny, its connection to violence against women and girls, and the significance of challenging it.”[1]
   - Link misogynistic language and jokes to a broader culture that normalises harassment and abuse.

3. **Harmful masculine norms and emotional wellbeing**
   - Government guidance promotes “positive conceptions of femininity and masculinity” and positive male role models.[2]
   - You can discuss how pressure to be “tough” or always in control can damage boys’ mental health and relationships, then contrast with **healthy masculinity** (respect, emotional literacy, non‑violence).[2][5]

4. **Online influence, manosphere and pornography**
   - RSHE guidance now includes lessons on **incel culture**, how online content shapes sexual ethics, and the role of **AI/deepfakes and pornography in driving misogyny**.[2]
   - Children’s Society stresses **digital literacy**: the manosphere is “built upon misinformation” and young people need to “think critically, question the sources… and challenge generalisations.”[5]

5. **Consent, power and control**
   - DfE expects teaching on “sexual ethics beyond consent… that yes doesn’t always mean yes as factors like peer pressure should be taken into account.”[2]
   - Tie “toxic” behaviours to patterns of control, coercion, humiliation, and exploitation, rather than sex or masculinity in general.

6. **Help‑seeking and reporting**
   - Make clear routes to report harassment, online abuse, or worrying peer behaviour, and signpost helplines and local services (DfE is linking work on misogyny to a teen helpline for relationship abuse).[1]

---

### 5. Pedagogical approaches that protect and engage 13–15s

The PSHE‑aligned guidance and Children’s Society recommend approaches that are both safeguarding‑sound and developmentally right for early/mid teens:[3][5]

- **Use critical media analysis**
  - Explore how influencers “package toxic world views within more wholesome messages about health and fitness, creating a false sense of validity.”[3]
  - Dissect posts or scripts (anonymised/composites) to identify manipulation, cherry‑picked evidence, and appeals to fear or grievance.[3][5]

- **Offer alternative, positive role models**
  - Present “an alternative world view of respectful relationships which enable all people to flourish and enabling students of all genders to see and hear 

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

Sources: Netflix, Prof G Analysis Because men are spending more and more time online, it is essential to understand how the people who hold power over the narrative in these spaces are influencing norms and behaviors. In an effort to understand how those narratives are shaped and the motivations behind the contexts and voices that are capturing male attention, Equimundo researched six of the main platforms young men in the US use, and their experiences encountering narratives around masculinities. That men seek clarity and connection in the digital world is not inherently harmful and is typically rather innocuous. Our research shows that common search terms and topic areas include dating advice, financial guidance, and fitness content. Yet many men end up funneled into what has become known as the manosphere , a broad collection of websites, forums, and other online spaces characterized by their misogynistic and anti-feminist content, which swoops in with clear messages to help men make sense of a changing world, particularly around gender and gender roles. Many of these spaces exist on platforms like YouTube, Reddit, and TikTok, notably aboveground—increasingly permeating mainstream media—rather than hidden on the dark web. There is a long trail of manosphere content that extends far longer than the public figures we associate with it. Think of it as a chain of interlinked but distinct groups, espousing a spectrum of ideas: from extreme misogyny on incel forums to more mainstream biological essentialism in dating advice TikToks. The throughline is the notion that men are the new oppressed class, and that women and feminism are to blame for men’s disadvantage. We are seeing an unprecedented scale of more virulent strains of anti-feminist hatred and violence directed at women, facilitated by coordinated gendered disinformation campaigns and algorithmic amplification. How it works: algorithms and content creators The manosphere is led by misogynistic influencers who construct a compelling story that frames contemporary social changes as a direct threat to the status and identity of young men using emotionally charged language and imagery designed to provoke fear, anger, and a sense of urgency. Following strict rules, norms, and visual cues, the manosphere tells men what is expected of them in order to be successful and achieve power in society and often, over women. Manosphere influencers have nailed the messaging and platform optimization to reach young men. In the attention-driven economy of our hyper-capitalistic world, manosphere content creators are driven by profit. When algorithms incentivize and prioritize extreme and sensationalized rhetoric in order to capture viewers for as long as possible, content creators capitalize on algorithms which will increase their viewership and their profits. Extreme content makes platforms and influencers richer , and without proper regulation, there is no incentive aside from good will for platforms to curtail the proliferation of extremist content. Content creators in the manosphere have perfected platform optimization tactics that exploit young men’s anxieties. Influencers using strategic search engine optimization capitalize on innocent and well-intentioned searches by young men and boys – about dating and relationships, workout routines, or money – in order to direct them to increasingly extreme content for their own financial gain. In a 2024 study conducted by UCL and University of Kent, after only five days of usage, there was a fourfold increase in the level of misogynistic content on the sample TikTok accounts’ “For You” page. Another study from Vodafone revealed that six in ten (69%) boys aged 11-14 have been exposed to online content that promotes misogyny and other harmful views, and 59% of boys are led to this content through innocent and unrelated searches due to AI algorithms. These online spaces, which have sometimes been treated as trivial, have the capacity to play a serious role in the upcoming US presidential election and subsequently for the state of democracy in the US. Explicit links between how manosphere communities and right-wing figureheads peddle gendered and divisive ideologies can undermine the fundamental democratic principles of equality and social cohesion. Why does it matter? Amidst rapid macro-level social, political, and economic changes, young men are turning to the internet and finding community and belonging that speak to their unique identities, interests, and fears. The manosphere fills the messaging void for young men’s questions and insecurities, but has real-world impact offline in terms of violence against oneself and others, mental health, and anti-democratic trends. Here’s how: ENABLING CONTEXT : The manosphere creates the enabling context for online misogyny to spread, serving as a way for far-right extremist movements to recruit new followers. TARGETED MESSAGING TO FILL A VACUUM : Manosphere influencers have nailed the messaging and platform optimization to reach young men. THE “SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST MEN” NARRATIVE: Manosphere narratives frame contemporary social changes as a direct threat to men and sow seeds of mistrust within them. The us-versus-them narratives create deep social divides , eroding the social solidarity essential for a functioning democracy. GUNS & VIOLENCE : In more radical spaces, discussion of violence is common. Marketing and glorification of guns is the norm in many of these groups, both as a part of actualized attacks and in the discussions of future violence. ANTI-DEMOCRATIC TRENDS: News outlets report that right-wing gendered disinformation – including memes, blogs, and an AI deepfake campaign video – is already being weaponized against Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, but the full effects of manosphere messaging on the 2024 election remain to be seen. Where do we go from here? We live in a world where the “IRL” and digital spaces blend together, and that’s unlikely to change. But that doesn’t mean the manosphere is impenetrable. Many men show reticence around engaging with these online spaces and voices, and are actively seeking a different kind of Internet. That alone should make us hopeful about the future of online spaces.

Sources: Netflix, Prof G Analysis
Because men are spending more and more time online, it is essential to understand how the people who hold power over the narrative in these spaces are influencing norms and behaviors. In an effort to understand how those narratives are shaped and the motivations behind the contexts and voices that are capturing male attention, Equimundo researched six of the main platforms young men in the US use, and their experiences encountering narratives around masculinities.
That men seek clarity and connection in the digital world is not inherently harmful and is typically rather innocuous. Our research shows that common search terms and topic areas include dating advice, financial guidance, and fitness content. Yet many men end up funneled into what has become known as the manosphere , a broad collection of websites, forums, and other online spaces characterized by their misogynistic and anti-feminist content, which swoops in with clear messages to help men make sense of a changing world, particularly around gender and gender roles. Many of these spaces exist on platforms like YouTube, Reddit, and TikTok, notably aboveground—increasingly permeating mainstream media—rather than hidden on the dark web.
There is a long trail of manosphere content that extends far longer than the public figures we associate with it. Think of it as a chain of interlinked but distinct groups, espousing a spectrum of ideas: from extreme misogyny on incel forums to more mainstream biological essentialism in dating advice TikToks. The throughline is the notion that men are the new oppressed class, and that women and feminism are to blame for men’s disadvantage. We are seeing an unprecedented scale of more virulent strains of anti-feminist hatred and violence directed at women, facilitated by coordinated gendered disinformation campaigns and algorithmic amplification.
How it works: algorithms and content creators
The manosphere is led by misogynistic influencers who construct a compelling story that frames contemporary social changes as a direct threat to the status and identity of young men using emotionally charged language and imagery designed to provoke fear, anger, and a sense of urgency. Following strict rules, norms, and visual cues, the manosphere tells men what is expected of them in order to be successful and achieve power in society and often, over women.
Manosphere influencers have nailed the messaging and platform optimization to reach young men.
In the attention-driven economy of our hyper-capitalistic world, manosphere content creators are driven by profit. When algorithms incentivize and prioritize extreme and sensationalized rhetoric in order to capture viewers for as long as possible, content creators capitalize on algorithms which will increase their viewership and their profits. Extreme content makes platforms and influencers richer , and without proper regulation, there is no incentive aside from good will for platforms to curtail the proliferation of extremist content.
Content creators in the manosphere have perfected platform optimization tactics that exploit young men’s anxieties. Influencers using strategic search engine optimization capitalize on innocent and well-intentioned searches by young men and boys – about dating and relationships, workout routines, or money – in order to direct them to increasingly extreme content for their own financial gain. In a 2024 study conducted by UCL and University of Kent, after only five days of usage, there was a fourfold increase in the level of misogynistic content on the sample TikTok accounts’ “For You” page. Another study from Vodafone revealed that six in ten (69%) boys aged 11-14 have been exposed to online content that promotes misogyny and other harmful views, and 59% of boys are led to this content through innocent and unrelated searches due to AI algorithms.
These online spaces, which have sometimes been treated as trivial, have the capacity to play a serious role in the upcoming US presidential election and subsequently for the state of democracy in the US. Explicit links between how manosphere communities and right-wing figureheads peddle gendered and divisive ideologies can undermine the fundamental democratic principles of equality and social cohesion.
Why does it matter?
Amidst rapid macro-level social, political, and economic changes, young men are turning to the internet and finding community and belonging that speak to their unique identities, interests, and fears. The manosphere fills the messaging void for young men’s questions and insecurities, but has real-world impact offline in terms of violence against oneself and others, mental health, and anti-democratic trends. Here’s how:
ENABLING CONTEXT : The manosphere creates the enabling context for online misogyny to spread, serving as a way for far-right extremist movements to recruit new followers.
TARGETED MESSAGING TO FILL A VACUUM : Manosphere influencers have nailed the messaging and platform optimization to reach young men.
THE “SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST MEN” NARRATIVE: Manosphere narratives frame contemporary social changes as a direct threat to men and sow seeds of mistrust within them. The us-versus-them narratives create deep social divides , eroding the social solidarity essential for a functioning democracy.
GUNS & VIOLENCE : In more radical spaces, discussion of violence is common. Marketing and glorification of guns is the norm in many of these groups, both as a part of actualized attacks and in the discussions of future violence.
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC TRENDS: News outlets report that right-wing gendered disinformation – including memes, blogs, and an AI deepfake campaign video – is already being weaponized against Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, but the full effects of manosphere messaging on the 2024 election remain to be seen.
Where do we go from here?
We live in a world where the “IRL” and digital spaces blend together, and that’s unlikely to change. But that doesn’t mean the manosphere is impenetrable. Many men show reticence around engaging with these online spaces and voices, and are actively seeking a different kind of Internet. That alone should make us hopeful about the future of online spaces.

Counter-narratives that work with teenage boys combine **empathy for boys’ real struggles**, **clear naming of misogyny**, and **positive, concrete models of “healthy masculinity”**, rather than simply condemning the manosphere or repeating “don’t be toxic.”[1][3][6][7][8] Below is a synthesis of recent evidence and practice (2023–2025) that can inform safeguarding, PSHE, and whole‑school approaches. --- ## 1. What the manosphere gives boys – and why it “lands” Research and policy reports stress that the manosphere speaks directly to **male pain, isolation, and confusion about gender roles** in a way most mainstream spaces still do not.[1][3][7] - Equimundo notes that in their 2023 *State of American Men* report, **two‑thirds of young men 18–23 said “no one really knows” them**, revealing “a stark and honest fragility of their connections and relationships.”[1] - They argue that there is an “absence of clear messaging and helpful guidance for men about what they should be like,” which has left many, particularly young men, **turning to the digital world for role models, answers, and connections**.[1] - UN Women describes the manosphere as “a **network of online spaces that promote misogyny and male supremacy**, often framed as a response to feminism,” and notes that young men can be drawn in by **self‑help, belonging, and “truth-telling” narratives**.[6] - The Center for Countering Digital Hate defines the manosphere as interconnected communities (PUAs, incels, MRAs, MGTOW) that share “a **misogynist and male supremacist worldview**” and view women as having gained rights at men’s expense.[3] For adolescent boys, several dynamics are particularly powerful: - **Belonging and identity:** Manosphere communities present a **clear, simple story** about “what a man is” and “who is to blame” for their struggles.[3][7] - **Validation of grievance:** They frame boys and men as **victims of feminism** and of “rigged” modern society, which can be attractive to those who feel ignored or humiliated.[3][6][7] - **Digital design:** Recommendation systems on major platforms can “actively recommend misogynistic and extremist content to users,” including boys, according to research from DCU’s Anti‑Bullying Centre.[9] For safeguarding, this means that **any counter‑narrative has to compete with a story that feels emotionally accurate to boys’ sense of loss, confusion, or loneliness**, not just with its hateful content. --- ## 2. Risks for adolescents: why this is a safeguarding issue The adolescent period is repeatedly described as a “perfect storm” for manosphere influence: - A 2025 narrative review in *Current Opinion in Psychology* describes “Adolescence in the Manosphere” as a **convergence of developmental vulnerability, algorithmic amplification, and misogynist communities**, arguing that this creates a “perfect storm” for radicalization and harm.[7] - The Center for Countering Digital Hate warns that **toxic manosphere ideology can radicalize young men**, leading to harassment, violence, and in some cases mass murder, and notes that **schoolboys are mimicking misogynistic claims** and that this is a “growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.”[3] - UN Women notes that **misogynistic online content harms men and women alike**, affecting men’s mental health, relationships, and well‑being as well as enabling violence against women.[6] For teenage boys, the key risks include: - **Reduced empathy for girls**, normalising harassment, coercion, or sexual violence.[3][6][7] - **Self‑harm and mental health impacts** when boys internalise narratives of hopelessness (e.g., some incel spaces).[3][7] - Increased risk of **bullying, sexist language, and peer‑to‑peer abuse in schools**.[3][8][9] --- ## 3. Core principles of effective counter‑narratives Across feminist, safeguarding, and pro‑equality men’s work, several shared principles emerge. ### a. Start from boys’ real needs and feelings Equimundo emphasises that the manosphere has “**successfully leveraged male pain points**,” and that a constructive response requires **engaging with men’s lived challenges, not dismissing them**.[1] UN Women similarly argues that counter‑strategies need to **“recognize men and boys as partners and beneficiaries of gender equality”**, not as enemies.[6] Implications for practice: - Validate **feelings** (loneliness, confusion, rejection) while challenging **ideologies** (misogyny, victimhood narratives). - Use **curious, non‑shaming questions** (“What do you like about that creator?” “How does this advice affect how you see girls?”) rather than moralising or ridicule. ### b. Offer a clear, positive vision of **healthy masculinity** Lack of a shared picture of “what a good man is” is explicitly identified as a driver of manosphere appeal.[1] - Equimundo notes that “no one really seems to agree on what a ‘good man’ or ‘healthy masculinity’ looks like,” leaving a vacuum.[1] - Practitioners working on counter‑radicalisation and PSHE report that boys respond better to **positive, aspirational** accounts of masculinity than to the language of “toxic masculinity” alone.[1][8] Healthy masculinity in practice for teens often includes: - **Emotional literacy** and the ability to seek help. - **Respectful, egalitarian relationships** with girls and other genders. - Courage, responsibility, and care framed as **relational**, not dominance‑based. A short formulation used by some educators: masculinity as “**the willingness and excitement to be authentic and be vulnerable**,” explicitly contrasted with the “anti‑masculinity” myths spread online.[4][8] ### c. Explicitly name and unpack manosphere narratives UN Women recommends **naming manosphere communities and their tactics**, then explaining how they distort reality and profit from boys’ engagement.[6] The DCU Anti‑Bullying Centre stresses the importance of **media literacy about algorithmic recommendation**, explaining how platforms “actively recommend toxicity” and can guide users into more extreme content.[9] Key points to unpack with boys: - How “**red pill**” narratives frame women as inherently deceptive and society as rigged against men.[3][6] - How PUAs normalize **coercion, “negging” and undermining consent**.[3] - How incel spaces can **fuel hopelessness and self‑hatred**, not just misogyny.[3][7] --- ## 4. Feminist and equality‑based responses (policy and practice) ### a. UN Women: global feminist framing (2023 explainer) UN Women’s explainer “How to counter the manosphere’s toxic influence” sets out an integrated feminist response.[6] Key strategies include: - **Digital regulation and platform accountability**: calling on governments to regulate platforms that profit from misogyny and to enforce action against online extremism.[6] - **Gender‑transformative education**, including comprehensive sexuality education that covers consent, gender norms, and online misogyny.[6] - **Engaging men and boys as allies**: supporting programmes that help boys “critically reflect on gender norms, power, and privilege” and practice equality in their relationships.[6] For schools, this aligns closely with whole‑school approaches to gender‑based violence prevention. ### b. School‑based interventions: a teacher’s perspective A New Zealand teacher writing for ConnectFutures outlines a practical approach to “Supporting Young Men against Toxic Online Narratives.”[8] Key elements: - **Proactive discussions**: bringing the manosphere into the classroom rather than waiting for a crisis.[8] - Creating **“brave spaces”** where boys can express confusion or anger without being shamed, while still being firmly challenged on sexism.[8] - Using **real clips** (carefully chosen) from influencers like Andrew Tate as a springboard for critical discussion of gender, power, and consent.[8] - Working with **intersectionality**—recognising that many boys are also

Counter-narratives that work with teenage boys combine **empathy for boys’ real struggles**, **clear naming of misogyny**, and **positive, concrete models of “healthy masculinity”**, rather than simply condemning the manosphere or repeating “don’t be toxic.”[1][3][6][7][8]  

Below is a synthesis of recent evidence and practice (2023–2025) that can inform safeguarding, PSHE, and whole‑school approaches.

---

## 1. What the manosphere gives boys – and why it “lands”

Research and policy reports stress that the manosphere speaks directly to **male pain, isolation, and confusion about gender roles** in a way most mainstream spaces still do not.[1][3][7]

- Equimundo notes that in their 2023 *State of American Men* report, **two‑thirds of young men 18–23 said “no one really knows” them**, revealing “a stark and honest fragility of their connections and relationships.”[1]  
- They argue that there is an “absence of clear messaging and helpful guidance for men about what they should be like,” which has left many, particularly young men, **turning to the digital world for role models, answers, and connections**.[1]  
- UN Women describes the manosphere as “a **network of online spaces that promote misogyny and male supremacy**, often framed as a response to feminism,” and notes that young men can be drawn in by **self‑help, belonging, and “truth-telling” narratives**.[6]  
- The Center for Countering Digital Hate defines the manosphere as interconnected communities (PUAs, incels, MRAs, MGTOW) that share “a **misogynist and male supremacist worldview**” and view women as having gained rights at men’s expense.[3]  

For adolescent boys, several dynamics are particularly powerful:

- **Belonging and identity:** Manosphere communities present a **clear, simple story** about “what a man is” and “who is to blame” for their struggles.[3][7]  
- **Validation of grievance:** They frame boys and men as **victims of feminism** and of “rigged” modern society, which can be attractive to those who feel ignored or humiliated.[3][6][7]  
- **Digital design:** Recommendation systems on major platforms can “actively recommend misogynistic and extremist content to users,” including boys, according to research from DCU’s Anti‑Bullying Centre.[9]  

For safeguarding, this means that **any counter‑narrative has to compete with a story that feels emotionally accurate to boys’ sense of loss, confusion, or loneliness**, not just with its hateful content.

---

## 2. Risks for adolescents: why this is a safeguarding issue

The adolescent period is repeatedly described as a “perfect storm” for manosphere influence:

- A 2025 narrative review in *Current Opinion in Psychology* describes “Adolescence in the Manosphere” as a **convergence of developmental vulnerability, algorithmic amplification, and misogynist communities**, arguing that this creates a “perfect storm” for radicalization and harm.[7]  
- The Center for Countering Digital Hate warns that **toxic manosphere ideology can radicalize young men**, leading to harassment, violence, and in some cases mass murder, and notes that **schoolboys are mimicking misogynistic claims** and that this is a “growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.”[3]  
- UN Women notes that **misogynistic online content harms men and women alike**, affecting men’s mental health, relationships, and well‑being as well as enabling violence against women.[6]  

For teenage boys, the key risks include:

- **Reduced empathy for girls**, normalising harassment, coercion, or sexual violence.[3][6][7]  
- **Self‑harm and mental health impacts** when boys internalise narratives of hopelessness (e.g., some incel spaces).[3][7]  
- Increased risk of **bullying, sexist language, and peer‑to‑peer abuse in schools**.[3][8][9]  

---

## 3. Core principles of effective counter‑narratives

Across feminist, safeguarding, and pro‑equality men’s work, several shared principles emerge.

### a. Start from boys’ real needs and feelings

Equimundo emphasises that the manosphere has “**successfully leveraged male pain points**,” and that a constructive response requires **engaging with men’s lived challenges, not dismissing them**.[1]

UN Women similarly argues that counter‑strategies need to **“recognize men and boys as partners and beneficiaries of gender equality”**, not as enemies.[6]

Implications for practice:

- Validate **feelings** (loneliness, confusion, rejection) while challenging **ideologies** (misogyny, victimhood narratives).  
- Use **curious, non‑shaming questions** (“What do you like about that creator?” “How does this advice affect how you see girls?”) rather than moralising or ridicule.  

### b. Offer a clear, positive vision of **healthy masculinity**

Lack of a shared picture of “what a good man is” is explicitly identified as a driver of manosphere appeal.[1]  

- Equimundo notes that “no one really seems to agree on what a ‘good man’ or ‘healthy masculinity’ looks like,” leaving a vacuum.[1]  
- Practitioners working on counter‑radicalisation and PSHE report that boys respond better to **positive, aspirational** accounts of masculinity than to the language of “toxic masculinity” alone.[1][8]  

Healthy masculinity in practice for teens often includes:

- **Emotional literacy** and the ability to seek help.  
- **Respectful, egalitarian relationships** with girls and other genders.  
- Courage, responsibility, and care framed as **relational**, not dominance‑based.  

A short formulation used by some educators: masculinity as “**the willingness and excitement to be authentic and be vulnerable**,” explicitly contrasted with the “anti‑masculinity” myths spread online.[4][8]  

### c. Explicitly name and unpack manosphere narratives

UN Women recommends **naming manosphere communities and their tactics**, then explaining how they distort reality and profit from boys’ engagement.[6]  
The DCU Anti‑Bullying Centre stresses the importance of **media literacy about algorithmic recommendation**, explaining how platforms “actively recommend toxicity” and can guide users into more extreme content.[9]

Key points to unpack with boys:

- How “**red pill**” narratives frame women as inherently deceptive and society as rigged against men.[3][6]  
- How PUAs normalize **coercion, “negging” and undermining consent**.[3]  
- How incel spaces can **fuel hopelessness and self‑hatred**, not just misogyny.[3][7]  

---

## 4. Feminist and equality‑based responses (policy and practice)

### a. UN Women: global feminist framing (2023 explainer)

UN Women’s explainer “How to counter the manosphere’s toxic influence” sets out an integrated feminist response.[6] Key strategies include:

- **Digital regulation and platform accountability**: calling on governments to regulate platforms that profit from misogyny and to enforce action against online extremism.[6]  
- **Gender‑transformative education**, including comprehensive sexuality education that covers consent, gender norms, and online misogyny.[6]  
- **Engaging men and boys as allies**: supporting programmes that help boys “critically reflect on gender norms, power, and privilege” and practice equality in their relationships.[6]  

For schools, this aligns closely with whole‑school approaches to gender‑based violence prevention.

### b. School‑based interventions: a teacher’s perspective

A New Zealand teacher writing for ConnectFutures outlines a practical approach to “Supporting Young Men against Toxic Online Narratives.”[8] Key elements:

- **Proactive discussions**: bringing the manosphere into the classroom rather than waiting for a crisis.[8]  
- Creating **“brave spaces”** where boys can express confusion or anger without being shamed, while still being firmly challenged on sexism.[8]  
- Using **real clips** (carefully chosen) from influencers like Andrew Tate as a springboard for critical discussion of gender, power, and consent.[8]  
- Working with **intersectionality**—recognising that many boys are also

Inside the manosphere: understanding extreme misogyny online Extreme misogyny and anti-feminist rhetoric are the foundations of a network of toxic online communities known as the manosphere. These communities promote different ideologies and ideas of masculinity but are united in their view that women have attained too much power – by taking it away from men. Social media platforms and search engines enable the manosphere’s hatred of women and even profit from their content. The spread of this toxic misogyny can radicalize young men and lead to real-life cases of harassment, violence, and mass murder. Keep reading this article to learn more about the manosphere, what the main online communities in this space are, and what platforms can do to stop the spread of online misogyny. What is the manosphere? The term “manosphere” refers to a network of interconnected misogynistic websites and online communities. It is a loose confederacy of interest groups that includes four main categories, amongst others: Pick Up Artists (PUAs), Involuntary Celibates (Incels), Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). Even though the manosphere is not an ideologically homogenous network and encompasses different ideas about masculinity and feminism, the groups under its umbrella share a misogynist and male supremacist worldview. They broadly agree that women have acquired too many rights and freedom, which they associate with a loss of power and rights for men. Overall, these communities promote deep resentment and hatred against women and girls. Definition of the four main groups in the manosphere: Pick Up Artists (PUAs) The Pick Up Artists community is based on structured teachings on how to manipulate or coerce women into having sex with men. This involves objectifying women, insulting them (“negging”), undermining consent, and promoting harassment or even violence. Popularized in a book called “The Game” by Neil Strauss, Pick Up Artists subscribe to the idea that women can and should be manipulated into sex. It has become a profitable industry in which influencers like Andrew Tate sell online courses and feature videos filled with toxic masculinity and hatred against women. Despite being banned from some social media platforms, Tate has created a scheme to manipulate algorithms and flood his followers with misogynistic videos. In November 2022, CCDH’s analysis identified more than 100 accounts that frequently promote content featuring Tate on TikTok, with a total of 250 million video views and 5.7 million followers. Videos posted by these accounts included clips of Tate saying that women should “take some degree of responsibility” to prevent rape, that “virgins are the only acceptable thing to marry,” and that women who do not want children are “miserable, stupid bitches”. Read more about Andrew Tate. In 2021, CCDH identified 500 groups on social media linked to Global Game, a network of Pick Up Artists, with more than 26,000 members globally. In these groups, members discussed how to get women into bed and spread misogynistic content. Involuntary Celibates (Incels) The term incel refers to an online subculture of predominately young, heterosexual men who believe they are unable to establish relationships. These self-proclaimed incels tend to blame society – and women in particular – for their lack of sexual or romantic experiences. The incel community has grown to be deeply ideological, promoting hate and violence against women across social media platforms. Their hateful and frustrated worldview has led to violent real-life attacks, mass shootings, and suicides, becoming a growing cause of concern across the world. CCDH’s study on the “Incelosphere” analyzed the world’s leading incel forum and revealed the promotion of extreme hatred, rape, and mass shootings. Our researchers found, for example, that forum members post about rape every 29 minutes – and further examination of the comments showed that 89% of people who expressed a stance on the issue in discussions demonstrated support for rape. The research also highlighted that the incel worldview often intersects with other far-right ideologies. Over a fifth of the 1.2 million posts analyzed featured misogynist, racist, antisemitic, or anti-LGBTQ+ language. Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) Men’s rights groups tend to focus their attacks on gender equality. These groups are not entirely homogenous, but they share the belief that feminism has stripped men of their rights and privileges, transferring them to women. Their misogynistic interpretation is that women’s empowerment has come to the detriment of traditional ideas of masculinity, turning men into the oppressed gender. They reduce feminism to a movement that aims to derogate men and masculinity.These activists resort to online communities to share narratives of victimhood and to spread their extreme misogyny – often celebrating backlashes against women’s protection laws, such as legislation concerning abortion rights and sexual assault. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) “Men Going Their Own Way” or MGTOW is a movement that advocates for men to avoid women altogether, choosing to abstain from relationships and sex. They believe that Western society is rigged against men and that this is impossible to change, the only solution being to “go their own way”. Some members of this group advocate for abandoning mainstream society in general. What is the Red Pill? The manosphere borrows terms from the movie “The Matrix” to describe people and society in general. The red pill, for example, is used to refer to men who have “woken up” to a supposed reality that the world favors and benefits women over men. Different manosphere communities build on this concept in different ways, offering contrasting advice on how men can overturn the supposed advantages that women hold in work, culture, relationships, and more. According to scholar Debbie Ging, the red pill philosophy is the “key that unites these communities.” What is the real-life impact of the toxic manosphere? The failure of social media and search engine platforms to stop the spread of extreme misogyny can deeply affect men’s and boys’ perceptions of gender roles, promoting distrust and hatred against women and girls. Vulnerable young men who feel their anxieties are not being taken seriously can fall into the online manosphere rabbit hole, which can seriously harm their mental health by exposing them to toxic ideas of masculinity and affect their relationships and social behavior for life. Toxic misogynistic claims and anti-feminism rhetoric are reportedly being mimicked by schoolboys and are becoming a growing cause of concern for teachers and parents. Manosphere ideologies can also radicalize young men. In 2014, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people and injured fourteen more in Isla Vista, California. Before committing the crime and killing himself, Rodger posted a misogynistic manifesto about his hatred of women. Previously, he had identified himself as an incel and had held accounts on PUA pages, where he envisioned “a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.” Four years later, Alek Minassian drove a van into pedestrians on a busy pavement in Toronto, killing 10 people. Just before the attack, he published a post on Facebook praising Rodger and saying that the “incel rebellion” had begun. What can social media and search engine platforms do to stop the spread of online misogyny? - Social media platforms must stop amplifying and profiting from extreme misogyny. - Search engine platforms like Google must not amplify or privilege incelosphere and other manosphere websites in search results. - Cloudflare should stop providing services to incel websites. - Governments and legislators must implement a set of regulations that force social media companies to act against online extremism. - You can also do your part. Stand against the toxic manosphere and demand platforms take action to protect women and gi

Inside the manosphere: understanding extreme misogyny online
Extreme misogyny and anti-feminist rhetoric are the foundations of a network of toxic online communities known as the manosphere. These communities promote different ideologies and ideas of masculinity but are united in their view that women have attained too much power – by taking it away from men.
Social media platforms and search engines enable the manosphere’s hatred of women and even profit from their content. The spread of this toxic misogyny can radicalize young men and lead to real-life cases of harassment, violence, and mass murder.
Keep reading this article to learn more about the manosphere, what the main online communities in this space are, and what platforms can do to stop the spread of online misogyny.
What is the manosphere?
The term “manosphere” refers to a network of interconnected misogynistic websites and online communities. It is a loose confederacy of interest groups that includes four main categories, amongst others: Pick Up Artists (PUAs), Involuntary Celibates (Incels), Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW).
Even though the manosphere is not an ideologically homogenous network and encompasses different ideas about masculinity and feminism, the groups under its umbrella share a misogynist and male supremacist worldview. They broadly agree that women have acquired too many rights and freedom, which they associate with a loss of power and rights for men.
Overall, these communities promote deep resentment and hatred against women and girls.
Definition of the four main groups in the manosphere:
Pick Up Artists (PUAs)
The Pick Up Artists community is based on structured teachings on how to manipulate or coerce women into having sex with men. This involves objectifying women, insulting them (“negging”), undermining consent, and promoting harassment or even violence.
Popularized in a book called “The Game” by Neil Strauss, Pick Up Artists subscribe to the idea that women can and should be manipulated into sex. It has become a profitable industry in which influencers like Andrew Tate sell online courses and feature videos filled with toxic masculinity and hatred against women.
Despite being banned from some social media platforms, Tate has created a scheme to manipulate algorithms and flood his followers with misogynistic videos. In November 2022, CCDH’s analysis identified more than 100 accounts that frequently promote content featuring Tate on TikTok, with a total of 250 million video views and 5.7 million followers.
Videos posted by these accounts included clips of Tate saying that women should “take some degree of responsibility” to prevent rape, that “virgins are the only acceptable thing to marry,” and that women who do not want children are “miserable, stupid bitches”. Read more about Andrew Tate.
In 2021, CCDH identified 500 groups on social media linked to Global Game, a network of Pick Up Artists, with more than 26,000 members globally. In these groups, members discussed how to get women into bed and spread misogynistic content.
Involuntary Celibates (Incels)
The term incel refers to an online subculture of predominately young, heterosexual men who believe they are unable to establish relationships. These self-proclaimed incels tend to blame society – and women in particular – for their lack of sexual or romantic experiences.
The incel community has grown to be deeply ideological, promoting hate and violence against women across social media platforms. Their hateful and frustrated worldview has led to violent real-life attacks, mass shootings, and suicides, becoming a growing cause of concern across the world.
CCDH’s study on the “Incelosphere” analyzed the world’s leading incel forum and revealed the promotion of extreme hatred, rape, and mass shootings. Our researchers found, for example, that forum members post about rape every 29 minutes – and further examination of the comments showed that 89% of people who expressed a stance on the issue in discussions demonstrated support for rape.
The research also highlighted that the incel worldview often intersects with other far-right ideologies. Over a fifth of the 1.2 million posts analyzed featured misogynist, racist, antisemitic, or anti-LGBTQ+ language.
Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs)
Men’s rights groups tend to focus their attacks on gender equality. These groups are not entirely homogenous, but they share the belief that feminism has stripped men of their rights and privileges, transferring them to women.
Their misogynistic interpretation is that women’s empowerment has come to the detriment of traditional ideas of masculinity, turning men into the oppressed gender. They reduce feminism to a movement that aims to derogate men and masculinity.These activists resort to online communities to share narratives of victimhood and to spread their extreme misogyny – often celebrating backlashes against women’s protection laws, such as legislation concerning abortion rights and sexual assault.
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
“Men Going Their Own Way” or MGTOW is a movement that advocates for men to avoid women altogether, choosing to abstain from relationships and sex.
They believe that Western society is rigged against men and that this is impossible to change, the only solution being to “go their own way”. Some members of this group advocate for abandoning mainstream society in general.
What is the Red Pill?
The manosphere borrows terms from the movie “The Matrix” to describe people and society in general. The red pill, for example, is used to refer to men who have “woken up” to a supposed reality that the world favors and benefits women over men.
Different manosphere communities build on this concept in different ways, offering contrasting advice on how men can overturn the supposed advantages that women hold in work, culture, relationships, and more. According to scholar Debbie Ging, the red pill philosophy is the “key that unites these communities.”
What is the real-life impact of the toxic manosphere?
The failure of social media and search engine platforms to stop the spread of extreme misogyny can deeply affect men’s and boys’ perceptions of gender roles, promoting distrust and hatred against women and girls. Vulnerable young men who feel their anxieties are not being taken seriously can fall into the online manosphere rabbit hole, which can seriously harm their mental health by exposing them to toxic ideas of masculinity and affect their relationships and social behavior for life.
Toxic misogynistic claims and anti-feminism rhetoric are reportedly being mimicked by schoolboys and are becoming a growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.
Manosphere ideologies can also radicalize young men. In 2014, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people and injured fourteen more in Isla Vista, California. Before committing the crime and killing himself, Rodger posted a misogynistic manifesto about his hatred of women. Previously, he had identified himself as an incel and had held accounts on PUA pages, where he envisioned “a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”
Four years later, Alek Minassian drove a van into pedestrians on a busy pavement in Toronto, killing 10 people. Just before the attack, he published a post on Facebook praising Rodger and saying that the “incel rebellion” had begun.
What can social media and search engine platforms do to stop the spread of online misogyny?
- Social media platforms must stop amplifying and profiting from extreme misogyny.
- Search engine platforms like Google must not amplify or privilege incelosphere and other manosphere websites in search results.
- Cloudflare should stop providing services to incel websites.
- Governments and legislators must implement a set of regulations that force social media companies to act against online extremism.
- You can also do your part. Stand against the toxic manosphere and demand platforms take action to protect women and gi

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

In this gripping episode of The Counter Narrative, we delve deep into the world of the "manosphere" and its potential dangers for women and girls worldwide. Our guests, Jennifer Luu and Michelle Elias who co-created Uncovering Incels, an award-winning documentary exploring the hidden world of incels share their groundbreaking work on the incel (involuntary celibate) movement and the broader manosphere. Through their research, they reveal the disturbing connections between online hatred and real-world violence, shedding light on the growing threat posed by these extremist communities. Join us as we explore the dark corners of the internet where misogyny, toxic masculinity, and extreme isolation fuel hatred and violence against women. OUTLINE 00:00 - Introduction 01:50 - Let's start from the beginning. What inspired you both to create this documentary? 04:25 - And in your exploration, were you able to draw or validate any connections between online misogyny and real-world violence? 11:55 - During your research, what insights or findings struck you the most? 17:20 - Social media plays a huge role in today's society. Based on your work, would you say it's an enabler of the incel movement, or can it actually help curb the spread of such ideologies? 21:20 - It's intriguing yet concerning how many are drawn to the incel community. From your perspective, what's the driving force behind this influx? 22:59 - Given those drivers, how do you think the rise of incel culture has impacted broader societal discussions on gender, relationships, and mental health? 26:51 - Turning to solutions now, what actions do you believe society can take to prevent the growth of incel ideologies? 28:49 - And the media surely has a role to play. How can it contribute to the public discourse around incel violence and prevent the spread? 34:45 - You've touched on the reasons why people might join incel communities. With the understanding that no one is immune to such influences, what advice would you offer to those at risk of being drawn into these communities? 45:00 - Sign out ------------------------------------------------ The Counter Narrative on Instagram and Twitter

In this gripping episode of The Counter Narrative, we delve deep into the world of the "manosphere" and its potential dangers for women and girls worldwide.
Our guests, Jennifer Luu and Michelle Elias who co-created Uncovering Incels, an award-winning documentary exploring the hidden world of incels share their groundbreaking work on the incel (involuntary celibate) movement and the broader manosphere.
Through their research, they reveal the disturbing connections between online hatred and real-world violence, shedding light on the growing threat posed by these extremist communities.
Join us as we explore the dark corners of the internet where misogyny, toxic masculinity, and extreme isolation fuel hatred and violence against women.
OUTLINE
00:00 - Introduction
01:50 - Let's start from the beginning. What inspired you both to create this documentary?
04:25 - And in your exploration, were you able to draw or validate any
connections between online misogyny and real-world violence?
11:55 - During your research, what insights or findings struck you the most?
17:20 - Social media plays a huge role in today's society. Based on your work, would you
say it's an enabler of the incel movement, or can it actually help curb the spread of such ideologies?
21:20 - It's intriguing yet concerning how many are drawn to the incel community.
From your perspective, what's the driving force behind this influx?
22:59 - Given those drivers, how do you think the rise of incel culture has impacted
broader societal discussions on gender, relationships, and mental health?
26:51 - Turning to solutions now, what actions do you believe society can take to
prevent the growth of incel ideologies?
28:49 - And the media surely has a role to play. How can it contribute to the public
discourse around incel violence and prevent the spread?
34:45 - You've touched on the reasons why people might join incel communities. With
the understanding that no one is immune to such influences, what advice would you
offer to those at risk of being drawn into these communities?
45:00 - Sign out
------------------------------------------------
The Counter Narrative on Instagram and Twitter

Counter-narratives that work with teenage boys combine **empathy for boys’ real struggles**, **clear naming of misogyny**, and **positive, concrete models of “healthy masculinity”**, rather than simply condemning the manosphere or repeating “don’t be toxic.”[1][3][6][7][8] Below is a synthesis of recent evidence and practice (2023–2025) that can inform safeguarding, PSHE, and whole‑school approaches. --- ## 1. What the manosphere gives boys – and why it “lands” Research and policy reports stress that the manosphere speaks directly to **male pain, isolation, and confusion about gender roles** in a way most mainstream spaces still do not.[1][3][7] - Equimundo notes that in their 2023 *State of American Men* report, **two‑thirds of young men 18–23 said “no one really knows” them**, revealing “a stark and honest fragility of their connections and relationships.”[1] - They argue that there is an “absence of clear messaging and helpful guidance for men about what they should be like,” which has left many, particularly young men, **turning to the digital world for role models, answers, and connections**.[1] - UN Women describes the manosphere as “a **network of online spaces that promote misogyny and male supremacy**, often framed as a response to feminism,” and notes that young men can be drawn in by **self‑help, belonging, and “truth-telling” narratives**.[6] - The Center for Countering Digital Hate defines the manosphere as interconnected communities (PUAs, incels, MRAs, MGTOW) that share “a **misogynist and male supremacist worldview**” and view women as having gained rights at men’s expense.[3] For adolescent boys, several dynamics are particularly powerful: - **Belonging and identity:** Manosphere communities present a **clear, simple story** about “what a man is” and “who is to blame” for their struggles.[3][7] - **Validation of grievance:** They frame boys and men as **victims of feminism** and of “rigged” modern society, which can be attractive to those who feel ignored or humiliated.[3][6][7] - **Digital design:** Recommendation systems on major platforms can “actively recommend misogynistic and extremist content to users,” including boys, according to research from DCU’s Anti‑Bullying Centre.[9] For safeguarding, this means that **any counter‑narrative has to compete with a story that feels emotionally accurate to boys’ sense of loss, confusion, or loneliness**, not just with its hateful content. --- ## 2. Risks for adolescents: why this is a safeguarding issue The adolescent period is repeatedly described as a “perfect storm” for manosphere influence: - A 2025 narrative review in *Current Opinion in Psychology* describes “Adolescence in the Manosphere” as a **convergence of developmental vulnerability, algorithmic amplification, and misogynist communities**, arguing that this creates a “perfect storm” for radicalization and harm.[7] - The Center for Countering Digital Hate warns that **toxic manosphere ideology can radicalize young men**, leading to harassment, violence, and in some cases mass murder, and notes that **schoolboys are mimicking misogynistic claims** and that this is a “growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.”[3] - UN Women notes that **misogynistic online content harms men and women alike**, affecting men’s mental health, relationships, and well‑being as well as enabling violence against women.[6] For teenage boys, the key risks include: - **Reduced empathy for girls**, normalising harassment, coercion, or sexual violence.[3][6][7] - **Self‑harm and mental health impacts** when boys internalise narratives of hopelessness (e.g., some incel spaces).[3][7] - Increased risk of **bullying, sexist language, and peer‑to‑peer abuse in schools**.[3][8][9] --- ## 3. Core principles of effective counter‑narratives Across feminist, safeguarding, and pro‑equality men’s work, several shared principles emerge. ### a. Start from boys’ real needs and feelings Equimundo emphasises that the manosphere has “**successfully leveraged male pain points**,” and that a constructive response requires **engaging with men’s lived challenges, not dismissing them**.[1] UN Women similarly argues that counter‑strategies need to **“recognize men and boys as partners and beneficiaries of gender equality”**, not as enemies.[6] Implications for practice: - Validate **feelings** (loneliness, confusion, rejection) while challenging **ideologies** (misogyny, victimhood narratives). - Use **curious, non‑shaming questions** (“What do you like about that creator?” “How does this advice affect how you see girls?”) rather than moralising or ridicule. ### b. Offer a clear, positive vision of **healthy masculinity** Lack of a shared picture of “what a good man is” is explicitly identified as a driver of manosphere appeal.[1] - Equimundo notes that “no one really seems to agree on what a ‘good man’ or ‘healthy masculinity’ looks like,” leaving a vacuum.[1] - Practitioners working on counter‑radicalisation and PSHE report that boys respond better to **positive, aspirational** accounts of masculinity than to the language of “toxic masculinity” alone.[1][8] Healthy masculinity in practice for teens often includes: - **Emotional literacy** and the ability to seek help. - **Respectful, egalitarian relationships** with girls and other genders. - Courage, responsibility, and care framed as **relational**, not dominance‑based. A short formulation used by some educators: masculinity as “**the willingness and excitement to be authentic and be vulnerable**,” explicitly contrasted with the “anti‑masculinity” myths spread online.[4][8] ### c. Explicitly name and unpack manosphere narratives UN Women recommends **naming manosphere communities and their tactics**, then explaining how they distort reality and profit from boys’ engagement.[6] The DCU Anti‑Bullying Centre stresses the importance of **media literacy about algorithmic recommendation**, explaining how platforms “actively recommend toxicity” and can guide users into more extreme content.[9] Key points to unpack with boys: - How “**red pill**” narratives frame women as inherently deceptive and society as rigged against men.[3][6] - How PUAs normalize **coercion, “negging” and undermining consent**.[3] - How incel spaces can **fuel hopelessness and self‑hatred**, not just misogyny.[3][7] --- ## 4. Feminist and equality‑based responses (policy and practice) ### a. UN Women: global feminist framing (2023 explainer) UN Women’s explainer “How to counter the manosphere’s toxic influence” sets out an integrated feminist response.[6] Key strategies include: - **Digital regulation and platform accountability**: calling on governments to regulate platforms that profit from misogyny and to enforce action against online extremism.[6] - **Gender‑transformative education**, including comprehensive sexuality education that covers consent, gender norms, and online misogyny.[6] - **Engaging men and boys as allies**: supporting programmes that help boys “critically reflect on gender norms, power, and privilege” and practice equality in their relationships.[6] For schools, this aligns closely with whole‑school approaches to gender‑based violence prevention. ### b. School‑based interventions: a teacher’s perspective A New Zealand teacher writing for ConnectFutures outlines a practical approach to “Supporting Young Men against Toxic Online Narratives.”[8] Key elements: - **Proactive discussions**: bringing the manosphere into the classroom rather than waiting for a crisis.[8] - Creating **“brave spaces”** where boys can express confusion or anger without being shamed, while still being firmly challenged on sexism.[8] - Using **real clips** (carefully chosen) from influencers like Andrew Tate as a springboard for critical discussion of gender, power, and consent.[8] - Working with **intersectionality**—recognising that many boys are also

Counter-narratives that work with teenage boys combine **empathy for boys’ real struggles**, **clear naming of misogyny**, and **positive, concrete models of “healthy masculinity”**, rather than simply condemning the manosphere or repeating “don’t be toxic.”[1][3][6][7][8]  

Below is a synthesis of recent evidence and practice (2023–2025) that can inform safeguarding, PSHE, and whole‑school approaches.

---

## 1. What the manosphere gives boys – and why it “lands”

Research and policy reports stress that the manosphere speaks directly to **male pain, isolation, and confusion about gender roles** in a way most mainstream spaces still do not.[1][3][7]

- Equimundo notes that in their 2023 *State of American Men* report, **two‑thirds of young men 18–23 said “no one really knows” them**, revealing “a stark and honest fragility of their connections and relationships.”[1]  
- They argue that there is an “absence of clear messaging and helpful guidance for men about what they should be like,” which has left many, particularly young men, **turning to the digital world for role models, answers, and connections**.[1]  
- UN Women describes the manosphere as “a **network of online spaces that promote misogyny and male supremacy**, often framed as a response to feminism,” and notes that young men can be drawn in by **self‑help, belonging, and “truth-telling” narratives**.[6]  
- The Center for Countering Digital Hate defines the manosphere as interconnected communities (PUAs, incels, MRAs, MGTOW) that share “a **misogynist and male supremacist worldview**” and view women as having gained rights at men’s expense.[3]  

For adolescent boys, several dynamics are particularly powerful:

- **Belonging and identity:** Manosphere communities present a **clear, simple story** about “what a man is” and “who is to blame” for their struggles.[3][7]  
- **Validation of grievance:** They frame boys and men as **victims of feminism** and of “rigged” modern society, which can be attractive to those who feel ignored or humiliated.[3][6][7]  
- **Digital design:** Recommendation systems on major platforms can “actively recommend misogynistic and extremist content to users,” including boys, according to research from DCU’s Anti‑Bullying Centre.[9]  

For safeguarding, this means that **any counter‑narrative has to compete with a story that feels emotionally accurate to boys’ sense of loss, confusion, or loneliness**, not just with its hateful content.

---

## 2. Risks for adolescents: why this is a safeguarding issue

The adolescent period is repeatedly described as a “perfect storm” for manosphere influence:

- A 2025 narrative review in *Current Opinion in Psychology* describes “Adolescence in the Manosphere” as a **convergence of developmental vulnerability, algorithmic amplification, and misogynist communities**, arguing that this creates a “perfect storm” for radicalization and harm.[7]  
- The Center for Countering Digital Hate warns that **toxic manosphere ideology can radicalize young men**, leading to harassment, violence, and in some cases mass murder, and notes that **schoolboys are mimicking misogynistic claims** and that this is a “growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.”[3]  
- UN Women notes that **misogynistic online content harms men and women alike**, affecting men’s mental health, relationships, and well‑being as well as enabling violence against women.[6]  

For teenage boys, the key risks include:

- **Reduced empathy for girls**, normalising harassment, coercion, or sexual violence.[3][6][7]  
- **Self‑harm and mental health impacts** when boys internalise narratives of hopelessness (e.g., some incel spaces).[3][7]  
- Increased risk of **bullying, sexist language, and peer‑to‑peer abuse in schools**.[3][8][9]  

---

## 3. Core principles of effective counter‑narratives

Across feminist, safeguarding, and pro‑equality men’s work, several shared principles emerge.

### a. Start from boys’ real needs and feelings

Equimundo emphasises that the manosphere has “**successfully leveraged male pain points**,” and that a constructive response requires **engaging with men’s lived challenges, not dismissing them**.[1]

UN Women similarly argues that counter‑strategies need to **“recognize men and boys as partners and beneficiaries of gender equality”**, not as enemies.[6]

Implications for practice:

- Validate **feelings** (loneliness, confusion, rejection) while challenging **ideologies** (misogyny, victimhood narratives).  
- Use **curious, non‑shaming questions** (“What do you like about that creator?” “How does this advice affect how you see girls?”) rather than moralising or ridicule.  

### b. Offer a clear, positive vision of **healthy masculinity**

Lack of a shared picture of “what a good man is” is explicitly identified as a driver of manosphere appeal.[1]  

- Equimundo notes that “no one really seems to agree on what a ‘good man’ or ‘healthy masculinity’ looks like,” leaving a vacuum.[1]  
- Practitioners working on counter‑radicalisation and PSHE report that boys respond better to **positive, aspirational** accounts of masculinity than to the language of “toxic masculinity” alone.[1][8]  

Healthy masculinity in practice for teens often includes:

- **Emotional literacy** and the ability to seek help.  
- **Respectful, egalitarian relationships** with girls and other genders.  
- Courage, responsibility, and care framed as **relational**, not dominance‑based.  

A short formulation used by some educators: masculinity as “**the willingness and excitement to be authentic and be vulnerable**,” explicitly contrasted with the “anti‑masculinity” myths spread online.[4][8]  

### c. Explicitly name and unpack manosphere narratives

UN Women recommends **naming manosphere communities and their tactics**, then explaining how they distort reality and profit from boys’ engagement.[6]  
The DCU Anti‑Bullying Centre stresses the importance of **media literacy about algorithmic recommendation**, explaining how platforms “actively recommend toxicity” and can guide users into more extreme content.[9]

Key points to unpack with boys:

- How “**red pill**” narratives frame women as inherently deceptive and society as rigged against men.[3][6]  
- How PUAs normalize **coercion, “negging” and undermining consent**.[3]  
- How incel spaces can **fuel hopelessness and self‑hatred**, not just misogyny.[3][7]  

---

## 4. Feminist and equality‑based responses (policy and practice)

### a. UN Women: global feminist framing (2023 explainer)

UN Women’s explainer “How to counter the manosphere’s toxic influence” sets out an integrated feminist response.[6] Key strategies include:

- **Digital regulation and platform accountability**: calling on governments to regulate platforms that profit from misogyny and to enforce action against online extremism.[6]  
- **Gender‑transformative education**, including comprehensive sexuality education that covers consent, gender norms, and online misogyny.[6]  
- **Engaging men and boys as allies**: supporting programmes that help boys “critically reflect on gender norms, power, and privilege” and practice equality in their relationships.[6]  

For schools, this aligns closely with whole‑school approaches to gender‑based violence prevention.

### b. School‑based interventions: a teacher’s perspective

A New Zealand teacher writing for ConnectFutures outlines a practical approach to “Supporting Young Men against Toxic Online Narratives.”[8] Key elements:

- **Proactive discussions**: bringing the manosphere into the classroom rather than waiting for a crisis.[8]  
- Creating **“brave spaces”** where boys can express confusion or anger without being shamed, while still being firmly challenged on sexism.[8]  
- Using **real clips** (carefully chosen) from influencers like Andrew Tate as a springboard for critical discussion of gender, power, and consent.[8]  
- Working with **intersectionality**—recognising that many boys are also

Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ... Click here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds.

Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ...
Click
here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds.

Lived experience: Relatability with “challenging” young people. Recent cases like the group of high school boys in Australia that rated their classmates on a scale from “wifey” to “unr*peable”, Elliot Rodger’s vengeful murder-spree against the “bi*ch*s” that rejected him, and the 70,000 member strong Telegram group that traded tips on se*ual*y assaulting women are frightening evidence that something is rotten in the state of online discourse globally. Indeed, many educators have seen a significant shift in how their students speak of themselves and women in the past five years. Whether hearing of careless declarations that a woman’s appearance is ‘mid’ or hearing reverence for Andrew Tate — who famously claimed that women bear “some responsibility” for being r*ped — many educators are rightly concerned with the consequences of the ‘Manosphere’, a collection of online cultures of misogyny, on young, teenage men. As an New Zealand educator, based in the UK I am well apprised of the anxiety that occurs when the terminology and ideology of these kinds of online communities is parroted by my secondary students in the classroom. Online misogynistic communities — out of nowhere — seem to have saturated the digital landscape, and even the most conscientious students are apparently aware of their offensive content. Naturally, there is a fear that the damaging views and ideologies of these communities might become normalised and popularly adopted, with dangerous consequences both in and out of the classroom. In the academic literature, schools are repeatedly emphasised as the most promising site of resistance against misogynistic radicalisation. In this post, I offer some practical steps as to how educators might work to inoculate their students against the influence of the narratives perpetuated by these online communities. Deradicalisation isn’t impossible but it’s harder than inoculation Acting preventively on issues of online radicalisation can seem overzealous. After all, teachers’ workloads are already bloated, and it seems uncharitable to presume that the students we know and like have either consumed or been influenced by the Manosphere. However, the academic literature makes clear that anticipatory inoculation of students to radical influence is both necessary and the best approach to managing the virulence of online misogyny. While it’s a distasteful fact, exposure to explicitly radical or gateway online content is near total amongst young men (for instance, an Australian survey found 92% of young men had been exposed to Andrew Tate’s content online). A random individual clicking through YouTube’s recommended video section will view such content within 23 minutes after creating a new account. Online platforms that work via predictive algorithms (nominating content for users based on age, se* and location) are more likely to generate misogynistic content if the user is a young man, particularly if that user is also struggling with mental health difficulties or social isolation. My own students have reported that TikTok shows them Manosphere-adjacent content “at least once a day,” even after they have informed the algorithm that they are “not interested” in such videos. Of course, exposure to radical content does not necessitate ideological conversion to extreme views. However, repeated exposure to radical ideas can alter thought over time: indeed, the normalising effect of repeated exposure to extreme views is cited in The Daily Stormer’s style guide as a useful radicalising tool. On this basis, it is both naive and negligent to operate in ignorance of misogynistic online culture: even casual consideration of the Manosphere can compromise students’ self-concept and relationships with others. Importantly, young women — who might lack the confidence to report their experiences to leadership or to respond directly — often bear the brunt of the normalisation of misogynistic language and attitudes: a 2021 Ofsted report found that 9 out of 10 girls reported experiencing se*ist or image-based harassment in school. Female teachers, too, feel the effects: many report being increasingly subjected to sexual and se*-based harassment. Furthermore, it’s far easier to intervene early than it is to offer an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Extreme belief-systems online contain in-built mechanisms that resist deradicalising counter-narratives. For instance, by dehumanising women’s intelligence and dignity, the Manosphere ensures that pleas to women’s common humanity will have a limited impact on young men that have ‘fallen down the rabbit hole.’ This is not to say that deradicalisation is impossible, but that it is significantly more difficult than the act of inoculation. Therefore, it’s best if we can prevent damaging ideas from taking root in the first place and act preventively. Some practical steps for teachers – and a thank you to my students! In this post, I offer some guidance for the kinds of actions that educators can take to support their students in cultivating the capacity to resist the influence of online misogyny. In providing this advice, I owe a great deal to my own students for their frankness, self-reflection and intelligence in discussing their own experiences with extremist content online. What my students have shared makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all-approach to resisting the Manosphere’s influence: educators’ knowledge of their own students and contexts must inform a flexible application of generic principles. Furthermore, my students have made clear that there is a powerful drive amongst young men to work against the demeaning narratives of extremist communities. I would encourage educators, therefore, to engage with their students with generosity, faith and esteem: if we want to ensure that students are primed to resist the devaluation of others’ dignity, we must first ensure that they feel their own. (1) Teaching ‘Critical Thinking’ – obviously! ‘Just teach critical thinking!’ is such an oft-repeated maxim that it has lost its teeth. It’s easy to say that educators should teach students to independently assess the robustness of an argument, but it’s harder in practice: there aren’t many examples of what a ‘critical thinking’ programme should look like, it’s not clear which subject-disciplines should take responsibility for teaching such skills, and teachers are already over-burdened getting through curriculum content. The slipperiness of the task shouldn’t disincentivise us from trying to perform it. A student once told me that learning to debate was what allowed him to see extremist content for what it was: as the logical fallacies of Manosphere content-creators became increasingly apparent, their intellectual hold lessened. But where to start? The good news is that teaching critical thinking doesn’t require the design of a brand-new curriculum. Subject-disciplines already teach relevant skills: literature classes teach rhetoric’s manipulative power, history classes teach students to assess sources’ credibility, and science classes demonstrate that poor experimental design can produce spurious results. Teachers don’t necessarily need to teach more about critical thinking (although I highly recommend teaching a short unit on logical fallacies if you have the time and inclination: my own students were highly engaged in this content, and it really improved their essay-writing). However, we do need to explicitly teach students that critical-thinking skills are not domain-specific: the same skepticism that a student applies to scientific data should be applied when considering Myron Gaines’ claims that women are inferior to men on all crucial metrics. It can be useful to carve out classroom time to allow students to apply their critical skills to ‘real world’ issues that have some social currency. This doesn’t mean that educators need to lead discussion on sticky issues: there are plenty of ‘safe’ topics that can teach this kin

Lived experience: Relatability with “challenging” young people.
Recent cases like the group of high school boys in Australia that rated their classmates on a scale from “wifey” to “unr*peable”, Elliot Rodger’s vengeful murder-spree against the “bi*ch*s” that rejected him, and the 70,000 member strong Telegram group that traded tips on se*ual*y assaulting women are frightening evidence that something is rotten in the state of online discourse globally. Indeed, many educators have seen a significant shift in how their students speak of themselves and women in the past five years. Whether hearing of careless declarations that a woman’s appearance is ‘mid’ or hearing reverence for Andrew Tate — who famously claimed that women bear “some responsibility” for being r*ped — many educators are rightly concerned with the consequences of the ‘Manosphere’, a collection of online cultures of misogyny, on young, teenage men.
As an New Zealand educator, based in the UK I am well apprised of the anxiety that occurs when the terminology and ideology of these kinds of online communities is parroted by my secondary students in the classroom. Online misogynistic communities — out of nowhere — seem to have saturated the digital landscape, and even the most conscientious students are apparently aware of their offensive content. Naturally, there is a fear that the damaging views and ideologies of these communities might become normalised and popularly adopted, with dangerous consequences both in and out of the classroom.
In the academic literature, schools are repeatedly emphasised as the most promising site of resistance against misogynistic radicalisation. In this post, I offer some practical steps as to how educators might work to inoculate their students against the influence of the narratives perpetuated by these online communities.
Deradicalisation isn’t impossible but it’s harder than inoculation
Acting preventively on issues of online radicalisation can seem overzealous. After all, teachers’ workloads are already bloated, and it seems uncharitable to presume that the students we know and like have either consumed or been influenced by the Manosphere. However, the academic literature makes clear that anticipatory inoculation of students to radical influence is both necessary and the best approach to managing the virulence of online misogyny.
While it’s a distasteful fact, exposure to explicitly radical or gateway online content is near total amongst young men (for instance, an Australian survey found 92% of young men had been exposed to Andrew Tate’s content online). A random individual clicking through YouTube’s recommended video section will view such content within 23 minutes after creating a new account. Online platforms that work via predictive algorithms (nominating content for users based on age, se* and location) are more likely to generate misogynistic content if the user is a young man, particularly if that user is also struggling with mental health difficulties or social isolation. My own students have reported that TikTok shows them Manosphere-adjacent content “at least once a day,” even after they have informed the algorithm that they are “not interested” in such videos.
Of course, exposure to radical content does not necessitate ideological conversion to extreme views. However, repeated exposure to radical ideas can alter thought over time: indeed, the normalising effect of repeated exposure to extreme views is cited in The Daily Stormer’s style guide as a useful radicalising tool. On this basis, it is both naive and negligent to operate in ignorance of misogynistic online culture: even casual consideration of the Manosphere can compromise students’ self-concept and relationships with others. Importantly, young women — who might lack the confidence to report their experiences to leadership or to respond directly — often bear the brunt of the normalisation of misogynistic language and attitudes: a 2021 Ofsted report found that 9 out of 10 girls reported experiencing se*ist or image-based harassment in school. Female teachers, too, feel the effects: many report being increasingly subjected to sexual and se*-based harassment.
Furthermore, it’s far easier to intervene early than it is to offer an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Extreme belief-systems online contain in-built mechanisms that resist deradicalising counter-narratives. For instance, by dehumanising women’s intelligence and dignity, the Manosphere ensures that pleas to women’s common humanity will have a limited impact on young men that have ‘fallen down the rabbit hole.’ This is not to say that deradicalisation is impossible, but that it is significantly more difficult than the act of inoculation. Therefore, it’s best if we can prevent damaging ideas from taking root in the first place and act preventively.
Some practical steps for teachers – and a thank you to my students!
In this post, I offer some guidance for the kinds of actions that educators can take to support their students in cultivating the capacity to resist the influence of online misogyny. In providing this advice, I owe a great deal to my own students for their frankness, self-reflection and intelligence in discussing their own experiences with extremist content online. What my students have shared makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all-approach to resisting the Manosphere’s influence: educators’ knowledge of their own students and contexts must inform a flexible application of generic principles.
Furthermore, my students have made clear that there is a powerful drive amongst young men to work against the demeaning narratives of extremist communities. I would encourage educators, therefore, to engage with their students with generosity, faith and esteem: if we want to ensure that students are primed to resist the devaluation of others’ dignity, we must first ensure that they feel their own.
(1) Teaching ‘Critical Thinking’ – obviously!
‘Just teach critical thinking!’ is such an oft-repeated maxim that it has lost its teeth. It’s easy to say that educators should teach students to independently assess the robustness of an argument, but it’s harder in practice: there aren’t many examples of what a ‘critical thinking’ programme should look like, it’s not clear which subject-disciplines should take responsibility for teaching such skills, and teachers are already over-burdened getting through curriculum content.
The slipperiness of the task shouldn’t disincentivise us from trying to perform it. A student once told me that learning to debate was what allowed him to see extremist content for what it was: as the logical fallacies of Manosphere content-creators became increasingly apparent, their intellectual hold lessened.
But where to start? The good news is that teaching critical thinking doesn’t require the design of a brand-new curriculum. Subject-disciplines already teach relevant skills: literature classes teach rhetoric’s manipulative power, history classes teach students to assess sources’ credibility, and science classes demonstrate that poor experimental design can produce spurious results. Teachers don’t necessarily need to teach more about critical thinking (although I highly recommend teaching a short unit on logical fallacies if you have the time and inclination: my own students were highly engaged in this content, and it really improved their essay-writing). However, we do need to explicitly teach students that critical-thinking skills are not domain-specific: the same skepticism that a student applies to scientific data should be applied when considering Myron Gaines’ claims that women are inferior to men on all crucial metrics.
It can be useful to carve out classroom time to allow students to apply their critical skills to ‘real world’ issues that have some social currency. This doesn’t mean that educators need to lead discussion on sticky issues: there are plenty of ‘safe’ topics that can teach this kin

Counter-narratives that work with teenage boys combine **empathy for boys’ real struggles**, **clear naming of misogyny**, and **positive, concrete models of “healthy masculinity”**, rather than simply condemning the manosphere or repeating “don’t be toxic.”[1][3][6][7][8] Below is a synthesis of recent evidence and practice (2023–2025) that can inform safeguarding, PSHE, and whole‑school approaches. --- ## 1. What the manosphere gives boys – and why it “lands” Research and policy reports stress that the manosphere speaks directly to **male pain, isolation, and confusion about gender roles** in a way most mainstream spaces still do not.[1][3][7] - Equimundo notes that in their 2023 *State of American Men* report, **two‑thirds of young men 18–23 said “no one really knows” them**, revealing “a stark and honest fragility of their connections and relationships.”[1] - They argue that there is an “absence of clear messaging and helpful guidance for men about what they should be like,” which has left many, particularly young men, **turning to the digital world for role models, answers, and connections**.[1] - UN Women describes the manosphere as “a **network of online spaces that promote misogyny and male supremacy**, often framed as a response to feminism,” and notes that young men can be drawn in by **self‑help, belonging, and “truth-telling” narratives**.[6] - The Center for Countering Digital Hate defines the manosphere as interconnected communities (PUAs, incels, MRAs, MGTOW) that share “a **misogynist and male supremacist worldview**” and view women as having gained rights at men’s expense.[3] For adolescent boys, several dynamics are particularly powerful: - **Belonging and identity:** Manosphere communities present a **clear, simple story** about “what a man is” and “who is to blame” for their struggles.[3][7] - **Validation of grievance:** They frame boys and men as **victims of feminism** and of “rigged” modern society, which can be attractive to those who feel ignored or humiliated.[3][6][7] - **Digital design:** Recommendation systems on major platforms can “actively recommend misogynistic and extremist content to users,” including boys, according to research from DCU’s Anti‑Bullying Centre.[9] For safeguarding, this means that **any counter‑narrative has to compete with a story that feels emotionally accurate to boys’ sense of loss, confusion, or loneliness**, not just with its hateful content. --- ## 2. Risks for adolescents: why this is a safeguarding issue The adolescent period is repeatedly described as a “perfect storm” for manosphere influence: - A 2025 narrative review in *Current Opinion in Psychology* describes “Adolescence in the Manosphere” as a **convergence of developmental vulnerability, algorithmic amplification, and misogynist communities**, arguing that this creates a “perfect storm” for radicalization and harm.[7] - The Center for Countering Digital Hate warns that **toxic manosphere ideology can radicalize young men**, leading to harassment, violence, and in some cases mass murder, and notes that **schoolboys are mimicking misogynistic claims** and that this is a “growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.”[3] - UN Women notes that **misogynistic online content harms men and women alike**, affecting men’s mental health, relationships, and well‑being as well as enabling violence against women.[6] For teenage boys, the key risks include: - **Reduced empathy for girls**, normalising harassment, coercion, or sexual violence.[3][6][7] - **Self‑harm and mental health impacts** when boys internalise narratives of hopelessness (e.g., some incel spaces).[3][7] - Increased risk of **bullying, sexist language, and peer‑to‑peer abuse in schools**.[3][8][9] --- ## 3. Core principles of effective counter‑narratives Across feminist, safeguarding, and pro‑equality men’s work, several shared principles emerge. ### a. Start from boys’ real needs and feelings Equimundo emphasises that the manosphere has “**successfully leveraged male pain points**,” and that a constructive response requires **engaging with men’s lived challenges, not dismissing them**.[1] UN Women similarly argues that counter‑strategies need to **“recognize men and boys as partners and beneficiaries of gender equality”**, not as enemies.[6] Implications for practice: - Validate **feelings** (loneliness, confusion, rejection) while challenging **ideologies** (misogyny, victimhood narratives). - Use **curious, non‑shaming questions** (“What do you like about that creator?” “How does this advice affect how you see girls?”) rather than moralising or ridicule. ### b. Offer a clear, positive vision of **healthy masculinity** Lack of a shared picture of “what a good man is” is explicitly identified as a driver of manosphere appeal.[1] - Equimundo notes that “no one really seems to agree on what a ‘good man’ or ‘healthy masculinity’ looks like,” leaving a vacuum.[1] - Practitioners working on counter‑radicalisation and PSHE report that boys respond better to **positive, aspirational** accounts of masculinity than to the language of “toxic masculinity” alone.[1][8] Healthy masculinity in practice for teens often includes: - **Emotional literacy** and the ability to seek help. - **Respectful, egalitarian relationships** with girls and other genders. - Courage, responsibility, and care framed as **relational**, not dominance‑based. A short formulation used by some educators: masculinity as “**the willingness and excitement to be authentic and be vulnerable**,” explicitly contrasted with the “anti‑masculinity” myths spread online.[4][8] ### c. Explicitly name and unpack manosphere narratives UN Women recommends **naming manosphere communities and their tactics**, then explaining how they distort reality and profit from boys’ engagement.[6] The DCU Anti‑Bullying Centre stresses the importance of **media literacy about algorithmic recommendation**, explaining how platforms “actively recommend toxicity” and can guide users into more extreme content.[9] Key points to unpack with boys: - How “**red pill**” narratives frame women as inherently deceptive and society as rigged against men.[3][6] - How PUAs normalize **coercion, “negging” and undermining consent**.[3] - How incel spaces can **fuel hopelessness and self‑hatred**, not just misogyny.[3][7] --- ## 4. Feminist and equality‑based responses (policy and practice) ### a. UN Women: global feminist framing (2023 explainer) UN Women’s explainer “How to counter the manosphere’s toxic influence” sets out an integrated feminist response.[6] Key strategies include: - **Digital regulation and platform accountability**: calling on governments to regulate platforms that profit from misogyny and to enforce action against online extremism.[6] - **Gender‑transformative education**, including comprehensive sexuality education that covers consent, gender norms, and online misogyny.[6] - **Engaging men and boys as allies**: supporting programmes that help boys “critically reflect on gender norms, power, and privilege” and practice equality in their relationships.[6] For schools, this aligns closely with whole‑school approaches to gender‑based violence prevention. ### b. School‑based interventions: a teacher’s perspective A New Zealand teacher writing for ConnectFutures outlines a practical approach to “Supporting Young Men against Toxic Online Narratives.”[8] Key elements: - **Proactive discussions**: bringing the manosphere into the classroom rather than waiting for a crisis.[8] - Creating **“brave spaces”** where boys can express confusion or anger without being shamed, while still being firmly challenged on sexism.[8] - Using **real clips** (carefully chosen) from influencers like Andrew Tate as a springboard for critical discussion of gender, power, and consent.[8] - Working with **intersectionality**—recognising that many boys are also

Counter-narratives that work with teenage boys combine **empathy for boys’ real struggles**, **clear naming of misogyny**, and **positive, concrete models of “healthy masculinity”**, rather than simply condemning the manosphere or repeating “don’t be toxic.”[1][3][6][7][8]  

Below is a synthesis of recent evidence and practice (2023–2025) that can inform safeguarding, PSHE, and whole‑school approaches.

---

## 1. What the manosphere gives boys – and why it “lands”

Research and policy reports stress that the manosphere speaks directly to **male pain, isolation, and confusion about gender roles** in a way most mainstream spaces still do not.[1][3][7]

- Equimundo notes that in their 2023 *State of American Men* report, **two‑thirds of young men 18–23 said “no one really knows” them**, revealing “a stark and honest fragility of their connections and relationships.”[1]  
- They argue that there is an “absence of clear messaging and helpful guidance for men about what they should be like,” which has left many, particularly young men, **turning to the digital world for role models, answers, and connections**.[1]  
- UN Women describes the manosphere as “a **network of online spaces that promote misogyny and male supremacy**, often framed as a response to feminism,” and notes that young men can be drawn in by **self‑help, belonging, and “truth-telling” narratives**.[6]  
- The Center for Countering Digital Hate defines the manosphere as interconnected communities (PUAs, incels, MRAs, MGTOW) that share “a **misogynist and male supremacist worldview**” and view women as having gained rights at men’s expense.[3]  

For adolescent boys, several dynamics are particularly powerful:

- **Belonging and identity:** Manosphere communities present a **clear, simple story** about “what a man is” and “who is to blame” for their struggles.[3][7]  
- **Validation of grievance:** They frame boys and men as **victims of feminism** and of “rigged” modern society, which can be attractive to those who feel ignored or humiliated.[3][6][7]  
- **Digital design:** Recommendation systems on major platforms can “actively recommend misogynistic and extremist content to users,” including boys, according to research from DCU’s Anti‑Bullying Centre.[9]  

For safeguarding, this means that **any counter‑narrative has to compete with a story that feels emotionally accurate to boys’ sense of loss, confusion, or loneliness**, not just with its hateful content.

---

## 2. Risks for adolescents: why this is a safeguarding issue

The adolescent period is repeatedly described as a “perfect storm” for manosphere influence:

- A 2025 narrative review in *Current Opinion in Psychology* describes “Adolescence in the Manosphere” as a **convergence of developmental vulnerability, algorithmic amplification, and misogynist communities**, arguing that this creates a “perfect storm” for radicalization and harm.[7]  
- The Center for Countering Digital Hate warns that **toxic manosphere ideology can radicalize young men**, leading to harassment, violence, and in some cases mass murder, and notes that **schoolboys are mimicking misogynistic claims** and that this is a “growing cause of concern for teachers and parents.”[3]  
- UN Women notes that **misogynistic online content harms men and women alike**, affecting men’s mental health, relationships, and well‑being as well as enabling violence against women.[6]  

For teenage boys, the key risks include:

- **Reduced empathy for girls**, normalising harassment, coercion, or sexual violence.[3][6][7]  
- **Self‑harm and mental health impacts** when boys internalise narratives of hopelessness (e.g., some incel spaces).[3][7]  
- Increased risk of **bullying, sexist language, and peer‑to‑peer abuse in schools**.[3][8][9]  

---

## 3. Core principles of effective counter‑narratives

Across feminist, safeguarding, and pro‑equality men’s work, several shared principles emerge.

### a. Start from boys’ real needs and feelings

Equimundo emphasises that the manosphere has “**successfully leveraged male pain points**,” and that a constructive response requires **engaging with men’s lived challenges, not dismissing them**.[1]

UN Women similarly argues that counter‑strategies need to **“recognize men and boys as partners and beneficiaries of gender equality”**, not as enemies.[6]

Implications for practice:

- Validate **feelings** (loneliness, confusion, rejection) while challenging **ideologies** (misogyny, victimhood narratives).  
- Use **curious, non‑shaming questions** (“What do you like about that creator?” “How does this advice affect how you see girls?”) rather than moralising or ridicule.  

### b. Offer a clear, positive vision of **healthy masculinity**

Lack of a shared picture of “what a good man is” is explicitly identified as a driver of manosphere appeal.[1]  

- Equimundo notes that “no one really seems to agree on what a ‘good man’ or ‘healthy masculinity’ looks like,” leaving a vacuum.[1]  
- Practitioners working on counter‑radicalisation and PSHE report that boys respond better to **positive, aspirational** accounts of masculinity than to the language of “toxic masculinity” alone.[1][8]  

Healthy masculinity in practice for teens often includes:

- **Emotional literacy** and the ability to seek help.  
- **Respectful, egalitarian relationships** with girls and other genders.  
- Courage, responsibility, and care framed as **relational**, not dominance‑based.  

A short formulation used by some educators: masculinity as “**the willingness and excitement to be authentic and be vulnerable**,” explicitly contrasted with the “anti‑masculinity” myths spread online.[4][8]  

### c. Explicitly name and unpack manosphere narratives

UN Women recommends **naming manosphere communities and their tactics**, then explaining how they distort reality and profit from boys’ engagement.[6]  
The DCU Anti‑Bullying Centre stresses the importance of **media literacy about algorithmic recommendation**, explaining how platforms “actively recommend toxicity” and can guide users into more extreme content.[9]

Key points to unpack with boys:

- How “**red pill**” narratives frame women as inherently deceptive and society as rigged against men.[3][6]  
- How PUAs normalize **coercion, “negging” and undermining consent**.[3]  
- How incel spaces can **fuel hopelessness and self‑hatred**, not just misogyny.[3][7]  

---

## 4. Feminist and equality‑based responses (policy and practice)

### a. UN Women: global feminist framing (2023 explainer)

UN Women’s explainer “How to counter the manosphere’s toxic influence” sets out an integrated feminist response.[6] Key strategies include:

- **Digital regulation and platform accountability**: calling on governments to regulate platforms that profit from misogyny and to enforce action against online extremism.[6]  
- **Gender‑transformative education**, including comprehensive sexuality education that covers consent, gender norms, and online misogyny.[6]  
- **Engaging men and boys as allies**: supporting programmes that help boys “critically reflect on gender norms, power, and privilege” and practice equality in their relationships.[6]  

For schools, this aligns closely with whole‑school approaches to gender‑based violence prevention.

### b. School‑based interventions: a teacher’s perspective

A New Zealand teacher writing for ConnectFutures outlines a practical approach to “Supporting Young Men against Toxic Online Narratives.”[8] Key elements:

- **Proactive discussions**: bringing the manosphere into the classroom rather than waiting for a crisis.[8]  
- Creating **“brave spaces”** where boys can express confusion or anger without being shamed, while still being firmly challenged on sexism.[8]  
- Using **real clips** (carefully chosen) from influencers like Andrew Tate as a springboard for critical discussion of gender, power, and consent.[8]  
- Working with **intersectionality**—recognising that many boys are also

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

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8] Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026: - **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools** - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1] - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1] - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1] - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1] - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions. - **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric** - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1] - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1] - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4] - **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)** - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2] - Teachers described boys: - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**; - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive); - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2] - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2] - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2] - **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact** - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4] - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4] - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7] - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7] - **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage** - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3] - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys. - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10] - **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people** - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5] - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6] - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed. - **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)** - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8] - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8] - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8] - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8] - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff. - **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)** Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience: - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4] - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2] - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1] - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7] - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7] For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that: - Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8]

Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026:

- **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools**  
  - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1]  
  - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1]  
  - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1]  
  - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1]  
  - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions.

- **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric**  
  - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1]  
  - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1]  
  - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4]

- **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)**  
  - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2]  
  - Teachers described boys:
    - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**;  
    - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive);  
    - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2]  
  - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2]  
  - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2]

- **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact**  
  - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4]  
  - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4]  
  - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7]  
  - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7]  

- **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage**  
  - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3]  
  - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys.  
  - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10]

- **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people**  
  - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5]  
  - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6]  
  - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed.

- **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)**  
  - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8]  
  - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8]  
  - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8]  
  - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8]  
  - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff.

- **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)**  
  Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience:
  - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4]  
  - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2]  
  - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1]  
  - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7]  
  - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7]

For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that:

- Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8] Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026: - **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools** - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1] - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1] - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1] - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1] - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions. - **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric** - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1] - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1] - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4] - **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)** - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2] - Teachers described boys: - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**; - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive); - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2] - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2] - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2] - **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact** - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4] - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4] - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7] - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7] - **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage** - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3] - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys. - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10] - **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people** - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5] - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6] - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed. - **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)** - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8] - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8] - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8] - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8] - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff. - **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)** Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience: - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4] - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2] - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1] - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7] - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7] For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that: - Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8]

Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026:

- **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools**  
  - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1]  
  - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1]  
  - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1]  
  - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1]  
  - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions.

- **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric**  
  - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1]  
  - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1]  
  - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4]

- **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)**  
  - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2]  
  - Teachers described boys:
    - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**;  
    - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive);  
    - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2]  
  - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2]  
  - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2]

- **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact**  
  - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4]  
  - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4]  
  - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7]  
  - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7]  

- **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage**  
  - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3]  
  - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys.  
  - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10]

- **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people**  
  - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5]  
  - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6]  
  - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed.

- **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)**  
  - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8]  
  - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8]  
  - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8]  
  - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8]  
  - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff.

- **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)**  
  Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience:
  - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4]  
  - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2]  
  - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1]  
  - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7]  
  - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7]

For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that:

- Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8] Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026: - **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools** - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1] - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1] - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1] - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1] - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions. - **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric** - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1] - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1] - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4] - **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)** - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2] - Teachers described boys: - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**; - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive); - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2] - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2] - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2] - **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact** - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4] - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4] - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7] - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7] - **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage** - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3] - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys. - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10] - **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people** - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5] - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6] - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed. - **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)** - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8] - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8] - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8] - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8] - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff. - **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)** Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience: - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4] - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2] - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1] - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7] - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7] For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that: - Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8]

Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026:

- **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools**  
  - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1]  
  - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1]  
  - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1]  
  - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1]  
  - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions.

- **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric**  
  - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1]  
  - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1]  
  - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4]

- **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)**  
  - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2]  
  - Teachers described boys:
    - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**;  
    - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive);  
    - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2]  
  - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2]  
  - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2]

- **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact**  
  - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4]  
  - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4]  
  - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7]  
  - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7]  

- **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage**  
  - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3]  
  - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys.  
  - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10]

- **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people**  
  - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5]  
  - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6]  
  - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed.

- **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)**  
  - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8]  
  - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8]  
  - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8]  
  - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8]  
  - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff.

- **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)**  
  Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience:
  - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4]  
  - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2]  
  - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1]  
  - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7]  
  - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7]

For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that:

- Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

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

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8] Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026: - **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools** - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1] - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1] - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1] - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1] - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions. - **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric** - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1] - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1] - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4] - **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)** - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2] - Teachers described boys: - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**; - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive); - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2] - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2] - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2] - **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact** - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4] - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4] - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7] - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7] - **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage** - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3] - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys. - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10] - **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people** - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5] - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6] - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed. - **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)** - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8] - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8] - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8] - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8] - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff. - **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)** Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience: - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4] - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2] - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1] - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7] - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7] For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that: - Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8]

Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026:

- **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools**  
  - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1]  
  - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1]  
  - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1]  
  - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1]  
  - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions.

- **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric**  
  - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1]  
  - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1]  
  - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4]

- **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)**  
  - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2]  
  - Teachers described boys:
    - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**;  
    - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive);  
    - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2]  
  - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2]  
  - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2]

- **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact**  
  - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4]  
  - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4]  
  - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7]  
  - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7]  

- **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage**  
  - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3]  
  - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys.  
  - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10]

- **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people**  
  - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5]  
  - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6]  
  - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed.

- **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)**  
  - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8]  
  - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8]  
  - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8]  
  - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8]  
  - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff.

- **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)**  
  Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience:
  - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4]  
  - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2]  
  - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1]  
  - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7]  
  - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7]

For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that:

- Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

A new report on children’s exposure to online misogyny from Internet Matters reveals it is becoming increasingly difficult for parents and professionals to protect children from harmful influencers, such as Andrew Tate. Summary - Awareness of Andrew Tate is higher among parents (81%) than children (59%), yet awareness increases to 73% of 15-16-years old – a critical age for education around this issue which children believe is taught poorly in schools. - Over half of young dads (56%), up to the age of 35, have a favourable view of Andrew Tate, while almost a quarter (23%) of teenage boys aged 15-16 are also positive about the influencer. - With the Online Safety Bill soon to enter legislation, Internet Matters calls on social media platforms, Ofcom and Government to use the opportunity and work together to protect children from online misogyny, supporting the ongoing efforts of parents and schools. New research on children’s exposure to misogyny from Internet Matters reveals that it is becoming increasingly difficult for parents and professionals to keep children safe online with the public profiles of ‘misogynist influencers’ continuing to rise. Self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, boasts more than 7.9 million followers on X (formerly known as Twitter), to whom he promotes outdated gender values, rooted in violence against women and girls. Over the past year, countless conversations among parents and teachers in regard to misogyny have been dominated by Tate and he is a prominent member of the ‘manosphere’ – a collection of communities united in their hate-filled views on women and girls. Seeking to understand more about the manosphere’s spread and influence on family life, Internet Matters surveyed over 2,000 parents and 1,000 children aged 9 to 16 and spoke to parents and teenagers in a series of focus groups. The report revealed that awareness of Andrew Tate is higher among parents (81%) than children (59%), yet awareness increases among children with age, with 75% of children aged 15-16 aware of Tate. Teenage boys aged 15-16 (23%) and dads (26%) are significantly more likely to state that they know ‘a lot’ about Andrew Tate than girls aged 15-16 (11%), and mums (16%). Almost a quarter (23%) of teenage boys aged 15-16 are positive about Andrew Tate. Boys in the focus groups also talked about the ubiquitous and inescapable presence of Tate’s content in their social media lives and feeds. More surprisingly, an even higher proportion of dads have a positive view of Andrew Tate. A third of dads (32%) have a favourable opinion of Tate, compared to 10% of mums. The divergence in attitudes to Tate is even more stark among younger parents. Over half (56%) of younger dads (those aged between 25-34) have a positive view of Tate, compared to 19% of mums the same age. Younger dads are also more likely to believe that their child has a positive impression of Andrew Tate. Almost half (49%) of young dads aged between 25-34 believe that their child has a positive impression of Tate, compared to 17% of mums the same age. This raises concerns given the central role that parents play in educating their children about misogyny and harmful online influences. It still remains unclear what exactly young dads are finding appealing about Tate, though it is suggested this could be down to the finance and business advice he offers his followers. However, his violent misogynist rhetoric is so deeply embedded that it cannot be assumed that all dads are able to critically consume his content and draw a divide between ‘motivation’ and misogyny. Internet Matters has observed the challenges that many parents and teachers face in combating the influence of Andrew Tate. It can be exceedingly difficult for parents and teachers to counter harmful views once they have taken root. Proactive conversations about harmful content – including how misogynistic rhetoric is damaging to boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+ – must be held before children are at risk of encountering it online. Internet Matters’ research suggests that age-appropriate conversations should happen before children reach secondary school age. The findings within the report also suggest that platforms and the Government must pick up more of the responsibility to protect children from online misogyny, alongside parents and schools. By making platforms safe by design and ensuring that all children have quality preventative education on issues around sexual violence and misogyny, it will minimise the effects of overt misogyny. Simone Vibert, Head of Policy and Research at Internet Matters, said: “The findings in this report are stark. It’s clear misogynist influencers like Andrew Tate hold sway over thousands of men and boys and is an issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. “Many children are being subjected to deeply misogynistic content on a daily basis. Despite this, there is a clear lack of education around the teaching about misogyny in schools.” “Our evidence suggests that some parents, especially younger dads, may also not be best placed to help children navigate the impact of misogynist influencers. In fact, there needs to be a more cohesive effort from social media platforms, Ofcom and the Government to combat its influence and spread.”

A new report on children’s exposure to online misogyny from Internet Matters reveals it is becoming increasingly difficult for parents and professionals to protect children from harmful influencers, such as Andrew Tate.
Summary
- Awareness of Andrew Tate is higher among parents (81%) than children (59%), yet awareness increases to 73% of 15-16-years old – a critical age for education around this issue which children believe is taught poorly in schools.
- Over half of young dads (56%), up to the age of 35, have a favourable view of Andrew Tate, while almost a quarter (23%) of teenage boys aged 15-16 are also positive about the influencer.
- With the Online Safety Bill soon to enter legislation, Internet Matters calls on social media platforms, Ofcom and Government to use the opportunity and work together to protect children from online misogyny, supporting the ongoing efforts of parents and schools.
New research on children’s exposure to misogyny from Internet Matters reveals that it is becoming increasingly difficult for parents and professionals to keep children safe online with the public profiles of ‘misogynist influencers’ continuing to rise.
Self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, boasts more than 7.9 million followers on X (formerly known as Twitter), to whom he promotes outdated gender values, rooted in violence against women and girls.
Over the past year, countless conversations among parents and teachers in regard to misogyny have been dominated by Tate and he is a prominent member of the ‘manosphere’ – a collection of communities united in their hate-filled views on women and girls.
Seeking to understand more about the manosphere’s spread and influence on family life, Internet Matters surveyed over 2,000 parents and 1,000 children aged 9 to 16 and spoke to parents and teenagers in a series of focus groups.
The report revealed that awareness of Andrew Tate is higher among parents (81%) than children (59%), yet awareness increases among children with age, with 75% of children aged 15-16 aware of Tate.
Teenage boys aged 15-16 (23%) and dads (26%) are significantly more likely to state that they know ‘a lot’ about Andrew Tate than girls aged 15-16 (11%), and mums (16%).
Almost a quarter (23%) of teenage boys aged 15-16 are positive about Andrew Tate. Boys in the focus groups also talked about the ubiquitous and inescapable presence of Tate’s content in their social media lives and feeds.
More surprisingly, an even higher proportion of dads have a positive view of Andrew Tate.
A third of dads (32%) have a favourable opinion of Tate, compared to 10% of mums. The divergence in attitudes to Tate is even more stark among younger parents. Over half (56%) of younger dads (those aged between 25-34) have a positive view of Tate, compared to 19% of mums the same age.
Younger dads are also more likely to believe that their child has a positive impression of Andrew Tate. Almost half (49%) of young dads aged between 25-34 believe that their child has a positive impression of Tate, compared to 17% of mums the same age.
This raises concerns given the central role that parents play in educating their children about misogyny and harmful online influences.
It still remains unclear what exactly young dads are finding appealing about Tate, though it is suggested this could be down to the finance and business advice he offers his followers.
However, his violent misogynist rhetoric is so deeply embedded that it cannot be assumed that all dads are able to critically consume his content and draw a divide between ‘motivation’ and misogyny.
Internet Matters has observed the challenges that many parents and teachers face in combating the influence of Andrew Tate. It can be exceedingly difficult for parents and teachers to counter harmful views once they have taken root. Proactive conversations about harmful content – including how misogynistic rhetoric is damaging to boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+ – must be held before children are at risk of encountering it online. Internet Matters’ research suggests that age-appropriate conversations should happen before children reach secondary school age.
The findings within the report also suggest that platforms and the Government must pick up more of the responsibility to protect children from online misogyny, alongside parents and schools.
By making platforms safe by design and ensuring that all children have quality preventative education on issues around sexual violence and misogyny, it will minimise the effects of overt misogyny.
Simone Vibert, Head of Policy and Research at Internet Matters, said: “The findings in this report are stark. It’s clear misogynist influencers like Andrew Tate hold sway over thousands of men and boys and is an issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
“Many children are being subjected to deeply misogynistic content on a daily basis. Despite this, there is a clear lack of education around the teaching about misogyny in schools.”
“Our evidence suggests that some parents, especially younger dads, may also not be best placed to help children navigate the impact of misogynist influencers. In fact, there needs to be a more cohesive effort from social media platforms, Ofcom and the Government to combat its influence and spread.”

By Kasia Uzieblo, PhD, David S. Prescott, LICSW, & Kieran McCartan, PhD Scrolling through my X-feed recently, I was struck by an alarming trend: videos of Andrew Tate bragging about (sexually) abusing women have suddenly become an almost daily intrusion. His unashamed glorification of (sexual) violence and misogyny is a stark reminder of how far platforms like X and Facebook have strayed from their responsibility to maintain safe, accountable digital spaces. But Tate’s presence is just the tip of the iceberg. These platforms have become fertile ground for hate speech, disinformation, and outright incitements to (sexual) violence. And now, with Facebook’s decision to forgo fact-checking posts, the spiral toward unchecked harmful content feels even steeper. The amplification of hate Hate speech and violent rhetoric thrive on engagement-driven algorithms. The more outrageous and provocative the content, the more likely it is to be amplified. Andrew Tate’s incendiary videos are a perfect example: their shock value ensures likes, shares, and comments, propelling them further into people’s feeds—even those who want no part of it. There is a fear that digital platforms serve as breeding grounds for harmful ideologies that spill over into offline behavior. Studies have indeed shown links between violent (sexualized) media, tolerance of violence and real-world violence (e.g., Burnay et al., 2021; Müller & Schwarz, 2019; Sengupta et al., 2024). Dehumanizing language—especially against women, minorities, and other marginalized groups—normalizes abuse and lowers the psychological barriers to committing (sexual) violence. The result? A culture in which acts of aggression, including sexual violence, are trivialized or even celebrated. Platforms’ negligence is complicity When Facebook abandons its fact-checking program, it opens the floodgates to disinformation. This isn’t just about misleading political ads; it’s about the broader erosion of truth. Lies about sexual assault victims, false narratives blaming survivors, and denial of systemic issues - all these contribute to a hostile environment that discourages survivors from speaking out and emboldens perpetrators. X, under its current leadership, has only exacerbated the problem. By rolling back content moderation and reinstating previously banned accounts known for spreading hate and violence, the platform sends a clear message: hate/violent speech is not only tolerated but prioritized. The mental health fallout For those subjected to this onslaught of hate, violence, and misogony the psychological toll is substantial. Survivors of sexual violence, already navigating the trauma of their experiences, are re-traumatized by the proliferation of content that mocks, discredits, or outright denies their pain (e.g., Andreasen, 2020). Witnessing the normalization of such violence can trigger anxiety, depression, and feelings of hopelessness, not just for survivors but for anyone committed to creating a safer world. Young people, who are among the heaviest users of these platforms, are particularly vulnerable. Repeated exposure to misogynistic and (sexually) violent content can distort their understanding of relationships, sexual behavior, and consent, while also normalizing harmful behavior. The long-term consequences on their mental health and societal values are staggering. As a parent, it’s nearly impossible to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of social media and its addictive nature. Even with vigilance, shielding children from harmful content feels like a losing battle when algorithms prioritize engagement over safety. The sheer volume of toxic material can slip through the cracks, making it harder to guide young people and protect their mental well-being and development. This challenge underscores the need for systemic changes in how these platforms operate, but also in how we cope with these platforms. A shared responsibility We cannot longer treat platforms like X and Facebook as neutral tools. Their algorithms, policies, and decisions actively shape our culture and, by extension, our realities. As an acquaintance of mine recently remarked dryly when I pointed out the falsehoods about violence on social media: we live in different realities. Of course, platforms bear an immense responsibility and must primarily implement the necessary protective measures. We have highlighted this in previous blogs as well. But forgive my cynicism: the likelihood of this happening seems particularly slim these days. It is therefore especially important that we take on our role and responsibility. Educating ourselves and our children about the dangers of online violent speech is crucial. Schools should integrate digital literacy and respect (sexual) education into their curricula, empowering young people to critically evaluate content and reject harmful narratives. Parents, friends, and community members must remain alert and proactive, recognizing signs and stepping in when necessary. We have highlighted these needs in previous blogs, but unfortunately, I must note that the message does not yet seem to be percolating sufficiently to the general public and relevant settings. For instance, sound sex education in schools still too often leads to protests in Belgium but also elsewhere. Education in digital literacy has had a very slow and fragmented start in Belgium, but I suspect this is also the case elsewhere. In short, we must continue to highlight these needs and encourage parents, schools and other relevant services to invest sufficiently in this area. Daring to speak out is equally important. By challenging hateful rhetoric—whether online or in personal conversations—we can create -albeit small- ripples of change. Silence in the face of hate and violence only enables it. Together, we must foster a culture of accountability, empathy, and courage that counters the toxic dynamics of today’s digital platforms. Also, scientists should not be silent on the sidelines. In an era where research findings are increasingly dismissed as mere opinion or a “different reality”, discussing evidence-based links between hate and violent speech, and (sexually) violent behavior has become fraught with difficulty. This skepticism undermines efforts to address systemic problems, as factual evidence is often overshadowed by emotional or ideological debates. To combat this, it is essential to keep on promoting a broader understanding of how research is conducted and why its findings matter. But it is also required that academics continue to raise these practices and issues with the general public and with policy. Solely focusing on scientific publications that do not reach these target groups, I fear, will not make a significant difference. Addressing the issue of online hate and (sexual) violence requires not just individual action but also robust policy interventions. Europe, for instance, must strengthen its stance on regulating digital platforms. The European Digital Services Act is a step in the right direction, but enforcement is key. Policymakers must ensure that tech companies are held accountable for the content they host, with significant penalties for failures to act against hate speech and disinformation. It is also of utmost importance that such initiatives continue to resist the growing (financial) power of these platforms. By standing firm and pushing for comprehensive, enforceable policies, Europe and hopefully other regions can set a global example in creating a safer digital space. Where do we go from here? The current trajectory of these platforms is unsustainable and deeply harmful. If we fail to hold them accountable, we risk normalizing a culture where hate and violence, including sexual violence, are not just accepted but celebrated. This is not merely a digital issue; it is a societal one, with real-world implications for safety, justice, and mental health. Andrew Tate’s presence in my feed is a symptom of a much lar

By Kasia Uzieblo, PhD, David S. Prescott, LICSW, & Kieran McCartan, PhD
Scrolling through my
X-feed recently, I was struck by an alarming trend: videos of Andrew Tate
bragging about (sexually) abusing women have suddenly become an almost daily
intrusion. His unashamed glorification of (sexual) violence and misogyny is a
stark reminder of how far platforms like X and Facebook have strayed from their
responsibility to maintain safe, accountable digital spaces.
But Tate’s presence is
just the tip of the iceberg. These platforms have become fertile ground for
hate speech, disinformation, and outright incitements to (sexual) violence. And
now, with Facebook’s decision to forgo fact-checking posts, the spiral toward
unchecked harmful content feels even steeper.
The amplification of
hate
Hate speech and
violent rhetoric thrive on engagement-driven algorithms. The more outrageous
and provocative the content, the more likely it is to be amplified. Andrew
Tate’s incendiary videos are a perfect example: their shock value ensures
likes, shares, and comments, propelling them further into people’s feeds—even
those who want no part of it.
There is a fear that digital
platforms serve as breeding grounds for harmful ideologies that spill over into
offline behavior. Studies have indeed shown links between violent (sexualized)
media, tolerance of violence and real-world violence (e.g., Burnay et al.,
2021; Müller & Schwarz, 2019; Sengupta et al., 2024). Dehumanizing
language—especially against women, minorities, and other marginalized
groups—normalizes abuse and lowers the psychological barriers to committing (sexual)
violence. The result? A culture in which acts of aggression, including sexual
violence, are trivialized or even celebrated.
Platforms’ negligence
is complicity
When Facebook abandons
its fact-checking program, it opens the floodgates to disinformation. This
isn’t just about misleading political ads; it’s about the broader erosion of
truth. Lies about sexual assault victims, false narratives blaming survivors,
and denial of systemic issues - all these contribute to a hostile environment
that discourages survivors from speaking out and emboldens perpetrators.
X, under its current
leadership, has only exacerbated the problem. By rolling back content
moderation and reinstating previously banned accounts known for spreading hate
and violence, the platform sends a clear message: hate/violent speech is not
only tolerated but prioritized.
The mental health
fallout
For those subjected to
this onslaught of hate, violence, and misogony the psychological toll is substantial.
Survivors of sexual violence, already navigating the trauma of their
experiences, are re-traumatized by the proliferation of content that mocks,
discredits, or outright denies their pain (e.g., Andreasen, 2020). Witnessing
the normalization of such violence can trigger anxiety, depression, and
feelings of hopelessness, not just for survivors but for anyone committed to
creating a safer world.
Young people, who are
among the heaviest users of these platforms, are particularly vulnerable.
Repeated exposure to misogynistic and (sexually) violent content can distort
their understanding of relationships, sexual behavior, and consent, while also
normalizing harmful behavior. The long-term consequences on their mental health
and societal values are staggering. As a parent, it’s nearly impossible to keep
up with the ever-changing landscape of social media and its addictive nature.
Even with vigilance, shielding children from harmful content feels like a
losing battle when algorithms prioritize engagement over safety. The sheer
volume of toxic material can slip through the cracks, making it harder to guide
young people and protect their mental well-being and development. This
challenge underscores the need for systemic changes in how these platforms
operate, but also in how we cope with these platforms.
A shared
responsibility
We cannot longer treat
platforms like X and Facebook as neutral tools. Their algorithms, policies, and
decisions actively shape our culture and, by extension, our realities. As an acquaintance of mine recently remarked dryly when I pointed out
the falsehoods about violence on social media: we live in different realities.
Of course, platforms
bear an immense responsibility and must primarily implement the necessary
protective measures. We have highlighted this in previous blogs as well. But
forgive my cynicism: the likelihood of this happening seems particularly slim
these days.
It is therefore
especially important that we take on our role and responsibility. Educating
ourselves and our children about the dangers of online violent speech is
crucial. Schools should integrate digital literacy and respect (sexual) education
into their curricula, empowering young people to critically evaluate content
and reject harmful narratives. Parents, friends, and community members must
remain alert and proactive, recognizing signs and stepping in when necessary. We
have highlighted these needs in previous blogs, but unfortunately, I must note
that the message does not yet seem to be percolating sufficiently to the
general public and relevant settings. For instance, sound sex education in
schools still too often leads to protests in Belgium but also elsewhere. Education in digital literacy has had a very slow and fragmented start
in Belgium, but I suspect this is also the case elsewhere. In short, we must
continue to highlight these needs and encourage parents, schools and other
relevant services to invest sufficiently in this area.
Daring to speak out is
equally important. By challenging hateful rhetoric—whether online or in
personal conversations—we can create -albeit small- ripples of change. Silence
in the face of hate and violence only enables it. Together, we must foster a
culture of accountability, empathy, and courage that counters the toxic
dynamics of today’s digital platforms.
Also, scientists should not be silent on
the sidelines. In an era where research findings are increasingly dismissed as
mere opinion or a “different reality”, discussing evidence-based links between
hate and violent speech, and (sexually) violent behavior has become fraught
with difficulty. This skepticism undermines efforts to address systemic
problems, as factual evidence is often overshadowed by emotional or ideological
debates. To combat this, it is essential to keep on promoting a broader
understanding of how research is conducted and why its findings matter. But it
is also required that academics continue to raise these practices and issues with
the general public and with policy. Solely focusing on scientific publications
that do not reach these target groups, I fear, will not make a significant
difference.
Addressing the issue of online hate and (sexual) violence requires not
just individual action but also robust policy interventions. Europe, for
instance, must strengthen its stance on regulating digital platforms. The European Digital Services Act is a step in the right direction, but enforcement is
key. Policymakers must ensure that tech companies are held accountable for the
content they host, with significant penalties for failures to act against hate
speech and disinformation. It is also of utmost importance that such
initiatives continue to resist the growing (financial) power of these
platforms. By standing firm and pushing for comprehensive, enforceable
policies, Europe and hopefully other regions can set a global example in
creating a safer digital space.
Where
do we go from here?
The current trajectory
of these platforms is unsustainable and deeply harmful. If we fail to hold them
accountable, we risk normalizing a culture where hate and violence, including
sexual violence, are not just accepted but celebrated. This is not merely a
digital issue; it is a societal one, with real-world implications for safety,
justice, and mental health.
Andrew Tate’s presence in my feed is a symptom of a much lar

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.

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8] Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026: - **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools** - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1] - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1] - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1] - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1] - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions. - **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric** - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1] - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1] - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4] - **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)** - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2] - Teachers described boys: - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**; - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive); - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2] - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2] - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2] - **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact** - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4] - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4] - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7] - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7] - **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage** - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3] - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys. - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10] - **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people** - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5] - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6] - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed. - **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)** - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8] - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8] - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8] - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8] - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff. - **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)** Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience: - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4] - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2] - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1] - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7] - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7] For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that: - Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

Girls in Years 9–10 are reporting increased **discomfort, fear and withdrawal in school** as Andrew Tate‑style misogynistic rhetoric becomes more visible among boys, reinforcing a wider pattern of sexist language, harassment and normalisation of sexual harm in secondary schools.[1][2][3][4][5][8]

Key points relevant to Year 9–10, 2024–2026:

- **Normalised harassment and misogyny in mixed‑sex secondary schools**  
  - Ofsted’s 2021 review found that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become “*normalised*” for children and young people in school environments.[1]  
  - Current UK research cited in a schools-focused article reports that **more than a third (37%) of female students at mixed‑sex secondary schools have already experienced some form of sexual harassment at school**.[1]  
  - In the same context, a survey found **64% of teachers in mixed‑sex secondary schools hear sexist language weekly, and 32% witness sexual harassment directly**.[1]  
  - Girls respond by **withdrawing from class, avoiding particular routes through school and reporting higher rates of anxiety and disengagement**.[1]  
  - These patterns match what many safeguarding teams are observing in Years 9–10: increased avoidance of spaces where boys congregate, reluctance to participate in discussion, and heightened anxiety around peer interactions.

- **Specific school‑based examples involving Andrew Tate rhetoric**  
  - UK safeguarding training materials report that **teachers are hearing boys in “Year 9” repeating harmful online narratives, and girls in “Year 10” dealing with everyday sexist language**, groping in corridors, and jokes such as “your body, my choice”.[1]  
  - The same source notes girls reporting being **groped in corridors while staff look the other way**, describing this as part of “the landscape of tackling misogyny in schools today”.[1]  
  - A BBC report notes that UK policing leaders have **singled out Andrew Tate for his role in spreading misogyny online among boys and young men**, linking his influence to the “radicalisation of young people online”.[8] This aligns with teachers’ reports that Tate‑aligned attitudes are surfacing in classrooms.[3][4]

- **International evidence from 2023–2024 studies (relevant going into 2024–2026)**  
  - Australian research with women teachers across multiple schools in 2023 found **“sharp increases in sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment” in classrooms**, explicitly linked to Andrew Tate and other “manosphere” figures.[2]  
  - Teachers described boys:
    - **Setting Andrew Tate images as desktop backgrounds**;  
    - **Provoking teachers with Tate’s ideas** (e.g. asking whether women should be allowed to drive);  
    - **Imitating his body language and gestures**.[2]  
  - One teacher reported a previously “wholesome” Year 7 boy now writing “disturbingly misogynistic messages” and asserting “Andrew Tate is being vilified. He’s in the right.”[2]  
  - An April 2024 survey of Adelaide teachers found **misogynist language and physical intimidation were commonplace in their schools**, reinforcing that the phenomenon is persisting and evolving, not fading.[2]

- **How girls describe their experiences and emotional impact**  
  - Female students have raised concerns with teachers that their **boyfriends or male peers are watching Tate’s videos**, with a “disturbing uptick in misogynistic rhetoric” in class, including **increases in rape jokes**.[4]  
  - A 7th‑grade teacher with 17 years’ experience in the US reported that rape jokes had not previously been common, “especially in a joking matter”, and linked their rise to Tate’s influence.[4]  
  - More broadly, analysis of online misogynistic and sexually violent content notes that **repeated exposure can distort young people’s understanding of relationships, sexual behaviour and consent, while normalising harmful behaviour**, with substantial mental‑health consequences including anxiety, depression and hopelessness.[7]  
  - For girls and survivors of sexual violence specifically, being subjected to or witnessing this “onslaught of hate, violence, and misogyny” can be **re‑traumatising** and carries a “substantial” psychological toll.[7]  

- **Teacher reports from 2024 surveys and media coverage**  
  - A UK teachers’ union survey (reported by Sky/BBC) found online content to be the **biggest factor behind poor behaviour and worsening attitudes towards women among pupils**, with “online influencers such as Andrew Tate” fuelling an increase in sexism in classrooms.[3]  
  - Female teachers described boys refusing to speak to them “because [she] is a woman”, and viewing male staff who do not fit hyper‑masculine ideals less respectfully.[3] This shapes the **whole school climate**, which girls inhabit alongside those boys.  
  - Social‑media commentary by school‑focused organisations similarly reports that **boys, broadly speaking, are big fans of Andrew Tate**, and that this is visible in their classroom behaviour and peer interactions.[9][10]

- **Prevalence of Tate‑aligned or misogynistic views among children and young people**  
  - Written evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on misogyny and extremism notes that **school environments are being shaped by harmful content and influencers like Andrew Tate**, and presents data that **42% of children aged 9–16 held misogynistic or harmful gender‑related views** (or agreement with such statements).[5]  
  - Research summarised by Internet Matters finds **“favourable views towards Andrew Tate” among both teen boys and young fathers**, stressing that Tate’s rhetoric is harming “boys, girls and those who identify as LGBTQ+”.[6]  
  - Based on this, Internet Matters recommends **proactive, age‑appropriate conversations before children reach secondary school** to counter misogynistic narratives.[6] This implies that by Years 9–10, many students will already have been heavily exposed.

- **Nature of Andrew Tate’s rhetoric (what girls are reacting to)**  
  - Andrew Tate has publicly described himself as “*absolutely a misogynist*” and claimed “there’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist”.[8]  
  - He has described women as “*intrinsically lazy*” and said there is “*no such thing as an independent female*”.[8]  
  - He was banned by several platforms; TikTok stated that “*misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated*”.[8]  
  - In material cited by BBC Panorama, Tate wrote to a woman: “*I love raping you*”.[8] Authorities in the UK and elsewhere have **explicitly linked his content to increased misogyny and violence against women and girls**.[8]  
  - These are the messages many girls in Years 9–10 know their male peers are consuming, which helps explain the **heightened feelings of unsafety, objectification and distrust** they report to teachers and safeguarding staff.

- **Implications for safeguarding practice in Years 9–10 (2024–2026)**  
  Evidence across multiple contexts points to several consistent impacts on girls’ day‑to‑day school experience:
  - **Increased exposure to sexist language and “jokes”**, including rape jokes and overtly demeaning comments about girls’ bodies and roles.[1][2][4]  
  - **Greater risk of in‑school sexual harassment**, including groping, unwanted touching and being rated or ranked on looks and perceived sexual availability.[1][2]  
  - **Avoidance behaviours**: changing routes around school, skipping certain lessons or spaces, withdrawing in class.[1]  
  - **Heightened anxiety, distress and disengagement from learning**, particularly in mixed‑sex environments where teachers are perceived not to intervene.[1][7]  
  - **Erosion of trust in peers and staff**, especially when girls see misogynistic behaviour go unchallenged or trivialised.[1][4][7]

For a safeguarding education team planning for 2024–2026, the sources above indicate that:

- Andrew Tate‑style content is now a **structural influence** on peer culture, not a short‑lived trend.[2][3][5]

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

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.

Empowering young men with positive role models and emotional support is key to combating the rise of misogyny and isolation CREDIT: This article was written using information in The Independent At the Children’s Commissioner’s inaugural Festival of Children, held at the Young V&A in London on April 3, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson addressed a critical issue: the development of misogynistic views among young boys and the need to encourage more men to pursue careers in teaching. Phillipson called on schools to take proactive steps in addressing this growing problem. The Challenge: A Crisis of Role Models and Isolation Society is witnessing a worrying rise in misogyny among young people, often fuelled by a lack of positive male role models. This issue is compounded by a crisis of isolation and loneliness among boys, many of whom feel disconnected from their communities and turn to the online world for validation and guidance. Statistics indicate that just one in four teachers in schools are men, with the ratio even lower in early years settings – just one in 33. Since 2010, while the number of teachers has increased by 28,000, only 533 of those positions were filled by men. This gender imbalance in the teaching profession not only limits boys’ exposure to positive male influences but also reinforces harmful stereotypes about masculinity and success. School business managers play a vital role in addressing this challenge by fostering an environment where healthy role models are visible and celebrated. Highlighting Healthy Role Models Schools are rich with potential role models who can positively influence young boys. Start by identifying male staff members who embody the values of respect, empathy and resilience. Provide platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences. Additionally, invite local men who have achieved success in various fields – be it sports, business, or community work – to speak with students. These interactions can demystify success and challenge the notion that wealth alone equates to winning. Partner with local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives. Engage them in school events or mentorship programs, illustrating how achieving professional success does not mean sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement. Providing a Safe Space for Expression Boys, in particular, may struggle to express their feelings due to societal pressure to appear strong and unemotional. To counter this, schools should establish safe spaces where boys can openly discuss their experiences and feelings without fear of judgment. Whether through mentorship programs, group discussions, or one-on-one support, creating environments that prioritise openness will help boys develop healthier perspectives on emotions and relationships. Showcasing a Positive School Culture Highlight the positive aspects of your school culture, emphasising the diversity and success of your staff. Use your website and social media to feature testimonials from male and female teachers alike, sharing why they love working in education and how they positively impact students’ lives. By visibly promoting a supportive and inclusive school environment, you can attract more male educators while also providing students with a broader range of role models. Schools have a unique opportunity to shape the futures of young men by showcasing healthy, successful pathways. By fostering environments where positive role models are celebrated, encouraging open conversations about emotions and demonstrating that success is multifaceted, schools can actively combat harmful stereotypes and support boys in building confident, respectful identities. Taking these steps not only benefits students but also strengthens the school community.

Empowering young men with positive role models and emotional support is key to combating the rise of misogyny and isolation
CREDIT: This article was written using information in The Independent
At the Children’s Commissioner’s inaugural Festival of Children, held at the Young V&A in London on April 3, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson addressed a critical issue: the development of misogynistic views among young boys and the need to encourage more men to pursue careers in teaching. Phillipson called on schools to take proactive steps in addressing this growing problem.
The Challenge: A Crisis of Role Models and Isolation
Society is witnessing a worrying rise in misogyny among young people, often fuelled by a lack of positive male role models. This issue is compounded by a crisis of isolation and loneliness among boys, many of whom feel disconnected from their communities and turn to the online world for validation and guidance. Statistics indicate that just one in four teachers in schools are men, with the ratio even lower in early years settings – just one in 33. Since 2010, while the number of teachers has increased by 28,000, only 533 of those positions were filled by men.
This gender imbalance in the teaching profession not only limits boys’ exposure to positive male influences but also reinforces harmful stereotypes about masculinity and success. School business managers play a vital role in addressing this challenge by fostering an environment where healthy role models are visible and celebrated.
Highlighting Healthy Role Models
Schools are rich with potential role models who can positively influence young boys. Start by identifying male staff members who embody the values of respect, empathy and resilience. Provide platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences. Additionally, invite local men who have achieved success in various fields – be it sports, business, or community work – to speak with students. These interactions can demystify success and challenge the notion that wealth alone equates to winning.
Partner with local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives. Engage them in school events or mentorship programs, illustrating how achieving professional success does not mean sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.
Providing a Safe Space for Expression
Boys, in particular, may struggle to express their feelings due to societal pressure to appear strong and unemotional. To counter this, schools should establish safe spaces where boys can openly discuss their experiences and feelings without fear of judgment. Whether through mentorship programs, group discussions, or one-on-one support, creating environments that prioritise openness will help boys develop healthier perspectives on emotions and relationships.
Showcasing a Positive School Culture
Highlight the positive aspects of your school culture, emphasising the diversity and success of your staff. Use your website and social media to feature testimonials from male and female teachers alike, sharing why they love working in education and how they positively impact students’ lives. By visibly promoting a supportive and inclusive school environment, you can attract more male educators while also providing students with a broader range of role models.
Schools have a unique opportunity to shape the futures of young men by showcasing healthy, successful pathways. By fostering environments where positive role models are celebrated, encouraging open conversations about emotions and demonstrating that success is multifaceted, schools can actively combat harmful stereotypes and support boys in building confident, respectful identities. Taking these steps not only benefits students but also strengthens the school community.

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6] Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection) The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that: - Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6] - It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6] Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys: - **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6] - **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6] - **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6] - **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6] - **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6] These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3] For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens: > Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline? --- ## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys: - 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.”[1] - The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1] - A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4] In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings. --- ## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26) ### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools: - **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2] - Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2] - Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2] - Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2] These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6] ### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that: - **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives. - Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]** For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols. ### 3.3 Everyday community involvement A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5] This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5] --- ## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26) Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that: - Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8] - Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8] A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests: - Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7] - Examples cited as positive male role models include: - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7] - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7] - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7] These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content. --- ## 5. Ho

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6]  

Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection)

The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that:

- Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6]  
- It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6]

Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys:

- **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6]  
- **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6]  
- **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6]  
- **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6]  
- **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6]

These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3]

For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens:

> Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline?

---

## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models

Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys:

- 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.”[1]  
- The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1]  
- A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4]

In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings.

---

## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26)

### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff

Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools:

- **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2]  
- Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2]  
- Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2]  
- Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2]

These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6]

### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools

In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that:

- **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives.  
- Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]**

For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols.

### 3.3 Everyday community involvement

A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5]

This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5]

---

## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26)

Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that:

- Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8]  
- Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8]

A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests:

- Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7]  
- Examples cited as positive male role models include:
  - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7]  
  - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7]  
  - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7]

These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content.

---

## 5. Ho

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6] Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection) The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that: - Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6] - It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6] Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys: - **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6] - **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6] - **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6] - **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6] - **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6] These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3] For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens: > Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline? --- ## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys: - 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.”[1] - The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1] - A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4] In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings. --- ## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26) ### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools: - **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2] - Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2] - Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2] - Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2] These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6] ### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that: - **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives. - Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]** For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols. ### 3.3 Everyday community involvement A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5] This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5] --- ## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26) Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that: - Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8] - Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8] A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests: - Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7] - Examples cited as positive male role models include: - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7] - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7] - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7] These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content. --- ## 5. Ho

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6]  

Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection)

The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that:

- Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6]  
- It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6]

Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys:

- **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6]  
- **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6]  
- **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6]  
- **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6]  
- **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6]

These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3]

For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens:

> Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline?

---

## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models

Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys:

- 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.”[1]  
- The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1]  
- A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4]

In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings.

---

## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26)

### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff

Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools:

- **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2]  
- Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2]  
- Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2]  
- Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2]

These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6]

### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools

In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that:

- **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives.  
- Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]**

For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols.

### 3.3 Everyday community involvement

A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5]

This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5]

---

## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26)

Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that:

- Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8]  
- Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8]

A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests:

- Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7]  
- Examples cited as positive male role models include:
  - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7]  
  - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7]  
  - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7]

These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content.

---

## 5. Ho

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6] Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection) The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that: - Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6] - It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6] Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys: - **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6] - **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6] - **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6] - **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6] - **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6] These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3] For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens: > Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline? --- ## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys: - 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.”[1] - The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1] - A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4] In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings. --- ## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26) ### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools: - **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2] - Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2] - Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2] - Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2] These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6] ### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that: - **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives. - Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]** For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols. ### 3.3 Everyday community involvement A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5] This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5] --- ## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26) Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that: - Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8] - Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8] A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests: - Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7] - Examples cited as positive male role models include: - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7] - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7] - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7] These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content. --- ## 5. Ho

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6]  

Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection)

The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that:

- Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6]  
- It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6]

Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys:

- **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6]  
- **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6]  
- **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6]  
- **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6]  
- **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6]

These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3]

For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens:

> Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline?

---

## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models

Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys:

- 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.”[1]  
- The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1]  
- A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4]

In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings.

---

## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26)

### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff

Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools:

- **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2]  
- Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2]  
- Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2]  
- Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2]

These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6]

### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools

In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that:

- **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives.  
- Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]**

For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols.

### 3.3 Everyday community involvement

A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5]

This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5]

---

## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26)

Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that:

- Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8]  
- Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8]

A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests:

- Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7]  
- Examples cited as positive male role models include:
  - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7]  
  - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7]  
  - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7]

These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content.

---

## 5. Ho

What does it mean to describe someone as ‘masculine’? Back in 1984, Franklin identified male-valued traits that were typically linked to being masculine, including aggression, dominance and a lack of emotion. While thankfully much has moved on since then, perceptions of what it means to be masculine are still frequently linked within research to rigid behaviours and traits, most noticeably around sexism and lack of emotion (Levant & Richmond, 2016). These ideas are particularly concerning given the constant pressure faced by many men and boys to constantly assert, prove and maintain their masculinity (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). The pressure to perform this idea of masculinity can have a significant negative impact on men’s mental health, as well as having serious consequences for the people around them and wider society (Morin, 2020), as some men’s attitudes and behaviours can end up being driven by others’ expectations, rather than their own wishes and values. An example of this sort of behaviour is if a male athlete shares a sexist meme with their teammates on WhatApp, even if the recipients are uncomfortable with this or recognise is as problematic, the ‘traditional’ definition of what it means to be masculine dictates that the ‘correct’ response is to laugh along, and perhaps continue the ‘joke’ by sharing something even more extreme themselves. Burrell’s (2021) study of male student athletes even found that behaviours which would typically be considered problematic, such as turning up drunk at a partner’s house and demanding to be let in, were actually viewed sympathetically by other males when considered through the lens of expected masculine behaviours. So, what can be done to address this? There is a growing acceptance among psychologists that identifying and promoting a healthier, more positive definition of masculinity is a valuable tool in tackling problematic behaviour and attitudes, and could even act as a protective factor for many men and boys (Kiselica et al, 2016). What is positive masculinity? The Crowther Centre in Australia (2021) suggests that positive masculinity should be defined as: “The expression of attitudes and behaviours (character strengths and virtues which any gender might have) that have been embodied and enacted by males for the common good, both individually and for the community” The Crowther Centre Kiselica et al (2016) noted that positive masculinity should include prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs in boys and men, which result in a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others. This includes fostering a sense of duty towards others, and recognising the positives that can come from looking out for others. Kinselica et al (2008) suggest that positive masculinity can be taught and socialised into men and boys, thereby changing perceptions of masculinity over time. To that end, they developed the Positive Psychology-Positive Masculinity paradigm (PPPM) to focus on strengths associated with masculinity, adaptive behaviours and the positive aspects of being male. They argued that simply looking at the deficits associated with toxic masculine traits limits peoples’ perspectives of masculinity and fails to recognise the positive potential in boys and men. The PPPM suggests some key actions that are important in developing and maintaining a culture of positive masculinity, and are things that everyone can reflect on and consider. These include: - Emphasising the importance of ‘action empathy’ - This is when a person takes action based on how they think someone else might be feeling e.g. “I might not be upset by that meme, but if it looks like someone else is then I’ll respect that and support them” - Nurturing male-self reliance – this doesn’t mean only listening to our own opinion. Someone with good self-reliance knows their own mind, but also listens to the input of others and acts in a way that fits with their own values, rather than simply going along with the crowd. - Committing to having respect for women – this includes refraining from engaging in violence against women, making sexist comments or laughing at sexist jokes. It also means being an active bystander and actively challenging those who do engage in sexist behaviour, whether they are family members, friends or teammates. The White Ribbon Campaign noted in 2014 that the promotion of gender equity, healthy relationships and ending violence against women and girls, is essential to a new vision of positive masculinity. - Use of humour – Vereen et al (2013) found that many men and boys use humour for a variety of reasons, including to have fun, to create positive experiences with friends, to reduce tension and to manage conflicts. Kiselica (2001) noted that positive masculinity aligns with this use of humour , rather than conflicting with it. In fact, they suggested that humour can be an important tool in healing and coping in difficult times, such as stress and illness, and can be a good way for men and boys to show that they care for someone else. What separates positive masculinity from toxic masculinity is what or who is the subject of the joke. - Recognise that men don’t have to be ‘heroes’ – For a long time, masculinity was linked with traditional ideas of strength, power and not showing weakness. Positive masculinity challenges this, and emphasises the strength and heroism involved in being hard-working, looking out for other people and reaching out to ask for help when needed. If someone feels that it would be seen as ‘weak’ to speak out, then they may be afraid to do so. A culture of positive masculinity creates an environment where men and boys can feel more able to speak up and know that it’s okay not to be okay. So what can we take from this? In order to embrace healthy, pro-social behaviour and promote good mental health for boys and men, perhaps the answer lies in embracing this new approach to what it means to be masculine, focusing on positive behaviours and leaving toxic masculinity in the past. As suggested by the Crowther Centre, perhaps positive masculinity really does offer a solution to change the conversation and move forwards into a more equitable and inclusive future. If you’d like to discuss this article further, please contact Dr Gill Harrop, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology via email on: g.harrop@worc.ac.uk You can also find out more about the UW Bystander Intervention Programme Find out more about Psychology at Worcester.

What does it mean to describe someone as ‘masculine’?
Back in 1984, Franklin identified male-valued traits that were typically linked to being masculine, including aggression, dominance and a lack of emotion. While thankfully much has moved on since then, perceptions of what it means to be masculine are still frequently linked within research to rigid behaviours and traits, most noticeably around sexism and lack of emotion (Levant & Richmond, 2016).
These ideas are particularly concerning given the constant pressure faced by many men and boys to constantly assert, prove and maintain their masculinity (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). The pressure to perform this idea of masculinity can have a significant negative impact on men’s mental health, as well as having serious consequences for the people around them and wider society (Morin, 2020), as some men’s attitudes and behaviours can end up being driven by others’ expectations, rather than their own wishes and values.
An example of this sort of behaviour is if a male athlete shares a sexist meme with their teammates on WhatApp, even if the recipients are uncomfortable with this or recognise is as problematic, the ‘traditional’ definition of what it means to be masculine dictates that the ‘correct’ response is to laugh along, and perhaps continue the ‘joke’ by sharing something even more extreme themselves. Burrell’s (2021) study of male student athletes even found that behaviours which would typically be considered problematic, such as turning up drunk at a partner’s house and demanding to be let in, were actually viewed sympathetically by other males when considered through the lens of expected masculine behaviours.
So, what can be done to address this? There is a growing acceptance among psychologists that identifying and promoting a healthier, more positive definition of masculinity is a valuable tool in tackling problematic behaviour and attitudes, and could even act as a protective factor for many men and boys (Kiselica et al, 2016).
What is positive masculinity?
The Crowther Centre in Australia (2021) suggests that positive masculinity should be defined as:
“The expression of attitudes and behaviours (character strengths and virtues which any gender might have) that have been embodied and enacted by males for the common good, both individually and for the community”
The Crowther Centre
Kiselica et al (2016) noted that positive masculinity should include prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs in boys and men, which result in a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others. This includes fostering a sense of duty towards others, and recognising the positives that can come from looking out for others. Kinselica et al (2008) suggest that positive masculinity can be taught and socialised into men and boys, thereby changing perceptions of masculinity over time. To that end, they developed the Positive Psychology-Positive Masculinity paradigm (PPPM) to focus on strengths associated with masculinity, adaptive behaviours and the positive aspects of being male. They argued that simply looking at the deficits associated with toxic masculine traits limits peoples’ perspectives of masculinity and fails to recognise the positive potential in boys and men.
The PPPM suggests some key actions that are important in developing and maintaining a culture of positive masculinity, and are things that everyone can reflect on and consider. These include:
- Emphasising the importance of ‘action empathy’ - This is when a person takes action based on how they think someone else might be feeling e.g. “I might not be upset by that meme, but if it looks like someone else is then I’ll respect that and support them”
- Nurturing male-self reliance – this doesn’t mean only listening to our own opinion. Someone with good self-reliance knows their own mind, but also listens to the input of others and acts in a way that fits with their own values, rather than simply going along with the crowd.
- Committing to having respect for women – this includes refraining from engaging in violence against women, making sexist comments or laughing at sexist jokes. It also means being an active bystander and actively challenging those who do engage in sexist behaviour, whether they are family members, friends or teammates. The White Ribbon Campaign noted in 2014 that the promotion of gender equity, healthy relationships and ending violence against women and girls, is essential to a new vision of positive masculinity.
- Use of humour – Vereen et al (2013) found that many men and boys use humour for a variety of reasons, including to have fun, to create positive experiences with friends, to reduce tension and to manage conflicts. Kiselica (2001) noted that positive masculinity aligns with this use of humour , rather than conflicting with it. In fact, they suggested that humour can be an important tool in healing and coping in difficult times, such as stress and illness, and can be a good way for men and boys to show that they care for someone else. What separates positive masculinity from toxic masculinity is what or who is the subject of the joke.
- Recognise that men don’t have to be ‘heroes’ – For a long time, masculinity was linked with traditional ideas of strength, power and not showing weakness. Positive masculinity challenges this, and emphasises the strength and heroism involved in being hard-working, looking out for other people and reaching out to ask for help when needed. If someone feels that it would be seen as ‘weak’ to speak out, then they may be afraid to do so. A culture of positive masculinity creates an environment where men and boys can feel more able to speak up and know that it’s okay not to be okay.
So what can we take from this? In order to embrace healthy, pro-social behaviour and promote good mental health for boys and men, perhaps the answer lies in embracing this new approach to what it means to be masculine, focusing on positive behaviours and leaving toxic masculinity in the past. As suggested by the Crowther Centre, perhaps positive masculinity really does offer a solution to change the conversation and move forwards into a more equitable and inclusive future.
If you’d like to discuss this article further, please contact Dr Gill Harrop, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology via email on: g.harrop@worc.ac.uk
You can also find out more about the UW Bystander Intervention Programme
Find out more about Psychology at Worcester.

Maximising student potential and outcomes through welling, fitness and health Support for your child in English Literature, English Language and developing a positive approach to work-life balance Maximising student potential and outcomes through welling, fitness and health Support for your child in English Literature, English Language and developing a positive approach to work-life balance Maximising student potential and outcomes through welling, fitness and health Support for your child in English Literature, English Language and developing a positive approach to work-life balance Male Role Models for Teenage Boys Feb 14, 2023 4 min read Updated: Feb 9, 2024 Last week I featured on the Middle East Eye's The Big PicturePodcast talking about how parents and teachers can talk to teenagers about personalities like Tate, online safety and what we often call 'uncomfortable conversations'. Like many educators, we highlighted that the conversations go beyond the influence of one individual and there are big questions and discussions to be had around representation, the meaning of masculinity and the lack of role models for boys in the teenage space. There is so much to unpack here: where do images and experiences of masculinity come from? How do we open conversations about male mental health? What does gender equity and equality look like in schools? And, the question at large for so many parents and teachers: how do we navigate the free, all encompassing and concerning online content teenagers consume? I cannot do all of these questions justice in a single blog post. However, for so many parents and teachers, a starting point is representation. Positive Online Role Models for Young Men With the best will in the world, we cannot hide teenagers from the online world. So much of it is worrying, yes, but so much of it is good too. They know more than we do, their future careers and work are likely to be online and it has opened up a wealth of positive knowledge and opportunities for them too. What we can do is help overcome the negative with the positive and over time, overcome the toxic messages so many teenagers are absorbing. Below is a list of male role models for teenage boys. It's not a quick fix, I know. However, when we think about what's in our control, practically and pragmatically, online behaviour change is a good place to start supporting young men online. If you're a teacher, reference them in your discussions; if you're a parent, get your children to look them up online, follow them on socials and engage in their content so we can begin overriding the algorithms, together. Steven Bartlett Entrepreneur, Podcaster, author and a Dragon on BBC One's Dragon's Den, Bartlett talks candidly and authentically about his experiences at school, dropping out of uni, building a business, wellbeing, empathy, leadership, resilience, hard work and so much more. His podcasts and tweets are lessons in themselves, lessons that teenagers everywhere would benefit from. Cambridge graduate, YouTuber, podcaster and entrepreneur, a few of my students told me about Ali Abdaal! A man who shares some of the best study, resilience and wellbeing tips for students in his brilliantly crafted YouTube videos, he is an excellent role model for young men to learn from whether it be to pursue university, entrepreneurship, or to learn about how we can overcome procrastination! The founder of GymShark, Ben Francis, is a wonderful role model for young men. The story of GymShark is inspiring and fascinating all at the same time; the way Francis shares his journey about building a business from scratch, networking, making mistakes, working hard, chipping away at building one of the most phenomenal British brands we know if, is something else. Learn more about his journey on his YouTube channel. Roman Kemp Radio host, television personality and author, Roman Kemp is the friend all teenage boys need. His kindness, humour and honesty about mental health are of great value to young men everywhere. Kemp talks honestly about his depression as a teenager, male mental health, his relationships with family and frends, and so much more. Follow him on all major social media @romankemp Diren Kartal Online fitness coach, podcaster and a pretty cool voice of wisdom, Diren provides relatable and no-nonsense doses of reality that every teenage boy, student and adult can benefit from! He's honest, funny and unfiltered (be warned!)! Very recently, Diren has been raising awareness and funds for the tragic Turkey-Syria Earthquakes - schools can get involved too. Again, someone for teenage boys to look up to and Simon Sinek's content is invaluable for, well, everyone. Author, podcaster, speaker, influencer, everything he says is thought provoking, nuanced, rational, witty and brilliant. Recently, Simon has been discussing Gen Z and trends relevant to Gen X in the workplace too - discussions that teenage boys, students and teachers would find beneficial. @simonsinek Omar Esa Global, award winning and chart topping faith based singer (nasheed artist), Omar Esa, is a great male role model for young men, especially young muslim men. His impressive career spans many areas of the music industry, from RnB to faith based music. Omar has recently founded another YouTube channel for young children to inject fun into faith-based learning, is definitely one to watch. His social media platforms promote kindness, peace, justice and he's pretty funny too. Plus, his passion for the creative arts can inspire young men interested in the creative industry too. @1omaresa Raising Boys 2 Men A recent discovery and such a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men, Raising Boys 2 Men, although aimed at co-parents, is a brilliant account and male role model. His advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity. His videos are candid, honest and supportive: highly recommended for parents and teenagers. @raisingboys_2men There is no easy answer to resolving online algorithms, online safety, anxiety and the content teenagers are exposed to. It's even more tricky and overwhelming trying to navigate conversations about social media in the classroom. For now, we can make a start by asking young people to follow or engage with the accounts above. I'm sure there are plenty more that encourage healthy and positive discussions for young men - feel free to share them and we can keep adding to this list! Social media accounts recommended are based on individual social media platforms in Feb 2023. If you are under the age of 18, please ask a parent/carer for permission and to advise when engaging with the accounts above. Parents are advised to check the accounts first before recommending to a young person.

Maximising student potential and outcomes through welling, fitness and health
Support for your child in English Literature, English Language and developing a positive approach to work-life balance
Maximising student potential and outcomes through welling, fitness and health
Support for your child in English Literature, English Language and developing a positive approach to work-life balance
Maximising student potential and outcomes through welling, fitness and health
Support for your child in English Literature, English Language and developing a positive approach to work-life balance
Male Role Models for Teenage Boys
Feb 14, 2023
4 min read
Updated: Feb 9, 2024
Last week I featured on the Middle East Eye's The Big PicturePodcast talking about how parents and teachers can talk to teenagers about personalities like Tate, online safety and what we often call 'uncomfortable conversations'. Like many educators, we highlighted that the conversations go beyond the influence of one individual and there are big questions and discussions to be had around representation, the meaning of masculinity and the lack of role models for boys in the teenage space.
There is so much to unpack here: where do images and experiences of masculinity come from? How do we open conversations about male mental health? What does gender equity and equality look like in schools? And, the question at large for so many parents and teachers: how do we navigate the free, all encompassing and concerning online content teenagers consume?
I cannot do all of these questions justice in a single blog post. However, for so many parents and teachers, a starting point is representation.
Positive Online Role Models for Young Men
With the best will in the world, we cannot hide teenagers from the online world. So much of it is worrying, yes, but so much of it is good too. They know more than we do, their future careers and work are likely to be online and it has opened up a wealth of positive knowledge and opportunities for them too. What we can do is help overcome the negative with the positive and over time, overcome the toxic messages so many teenagers are absorbing.
Below is a list of male role models for teenage boys. It's not a quick fix, I know. However, when we think about what's in our control, practically and pragmatically, online behaviour change is a good place to start supporting young men online. If you're a teacher, reference them in your discussions; if you're a parent, get your children to look them up online, follow them on socials and engage in their content so we can begin overriding the algorithms, together.
Steven Bartlett
Entrepreneur, Podcaster, author and a Dragon on BBC One's Dragon's Den, Bartlett talks candidly and authentically about his experiences at school, dropping out of uni, building a business, wellbeing, empathy, leadership, resilience, hard work and so much more. His podcasts and tweets are lessons in themselves, lessons that teenagers everywhere would benefit from.
Cambridge graduate, YouTuber, podcaster and entrepreneur, a few of my students told me about Ali Abdaal! A man who shares some of the best study, resilience and wellbeing tips for students in his brilliantly crafted YouTube videos, he is an excellent role model for young men to learn from whether it be to pursue university, entrepreneurship, or to learn about how we can overcome procrastination!
The founder of GymShark, Ben Francis, is a wonderful role model for young men. The story of GymShark is inspiring and fascinating all at the same time; the way Francis shares his journey about building a business from scratch, networking, making mistakes, working hard, chipping away at building one of the most phenomenal British brands we know if, is something else. Learn more about his journey on his YouTube channel.
Roman Kemp
Radio host, television personality and author, Roman Kemp is the friend all teenage boys need. His kindness, humour and honesty about mental health are of great value to young men everywhere. Kemp talks honestly about his depression as a teenager, male mental health, his relationships with family and frends, and so much more. Follow him on all major social media @romankemp
Diren Kartal
Online fitness coach, podcaster and a pretty cool voice of wisdom, Diren provides relatable and no-nonsense doses of reality that every teenage boy, student and adult can benefit from! He's honest, funny and unfiltered (be warned!)! Very recently, Diren has been raising awareness and funds for the tragic Turkey-Syria Earthquakes - schools can get involved too.
Again, someone for teenage boys to look up to and Simon Sinek's content is invaluable for, well, everyone. Author, podcaster, speaker, influencer, everything he says is thought provoking, nuanced, rational, witty and brilliant. Recently, Simon has been discussing Gen Z and trends relevant to Gen X in the workplace too - discussions that teenage boys, students and teachers would find beneficial. @simonsinek
Omar Esa
Global, award winning and chart topping faith based singer (nasheed artist), Omar Esa, is a great male role model for young men, especially young muslim men. His impressive career spans many areas of the music industry, from RnB to faith based music. Omar has recently founded another YouTube channel for young children to inject fun into faith-based learning, is definitely one to watch. His social media platforms promote kindness, peace, justice and he's pretty funny too. Plus, his passion for the creative arts can inspire young men interested in the creative industry too. @1omaresa
Raising Boys 2 Men
A recent discovery and such a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men, Raising Boys 2 Men, although aimed at co-parents, is a brilliant account and male role model. His advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity. His videos are candid, honest and supportive: highly recommended for parents and teenagers. @raisingboys_2men
There is no easy answer to resolving online algorithms, online safety, anxiety and the content teenagers are exposed to. It's even more tricky and overwhelming trying to navigate conversations about social media in the classroom. For now, we can make a start by asking young people to follow or engage with the accounts above. I'm sure there are plenty more that encourage healthy and positive discussions for young men - feel free to share them and we can keep adding to this list!
Social media accounts recommended are based on individual social media platforms in Feb 2023. If you are under the age of 18, please ask a parent/carer for permission and to advise when engaging with the accounts above. Parents are advised to check the accounts first before recommending to a young person.

Toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot recently, but there are a growing number of positive role models showing boys and young men how to behave with kindness, respect and empathy. The brand of misogynistic and materialistic ‘toxic masculinity’ that YouTuber Andrew Tate personifies is a problem that has vexed parents for some time. “Time and time again expectations of ‘being a man’ have led to more and more young males finding their way into serious violent crime,” according to a 2020 report from Greater Manchester’s Innovation Unit. It noted that the influence of toxic masculinity on young men may be rising. “This pressure to uphold a masculine image based on strength is becoming intensified through the increasing influence of social media,” the report concluded. And this pressure can be devastating for individuals and society: “Extreme forms of certain traditional masculine traits are linked to aggression, misogyny and negative health outcomes,” according to the American Psychological Association. The tide could be turning though, as a flood of surveys and school initiatives suggest that ‘toxic masculinity’ might finally be facing a new foe – ‘positive masculinity’. Progress at home: how to talk to your son “If we create the right environment, these young men will show the best versions of themselves,” says Mike Nicholson. A former English teacher with almost two decades of experience under his belt, Nicolson is now director of The Progressive Masculinity Programme. This organisation hosts workshops with boys, and also with their parents, exploring what it can mean to ‘be a man’ by fostering more inclusive and empathetic attitudes.

Toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot recently, but there are a growing number of positive role models showing boys and young men how to behave with kindness, respect and empathy.
The brand of misogynistic and materialistic ‘toxic masculinity’ that YouTuber Andrew Tate personifies is a problem that has vexed parents for some time.
“Time and time again expectations of ‘being a man’ have led to more and more young males finding their way into serious violent crime,” according to a 2020 report from Greater Manchester’s Innovation Unit. It noted that the influence of toxic masculinity on young men may be rising.
“This pressure to uphold a masculine image based on strength is becoming intensified through the increasing influence of social media,” the report concluded.
And this pressure can be devastating for individuals and society: “Extreme forms of certain traditional masculine traits are linked to aggression, misogyny and negative health outcomes,” according to the American Psychological Association.
The tide could be turning though, as a flood of surveys and school initiatives suggest that ‘toxic masculinity’ might finally be facing a new foe – ‘positive masculinity’.
Progress at home: how to talk to your son
“If we create the right environment, these young men will show the best versions of themselves,” says Mike Nicholson. A former English teacher with almost two decades of experience under his belt, Nicolson is now director of The Progressive Masculinity Programme. This organisation hosts workshops with boys, and also with their parents, exploring what it can mean to ‘be a man’ by fostering more inclusive and empathetic attitudes.

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

© 2026 Instagram from Meta

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6] Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work. --- ## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection) The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that: - Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6] - It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6] Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys: - **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6] - **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6] - **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6] - **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6] - **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6] These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3] For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens: > Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline? --- ## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys: - 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.”[1] - The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1] - A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4] In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings. --- ## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26) ### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools: - **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2] - Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2] - Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2] - Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2] These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6] ### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that: - **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives. - Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]** For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols. ### 3.3 Everyday community involvement A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5] This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5] --- ## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26) Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that: - Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8] - Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8] A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests: - Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7] - Examples cited as positive male role models include: - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7] - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7] - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7] These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content. --- ## 5. Ho

For teenage boys in the UK, the strongest “positive masculinity” role models in 2024–2026 are not primarily celebrities but **everyday men**—teachers, coaches, youth workers, fathers and community figures—who consistently model empathy, respect for women, emotional openness, and responsibility in real relationships with boys.[1][4][6]  

Below is a UK‑focused, evidence‑aligned overview you can use in safeguarding and education work.

---

## 1. What “positive masculinity” looks like (for role‑model selection)

The **University of Worcester** summarises contemporary research on *positive masculinity* as the expression of character strengths and virtues “embodied and enacted by males for the common good.”[6] It highlights that:

- Positive masculinity involves **prosocial behaviours, attitudes and beliefs** that have *“a noticeable positive consequence for themselves or others.”*[6]  
- It can be **taught and socialised** in boys and men, so models matter.[6]

Their practice guidance identifies key features you can use as criteria when choosing role models for boys:

- **Action empathy** – taking action based on how someone else might be feeling (e.g. respecting that a meme could upset others and supporting them).[6]  
- **Healthy self‑reliance** – knowing your own mind but being open to others’ input and acting in line with your values rather than “just going along with the crowd.”[6]  
- **Commitment to respect for women** – not engaging in violence, sexist comments or “jokes,” and being an **active bystander** who challenges sexist behaviour from friends or teammates.[6]  
- **Positive use of humour** – to create positive experiences, reduce tension and manage conflicts, not to humiliate others.[6]  
- **Rejecting “hero” stereotypes** – strength is framed as hard work, looking out for others, and *asking for help* when needed.[6]

These map closely to what young people themselves say they want from role models in 2025: people who “**lead with honesty, empathy, and integrity**” and show that masculinity “isn’t a one‑size‑fits‑all concept.”[3] Role models are described as *“being open, honest, and real – it’s not about being perfect… it’s about showing up with self‑awareness, support, and care.”*[3]

For a safeguarding context, this gives a clear screening lens:

> Does this man consistently model empathy, respect (especially for women and girls), emotional openness, and responsibility *in his actual relationships*, both online and offline?

---

## 2. Why athletes, coaches and educators are powerful role models

Several sources emphasise that **sports coaches and teachers** are among the most influential male role models for boys:

- 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.”[1]  
- The same University of Worcester blog argues that boys need **“everyday influencers”**—teachers, coaches, family friends—who affect their *daily lives* and model healthy masculinity through consistent behaviour.[1]  
- A Washington Times commentary notes that a role model “should not be a detached professional athlete or entertainment celebrity” but “someone actively involved in a child's life.”[4] It identifies **fathers, coaches, teachers or scout leaders** as crucial in guiding boys into becoming “gentlemen.”[4]

In the UK, this intersects with a structural problem: only about **1 in 4 teachers in England are men** (and far fewer in primary), leading to reduced daily exposure to positive male educators.[9] This makes intentional selection and support of positive male staff and volunteers particularly important in schools and youth settings.

---

## 3. Practical strategies for schools and youth settings (UK‑relevant, 2024–26)

### 3.1 Identifying and amplifying positive male staff

Edexec (a UK education management outlet) recommends that schools:

- **Identify male staff** who embody “values of respect, empathy and resilience.”[2]  
- Provide **platforms for these individuals to share their stories and experiences** with students.[2]  
- Invite **local men** who have achieved success in sports, business or community work to speak with students, explicitly framing success alongside wellbeing and community involvement.[2]  
- Partner with **local businesses that promote balanced and healthy working lives**, illustrating that professional success does not require sacrificing wellbeing or community involvement.[2]

These strategies align directly with positive masculinity research (prosocial, relational, community-oriented definitions of success).[6]

### 3.2 Mentoring and male mentors in schools

In February 2024, the **Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson**, set out plans for **male mentors in schools** to work with young men and counter negative online influences.[1] This political focus reflects an emerging policy consensus that:

- **Structured male mentoring**, when rooted in safeguarding standards and gender equality, can help boys navigate harmful online content by providing real‑life, trustworthy alternatives.  
- Schools, parents and peers may need 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.”[1]**

For your team, this supports designing **formal mentoring schemes** and targeted interventions with clear criteria (see Section 1) and robust safeguarding protocols.

### 3.3 Everyday community involvement

A TED‑style talk on male role models argues that, given the influence of figures like Andrew Tate, **“we need to become… the antithesis”** of such influencers, and that men should step outside the nuclear family to support nephews, neighbours or other boys in their community.[5] Parents are encouraged to actively notice which **coaches and teachers** are especially positive in their sons’ lives and **encourage those relationships**.[5]

This complements the research focus on **“everyday influencers”** and suggests explicit school‑home dialogue about which adults boys are engaging with most.[1][5]

---

## 4. Online role models and creators (for UK boys, 2024–26)

Alongside *in‑person* role models, young people increasingly look online. Vodafone’s UK digital parenting guidance on **“Positive masculinity: finding the best role models online”** notes that:

- Although “toxic masculinity has been in the news a lot,” there is a growing number of **positive role models** showing boys how to behave with “kindness, respect and empathy.”[8]  
- Some organisations run **workshops with boys and parents** to explore what it can mean to “be a man” by fostering *inclusive and empathetic* attitudes.[8]

A UK education platform, *School Should Be*, provides a **curated list of male role models for teenage boys**, intended specifically for parents and teachers to reference in class or at home.[7] It suggests:

- Getting students to **look them up online, follow them on social media and engage with their content** to “begin overriding the algorithms” that currently serve more harmful content.[7]  
- Examples cited as positive male role models include:
  - **Ben Francis** (founder of Gymshark), described as “a wonderful role model for young men.”[7]  
  - **Roman Kemp**, radio host and TV personality, characterised as “the friend all teenage boys need.”[7]  
  - The online channel **Raising Boys 2 Men**, praised as “a rich, humble and valuable channel for young men,” where the creator’s “advice, wisdom, logic and mission to encourage healthy relationships can really help young men navigate their understanding of masculinity.”[7]

These are not scientific endorsements but **professionally curated suggestions** by a UK education organisation; they can be used as *starting points* for media literacy work, provided you apply your own safeguarding risk assessment and cross‑check content.

---

## 5. Ho