Introduction

In July 2024, the tragic murders of Carol Hunt and her daughters, Hannah and Louise, in Hertfordshire, England, shocked the world. The alleged perpetrator, 26-year-old Kyle Clifford, reportedly an ex-boyfriend of one of the victims, had a documented history of controlling behaviour and searched for Andrew Tate’s podcasts the night before the crime (The Guardian, 2025). This act of violence reflects what philosopher Kate Manne terms misogyny: the systemic punishment of women who defy male-imposed boundaries. While this tragedy occurred in England, its ideological roots resonate globally, from mass shooters in the United States citing anti-feminist rhetoric to acid attacks in India targeting women for asserting autonomy. Central to this phenomenon is the “manosphere,” an online ecosystem promoting toxic masculinity, with Andrew Tate as a leading figure.

Tate, a British-American former kickboxer turned self-styled entrepreneur, has gained global prominence by marketing a hyper-aggressive vision of masculinity through platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and his subscription-based Hustler’s University. Despite bans for hate speech, his content proliferates via fan accounts, short-form videos, and podcasts, reaching millions of young men, including adolescents in India. This essay, based on qualitative interviews with ten Indian boys aged 12–19 and digital ethnography, examines how Tate’s ideology, rooted in incel culture and anti-feminist narratives, shapes adolescent masculinities in India. It explores how his visual branding, algorithmic amplification, and homosocial dynamics reinforce misogyny within India’s patriarchal context, situating his influence within a broader global backlash against gender equality.

The Manosphere and Tate’s Ideology

The manosphere encompasses online subcultures—incels, red-pillers, men’s rights activists (MRAs), pickup artists (PUAs), and alpha-male influencers like Tate—united by the belief that women undermine male success and that dominance is the solution. Incels, or “involuntary celibates,” blame women for their romantic frustrations, often escalating to violent rhetoric. Red-pillers claim women are manipulative, advocating male authority via pseudoscientific arguments (Buss, 2019). MRAs, such as India’s Save Indian Family Foundation, focus on perceived injustices like “false” rape allegations, while PUAs treat women as conquests. Tate, at the aspirational end, markets himself as the “Top G,” promising young men success through wealth, stoicism, and control over women.

Tate’s content blends luxury aesthetics, cars, jets, designer suits—with provocative soundbites like “women are property” or “women should bear responsibility for rape.” Designed for virality, these statements leverage algorithms that reward outrage (Haslop et al., 2024). His Hustler’s University monetises male insecurity, offering courses that merge financial advice with misogyny. In India, where patriarchal norms police women’s autonomy through caste, religion, and family structures (Chakravarti, 1993), Tate’s rhetoric aligns with narratives of male entitlement, gaining legitimacy through his global brand.

Methodological takeaways

This study adopts a feminist methodology and digital ethnography. As feminist researchers, our perspective shapes the analysis, particularly in observing how algorithms and peer dynamics amplify misogyny. Digital ethnography, inspired by Sarah Pink’s Doing Visual Ethnography, views Tate’s content as dynamic objects shaped by editing, sharing, and algorithms.

We conducted unstructured interviews with ten cisgender, heterosexual Hindu boys aged 12–19 in Mumbai, recruited via snowball sampling. The sample, diverse in caste-community backgrounds (Marwadi, Marathi, Gujarati, Sindhi), is not representative of all Indian youth, excluding Muslim, Dalit, or queer perspectives. Interviews explored algorithmic exposure, gender roles, and Tate’s appeal. Concurrently, we conducted three months of digital ethnography, analysing Tate’s Instagram reels, YouTube Shorts, podcasts, and Hustler’s University leaks on Reddit. The algorithmic feed, which shifted toward manosphere content, became data, mirroring participants’ experiences.

Data were thematically coded for hegemonic masculinity (Connell), homosociality (Bird), and aggrieved entitlement (Kimmel). Ethical considerations included informed consent, pseudonyms, and conversational interviews. Limitations include the small sample size and the subjective nature of digital ethnography.

How incel cultures shape a false idea of feminism and promote hate for feminism

Algorithmic Amplification

Participants encountered Tate’s content accidentally via Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts, with algorithms pushing similar content after initial exposure. Tate’s “negative hooks”, provocative statements like “Feminism has ruined men”, ensure virality, as algorithms prioritise engagement (Haslop et al., 2024). Short, visually polished clips featuring luxury imagery make his misogyny accessible and aspirational, embedding it into adolescents’ digital lives.

Constructing Masculinity

The boys associated masculinity with wealth, dominance, and emotional detachment, echoing Tate’s rhetoric. One 16-year-old stated, “A man has to earn more. The house is her job.” Boys from joint families linked these views to home dynamics, framing domestic labour as women’s “natural” role. This aligns with Connell’s hegemonic masculinity, where dominance defines manhood. Tate’s phrases, like “women are gold-diggers,” were repeated verbatim, showing how his ideology shapes gender attitudes.

Feminism as a Threat

Feminism was widely misunderstood, often framed as “bad for men.” Participants cited cases like the Atul Subash alimony dispute to argue that women exploit legal systems. One 17-year-old claimed, “Women don’t play as well as men, so equal pay is unfair.” This zero-sum logic, described by Ging and Siapera (2019), portrays women’s gains as men’s losses, reinforcing Tate’s anti-feminist narrative.

Homosocial Bonding and Humour

Humour was a key mechanism for normalising misogyny. Participants laughed off Tate’s remarks about women as “emotional” or “bad drivers,” calling them “just banter.” One 15-year-old said, “He’s exaggerating, but it’s funny.” This humour, a homosocial currency (Haslop et al., 2024), bonds boys through shared sexism, excusing it as entertainment. Older boys (17–19) showed slight ambivalence, with one noting, “I wouldn’t let my sister watch his videos,” indicating awareness of harm.

Tate as “Realist”

Participants admired Tate’s “bravery” in speaking “truth.” An 18-year-old explained, “If a man provides, she should cook and clean. That’s fair.” Tate’s framing of misogyny as “realism” disguises domination as common sense, resonating with boys navigating adolescent insecurities. His persona—wealthy, confident, untouchable—makes his ideology aspirational.

Digital Ethnography: Tate’s Branding

Tate’s content is a calculated ecosystem. Short, provocative videos use rapid cuts, bold music, and luxury aesthetics to hook viewers. On Instagram, Reels begin with shock statements, ensuring shares and likes. On Reddit, Hustler’s University leaks reveal courses blending financial advice with misogyny, framing women as obstacles to success. Tate’s tweets, like “Men are under attack, I’m fighting back,” position him as a saviour in a “culture war,” appealing to boys’ sense of belonging. His “Matrix” analogy—men as slaves until they “wake up” via his teachings—turns insecurity into loyalty, monetising anger.

Discussion

Tate’s influence thrives on India’s patriarchal structures, where women’s autonomy is policed by caste, religion, and family (Chakravarti, 1993). His rhetoric aligns with local narratives of male entitlement, amplified by global branding. Algorithms play a critical role, pushing his content to young users through provocative hooks. Homosocial bonding, via humour and peer validation, normalises misogyny, while Tate’s “realism” reframes sexism as fairness. This pipeline, from insecurity to entitlement, mirrors Kimmel’s aggrieved entitlement, where men feel cheated by women’s gains.

In India, where digital spaces like WhatsApp and Instagram amplify patriarchal narratives as “Indian culture,” Tate’s ideology finds a ready audience. His content, consumed via short-form videos, bypasses critical reflection, embedding misogyny into adolescent identity formation. This is particularly dangerous in a context where gender-based violence is prevalent, as Tate’s rhetoric risks legitimising control and contempt toward women.

Conclusion

This study reveals Andrew Tate’s role in a global anti-feminist backlash, shaping Indian adolescent masculinities through digital platforms. Algorithms amplify his provocative content, while his branding—wealth, dominance, humour—makes misogyny aspirational. Boys internalise their narratives, performing masculinity through sexism and viewing feminism as a threat. Confronting this requires more than platform bans; it demands school-based interventions, media literacy, and open dialogues on gender justice to reach boys before insecurity becomes ideology. Tate’s influence is not just a digital trend but a symptom of a broader patriarchal revival, with profound implications for gender equality worldwide.

References:

Bates, L. (2020). Men who hate women: From incels to pickup artists—the truth about extreme misogyny and how it affects us all. Simon & Schuster.

Bird, S. R. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120–132.

Buss, D. M. (2019). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (6th ed.). Routledge.

Chakravarti, U. (1993). Conceptualising brahmanical patriarchy in early India: Gender, caste, class and state. Economic and Political Weekly, 28(14), 579–585.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.

Cruz, E. G., Sumartojo, S., & Pink, S. (Eds.). (2017). Refiguring techniques in digital visual research. Palgrave Macmillan.

Haslop, C., Roberts, S., & Clarke, J. (2024). Digital masculinities: Understanding gender, identity and power in online spaces. Men and Masculinities, 27(3), 381–401.

Kimmel, M. S. (2013). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Nation Books.

Manne, K. (2018). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Penguin Books.

Menon, N. (2012). Seeing like a feminist. Zubaan.

Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Reis, B., & Grossmark, R. (Eds.). (2014). Heterosexual masculinities: Contemporary perspectives from psychoanalytic gender theory. Routledge.

Roberts, S., Jones, C., Nicholas, L., Wescott, S., & Maloney, M. (2025). Beyond the clickbait: Analysing the masculinist ideology in Andrew Tate’s online written discourses. Cultural Sociology, 19(1), 1–25.

Roy, S. (2022). Changing the subject: Feminist and queer politics in neoliberal India. Duke University Press.

Sayogie, F., Ardhani, A., & Sari, I. P. (2023). Misogyny and gender-based violence in the digital era: A socio-legal perspective. Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 6(1), 12–25.

Tanner, S., & Gillardin, F. (2025). Toxic communication on TikTok: Sigma masculinities and gendered disinformation. Social Media + Society, 11(1), 1–12.

The Guardian. (2025, March 6). Kyle Clifford watched Andrew Tate videos before triple murder. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/06/kyle-clifford-watched-andrew-tate-videos-before-triple-murder

***

Ayeshna Dutta is currently teaching Sociology at KC College Mumbai.

Bhoomi Karia is a BA Psychology student of KC College, Mumbai.