The Victorians substantially shaped the world we currently inhabit. They introduced modern policing systems, enforced sanitation, made education mandatory and brought to existence a concept of individual’s role in society through John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’. Moreover, they founded the Liberty Fabrics, a different connotation of liberty. Their contribution was not limited to science, art and industry, but they opened new doors of innovative ideas. The understanding or interpretation of our modern world cannot be made without acknowledging their contributions. The Victorians revolutionised the world at an unprecedented speed.
Moreover, they were pioneers in discussing and challenging human rights like women’s suffrage and the right to own property. In 1869, Mill, along with his wife Harriet, published ‘The Subjection of Women’ where he proposed that the subjugation of women and their confinement to the household chores were not a matter of natural differences, but more of a social construct for benefitting men. This era was marked by people who ardently reconsidered the conventional ideas about gender, a phenomenon similar to our present-day society.
Masculinity, traditionally celebrated for numerous admirable traits, should not be viewed as anything toxic, unacceptable or regressive. However, due to the provocative comments and unnecessary display of muscular strength, Andrew Tate is often seen as the representation of ‘toxic masculinity’ in the modern era. He recently expressed an objectionable view suggesting that white men are destined to doom because they are weak and manipulated by women into being loyal, having fewer children and turning into cowards, ultimately suggesting non-white men will “dominate the white population”.
Tate exhibits an unsettling portrayal of rigid masculinity, characterised by materialism, forceful dominance over women and a manipulated philosophical perspective derived from Plato, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, stoicism and diluted Christian masculinity prevalent in the Victorian age.
There’s already an overabundance of female authors criticising the conception of manliness. It seems we incessantly delve into the essence and expectation of masculinity, often with a lack of understanding and whilst implying it’s unjust for men to offer viewpoints on femininity or womanhood. However, such thinking is flawed because a person’s viewpoints should not be contingent on their gender, contrary to Tate’s belief. Data evidence that Gen Z is dichotomised within two generations, presenting a clear gap in political views; with Gen Z females in the US 30 percent more liberal compared to their male counterparts and UK Gen Z females 25 percent more liberal than males. It’s evident that a purely binary gender discourse is unhelpful. Pointing fingers at the perceived enemy might offer comfort to one group, but it fosters unconstructive ideologies and keeps Tate profiting from bitcoin and ill-fitting suits.
‘Tate’s take on classical masculinity seems to revolve around the elements that suit his ego and disregard the rest.’
There’s nothing inherently harmful, inappropriate or regressive about masculinity, which often encapsulates noteworthy attributes – commitment towards family and society, dependability, and strength (not merely physical, but illustrating the grit and resilience to tackle hardships when necessary). It’s crucial to assert these qualities as not innately male, or strictly masculine. Yet, contrasting to the philosophers from whom Tate derives his distorted, vainglorious portrayal of the quintessential manhood, he fails to lead a morally commendable life nor accurately embody the concept of a virtuous man. Masculinity is far from fragile. True strength is robust, discipline is not manipulative, and genuine stoicism doesn’t entail posting pictures alongside a Porsche with custom plates situated next to a swimming pool.
Drawing inspiration from a muscular Christian perspective, which itself is richly rooted in the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, just as Tate gleans ideas from the Victorians, masculinity is identified by discipline, awareness of physical conditioning and health, and being a dutiful citizen. It also encompasses being the head of the household, the primary income earner, and the individual to whom everyone else is accountable and in charge of everyone else. In Tate’s pseudo-Victorian intimate fantasy realm, men reign supreme while others are, as Mill suggested, subjugated. The features of traditional masculinity that most indulge his self-esteem have been handpicked by Tate, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the ones that don’t cater to his tastes. This is nothing but selective masculinity. Any Stoic with self-respect might not even identify it. To sustain Tate’s notion of ideal manliness, we’d have to devolve to primitive conditions, a prospect he might not find appealing, as there would be no place to power his iPhone.