Andrew Tate’s Distortion of Reality & His Views on the Impressive History of Women

In a world that constantly evolves, we find ourselves grappling with ideas and beliefs that often seem trapped in outdated and primitive paradigms. Andrew Tate’s assertions—particularly his notion that women should not be allowed to vote—serve as a jarring reminder of the persistent attitudes that refuse to reconcile with the realities of our shared human experience, outside of their misused appropriation of not only the “Red Pill” but also “The Matrix.”

His perspective reflects a dangerous, distorted, and reductionist black-and-white thinking that has become all too prevalent in certain circles, particularly within the so-called Manosphere. Worse, he teaches these distortions to vulnerable young men and women as “truth.”

As a believer in intersectionality, I’m not here to disparage any of men’s contributions to society; however, one core issue I personally have with Tate’s philosophy is the inherently binary, good-or-bad lens through which he views complex social realities. His claim that “I’m a realist, and when you’re a realist, you’re sexist” is rooted in a profound misunderstanding of realism itself, similar to his misunderstandings of my chosen philosophy of Stoicism.

To suggest that “reality” can only be perceived through a sexist framework not only diminishes the countless dimensions of human experience but also entrenches harmful, generalized stereotypes. This kind of black-and-white thinking does little more than perpetuate division and misunderstanding, ultimately devaluing the nuanced realities many women face daily and have faced for as long as recorded history. The distortions of perception that individuals like Tate propagate contribute to their own customized “Matrix” of fallacies that obscure the deeper truths of our society.

When he claims that all women’s concerns—as if we’re a hive mind—center solely around trivial narratives, he dangerously oversimplifies the complexity of our lives—lives in which we continuously make sacrifices, often in the face of tremendous adversity, even death. My own story, “The Lies My ‘Loverboy’ Told Me,” is rife with this adversity, none of which I asked for but was forced to endure and continue to endure for as long as these criminals remain free men, able to continue to hurt women, especially those on the spectrum.

Women, especially Black women like Ella Baker, Rosa Parks, and Fannie Lou Hamer, played critical roles, but their contributions were often marginalized or unrecognized by their male counterparts. When the discussion of the suffrage movement is dominated by figures like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, we risk overlooking the tireless work of women of color, such as Mary Church Terrell and Ida B. Wells. Their sacrifices—often endured in silence and overshadowed—embody the intersectionality we must acknowledge, as they fought not just for the vote, but for racial justice in a society that constantly undermined their voices.

It is naive to reduce women's experiences in war to mere narratives of homefront sacrifices. Women like Julia Ward Howe, who penned “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” (video below) as well as the countless nurses, freedom fighters, and spies during the many male-led wars, battles, and political and rights movements, such as Harriet Tubman, Freddie and Truus Menger-Oversteegen, Hannie Schaft, Emmeline Pankhurst, Vera Atkins, Maya Angelou, all sacrificed and risked their lives, proving that their contributions were not simply supportive but essential in shaping the course of history worldwide.

I wish I could name them all...

Throughout history, women have been pivotal in shaping societies, even as they have borne the brunt of the decisions made predominantly by men who truly believe their decisions are of sound logic and rationality, which often constitute the very makeup of the Manosphere’s talking points.

The narrative surrounding World War II often centers on male soldiers, yet icons like “Rosie the Riveter,” who served as a visual representation for the nearly 19 million women who held jobs during World War II alone, worked in factories, and served in the Women’s Army Corps (also known as WAC) and The Women’s Reserve (also known as WAVES), exemplified incredible sacrifice and resilience. Their contributions, which helped fuel the war effort, reflect a determination and sacrifice that must be recognized and not forgotten in favor of a few hundred bad actors teaching men to make fools of themselves.

Wars, often initiated by male leadership—said to be sacrifices—have torn billions of families apart, forcing countless women to shoulder the burden of raising children alone, often without any resources, managing households in crisis, and providing for families in this man-made, unnecessary turmoil. It is imperative to recognize that these sacrifices are not mere footnotes in history; they are central to the fabric of our collective experience.

Women the forefront of care, resilience, and strength, often navigating the repercussions of male-dominated decisions in political, economic, and social spheres (and in gaming). When Tate dismisses all women’s perspectives as self-centered, he not only ignores our contributions but, more importantly, he diminishes our intrinsic value and agency—one that is a gift from the Gods Himself, the value held in the books they want to ban, and the very design of the human mind.

Consider Tate’s assertion that there is “no concept of anything in the female mind outside of a Trumanshow esque soap opera.” Such statements reveal not just a flawed view of women but reflect the very archetype of male egotism—a tendency to project one’s own limited understanding onto others. Throughout history, powerful men have often exhibited behaviors and mindsets eerily similar to what Tate describes, yet these men are deemed “rational,” their motivations misunderstood as “logical” when, in truth, they are often driven by emotional impulses and self-interest.

Examples like the War of the Oaken Bucket, the War of Jenkins’s Ear, and the Paraguayan War—where it is estimated that 90% of the male population died due to war, disease, starvation, and battles with enemy armies—would fit into that description of not being rational or logical, but rather emotional. This was perhaps one of the most needless wars in history, as Francisco Solano Lopez, the President of Paraguay at the time, had almost no reason to declare war on his more powerful neighbors, resulting in great cost to the women and children of that 90% lost.

This “logic” becomes especially distorted in discussions surrounding issues like abortion. When Andrew Torba, Gab CEO, which is rife with bigoted drama, suggests that “the top concern [of female voters] is being able to slaughter their unborn children,” he ignores the broader implications of reproductive rights. Men, as creators of the wars that disproportionately affect women and children, would do well to examine their own complicity in the violence that defines so many lives. The capacity for empathy often becomes muted in the discourse surrounding these critical issues, particularly amid the noise of unexamined anger and self-righteousness.

It is vital to recognize that both men and women encompass a wide variety of traits, including selfishness, laziness, and benevolence. Each gender includes individuals who embody these characteristics to varying degrees. The notion that one sex can be uniformly categorized as superior or inferior overlooks the complexity of human nature and reduces it to man-good, woman-bad. While Tate may view the world through a lens of emotionality and impressionability, many individuals remain steadfastly committed to a more equitable understanding of humanity—one that transcends the divisive narratives he espouses.

Challenging harmful ideologies means moving beyond simplistic narratives and recognizing the multifaceted nature of both women’s and men’s experiences. To elevate discourse, we must encourage critical thinking and empathy—a call for not only self-reflection but also for a re-evaluation of long-held biases and assumptions. Tate’s rhetoric exemplifies a long-standing battle against progress. His black-and-white thinking fails to acknowledge the rich history of human experience marked by compassion, sacrifice, and shared responsibility.