Will Knowland, who was sacked by Eton for showing pupils a non-woke video he’d made on masculinity, has some interesting thoughts on Andrew Tate and related topics in the Times. Here’s an excerpt:
“I think Tate is a symptom of what’s currently going wrong regarding the teaching of boys in schools,” Knowland said from his home in Stowmarket, Suffolk.
“In a properly functioning education system, that’s giving them really robust messaging about what it means to be a man, they would have antibodies to fight off the sick messaging that Tate is giving. All they see is the guy who’s got a Bugatti and joking about telling women to make him a sandwich.
“When teachers try to explain why Tate isn’t someone to look up to, the teenage boys ask them, ‘Well, what colour is your Bugatti?’
“The premise needs to be attacked directly, which is that ‘no, money isn’t the main index of masculinity’. Otherwise, we would all just be looking up to gangsters and criminals.”
This is presumably in response to the bizarre reports that teachers have been spending time in lessons trying to ‘re-educate’ boys about Tate. As I said in this very publication at the time:
Whether one loves or hates Tate, or believes he is guilty or innocent, it is obvious he is a symptom of a culture that demonises men and boys and allows them to fall behind. Instead of listening to these young men, their out-of-touch guardians act aghast and tell them they are wrong.
According to Knowland, the flaw in the Tate mindset is the absence of chivalric duty:
“I think the most interesting part about the lecture and what resonated with my supporters was my stress on chivalry and the idea that a man’s strength should be put to the service of the weak and his family.
“Chivalry is the thing that we’re missing today and it’s become deformed and turned into machismo, which is masculinity without any sense of humility or meekness. I think this is what we need to return to. Some of the problems that Tate is addressing, things like men should be assertive, men should be competitive, men should be strong, etcetera, chivalry agrees with.
“But chivalry says, why do they need to be those things? Because it’s to serve the weak, not themselves.”
Tate’s defenders might point to his charitable works and homeless dog shelters, but it’s fair to say that’s not the part teenage boys are focused on.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The argument holds a certain amount of water, for me, though I can’t help thinking there have always been and will always be boys who look up to people like Tate, as indeed there are always people of all ages and both sexes who look up to or at least hanker after less than ideal role models – and I am not even sure “role model” is necessarily an applicable term a lot of the time. There are people with pretty disastrous lives who try to live like some idiot from social media or TV or whatever, but a lot of people just find those kind of people mildly interesting/distracting/amusing/titillating and don’t seriously try to emulate them. I’m not saying that’s ideal, but I am not sure that there be too much hand-wringing about it.
But yes, more properly decent men with what have been traditionally identified as more “masculine” qualities would be a better outlet. I like the “chivalry” idea.
Gangsters and criminals aren’t the even close to being the richest people. Unless he means….
Based on my own first hand experience, my impression is that teenage boys are sick to the teeth of wokeness.
I think this guy is right on the money, but it’s a message Jordan Peterson has been putting out for quite a few years now. Maybe it’s gathering momentum.
“Chivalry is the thing that we’re missing today…”. Hmmm. Most of us associate chivalry with being courteous, particularly with women e.g. opening doors, taking off your coat to put around your wife, paying the bill etc. Putting women before yourself. But this is based on the belief that women need/want to be looked after and almost all women in today’s society have made it crystal clear that they do not want this, so why chivalry? What’s the incentive to be chivalrous to the angry woman that gives you the hand gesture in her car? The woman that pushes in at the bar? All the women who’ve been telling men that masculinity is evil and they are sh*t? All the women (a couple on here) that reply to questions about feminism by trying to mock and humiliate (male tears, male fragility, male this, male that etc)? No, chivalry is not the problem; the problem is why there is no incentive to be chivalrous. Over to you ladies.
Agree, Chivalry on one hand requires grace on the other.
Andrew Tate appears to be yet another figure of hate for the easily triggered. He isn’t. He’s playing the ‘toxic male’ role perfectly, interspersed with some really astute analysis of our crazy world. He really is smarter than he looks, and the simple thinkers of the left can’t rationalise that.
Don’t agree. Most women I know absolutely love to be treated like ladies, but of course without being patronising.
I think the idea that all women don’t want that is created in the same way that the idea that we all want a gender-free, gender-fluid, racially hypersensitive world.
For some reason you’ve missed out an important part of what I posted i.e. “and almost all women in today’s society…”. You confuse me tbh. You post about the problems with feminism and so you know that feminists do not want to be treated differently in any way, but then you post that all the women you know want to be “treated like ladies”. What does that even mean in today’s world? It’s almost like you’re trying to earn brownie points after knowing you’ve lost favour. Look, you’re a good poster, but be consistent at least. And please tell me the planet you’re on because I want to be on it. Deep down women may want to be treated like ‘ladies’, but that sure as hell isn’t what they tell everyone or how most women behave
I don’t see the inconsistency. Most women I know aren’t feminists, they’re normal people who recognise that men and women are different and who aren’t offended by gentlemanly behaviour, but the opposite.
That doesn’t mean I don’t know the odd feminist or that I’m not a bit familiar with feminist ideology.
Both are possible, no?
Please read your own previous posts chap. You are now saying feminism is NOT a problem. Your own posts will answer your own question about inconsistency.
That’s a very degraded idea of it. The whole serve the weak concept actually is, because chivalry is a property of knights who serve someone strong, namely, the king.
The weak only appear here because chivalry is about knight’s code of honour and unprovoked attacks on someone who’s very much weaker aren’t honourable because no bravery is required for that: Everyone can attack the relatively defenseless, that’s a typical course of action of pompous cowards who want to show off (often for the members of the unfairer sex :->) but don’t want to risk anything while doing so.
Another important proper of someone that’s honourable, alongside with courage, is politeness, ie, proper behaviour towards others, even if those others perhaps wouldn’t behave propery themselves. It’s extremely impolite to let a door slam into someone’s face, hence, when there’s someone close behind you, hold it until he or she had a chance to get it themselves. I usually let it slam if people mistake me for their private door opener and don’t take it over once they can reach it. This has nothing to do with putting woman before myself, it’s just the kind of courtesy one should extend to everyone unless there’s individual, good reason not to. If people try to berate me for that, they’re acting implolitely, that is, dishonourably, which implies that their blathering doesn’t matter.
So many words, such little meaning. You seem to misunderstand the difference between politeness and chivalry. Oh, and thanks for the history lesson. Enlightening. Thank God for Google aye?
At least, I don’t need 29 words soley to express I didn’t understand any of this plus a bit of seriously bizarre abuse exemplifying how completely you didn’t understand any of this. If that’s your typical behaviour, your apparently typical experiences with woman don’t surprise me.
When articles like this pop up it’s the same bitter individuals with an obvious axe to grind repeating the same, tired old sexist tripe who react. They can’t resist apparently. You can put money on who will respond and what they will say by now.
Much like the mask articles, I dont get involved as there’s nothing further to add and I’ve made my views perfectly clear on these matters by now.
Just stopped by to say great comment though. A non-hostile man who doesn’t have ‘woman issues’. How refreshing on here!
Bingo. As always with you. Thanks.
I have sort-of a middle position here: I know what FreeLemming is referring to and I really both dislike and disagree with these people. It’s just that their statements don’t concern me — there’s a German saying Leute reden viel wenn der Tag lang ist — during a long day, people will talk a lot. I’m also from a different cultural background and most of what is called (toxic or non-toxic) masculinity here is – in my opinion – simply bad behaviour of people who could have done with an education. My idea of conduct that’s appropriate for a man (not male) simply doesn’t include – to use a somewhat infamous example – having sex with a blind-drunk female student behind a row of refuse bins.
The reason why Tate is not a good role model is because he’s essentially the male equivalent of a self-licking ice cream cone: As far as I know this, everything he does is about him. That’s not how a man should behave.
Somebody give me a clue as I can’t be bothered to google it.
Who is Andrew Tate?
Can’t help you Judy.
I’m up here in Australia and have also not heard of him.
Assuming he’s a brash chauvinist, doesn’t seem surprising that telling white boys they are the root of all evil and everyone else is a victim pushes them towards someone with an opposite and simplistic view of manhood.
Thanks for that Dr G – I am in Thailand so maybe someone from the UK will enlighten me?
Former council estate kid made good via a career in martial arts culminating in being a World Champion kick-boxer. Since made many millions through websites for grown-ups, and various other business interests. Has a very simple and clear view of what an alpha-male is, and isn’t shy in being one. Into conspicuous consumption via million pound cars. The epitome of toxic masculinity to many on the left, competitive, ambitious, successful. In some ways he reminds me of a Hugh Hefner for the new generation. He’s worth listening to for some interesting angles on the ‘patriarchy’, but there’s no doubt in my mind he is playing a character to annoy just the right people.
I’d really love to see on of these alpha males compete with a machine gun. Or try to out-run a horse.
Same here but he doesn’t sound like my cup of tea.
Former kick-boxer turned person-in-the-online-sex-business who’s also a limited-scale internet celebrity.
Tate is an actor, a performer, a brand. Of course boys want to emulate him: he is rich, successful with women and gives off an aura of supreme self confidence.
The establishment is doing its best to destroy men, masculinity and manly role models. The mainstream push the idea of toxic masculinity and radical feminism to the point that boys have become seen as dysfunctional girls. Big government are replacing the need for competent men by acting as sugar daddy for single mothers and loser men.
This is no time for chivalry. In fact being the chivalrous nice guy provider can make boys even more unattractive to women. Some say that the average girl prefers the “bad boy”, not the “white knight” (at least until their biological clock tells them it’s time to settle down with a resource provider after they’ve spent their peak years being run through by all the studs). Time for boys to be more like Tate: look after themselves (ignore the blandishments and advice emanating from our corrupt institutions) and to hell with what they say!
I agree with the little I’ve read of Knowland, but I can’t help thinking we need a better word than chivalry, which to anyone who understands the term probably has connotations of the ‘knights of yore’, Jane Austen, and so on. And the qualities we’re looking for don’t apply only to how males treat females, but more generally to the respect and care of our neighbour – a distinctly, though not exclusively, Christian idea.
There is a short story written by Paul Gallico about a woman trying to decide which man to marry. One of the characters tells her to evaluate kindness as it is a trait which outlasts love, passion, drama, emotion etc. I have always thought it is a good measure of a person, especially a man, (a caveat being that kindness to animals but not to humans is a red flag).