[He] maybe took that alter-ego of masculinity too far in his relationships with women. - Andrew Tate

Men are expected to spend their lives working for women and children that are not their own. They can be ejected from a marriage at any time, for any reason, and by default will lose their children in the process. It is little wonder that, as in the Roman Empire, “marriage became unfashionable, especially among the men—but perhaps it would be more just to say that marriage on these terms was despised, for there seemed to be few advantages to be gained, many to be lost” (Unwin 1934). Conservative commentators often lament this attitude and blame influencers like Andrew Tate, but they confuse the cause for the effect. Men didn’t suddenly change their attitude towards marriage; marriage itself changed and men’s attitudes have slowly adjusted to the new reality. Browbeating and hectoring (“man up!”) cannot replace the old incentives.

Postliberals who loathe Tate imagine the multiracial working class as resolutely anti-capitalist. Anyone familiar with “grindset” knows blacks and Hispanics don’t want to overthrow the capitalist system. They want to game it to achieve the American Dream. This, of course, often leads them into pyramid schemes and other harebrained endeavors--which Tate seems to actively promote. But their stupid attempts don’t disabuse them of American capitalism. The promise of wealth attracts them more than the pseudo-Marxism espoused by an irrelevant Beltway intelligentsia.

[Tate's comment from one of his videos.] I inflict, I expect, absolute loyalty from my woman [...] I ain't having my chicks talking to other dudes, liking other dudes. My chicks don't go to the club without me, they are at home.