The Cosplay Culture of Andrew Tate and Broken Masculinity of Philosopher-Pimps
Islam is just Andrew Tate’s next scam; masculinity was his first. Reflections on the culture of distorted masculinity and what we can do about it as Muslims.
Across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the masculine and feminine are symbiotic reflections, mirrors of each other. What Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, et. al. offer is a message based on a definition of masculinity that is completely devoid of its relationship with the feminine. It’s like saying 1+0=2.
A student of Islamic sciences and the founder of the Spiritual Warrior Project, Hussain Makke shared a short video sharing why young men are drawn to personalities like Andrew Tate. Makke starts off on the right foot, speaking to the appeal of philosopher-pimps like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson in response to the visible presence of fewer healthy male figures in a young man’s private and public life, paired with the crushing culture of a type of feminist movement that outrightly hates and mistrusts men.The video ends with a strangely appreciative tone toward Tate and a stranger definition of masculinity that I dive into later:
“Toxic masculinity does not mean too much masculinity. Rather, it means not enough masculinity — for true masculinity, can never be toxic.” — Hussain Makke
But this post isn’t about Makke; it’s about the droves of men (including conservative and Muslim men, young and old alike) who follow what they believe to be ‘alpha male’ figures like Tate and Peterson (or intellectual atheist boys club of yesteryear with Sam Harris and company, and whatever charlatan comes along next year).
Their distorted messages are peppered with enough universal truths to make them appealing — making them sound like they’re masters of some secret formula that has sorted the sum of civilizational demise. Pair that kind of message with the art of a persona — a pimp or a philosopher — throw in enough media and money, and you’ve got yourself a culture celebrity.
That’s the culture, and I’m not mad at it. Culture does what culture does: it spins the wheel — but I have studied the trends and seen what is falling between the cracks of sweeping statements these personalities sell. And that is the problem, isn’t it? They’re selling a solution — they’re not curious. They’ve found a hill to stand on, a sermon to give, and followers to do what followers do best: Follow.
Take a look at Peterson for example, who reminds me so much of a lot of the clerics and scholarly Muslims a lot of us are familiar with. Their dialogues rarely include a female perspective. In fact, their opinions about women rarely include a female perspective. Their views are entirely founded on a rigidly masculine worldview.
For example, Peterson and colleagues recently held a second round-table talk based on the Bible. Sitting with a group of colleagues, a discussion on the story of Exodus followed their first talk on Genesis. The advertisement for that Bible study show was another shadow aspect of what Tate offers — instead of cigars, cash, and whiskey — the symbolic language spoke to another type of audience: austere, studied and suited philosopher-men gathered around the fire of a great question. Whether it’s Tate or Peterson, the formula is the same and it’s a formula devoid of any inclusion of the subject they claim to have so much knowledge about: Women.
If you’re going to have stupid ideas, by all means, enjoy. But if you’re going to have stupid ideas about women, then women will have a few things to say.
Let’s go back to the conversation on Exodus. It’s all fine and dandy that not a single woman was at that table — a growing trend among conservative thinkers is to re-enact this fantasy of a men’s club and not include a female perspective. You can’t foot stomp for inclusion; people are going to do what they want to do. But what is the conversation losing when we lose women?
A conversation on Exodus or Genesis that included a feminine perspective (that didn’t copycat the status quo) could have gone deeper into the territory of identity and belonging, asking questions that offered a deeper lens into:
Representations of influence and how influence rejects us from the presence of a garden.
What does the garden symbolize?
What is the wilderness of a garden and how is that the perfect state for mankind?
What does it mean to be in exodus beyond a physical extraction from a land?
How does exodus symbolize journey?
How does a metaphoric exodus diverge from the way we see exodus now, which is marked as a crossing of a threshold that leaves one place behind?
What does exodus do for the living human? How does it reshape us from one territory into another?
How is exodus a landscape?
How do both the figurative and symbolic language of Genesis and Exodus help us map our place today?
These are the type of questions a woman asks, a woman who has done the work to come into full awareness of the sacred feminine. A look at scripture without the eye of the sacred feminine, the other eye of God, is only half the religion. It is like having a seed and calling it a tree. The task of the sacred feminine is to take the seed below the surface, into the depths.
None of these men understand this, let alone understand the sacred in the sacred masculine.
There is so much talk about masculinity, but very little understanding that to be in the masculine means more than just anatomy, or a paycheck — or that leadership in the masculine is about more than decision-making or having women fall into line submissively.
None of these figures talk about what it takes for a woman to want to “fall into submission” (or what submission means) let alone how to navigate these conversations with the perspective and to the benefit of both men and women.
No one talks about why a growing number of women want a healthy submission, why, and how men can offer that to the benefit of the whole family unit. Instead, the focus (to be very crude) resembles pornography: it has a strictly male perspective. This is what makes the growing trend of philosopher-pimp personalities really disturbing because they’re taking a pattern that already distorts male and female relationships with the most intimate physical exchange, and applying it to surface-level identities.
There is more at play here but the conversation on masculinity can never go deeper unless we factor in the feminine. Further, the conversation needs to go into what it means to be in the sacred masculine and the sacred feminine. This is especially true if the person speaking is advocating for the masculine under the umbrella of faith.
Going back to Makke, he misses the mark in his video for several reasons:
Masculinity without understanding the responsibilities and relationship of honoring and protecting the feminine, is not masculinity. At the very least, it’s not sacred masculinity.
As People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and Muslims), we’re taught the balance of dualities. In Judaism, a man is the throne and a woman is the power behind the throne. In Islam, God’s throne is on water and the nature of water is feminine.
Traditional faith-based models of patriarchy (which as a woman, I’m perfectly accepting of in its ideal form, and believe women should have a choice if this is the model they want to follow instead of being shamed for it) — these models are not hierarchies, but cooperatives in which the strengths of both men and women are honored for the benefit of the whole family unit.
Traditional systems of patriarchy do not pressure for equality in the Western sense. Rather the emphasis is placed on men and women being offered the chance to serve in the role best suited to their dispositions. Plenty of women I know would be happy to solely be responsible for their homes and children, and not have to worry about working in the outside world or earning a living. There is nothing wrong with that if that is what a woman wants and she is in an agreement with a man who can provide that for her without exploitive or manipulative tactics.
The pimp culture Tate endorses and the distorted understanding of masculinity that holds no discernment over the range of masculinity (as Makke says) is not compatible with a system of balance between men and women.
Our faiths treat the masculine and feminine as symbiotic reflections, as mirrors of each other. What Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, et. al. offer is a message based on a definition of masculinity that is completely devoid of its relationship with the feminine. It’s like saying 1+0=2.
— Shireen Qudosi
It’s baffling to see Muslim men support Andrew Tate given that women in Islam are to be honored and protected. By the evidence in Tate’s interviews and videos, women are a commodity, to be groomed and abused, beaten and cursed. That broken and poisonous masculinity — TOXIC masculinity — is the worst of what Muslims claim about Western culture. Islam is just Tate’s next scam; masculinity was his first.
There’s a phrase in Arabic that Muslims recite when we hear or see something that is an abomination: La hawla wa la quwwata illa Billah
It translates to “There is no power nor strength except by Allah the Great.” But really, the feeling of La hawla wa la quwwat is…more.
It’s more like “God forbid.” It’s what you say when a portal to hell opens and you witness horrible terrors against humanity in this earthly realm.
What’s my response to Andrew Tate?
La hawla wa la quwwat.
Related
Boys Don’t Need Tampons. They Need Fathers
How the loss of rites and rituals pulls men into extremist behavior. [Read more]
Veterans Speak Out on Child Radicalization
“Children will follow what they’re taught…and everyone in their own eyes is the good guy.” [Read more]
Into the Rabbit Hole with Shireen Qudosi is a reader-supported publication that explores the space between things through the lens of the sacred. I invite you to become a paid subscriber to keep this work going! Thank you.
About Shireen Qudosi
Storytelling on seismic cultural issues through the lens of the sacred, Shireen Qudosi looks at the space between things or within the Dark to map a new understanding of the human experience. Through that journey, she found a lost Islam. Shireen Qudosi is the author of The Song of the Human Heart: Dawn of the Dark Feminine in Islam, which speaks to the theologically sound parallel reality of the world’s second-largest religion.
“The world we live in is growing more complex with newer challenges. These times are an invitation for us to step into our gifts. To do that, we need to remember the song of our hearts and the stories that are our own.
My gift is in alchemizing chaos and confusion into song. I inspire others to believe it is possible to go within and below the surface layer of their identity to find the mystery, a wonderful complex constellation that is beautiful and uniquely their own.”
— Shireen Qudosi
Shireen is devoted to mapping figurative landscapes and inviting others to go into unknown places not as a tourist, but as a child exploring the world for the first time filled with wonder and curiosity. As a daughter of refugees across three continents, as a mother to a son with Autism, and as an explorer in the wilderness of the heart, she believes that the mystery of being is often nested within the composite of our entire life experience, that we can find the sacred in the mundane nestled like a jewel in the rock.
Read The Song of the Human Heart: Dawn of the Dark Feminine in Islam.