Let’s talk about these misogynistic speeches

Should the media give voice to disciples of Andrew Tate and other “alpha males” with misogynistic speeches in order to better understand them? And if so, how to go about it?

These questions raised in the wake of Everyone is talking about it go far beyond the controversy sparked by Sunday’s tense documentary segment Alphas. At a time of the strong return of Trumpism, which has more than ever liberated and normalized increasingly extremist hate speech, these are essential questions that are being asked with increasing urgency.

The rise in popularity of the British masculinist influencer Andrew Tate, who has an extremely violent and misogynistic speech and who is accused in particular of human trafficking and rape, means that we are here before a subject of public interest. When journalist Simon Coutu tries to decipher the phenomenon in his documentary Alphas¹ or that my colleague Léa Carrier looks into it in a report²it is not only legitimate, but absolutely necessary. We cannot understand a movement by ignoring it.

But are we doing any useful work by giving a voice to obscure masculinists on the set of one of the most popular shows on public television? Unfortunately, no.

Invite to Everyone is talking about it on a Sunday two guys with extremist speeches that almost no one spoke about on Saturday, it’s giving them the gift of unexpected visibility, supported by controversy.

Even when we end up dis-inviting the more radical of the two to replace him with a very credible expert – Francis Dupuis-Déri, ​​author of The crisis of masculinity: autopsy of a tenacious myth (Remue-ménage, 2018).

“Even when we try to counter these speeches either by calling on the analysis of an expert or by doing it ourselves, by trying to gain the upper hand over uninhibited hateful speech which camouflages itself very well in the media, it “It’s a risky bet,” says Mélissa Blais, professor of sociology at the University of Quebec in Outaouais, who is publishing the essay these days. The anti-feminist attack at Polytechnique (Stirring up).

From the moment we give the proponents of such anti-feminist or misogynist speeches a voice in the public space, we also give them the possibility of persuading even more people, by using public relations strategies to water down their words and move forward. face covered, observes the sociologist, who conducts research on the manosphere.

This type of seemingly respectable speech, where it can be a question of entrepreneurship and success, is also partly that of Andrew Tate. Selling success is one thing. Selling misogyny as a recipe for success is another. However, this is exactly what this toxic influencer advocates, recalls Mélissa Blais. “Success comes, according to Andrew Tate, with owning women. One way to achieve success is to control women. And for that, women must submit. »

What is very insidious is that the gateway for young men likely to be seduced by Andrew Tate’s speeches is often the first, more banal part of his speech, observes David Morin, co-owner of the UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism.

“We forget that Andrew Tate doesn’t just say bullshit! »

When Tate talks about leadership and telling men to take care of themselves, make money or buy big cars, he is banking on a popular capitalist discourse that is not unique to the manosphere, underlines the professor from the University of Sherbrooke.

This is a portion of his speech which is, in a way, the antechamber of hatred.

What is also dangerous when we hold out the microphone to this kind of speech, even watered down or undermined, is that we give the impression that misogynistic or discriminatory remarks are simple opinions against the grain. As if we were here faced with two postures which were as equal as each other. On the one hand, a feminism which advances in the interests of women. On the other, a masculinism that would simply like to valorize the “alpha” man. Shouldn’t we come out of our echo chambers and try to listen to those viewpoints we don’t agree with? we say to ourselves.

“I’m starting to get a little tired of the concept of echo chambers! », says Mélissa Blais.

In the “debate” that concerns us, it is as if we were forcing people targeted by hatred to be in a posture of constant listening at the risk of finding themselves in a relationship that would be harmful.

However, what is really harmful is to present symmetrically, as two simple equivalent opinions, a speech carrying hatred, which here attempts to reduce women to a posture of inferiority, and a speech for the right to equality and social justice. Same thing when we ask people who are victims of racism to come out of their “bubble” to listen to voices that dehumanize them. As if we were forgetting that misogyny and racism are not “controversial opinions”, but rather dangerous hateful speeches that already have far too many voices.