You might have heard about controversial public figure Andrew Tate, and his views on masculinity. In case you haven't, Andrew Tate, is an American public figure popular on social media for promoting the 'good life.' Fast cars, jets, luxury and an abundance of beautiful women, are some of the aesthetics of the Andrew Tate lifestyle.

Beyond all these however, people are more concerned about his views on masculinity. Going through some of Mr Tate's ideologies, one can conclude that he promotes toxic masculinity and extreme misogyny. Some of what he advocates for, include the reassertion of male dominance and control over the domestic affairs. A few people have said that Andrew is a radical, who sees women as mere objects under a man's care. In fact he has gone on to say that women are a liability, corrupted by sex, lazy and stupid. Ouch!

A lot of what Andrew says reminds me of the red pill movement. And while I do not subscribe to it, I see where it is sprung from. In modern times, it easy to think that there's a war against the male gender. A lot of female empowerment activists, have made a living tearing down and denigrating men. And for Andrew Tate and his likes, this is a way of fighting back.

People like Andrew appear to have grown sick of men being attacked and treated like they do not have their own struggles. They seem to be uncomfortable with the societal pressures to change the idea of what it means to be a man. For them men have become whipping boys for too long, and it's time to fight back. And if we consider things objectively, a lot of what he says are given authenticity by a group of people - women.

Consider his view that men are providers and women are liabilities under a man's care. Well, it's difficult to totally dispel this as hogwash, when we see much of it in the society. It has become too common for some women to totally abandon all form of responsibility to the man they are in a relationship with. And when questioned about this, they answer - aren't men providers? The truth is; any woman who lives her financial responsibility entirely up to a man is a liability.

Another quip from Andrew goes: 'if you are a high enough status male.. women do not expect loyalty from you like they would a lower status male'. This also has proven to be true. I am not going to explain it, I would give an example. A couple of weeks ago, the afrobeats star Wizkid put out a tweet indicating that he is single. This tweet prompted a reaction from Jada P; his manager, and mother of his third child - she clearly didn't take it well. What amused me however, was that women rather than support her, ridiculed her. Some going as far as calling her greedy for wanting a man like Wizkid all to herself.

The truth is women are attracted to status and power, the evidence is all around us. As a matter of fact, women are the main promoters of hypergamy. A lot of women do not care if the man they are involved with is faithful to them, as long as he has money and power. Some even target such men, with the notion that it is better to date a wealthy albeit unfaithful man, than a man of lower status. Even if the man of lower status would be loyal. Having this knowledge, can we really say Andrew Tate was wrong in his assertion?

Like I said earlier, I do not subscribe to a lot of Andrew Tate's views. Women are not objects to be under a man's control. Toxic masculinity and misogyny is unhealthy and destructive. And it is concerning, that a lot of young boys have taken him as a role model and are shaping their lives according to his ideologies.