In her provocative Sun article, Clemmie Moodie sounds the alarm over a supposed rise in “toxic feminism,” likening certain female influencers to “Andrea Tates” – a feminised version of Andrew Tate. In this long-form response, we examine the deeper social and psychological forces shaping the backlash she describes, including internalised misogyny, male-centred online abuse, and the structural nature of gender-based violence. Importantly, we explore why misandry is not the feminist crisis it is framed to be — because, unlike misogyny, misandry doesn’t kill.

Setting the Scene: What Clemmie Moodie Said

In her Sun opinion piece, Moodie warns readers about a new generation of young women she claims are being taught to “use and discard men” as an act of supposed empowerment. These influencers, she says, teach seduction strategies, urge emotional detachment, and fuel what she calls a new wave of anti-male sentiment among women. The headline names them “Andrea Tates,” a pointed reference to Andrew Tate, the disgraced influencer widely known for promoting rape culture and hyper-masculine dominance.

Moodie expresses concern that, in attempting to combat patriarchy, some women have inverted the structure, behaving with cruelty, entitlement, and arrogance under the banner of feminism. She shares that she has experienced ridicule and hostility from women in online spaces — particularly when sharing unpopular opinions about relationships, gender roles, or celebrity disputes.

While her discomfort is worth examining, framing her argument requires scrutiny.

False Equivalence: “Andrea Tates” Are Not Andrew Tate

To compare female influencers who mock men or disengage from traditional romantic dynamics to a figure like Andrew Tate is not only inaccurate it is dangerous. Tate was banned from multiple platforms for promoting violence, coercive control, and rape-supportive ideology. He is currently under investigation for human trafficking and abuse.

The women Moodie references, by contrast, may be guilty of bad taste, performative sarcasm, or social commentary — but they do not operate within a system that gives them the institutional power to harm men en masse. That distinction matters. Structural violence is a key feminist concept: misogyny is embedded into law, media, medicine, and family systems. Misandry, where it exists, is mainly discursive or reactive.

This is not a war of equal forces. It is a power asymmetry — and it always has been.

When Feminism is Frustrated, Not Toxic

Moodie’s discomfort with “modern feminism” seems less about violence or abuse and more about tone: sarcasm, cynicism, and emotional detachment. These are standard traits in traumatised populations. Feminist writers from Bell Hooks to Sara Ahmed have long argued that women’s anger is a legitimate response to oppression, yet it is often framed as deviance.

Ahmed (2017) refers to the “feminist killjoy” — the woman who disrupts social norms not out of malice but necessity. If women are withdrawing from men, mocking male entitlement, or airing frustrations on social platforms, the question should not be “Why are they bitter?” but “What happened to make them feel this way?”

This isn’t the rise of toxic feminism. It is feminist fatigue.

Misogyny Kills. Misandry Does Not.

We must reject the idea that misandry and misogyny are symmetrical. Misogyny results in domestic homicide, reproductive coercion, unequal access to medical treatment, and sexual violence. Femicide is the leading cause of premature death for women in many regions, including Latin America and parts of the UK (Femicide Census, 2022).

Misandry, by contrast, does not produce systemic violence. It may hurt egos or produce uncomfortable discourse but does not end in death. A woman joking on TikTok about using a man for dinner is not the same as a man believing he’s entitled to sex or punishing a woman with violence when she refuses him.

Lived Experience: Speaking Up and Being Silenced

Personal experience supports this imbalance. In defending women’s reproductive rights online — specifically condemning anti-choice protesters who harass patients outside abortion clinics — I received abuse. Of the ten hostile responses, nine came from men. The one woman who joined them likely did so out of internalised misogyny, not female solidarity.

This aligns with broader data. Amnesty International’s 2018 Toxic Twitter report found that women, particularly Black and feminist-identifying women, face disproportionate abuse online. Not for attacking others — but for defending themselves.

This is a cultural pattern: male fragility is given empathy. Female rage is punished.

Internalised Misogyny and the Compliance Economy

Moodie notes that some of her harshest critics have been women. This deserves reflection, but not the conclusion she draws. The phenomenon of women aligning with patriarchy is well documented. Sociologist Susan Faludi (1991) coined the term “backlash” to describe the cultural pressure on women to distance themselves from feminism to remain socially palatable.

Many women have, understandably, internalised the male gaze — believing their survival, desirability, or acceptance depends on reproducing patriarchal values. Their hostility toward other women often stems from fear: if they defend power, they will be rewarded. If they challenge it, they will be discarded.

This Isn’t Man-Hating. It’s Grieving.

At its heart, this cultural moment is not about misandry. It is about mourning.

Women are grieving the loss of romantic ideals that once promised safety. They are suffering the betrayal of systems — education, religion, medicine — that failed them. They are grieving the emotional labour they’ve performed unpaid for years and the violence that met them when they said “enough.”

Moodie’s article attempts to diagnose this grief as malice. But grief is not hate. It is sorrow expressed in anger. Anger, in the right hands, is a tool for justice.

Conclusion: Feminism Isn’t a Weapon — It’s a Mirror

Clemmie Moodie’s article may resonate with some, particularly those overwhelmed by the speed of cultural change. But it risks reinforcing the very systems that disempower us all by collapsing feminism into hostility.

Feminism is not the enemy of men. It is the enemy of domination. And when women criticise or detach from men, it is not because they want revenge. It is because they want to survive.

We must stop confusing the rejection of patriarchy with hatred of men. One is structural resistance. The other is personal insecurity.

📚 References

• Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press.
• Amnesty International. (2018). Toxic Twitter: A Toxic Place for Women. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/03/online-violence-against-women-chapter-1/
• Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Chatto & Windus.
• Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Oxford University Press.
• Femicide Census. (2022). Annual Report on UK Femicide Statistics. https://www.femicidecensus.org
• Moodie, C. (2025). Forget Andrew Tate – we need to worry about the new rabid wave of Andrea Tates teaching young girls how to con men. The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35022963/andrea-tate-teaching-girls-con-men/

---

FeministResponse #CuriousFemme #MisogynyKills #MisandryMyth #AndreaTates #ClemmieMoodie #FeministFatigue #FeministGrief #LivingAFeministLife #OnlineAbuse #InternalisedMisogyny #DownGirl #ToxicFeminismDebunked #GenderPolitics #BodilyAutonomy #KilljoysUnite