@TheoTheopolis23 ,
I would suspect you are very young. The model posited by Andrew Tate was the norm when I was young, men worked and, on the whole, especially if they could afford to, women stayed at home after children. This probably started to change in the 80s, when I was at uni, but, nonetheless, many of my (very clever) female friends chose to take long career breaks (some pretty permanent) when they had children.
In addition, men were respected for working hard and bringing in the money, even if they did little childcare or much around the home.
From today’s perspective, that seems horribly sexist, but it did happen and, on the whole, both parties were happy.
Add to that the whole culture of objectification being sexist if you attach it to men (‘look at those tits’) and highly modern and progressive when applied to women (look at threads on here with comments like ‘wouldn’t mind seeing what’s under his shorts’) and you have the background into which misogynistic abusers such as Andrew Tate gain traction.
I am not guessing at this. I know that in schools, when Tate is countered and teen boys are asked why they like him, they cite the hypocrisy where different rules are applies to boys and girls.
Please be clear, I am not defending Tate. I despise him and his misogyny. But, in the same sense as we explain Hitler’s popularity via the Nuremberg treaty, we need to try and understand the background under which Tate has gained traction.