The victim blaming of Andrew Tate’s girlfriend

Dr Jess discusses the instant hatred and victim blaming of Bri Stern as she reports Andrew Tate for abuse

By now, many of us have seen the brave and difficult public disclosure made by Bri Stern, a woman who has come forward with evidence and testimony that she was abused by Andrew Tate, a man currently facing serious charges for human trafficking, rape, and organised crime.

The backlash was immediate.

And it was disgusting.

Predictable, yes - because we’ve seen it before. But still disgusting.

In place of widespread public support, understanding, or trauma-informed responses, what Bri got (and is still getting) was a torrent of victim blaming, minimisation, and abuse. The replies to her posts were flooded with people not only denying what happened to her, but actively ridiculing her, interrogating her choices, and turning her trauma into a spectacle for public judgement.

And because this isn’t just about Bri - this is about every single woman who has ever tried to speak out against a powerful, charismatic, dangerous man - (or to be honest, any fucking man!)

I want to take a moment to pull apart some of the real replies from yesterday that encapsulate the rot at the centre of our cultural response to abuse survivors.

Let’s name it. Let’s confront it. Let’s call it what it is.

1. “You’re trying to entrap him” (@jasonhfury85)

“Girl I don’t think this looks the way you hope it does, this just screams ‘look at me, look at me’… you are trying to entrap him. I’ve been in an abusive relationship and you don’t talk about it out loud with each other.”

This comment is a cocktail of projection, misogyny, and denial. First, accusing a woman of entrapment for disclosing abuse is not only vile - it plays directly into the hands of abusers who claim they are being set up by vindictive women.

There is no single ‘correct’ way to survive abuse. There is no universal abuse survivor script that women must follow to be believed. You don’t get to say, “I’ve been in an abusive relationship and we didn’t talk about it publicly, so therefore you must be lying.” That’s not how trauma works. That’s not how truth works. That’s not how credibility works.

This is the same argument used to silence women everywhere: if you speak, you’re attention-seeking. If you stay silent, you’re complicit. If you whisper, you’re manipulative. If you shout, you’re hysterical. It’s a trap - and Jason’s reply exemplifies it perfectly.

2. “You should refrain from relationships” (@lyssa_fella)

“That being said, I think you need to refrain from relationships and work on your self-esteem…”

Ah yes, the classic, “I support you but actually I blame you” genre of victim-blaming.

The implication here is that Bri being abused by Tate was somehow a by-product of her poor self-esteem. This is a dangerous myth. Abuse doesn’t happen because someone has low self-worth. It happens because abusers manipulate, coerce, gaslight, and isolate - regardless of how confident or intelligent their victim may be. I’ve written about this myth for YEARS. You are not targeted due to low self-esteem.

This narrative shifts responsibility on to victims and away from perpetrators. And it perpetuates the harmful idea that women must ‘fix themselves’ in order to avoid being abused - rather than society fixing its mind-blowing tolerance for abusive men.

3. “If your father was around…” (@ElectionPerry)

“If your father was in your life he would have told you never to get involved with Andrew Tate.”

Victim blaming, sexism, and a healthy dose of patriarchal nostalgia in one tweet.

Blaming a woman’s experience of abuse on her lack of male supervision is not only absurd - it’s also deeply regressive. It implies that a woman’s safety relies on being looked after by a man. It infantilises her. It ignores the autonomy and complexity of adult relationships. And, most of all, it implies that she is to blame - for not being protected, for making the ‘wrong choice’, for being vulnerable.

This isn’t about her father. It’s about a man choosing to abuse her.

4. “A red spot on your cheek isn’t evidence” (@SHard5496)

“You got to come with better than that.”

This is the perfect example of how perpetrators win. Survivors and victims are told their evidence isn’t enough. Then when they provide more, they’re told they’re lying, staging it, or attention-seeking.

This constant raising of the evidentiary bar is intentional. It’s how disbelief is weaponised. A red mark is dismissed. A bruise is minimised. A broken bone is doubted. A death is excused.

Women don’t need to be ‘battered beyond recognition’ for you to take them seriously. Abuse is not always visible. It is insidious, coercive, psychological, and emotional - and this response is a blueprint for how it thrives in plain sight.

5. “You made it up” (@whatsreallygoingon)

“All these selfies and texts look staged. Just looks like you created this whole story from scratch.”

This is slander masquerading as scepticism. What’s particularly disturbing about this tweet is its confidence. No evidence. No insight. Just blind, unwavering faith that the abuser is the victim and the victim is the liar. Andrew Tate’s followers really have become cult-like.

It’s a textbook example of DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. And it shows how Tate’s fanbase - and even the general public - have internalised these tactics so deeply they now deploy them reflexively.

6. “Did you not see the red flags?” (@AlexanderKalian, @Greytaitai, @AaronEly11)

“Did you not regard that as a major no-go?”

“At what point did you realise maybe you made a mistake?”

“Did you have no idea about Andrew Tate?”

This genre of response is rooted in something called hindsight bias. “He was obviously dangerous, so you must be stupid for getting involved.”

But no one falls in love with a monster. They fall in love with a person who presents as charming, attentive, protective, and affectionate - and who morphs into someone terrifying and controlling. That’s how coercive control works. That’s how grooming works. And that’s why so many women stay silent.

They gaslight women, make them feel crazy, guilty, like they’ve done something wrong - so they doubt their own experiences and perspectives.

What these replies really reveal is how little people understand about abuse - or worse, how little they care to understand. They don’t want to understand.

7. “Not the brightest idea, was it?” (@pearson208)

Sarcasm is not neutrality. This is plain mockery, and it’s the kind of casual, throwaway cruelty that tells women: if you get hurt, we’ll laugh at you.

You’re stupid for getting involved - you’re worthless. You deserve it. That’s what it screams to me.

8. “Gold digger alert” and racialised slurs (@duck571508, @OldTimeyBill)

“Gold digger alert.”

“I dated a brown pornographer and this is what happened.”

These comments aren’t just misogynistic. They’re also racist. They rely on tropes about women being manipulative, greedy, and deceitful - and about men of colour being hypersexualised and deviant.

This is how bigotry intersects with victim blaming. It’s not just about discrediting Bri Stern - it’s about dehumanising her.

9. “Why would I date him?” (@L9dulduri, @ZenGhola_X, @badazn)

“Not trying to victim blame but… why would you date him?”

“I stuck my hand on a hot stove and it burned me!!”

“BASED.”

If your sentence begins with “not trying to victim blame but…” - do us all a favour and stop. Because you are.

These responses frame abuse as the logical, inevitable consequence of dating Andrew Tate - as though Bri deserved what she got. As though choosing him was the crime, and everything else was just natural cause and effect.

This is the cruelty of hindsight. It’s the same logic as telling a rape victim they shouldn’t have walked home alone, or shouldn’t have worn that dress. It doesn’t just miss the point - it is the point. This is what victim blaming looks like in real time.

What would Jess say?

This isn’t just about Twitter.

This is about a global culture that distrusts women, especially when they speak about powerful men. This is about a misogynistic economy of disbelief that makes it riskier to come forward than to stay silent. This is about a public that sees a survivor of male violence and instantly asks: “But what did you do to deserve this?”

Bri’s courage in coming forward is extraordinary. She knew this would happen to her. She knew people would judge, mock, and attack her. And she did it anyway. That is bravery.

But until we change the way we respond - until we stop interrogating victims and survivors and start interrogating abusers and rapists - we will keep failing women like Bri Stern - and the millions of other women we blame every day.

And make no mistake: we are the problem. Not her.

Basic but… Let’s stop asking survivors why they stayed, and start asking men why they abuse and rape. Let’s stop laughing at trauma, and start holding perpetrators to account. Let’s stop blaming the women who speak up - and start listening to what they’re actually saying.

Because if we can’t even do that, then we’re not neutral. We’re complicit.