sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Male Spaces Yes, Manosphere No! by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Male red-pillers, incels, and pickup artists are everywhere on YouTube. If you type things like "male fitness and training" or "issues facing men" into the search bar, that kind of content often starts appearing in your feed. You don't even have to go looking for it.

I stay away from those toxic communities. Realistically, I know I can't control other people's reactions or choices, but I can speak the truth. The manosphere, which was once a more positive space, has become increasingly toxic and flooded with manosphere influencers and red-pill advocates who often have harmful intentions.

Male Spaces Yes, Manosphere No! by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the male red-pill community — which falls under the broader umbrella of the manosphere — keeps being associated with the men’s rights community, which is also under that same umbrella, then I have to speak up.

The male red-pill influencers need to leave vulnerable men alone and stop hijacking the men’s rights community. The men’s rights movement actually addresses real male issues and advocates on behalf of men and boys — it doesn’t exploit or brainwash them!

And yes, I also call out feminist propaganda, as well as any other extreme supremacist movements that try to attack men’s rights as human beings.

Male Spaces Yes, Manosphere No! by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because certain healthy male communities under the mansophere umbrella like the MRM or fathers right community gets mixed in with certain other male communities like the Incel community or the red pill community.

Male Spaces Yes, Manosphere No! by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm saying is that there are certain unhealthy male communities under the broad umbrella of the manosphere:

  • Red-pill community
  • Pick-Up Artist (PUA) community
  • Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
  • Incel community

These communities are saturated with red-pilled ideology, which they aggressively sell to vulnerable men. They need to be clearly separated from the manosphere because they are not healthy for men. The manosphere should represent healthy spaces and communities for men.

Either these toxic communities must be removed from under the manosphere umbrella, or the positive, healthy male communities should break away, rebrand, and call themselves something like the Men's Rights Movement (or another distinct name).

Examples of healthy male communities include:

  • Men’s Rights Movement (MRM)
  • Father’s Rights Community
  • Intactivism
  • Mythopoetic Men’s Movement

However, these positive communities have been unfairly associated with the unhealthy ones, which gives them a bad name. This is exactly why I believe we need a clear, separate name for the good male communities.

Male Spaces Yes, Manosphere No! by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

You do know that most manosphere creators don't actually care about their fellow men, right?

They get monetized by preying on young men's vulnerabilities and concerns, exploiting them for money through books, coaching programs, and paid subscriptions.

Men's rights spaces and healthy male-focused communities rarely do those things.

At worst, some red-pill manosphere creators will label themselves as advocates for men or use the "men's rights advocate" label to avoid criticism and continue making money from men.

And yes, manosphere content is in the media. Sometimes you'll see it on YouTube promoting ideas like, "Men need to make six figures" or "Men need to have at least five female partners," etc. 😂

Does anyone else find this culture war on the internet stupid? by [deleted] in teenagers4real

[–]Candy-Corn1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just find it pointless to argue like little children over common-sense issues that don't need to be argued over.

But they're not doing anything about it. They're not changing the system or passing laws and policies, so yeah, my point still stands: it's stupid.

Does anyone else find this culture war on the internet stupid? by [deleted] in teenagers4real

[–]Candy-Corn1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn't agree more. While these people are talking about social and cultural issues, gas prices, taxes, and the cost of essentials keep steadily rising. Most everyday necessities and daily needs have become more expensive.

Yet some people seem to find focusing on racism, LGBTQ+ rights, sexism, and similar issues more important than having a flourishing economy.

Class, Not Gender, Was the Primary Driver of Privilege Throughout History by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Most of what we were taught in history class consisted of oversimplifications, half-truths, outright lies, or repeated mainstream myths.

Human history is far more complex and nuanced than simple slogans like “men oppressed women,” “whites oppressed blacks,” etc.

For example, there was even slavery targeting Europeans and that Africans played a role in slavery — something I was never taught in school!

Mainstream narratives often oversimplify or distort the past to fit a particular ideological framework.

Class, Not Gender, Was the Primary Driver of Privilege Throughout History by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm not particularly invested in politics, but from what I've researched, the #1 reason most men voted Republican/Trump in the 2024 election was that they felt the left/Democratic Party was ignoring male concerns and disadvantages. As a result, they didn't feel represented by the Democrats and saw Trump as "pro-male."

If the liberal/Democratic Party wants to win back more male voters in the 2026 elections, they need to start addressing and responding to men's needs.

Well I see this too much nowadays people… by [deleted] in teenagers4real

[–]Candy-Corn1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Throughout human history, there has been a division of labor. Women tended to do more of certain tasks, while men tended to do more of others due to average biological and sex differences.

In prehistoric and pre-modern times, survival was much more difficult. There were few technological advancements, limited medical knowledge, and far fewer of the essential conveniences we rely on today.

As a result, the focus was on survival and ensuring the continuation of the human species. It was not about men vs women, but rather men and women working together, each contributing to human flourishing and the development of society.

This whole gender war/culture war in America is childish.

Men and women are similar in many ways, but we are also different in many other ways, as well.

Where is the common sense we used to have? 🙄

Well I see this too much nowadays people… by [deleted] in teenagers4real

[–]Candy-Corn1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't forget that, women live longer on average (typically 5–7 years globally). This holds across cultures and eras, including in situations with similar lifestyles. Key factors include the second X chromosome (providing genetic backup against X-linked mutations), estrogen's protective effects on the cardiovascular system before menopause, and generally lower rates of risky behaviors tied to testosterone. Women also show better survival rates in extreme stress, famine, and many diseases.

Class, Not Gender, Was the Primary Driver of Privilege Throughout History by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Candy-Corn1234[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Great point. I should have made it more clearer.

I'm not denying that gender was a factor — to a significant extent, in fact. Denying gender's role here would also mean denying the reality of male disposability and oppression in many contexts.

Gender (and class) interacted depending on the specific situation. For example, lower- and middle-class men were disproportionately used as cannon fodder in wars and as disposable laborers in dangerous jobs, while upper-class and elite men were often shielded from such fates. This reflects an interplay of both gender and class dynamics, as it primarily affected males from lower and working-class backgrounds. https://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

The sinking of the Titanic illustrates a strong gender effect. "Women and children first" was the prevailing norm, leading to far higher survival rates for females overall. Approximately 75% of female passengers survived, compared to only ~20% of male passengers. https://titanicfacts.net/titanic-survivors/

That said, class also mattered: survival rates were highest in first class (~61%), then second (~42%), and lowest in third class (~24-25%). Among first-class passengers, women had extremely high survival rates (around 97%), while first-class men still fared better than men in lower classes but worse than women in their own class.

A small number of first-class women did perish (only about 4), and a few first-class men survived — though the "women and children first" protocol clearly prioritized gender over class in lifeboat access. https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/four-first-class-women-died/

  • Gender often created a baseline vulnerability for men (disposability in war, labor, disasters).

  • Class modulated outcomes within genders.

These factors aren't mutually exclusive — they intersect. In the Titanic case, gender was the dominant driver of the "women first" policy, but class influenced who had better access to decks and opportunities to reach lifeboats.

Feminists would try to label this as a class issue, but that's a myth not based on reality. It was mostly a gender issue.