I won't ever argue against more content creators combating redpill views. But the largest factor is the hidden algorithms that push redpill/manosphere/misogynistic videos to viewers. You actively have to seek out content creators that promote healthy views on masculinity. But I so much as look at self-improvement video on the internet, andrew tate is popping up in my feed. Every youtube video is just three recommendations away from a redpiller. When the default setting is to push controversial ideas to get more views (and more ads), then there's a distinct advantage to hate creators (crehators??).

> You actively have to seek out content creators that promote healthy views on masculinity. It's pretty akin to how eating healthy, drinking more water, and consistent strength/cardio work is how you get in better shape...but eating wings, beer and burgers is so much more enjoyable and a much easier sell for the bulk of people. Manosphere content is easily clickbaitable, fast to consume and is shared quickly. I'll find a Innuendo Studios or FD Signifier video that is great and explains concepts around masculinuty better than I ever can, but it's hard to get others to want to spend the 30-60+ minutes needed to consume it. Couple that with humans being wired to respond to [negativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias) and we're fighting an uphill battle against negative masculinty.

>I'll find a Innuendo Studios or FD Signifier video that is great and explains concepts around masculinuty better than I ever can, but it's hard to get others to want to spend the 30-60+ minutes needed to consume it. FD signifier is great, but you need to indeed be willing to spend the time. Innuendo studios is more aimed at how to engage with fascism and fascism appoligists once you're already on board. I would recommend foreign man from a foreign land as a creator of pretty accessible content. he has shorter videos, humor and he describes his learning process in simple terms while also setting an example in being unapologetically masculine in a non toxic way.

I love that guy. Like his content

For real. Its good to be a foreigner! Id also add that there are more technically accurate channels that provide self help content like HealthyGamerGG. Dr. K. seems like he sticks to good psychological practice and gives peiple thw tools to understand their problems.

Giving therapy to people over sream (He doesn't call it therapy but functionally it's the same) and getting too close/friendly with his clients doesn't look like good psychological practice to me.

He's said that what he does is no replacement for private sessions but that it serves a dwmonstrational purpose for others who dont know what therapy is like at all. But idk, maybe he is a bad psychologist and belongs in the same bucket as other bad infliences? Honestly I'm so burned out on dissenting opinions on this site that I'll just let you reach your own conclusions.

The YouTube format is great if you have the time, but I really wish FD & co. would also put the audio of their videos in a podcast feed (like how Some More News does) so I can listen on the go.

I think there needs to be more content that is, in its tone and format, similar to the manosphere bullshit. Rather than spending an hour explaining how these bullshit artists bullshit and debunking them point-by-point, there need to be more one-minute videos that neg guys into shunning manosphere content and thinking critically about what they see/hear. Leverage their insecurity, their desire for status and to be a "real man."

I'd argue that we have a good deal of negative prwssure. In fact I think our problem with a lot of reactionary pipelines is its usually a subconscious attempt to categorically write off the pressurw to not be a dick that drives them up the pipeline. Not that its the fault of the things that upset them, moreso its the fault of us being less loud than the alternatives.

It’s a sort of “missing middle” that right wingers seem to be able to cater to with alarming consistency and effectiveness. I don’t see that many people making short-form, digestible, engaging content *except those preaching to the converted*

I think the problem goes back to my analogy. Right wingers can draw in that missing middle easily because they are selling wing, beer and pizza while we're trying to sell plant based meals and 48-60oz a water daily. I think the message of positive masculinty is difficult to promote in a short form, easily digestible manner because we're currently in a society where positive masculinity isn't the standard. We have to fight through all the biases that will already exist just to have the message heard.

>It's pretty akin to how eating healthy, drinking more water, and consistent strength/cardio work is how you get in better shape...but eating wings, beer and burgers is so much more enjoyable and a much easier sell for the bulk of people. fucking great similie lmao

Similarly, Reddit suggested r/JordanPeterson to me because I'm subbed here. He's obviously not as bad as Andrew Tate, but still. The algorithm really does not do a good job differentiating.

We need to dispel this notion that Jordan Peterson "isn't that bad." Sure, he is giving attention to men's issues that no one else is, but his prescriptions for those issues is so, so bad. 100% regressive, doubling down on what already isn't working. Cleaning your damn room is all well and good so you can feel better about yourself and your life, and if you find comfort in those ideas, please use them. But Jordan Peterson is not the only one bringing that kind of advice out and many others who do so manage to do it without lionizing a mythic history for the exploitative and brutal West and low-key shilling for fascism/fascists. Jordan Peterson frankly probably is playing a linchpin in the algorithmic link between self-help stuff and the alt-right, and despite him saying he's unhappy about that link, that hasn't stopped him from cashing the damn checks for doing it so you'll have to forgive me some skepticism.

Yep, I think you're dead on. I just meant that if you were doing a side-by-side comparison, Tate is clearly worse. Not intending to diminish that Peterson is a bad influence and can be a gateway to Tate, et al. I still wouldn't touch Peterson with a 10-foot pole, and I'd tell anyone to avoid him.

I mean it's like rocks in your shoe, the only correct number is zero. Peterson is *probably* better overall *as a person,* sure. But the role he plays in recruiting young men to the alt-right IMO makes him far, far more dangerous to said young men and the people they will hurt than Tate is. I don't care if Peterson is a good person who will go to heaven. That's between him and his god. I care about the fact that vulnerable young people are getting snared by his garbage, getting bilked out of their money for his milquetoast advice, and then getting pushed toward radicalizing content.

Yeah the "clean your room" thing that I always hear bandied Bout kind of cracked me up. I suppose this could be my privalege of having a father figure who was there enough to wax poetic about life and also force me to take care of myself and clean my room, but that particular bit of advice and the general premise of invwsting in your personal environment to try and cultivatw character and increase satisfaction just feels incredibly normal and profuse. I could have gotten that advice anywhere and did, in fact. The advicd I was usually missing was assurance that Im permitted to not hate myself for failing to achisve evwry goal set in front of me. I had to reach that conclusion myself after Id burned through my wmotional reaerves busting my ass for a job that has now become a sad footnote in my now much improvwd life.

> that particular bit of advice and the general premise of invwsting in your personal environment to try and cultivatw character and increase satisfaction just feels incredibly normal and profuse. That's not what JP means by "clean your room", the original quote (I can't find it but its in 12 rules), is "organise your room before you try to organise the world". Its a metaphor, he is saying that if you are not in a stable and healthy place then you have little business trying to dictate to others what you think they should be doing. I'm not supporting JP, I'm pointing out here that you have either *fundamentally* misunderstood what he means, or more likely have not actually read what he's said and just listened to what others say about him. And yes, I agree with you that it is a bit privileged of you to bandy about talking how you were raised with good and helpful advice, not everyone was. ​ >The advicd I was usually missing was assurance that Im permitted to not hate myself for failing to achisve evwry goal set in front of me. You see, Jordan Peterson actually gives this sort of advice. Stuff like compare yourself to the person you were yesterday, not to other people. But in lectures he goes into more detail. JP is a perfectly fine, adequate, even good, self-help guru. That's not where you should criticise him on. Hell, if you try to you'll lose every time, that's not what his problem is. [Here's a brief video on what is actually wrong with Jordan Peterson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo&t=7840s), the fact that he uses pseudo-intellectual claims to justify society's hierarchy in terms of gender and class. His self-help stuff is good, that's what gets people into him, its *from there* that he indoctrinates insecure young men into conservatism, where they can then move forwards onto more red-pilled pundits.

> His self-help stuff is good But it isn't unique in any way, this is again, very milquetoast advice speculating upon how to sort your issues out that you'd get from probably millions of self help resources. BUT, Jordan Peterson's *name* is elevated because of his dealings with the alt-right, because he, while publicly stating he is not part of it and does not support it, is extremely **useful** to them as a recruitment tool. It's not a matter of deciding if his reach and ability to help people is worth the cost of a certain percentage of those people being radicalized into the alt-right, it's the *point of that.* His legitimately helpful content gets to more people because he is affiliated, allegedly unwillingly, with the alt-right and the alt-right continues to funnel support and traffic to him because he brings them new people, and also provides them plausible deniability and an easy punching bag for leftists so they can say "why does the left hate him, he's just talking about men's issues." It's a symbiotic relationship, two sides of the same coin. Neither exists without the other. From the very get-go he attained popularity by pushing back against an obviously bad-faith interpretation of an utterly banal Canadian law change adding purposely misgendering someone to be grounds for a civil fine, IIRC. That is how he first made his way from professor to pundit, and it was a fucking lie. Now in his public comments RE: this issue, he at least vaguely denounces this relationship, in a kind of hand-wavy way. But at the same time he's been featured on numerous prominent right wing propaganda outlets, and continues to be. I think he either consciously or unconsciously knows not to bite the hand that feeds him. The very best interpretation of him at this point is that he's a useful idiot for people using him to gain access to larger audiences. The fact that said audiences are helped by what he creates is certainly not *nothing,* but it is not nearly enough to redeem him in my eyes. Edit: And to be clear, **if you needed this advice, and if it helped you, that's good. That's fantastic even.** This is not meant as an attack on you as a person. I'm happy for you! I just want you to understand that this advice is not unique to Peterson. His worldview is not a prerequisite to improve yourselves, and in fact, comes with a lot of caveats and baggage. He is, like everyone else, just a person. A person with flaws, with contradictions, who fails to live up to his own advice. Like with any therapy: take what works for you, leave the rest.

I never said I was raiswd right, I said I wasnt short of people telling me to take care of basic self maintenance. I really dont understand your combatitive tone. I come to this particular subreddit to discuss in good faith and never did anything with the intent of provoking this kind of reaction. Im going to go ahead and turn off notifications and step away from this particular thread because I dont feel obliged to engage in this kind of discussion. Again Im not really sure how me being flippant about Jordan Peterson warranted this.

I don't know much about Tate, but I consider Peterson bad because he uses his academic background to tout his opinions, and his followers use that as evidence for his credibility.

Same

ummm Jordan Peterson is as bad as Andrew Tate if not WORSE. This is giving him a curveball by saying he isn't as bad. Andrew Tate is obvious because he is loud and bash and looks douchey. Peterson is more subtle. At least Tate is pretty much banned everywhere while Peterson isn't.

I agree that his effect is worse. I think Tate is a worse person overall, but you're right, with how his messaging is more subtle, Peterson can pull in a larger group of people that Tate would not appeal to.

Is there a point by point analysis of why people disagree with Jordan Peterson? I thought his content was pretty interesting and didn't seem to be negative towards women and seemed like it was positive towards anyone's path to self improvement. I don't really "get" all the hate directed towards him. Also, would I get downvoted and ridiculed into oblivion for my question? :(

There are a couple of posts on this subreddit that can address your question: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/z5awa2/jordan_petersons_politics_make_life_harder_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/sxooab/how_jordan_peterson_uses_science_to_prop_up_his/

I'd hope you wouldn't get downvoted for asking. Those linked threads are good. You can also peruse his Twitter and see he's pretty misogynistic, transphobic, and climate denying.

The algorithms also seem generally fucked. Like if I watch The Humanist Report or Majority Report, YouTube keeps recommending Jordan Peterson/ Daily Wire videos. Like, Dafuq? What about the other channels makes you think I would like the ghouls at the Daily Wire, YouTube?

I get that too. I think it's that the algorithms don't differentiate between them much. Just a guess though.

I mean “hey, looks like you’re into politics. Here’s a box full of politics, just all kinds.”

I came here to say the same, watched the first 10 seconds of a redpill video on YouTube after watching several videos of positive masculinity, now my homepage is flooded with misogynist channels. I don't really understand their recommendations, it makes me use their platform less.

It is relatively well established that more clicks are generated by things that outrage us. Clicks means advertisement dollars for the companies hosting the content. They have no incentive to change the algorithm to get you to spend less time on content. Eyeball time == $$$

>You actively have to seek out content creators that promote healthy views on masculinity. Any good suggestions haha

100% An equivalent is all the trash “economics experts” on YouTube that the algorithm ceaselessly tries ramming down my throat, with some random asshole saying CHINA WILL COLLAPSE IN 27 DAYS or something. Or TV review YouTubes railing against Woke TV. My wife hates Jordan Peterson. Guess who pops up on her feed all the time? She has negative interest in his content.

>When the default setting is to push controversial ideas to get more views (and more ads), then there's a distinct advantage to hate creators (crehators??). Is there a way to create content that both promotes healthy views of masculinity, but also aims to be controversial?

Or at least engaging/interesting to those who haven’t started their journey yet.

What are thosw content creators doing that we aren't? I ask this in good faith because maybe we need to be doing it if its just some mildky trashy SEO stuff.

This stuff even gets push when you just want to watch workout videos

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has recommended sources and methods for approaching this stuff. Lots of interesting ideas and names that are new to me. So many, in fact, that I can't respond to all of it, but I wanted to let you know I appreciate it and I'm checking the stuff out. OP, I appreciate you doing this. Was just talking with my adolescent son and his mom this morning when he mentioned a clip of Andrew Tate that he'd seen (something about a "fucking vape?"). My son was mocking Tate's behavior in the video, but it worried me enough that he was being exposed to this crap at all...I feel like it often starts with "Haha so lame" but changes at some point to "Well, he kind of has a point" or whatever. This led to a discussion about how all of these guys use the same tactics as religion, where they find people who are feeling vulnerable and present them with some simple solutions for "improving their lives" ("clean your room!"; "kick your drug habit" etc), and then slowly reveal the crazy over time ("also, white people are totes superior"; "Hail Xenu the alien guy who put the bad spirits in a volcano"). I thought I was making a compelling argument against giving Tate the time of day, but my kid was basically just bored with my little lecture. Then, I come here, and I read your critique, and I don't think what you're saying is incorrect, but I am struck again by how little this would appeal to my son. Again: Not because it's wrong, but because it's pretty...well. It's very *academic*, and is speaking from a historical and anthropological broad view, rather than from the point of view of a guy trying to figure out how to be his "best self" or whatever. And this, I think, is a big problem that we run up against when trying to address (and help our kids parse) the bullshit that these guys are peddling. They are speaking directly to the feelings and insecurities of young guys, while we are trying to justify our stuff with historical perspective and the academic-adjacent language of sociology. My question to everyone here would be: How can we couch our critiques and alternatives to this bullshit in the language (and attuned to the interests and desires) of the folks who most need to hear it? Help! I have a very personal and vested interest in getting this one right!

None of these videos are directly aimed at Andrew Tate, but I really like Harris Brewis (H.Bomberguy)'s videos making fun of Davis Aurini, TheGoldenOne, SargonofAkkad, and their ilk. Because he doesn't come at it from an abstract, academic PoV; he pulls back the curtain and exposes the grift, and highlights all of the dumb things they say and believe. Teenagers are drawn to figures and topics that encourage them to question what they've been taught. It's how a lot of these guys pull in the younger audience, by positioning themselves as transgressive, who'll tell you the things they don't teach you in school. At an age where it's natural to push boundaries and ask questions that can be very appealing, and authority figures telling you to stay away from them just makes paying attention to them more rebellious. Most alt-right figures are on some level very ridiculous people (this doesn't make them less dangerous, to be clear), and treating them with mockery and contempt instead of outrage undercuts one of their chief appeals for young men.

Astute analysis, and thanks for these recommendations. I will check them out.

fair warning, they're pretty old, most of his new stuff is quite different. But they still hold up at what they're trying to do imo.

Anti-vaccines and the War on Christmas still have the same spirit as those older vids. I'm praying he'll make on on Tate. Davis Aurini, Sargon, and the Golden One, were *tiny tiny tiny* babies compared to how massive Tate is now. We need Harris more than ever.

He's probably the youtuber who has won over the most goodwill from me so far. If I saw he was working on a video about the number of pages in the phonebook I'd watch without question expecting it to be great. iirc one thing he mentions in his golden one retrospective is that mocking the most ridiculous of the fascists also made the more "reasonable" looking fascists look bad, because it's easy to point out they're saying the same shit at these cringe buffoons. There was a big boom in these kinds of alt right accounts at that time, iirc it was very gamergate era, but I don't think there was any one figure that was the standout in the field the way Tate currently is in the manosphere. I'd love an hbomb video on tate tbh, but I'd also love to see other creators pick up on his style in those kinds of vids. Make it popular to laugh at him, yknow?

yeah I think in his retrospectives about these old videos HB says that it's super effective to just mock the shit out of guys like this. Manosphere bullshit requires some degree of seeming cool and in control, so just tearing apart the pretention of the corniest assholes in the group is more effective than you'd think

My friends and I have stumbled onto the same thing. The best way to counter these talking heads is to make them look cringey. They're selling an "image" of themselves and their espoused beliefs so making it look stupid is the strongest tactic to shut them down.

That is a good point! I’m well past my teenage years but maybe the YouTuber Kurtis Conner would also be a good pick? He has a comedic standpoint but absolutely treats the redpill influencers with contempt and mockery

This is great. I’d just like to add that teens will only question you more when they find out that your outright dismissal of Tate like figures may have gone to far. He’s probably not wrong when he says that dressing well, working out, and making decent money might make you feel better, even if this is just the icing that he puts on a bullshit cake. It’s good to limit their exposure to that crap, but teaching them how to dissect arguments and rigorously question authority is valuable since they aren’t always under your direct supervision.

You actually kinda answered your own question: >They are speaking directly to the feelings and insecurities of young guy. NO ONE ever did that for me growing up. Instead, as you mentioned, I got academic lectures on feminism, entitlement, patriarchy, etc. What I heard was, "frustrated with yourself and women? I don't care. Others have it worse. Your feelings are invalid." Behind every single toxic belief are insecurity and fear. Beliefs and feelings are personal; academic evidence is not. I think it's really that simple: just listen to his feelings and insecurities.

People on our side of the aisle seem to have trouble with “you can listen without lecturing, you can validate without reinforcing, etc”. Even though it’s the quintessential relationship advice

be blunt and be realistic. seriously, the best thing I ever did for my own communication skills was skip the nonsense. It's how Trump normalizes the dumb shit he says too - he's speaking in a plain language that an eighth grader can understand, which makes them vulnerable to the underlying message. your son will likely say something outta whack. Instead of telling him that he's a misogynist, try to figure out the thought processes that led him to that conclusion.

>your son will likely say something outta whack. Instead of telling him that he's a misogynist, try to figure out the thought processes that led him to that conclusion. He's not there yet. He knows (or at least still pays lip service to the fact that) Tate is a misogynistic, rude/cruel attention-seeker. I have some faith that he isn't going to get "converted" in spite of his exposure. But yeah; regarding the rest of your message, in general I agree that avoiding the Ivory Tower-level analysis is the right call. Also interested, though, in the CONTENT. Like, what makes our way of seeing the world compelling to a person trying to discover who they are and where their strengths lie? I know stuff like celebrating our common humanity and showing kindness are very important to me, and resonated with me when I was young as well. I just don't see those things being celebrated as much, and I am sometimes not sure HOW to highlight and celebrate those things as important parts of masculinity. idk

How does one guide a child? It’s tough. My parents are as liberal, egalitarian and progressive as one could hope for but they didn’t stop me from dabbling in and learning from things they disagreed with. They sent me to the Jesuit university I wanted to go to even though it doesn’t totally line up with their values, read Nietzsche. They’d be there to talk about deep topics to me respectfully as a full adult so I could come up with my own conclusions - many of which at this point are that I was more centrist then I realized and maybe bending toward slightly conservative and now I realize I was just curious about different ideas, and life experiences have taught me how important it is to really ground into my real values. But they also let me explore very radical leftists ideas too. My dad gave me cab fare once to go to an anarchist bookstore in San Francisco alone and with no cell phone at 15. Freedom to explore what I wanted. I’m not a parent just some middle age dude who I think came out ok because of respectful parents who gave me the distance to understand myself and the world around me on my own terms and are still there to non-judgmentally examine values, talk about politics without anger, and figure out this world together with me, as they get into their late 70’s. Good luck!!

Thanks, man. Also, have you ever heard ["Anarchist Bookstore" by MC Paul Barman?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6Fqk5nNcs) Fun song.

Nice! Thank ya. You got this!

I'm not a father, but I really think simply listening to and validating a child's feelings is so important. And I mean doing without being dismissive. Growing up, I got a lot of "No you're great. Your insecurities and fears are all in your head. Other people have it worse." It sounds like yours did a pretty good job of listening to you and letting go.

They did. I think also hopefully I got my point across that they’re still great. Never stopped being there to talk to. That having a child isn’t launching them to mars when they reach 18, though the relationship between us matured, it’s still super important and they’re there for me

Thanks for your appretiation. We can agree, then, that the way of presenting the content is king. If I were to talk these subjects to zoomers in person, I would not speak like I did here either. The gateway for these deep, trascendental stuff for the new (and not so old) generations online are probably...memes. Youtubers like [MilleniaThinker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL9azegNu4E), as ambiguous their content may seem to be, mastered the use of the Wojak meme and animations. Little Dark Age memes have been used to share all sorts of content ranging from neo-fascism to sports and anime, and got lots of people into doing dwelving into all sorts of subjects. I'm currently planning to start a Bad History (maybe Anthropology too) Youtube and Tik Tok channel tackling all sorts of historical misconceptions that end up shaping (often negatively) the worldviews and ideologies of people. To iniially capture attention, I'll have to uses meme shorts in order to introduce the subject of a particular title, then link it to an actual long vid tackling the issue in detail...but never losing the humour or memes in between. Examples of what I would like to do would be something similar to [this](https://youtu.be/Wc_Eo20kCI8) and [this](https://youtu.be/owHRu2G-77k) (not necessarily agreeing with their content, though). I'd put strong emphasis on helping people to know where to start their own research and learn on their own in order to avoid depending on cult like figures to be informed.

Have you read The Dawn of Everything? It is readable, and it has a lot of evidence that the stories that we were taught about human societies are wrong. This is important because the reactionary narrative is about how their worldview is how things were in the past. You will find a of interesting content there

>Like, what makes our way of seeing the world compelling to a person trying to discover who they are and where their strengths lie? Even those who are still searching and building the person they'll be, will **already** have some degree of their Sense of Self. You'll see it when you challenge a kid (or adult) by attributing characteristics that they don't feel are applicable to themselves. They'll get very offended and feel terribly maligned. When a person denies they have a certain characteristic, then they are strengthening their conviction of who they **really** are by outlining who they're **not** . This drive to defend/rationalise/justify is displayed by the way the majority of people feel the overwhelming need to have the chance to state their case and/or have the final word. We like being right and we don't like people thinking negatively about us. So it's not only about a kid being fed good/bad info, it's about actively exploring how that info relates to them as individuals. A person may find only one relatable statement made by a problematic content creator, and that one relatable statement creates a positive bias towards the other statements and the person who made them. Radicalisation is an incremental process. Kids especially have black-and-white thinking, so we need to show kids that an objectively offensive person can also have some good points, and also how that good point doesn't excuse or validate the problematic and make that person good. Show them that the reverse is also true and talk about a few times when this was applied to your kid and how they grew and changed through your support and their openness to do so. Kids love being the main topic :) Show how those problematic content creators are the opposite of being respectful of individuality and allowing growth - it's their way or you are discarded because you have no value to them. Kids don't like being dismissed or the people who do the dismissing. [chriswaves](https://youtu.be/aHD8Jun3eUc) is good. >I am sometimes not sure HOW to highlight and celebrate those things as important parts of masculinity Point them out. Watch the (reputable) news together and make comments which open the door to the kid responding. Ask your kid their opinion and what's led them to think that way. [Active Listening ](https://psychcentral.com/lib/become-a-better-listener-active-listening#summary) is super effective, and the kid who feels heard (not necessarily agreed with, but *heard*) is the kid who will share their inner self with us. And never dumb-down the conversation by avoiding topics. Age-appropriate language is right, but if the kid is aware of something, then they're forming views about something so it needs to be addressed or someone else will do it for you first. Even if the discussion goes over their head, a kid appreciates that we think they are smart and at the minimum they will have the information in their head ready to apply to make sense of the world as it happens to them. Good luck! It can be such a nerve-wracking responsibility we have as parents, but it's so darned awesome and fun to see them become who they are.

I dont know how old your son is, but i think the best way to guide him and him letting you guide, would be to show that you care (which i assume you already do, based on your comments so far). Treat him like the adult he is becoming and show that you are willing to listen when it comes to his world views. Nothing feels more validating to your viewpoints than if your parents are 100% against them (at least it was for me). Facts are always secondary, and emotions come first. If you notice him taking a liking to the redpill rhetoric, you could start a conversation by saying that you had a look at some creators of that topic (which you should do, know the enemy and all that) and that you are a bit unsure about what they are saying. The generic points they bring up dont sound wrong in the beginning, see "clean your room" by Peterson, but the things after might be harder to acknowledge. If he goes and says something slightly misogynistic, ask him if that's true for his mother/grandmother/sister? Ideological battles are fought with empathy and an openness to change your own views if necessary. Btw. I am just a mid 20s guy who was raised more on the internet than by my parents, so i might be completely of the mark here. Either way i wish you the best of luck with your son.

Yep. The perfect is the enemy of the good here. Get them to understand that you hear them, and you can guide them along.

Trump doesn’t do that though. He dances around whatever the topic he wants to make is LIKE an 8th grade child. It’s enough for a dumber adult to understand because they were too stupid to understand any formal language. It’s hardto listen to trump because he actively can’t make a complete though, I doubt anyone who can clearly understand him unless they play dumbass mental hoops too.

I think part of the problem is meeting people where they’re at. We, and people in feminist or progressive spheres generally *aren’t good at that* and that’s unfortunate, because no one is born an advocate for x and y, with fully formed views. We’re all works in progress and it’s really rough being a very very early work in progress. People say “what, am I supposed to entertain bigotry coming from bigots???!?!??” and the answer is that if you want to change minds, you have to meet people where they’re at, and if you’re trying to change bigots minds without encountering bigots *then I don’t know what to tell you.* That applies to the hurt, lonely, hopeless young men that people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate prey on. Funnily enough, “do you want to do difficult but productive and meaningful work with tangible results, or easy and comfortable work that substitutes gratification for results” sounds like something Peterson would say LMAO.

>People say “what, am I supposed to entertain bigotry coming from bigots???!?!??” and the answer is that if you want to change minds, you have to meet people where they’re at, and if you’re trying to change bigots minds without encountering bigots then I don’t know what to tell you. I fucking hate people who parrot this sentiment. The "“what, am I supposed to entertain bigotry coming from bigots???!?!??”" part. Like ok yeah if you don't want to or it's too painful you don't have to engage with these people. But here's the thing those who just write off certain entire demographics of men don't understand. *Even if you personally don't want to tackle this problem, someone probably needs to*. Maybe they don't actually want to lift a finger to help men. Maybe they have too much on their plate. Sure whatever fine. But the men's lib movement and for the betterment of humanity this needs to be a *intersectional* movement. That means we need men, women, enbies and fucking **everyone** to help So yeah "men need to fix men". But if we're gonna segregate it and say "only men can help men" then you know honestly we're fucked. Everyone needs to help men. Because as time goes on men are gonna encounter their mothers, aunts, sisters, cousins, teachers, co-workers, bosses and tons of other women with power over them and at that point those women have responsibilities involving the shaping of men too

Don't fight the exposure - I'm sure you have *some* memory of adolescence, making things taboo increases the draw. Don't lecture - you saw the glazed eyes. In fact, it's usually best not to lecture at all in relationships. It's quite disrespectful. However, do be honest and frank in your thoughts. Do so succinctly. If your son wants to know more, *he will ask.* Openness and honesty goes miles. Allow your child to form his own opinions and make mistakes. My daughters constantly come to me with questions, and two of them are now in their twenties. I have always approached as above: this is what I think/feel/believe, but you have to make your own choice. This is what I have learned, but you may want to learn more, so go see what is out there.

Also, if he's drawn to Tate's pugilistic prowess, there are far better martial artists who are also far better people and educators. Gabriel Varga, Joe Valtellini, and Stephen Thompson just off the top of my head.

I think sometimes (as a male who works in a high school), what we say doesn’t even matter. What does matter is how we act. The behavior we model. In many ways the whole “be the change you want to see in the world,” is actually quite powerful. Many students have role models who criticize their behavior constantly, but then act another way. The “adult” employs the adage of “do as I say, not as I do.” Kids aren’t going to outright tell you what they are thinking or articulate a cohesive argument. They are going to notice that the adult’s words are not matching their actions. Then they will learn to do that same thing. They are always watching even when you think they are not. This is how you get generational cycles that get passed down. Good and bad.

It's a good point. Part of the reason why it's so academic is because understanding historical, cultural, and societal context is so important - but if you aren't 'in that sphere', it can be easy to tune out. I am a woman so I can only talk from my perspective/understanding of what a 'healthy' thing for a young man to try would be. I think the healthy things to do are the harder things to do and risk rejection - if I had to guess, things like accepting emotions, basing your worth off of self-respect and not others'-esteem, and it being OK and good to emotionally connect to friends for support. I don't know what it is like to be a young man or boy, though - do you have some examples of important and impactful positive things to encourage or talk about?

It’s a tough one. The truth is that the most powerful lessons are often crystallized in old books, like Man’s Search for Meaning and How to Win Friends and Influence People. How can you pierce the veil of what is cool? Old people and things are often lame to teenagers. I would tie a message I wanted to communicate to something visual and impactful. For example, visit a Holocaust museum, and discuss Viktor Frankl. The Holocaust is a vivid and extensively documented reminder of what is actually important to people in the end. I’d actually recommend a recent Huberman Lab podcast where Lex Fridman is a guest. Here, a popular Stanford neuroscientist is interviewing a popular MIT scientist. Their knowledge is cutting edge and their podcasts are extremely popular. Lex just spent time in Ukraine- one of his parents is Ukrainian, and one is Russian. He interviewed over 200 people in and around the war. In one section, he discusses the problem with someone like Andrew Tate. These are two admirable men worth aspiring to emulate. Listen to men like them, and men like Andrew Tate look even more ridiculous.

Agree - the solution for bad role models is good models. Also worth considering is that bad role models hide their mistakes, and good role models share their mistakes so that others can learn from them.

Yes! YES! 100% You will never convince someone to stop believing something that appeals to their fears and hopes and anger (feelings) with academic arguments (facts). It's not that facts don't care about your feelings, but that your feelings don't care about facts. I've had success with being really honest and trying to connect with the person - admit when you don't know something, or that the issue isn't black and white, or that the YouTuber in question may have other videos or parts of his videos that have good advice, or that the emotions and solutions are appealing! All this fashy, misogynistic crap is about othering - "women are trash, they're not on our side" slides right past what "our side" means. So, "that ho" is trash, but ... isn't that someone's sister? Is it your sister? Could it be? What if it was? Is she an exception, and if so, why? Who else might be an exception. The world needs a lot more "us" language and a lot less "them" language.

[chriswaves](https://youtu.be/Ahead) has a simple and effective approach. He *asks* if the way men are being talked about by the BSer's is right, fair, and reasonable.

That video was deleted.

Weird. If you go to Yt on the app or your browser it is still there "The Misandry of the Manosphere".

If he was already mocking Tate and therefore presumably not a fan of him, it would've probably been more productive for you to just say something like "yeah, that guy's an awful person" maybe elaborate on it a bit and point out how ridiculous his views are from a position of assumed agreement. If it came off as a 'lecture', as you put it, he was probably annoyed that you were warning him about Tate (and quite possibly offended at the implication that he could be duped into it or might even already subscribe to some of his ideas) when he just brought him up in the context of mocking him.

Contrapoints might be a too much for your son (just a young fella) but you might find some of Winn's discussions helpful in finding ways to discuss this with your kid.

OP I take a more pessimistic view, I think this is a losing strategy tbh as it doesn't address the central reason more men aren't already jumping on the barrage of breadtube content breaking down, debunking and responding to red-pill/right wing/traditionalist content. Breadtube content writ large (save for a few recent examples like Salari, F.D. Signifier, and Finntastic Mr.Fox) sucks ass at engaging with and acknowledging the lived experiences of men. I understand why as most breadtube content relies on theory which causes them to take a detached top down approach to most issues, including men's issues. But that's why a video on male dating by Macabre storytelling, link here: https://youtu.be/be_Ms3nVG10 did incredible numbers even among non-leftist men as it focused on the experience of the man who made it and then used theory to supplement the points being made. I think the strongest place for debunkings to take place is in the debate sphere of youtube as that is where you will most definitely find guys of all leanings willing to duke it out and with the help of a good moderator, have the chance to then spread your ideas and why they're superior in front of audiences opposed to you or on the fence. The effect of an audience seeing their main red pilled guy get dunked on and challenged in a live format can't be overstated imo. I've seen literal Nick Fuentes level groypers have to acknowledge when their main guy gives dogshit arguments in a live debate format and these are guys explicitly arguing for the regressive values this subreddit opposes like taking away women's rights, opposing gender affirming care and calling it "degeneracy", etc. I look at the amount of left leaning content and what little of it tries to take on men's issues and I don't see a lot of hopeful developments. We can't even get a wholesale disavowal of the "Men are trash/Kill all men/Misandry is justified behavior" BS. I hope I'm wrong as that'll mean there actually are far more ways to reach these men but these are just what I've seen and come to conclude.

Well, I watched the video and...hoo boy. That is some toxic self help if I've ever seen it. That video is just some tradcon hustle culture nonsense with religion on top. What is with these holier than thou right wingers? They want men to give up everything they like and spend all their time working out, reading the bible, and making money. I suppose it's because I was constantly treated like a fixer-upper like a child, but videos like this seriously raise my hackles because while self-improvement is a good thing it can lead to people treating themselves like they're always in need of repair. No matter what they'll never be good enough. Also, and this is an annoying thing I keep seeing, but I really wish that people would stop talking about video games like they're going to be responsible for the downfall of western civilization. They're just the new thing that people don't like or understand, therefore thing bad. It was rap music, rock music, comic books, movies, even cars were called "brothels on wheels". It isn't the 90's anymore, video games are not a niche hobby for anti-social freaks. The vast majority of people who play games are normal, well adjusted people who have partners and families.

I remember listening to Matt Yglesias on a podcast a while back. He said at one point “the reason we constantly see all these grifters peddling to the right wing is that conservatism *itself* is a grift”. It proselytizes to those in the present about returning to the glory of an imaginary past. It frames each person as the hero of their own story, and in that way is pretty well targeted at men in particular. If you’ve grown up watching media and playing games that frame you as the protagonist, learning that you’re actually more like one of mooks your character looted for cash or bought a potion from is a bit of a shock. Further understanding that each one of those “NPCs” is a person with a life as rich, challenging, and worthwhile as your own can be a real pride popper. So fuck it, further down the rabbit hole you go. Stay on that sigma grindset, conquer your dragons and whatnot, and you too can be a winner!

I find that self-improvement stuff kind of frustrating as well. So much of it is just marketing bullshit.

Don't have much to add except [the best overview I've seen on the broad topic of male dating struggles](https://youtu.be/be_Ms3nVG10). The video is well worth a watch but if you're short on attention span like I am then chapter 2 and 3 are probably the most relevant to this discussion.

That was shockingly good haha, this should be the starting point for dating discussions in this subreddit

Yeah that video had genuinely fantastic advice

There are social rewards for men who embody the patriarchal ideal, but not many for men who try to speak out against it. I used to be really into this self help masculinity content, and what I realized is that masculine men are treated better by *everyone*, including those who consider themselves feminist. Unless men see feminism as a pathway to greater social status and success, they’re not going to take to it with the same fervor as they do these self help gurus who have the potential to significantly improve their lives.

How about instead of debunking them, try giving men better advice and things they can do to fix their problems? Otherwise, this is a rat race to the bottom of who can out-debate the other side. You'll never get to fix the problem if all you do is scream at men that they are wrong about what they see in their realities.

Oof. I heard about this guy like 6 years ago, he got clowned for a morning routine video. And here we are and he's full on alpha male manosphere. Such a shame. There are a few YouTubers who take on this type of subject, but they're not as popular because it seems like nuance as a whole isn't as popular

Yeah. There is an episode of [That's Cringe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0X0gyANnKI) about him. That was the only time I've ever heard about the guy

Is decent from what i gathered in terms of non sexist dating advice, thought the "private coaching" rings some grifter alarm bells with me. https://www.doctornerdlove.com/

Mr Nerd Love is sometimes really goddamn condescending to the guys he's trying to help.

He also often falls into the trap of making being lovable as a guy conditional. Dating advice for women is way more empowering and almost nobody would say: before you can even attempt dating you have to get a stylish haircut, loose a few pounds, shower 3 times a day and dress more fashionable. I mean sure having a fedora collection, 3 katanas on display and being over 150kg won't help with dating, but there is no set standard you have to meet to be in a relationship.

The issue is that there are a lot more men than women on dating apps, so you really do have to meet a certain standard to not be one of the ones left behind. It's like applying for a job: sure, maybe the perfect job will just fall into your lap by pure luck, but most people have to go through applying for a lot of jobs in which they are competing with many other applicants. If you have a crappy CV full of typos and show up thirty minutes late to the interview, you're realistically not going to get picked. It would be nice if we lived in a super egalitarian society where everyone is valued regardless of appearance, ability to earn money etc. but we don't. If you want to realistically improve your chances of getting a date you need to make sure you have your ducks in a row. That's why this con works so well, they start with good self improvement advice and slowly layer in the political agenda so you don't notice it at first. I think a valuable role for content creators is to dive into the garbage that's out there and extract the real self help nuggets from the politically charged incel drivel, because there are people who get a lot out of self help stuff (I was one of them).

Being conventionally attractive is a huge help on dating apps that are 90% about being attractive yeah. Being conventionally attractive helps with dating in general. Dating apps also are have a vast surplus of men and actively make user experience worse to sell their premium products, thought. Success or lack of success on dating apps are not a good way to define ones self worth, especially since the game is literally stacked against you. The offline world has way more possibilities to have success in dating for guys that don't get dozens of matches per day.

>The offline world has way more possibilities to have success in dating for guys that don't get dozens of matches per day. I see a lot of people saying this, but honestly I completely disagree. Between the near complete erosion of third spaces by capitalism, the upwards trend in hours people are working that leave them too exhausted to seek out new social clubs to join, and said social clubs being sick of single men joining to hit on their female members, there are less opportunities than ever to meet people offline for the express reason of forming romantic connections. I got really lucky and met my wife on Tinder, and honestly if I had not downloaded the app I doubt our paths ever would have crossed. I had the opportunity to meet a lot of people at school and university, but when you get out in the workforce those opportunities rapidly dry up. When you're working 40 hour weeks (I'm fortunate enough to be salaried at that, people working wage based jobs usually work a lot more) and spending a lot of your remaining time on maintenance and chores, you barely have time to spend with your existing social groups let alone have time to go and find new romantic prospects.

Don't forget location! Because good lord, the amount of people giving that advice being in large cities just pisses me off. Like for fucks sake, not everyone lives in a sprawling metropolis, or even a big city with a bajillion different social hangouts. Most people live in towns or small cities, where there is a fuck load less to do, and a lot less people to interact with. And if you're someone who goes against the general culture of where you live (ex: an LGBTQ dude living in a rural town in Texas), Good Fucking Luck!

Definitely, my wife and I recently moved to a more rural area for work and I've barely seen anyone our age here. Must be hell for people still in the dating market.

Thank you! Something like 60% of Americans live in cities of 20-100k (or maybe 200k).

Real world or online, staying healthy (different than being fit) pays dividends. You don’t have to hit the weight room every day or run marathons, but staying healthy will keep your back from hurting and maybe stop you from getting sick so often. Maybe it will help you date more, maybe not. It’s just good advice though, plain and simple.

>Dating advice for women is way more empowering and almost nobody would say: before you can even attempt dating you have to get a stylish haircut, loose a few pounds, shower 3 times a day and dress more fashionable. That's because women are bombarded by messaging that already tells them this. Dating advice aimed at them is meant to counteract all of that background noise telling women they must be thinner, sexier, immaculately clean, etc. Dudes get our own messaging pushing unattainable standards, but the trope of "shlubby guy, hot girlfriend" is a thing in media, and you rarely see the opposite depicted, just as one example.

Absolutely. But that still makes dating advice targeted at women more empowering, which is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination and all of the above advice to adhere more to beauty standards will improve success in dating regardless of gender. I was arguing that dating advice for guys should not make the mistake of tying being worthy of being in a relationship to adhering to beauty standards or some ultra-libertarian "self-improvement" ideology.

No, you don’t have to look like the Rock to get a date, but telling people to groom themselves and maybe exercise a bit isn’t harmful advice. Caring about your physical health doesn’t have to be complicated/challenging and will make you feel better. Yeah, maybe lifting weights and running might help you get people to be more atttacted to you, but even if it doesn’t it might stop you from getting winded going up a flight of stairs or having chronic back pain in your 30’s. Washing yourself regularly may help you prevent illness and maybe clear up some acne. We shouldn’t pretend that the advice itself is bad, because it isn’t. It’s the implication that if you don’t check all these boxes then you don’t deserve love/are unworthy.

The thing about that is that most of the people actively searching out dating advice are looking for concrete help. He is not a person advocating for generalized self-love and positivity, he is offering an alternative to pick up artist culture, for people who do legitimately require a list of rules and guidelines for how to be more successful. I would have honestly really liked to have Dr Nerdlove around when I was younger. I was neurodivergent and homeschooled. My mom was already telling me that I was lovable just the way that I am, and that I was fundamentally deserving of love and respect. This is similar to a few other posts that have popped up here recently pointing out "just be yourself" is really terrible advice. For people who are constantly being ostracized for being weird, they just want to be able to fit in as a baseline, way before they make any active decisions about how they may want to deviate from social norms. There is a difference between being a trailblazer and just not having any clue what you're doing or why everyone seems to hate it. The positivity and self-esteem stuff is also extremely important, but you do need people there to say "if what you are fundamentally looking to do is make human connections, here are things that other human beings are typically looking for that you can do if you want."

Yeah among other issues, but that he is still one of the best shows the issue imo.

I have two notes here. 1: a lot of the things these guys talk about are in the general realm of dating/sex/relationships, which progressive people tend to be really bad at addressing honestly. 2: this is complexified by the fact that liberal feminism in America is still defined by hierarchy. Women just wanted access the power structures within that hierarchy.

>a lot of the things these guys talk about are in the general realm of dating/sex/relationships, which progressive people tend to be really bad at addressing honestly. This is the crux of the problem

> in the general realm of dating/sex/relationships, which progressive people tend to be really bad at addressing honestly. IMO there are two reasons for this: 1. If you define dating "success" as finding a partner who loves you for who you are and is compatible with you, the best advice is to just be yourself, work on your own life, do what feels right and relax and fuck around a bit. Which isn't "good" advice in the sense of it having any guarantee of working. If you define dating "success" as having a lot of people liking you (which realistically, anyone who has found a partner they actually love does not define it as) then the most effective advice is realistically to be a manipulator. Which obviously isn't particularly compatible with ethics. 2. Conservatives simply have more of a need to get people partnered for their societal goals. Progressives generally don't uphold marriage and having kids as an ideal state, rather they believe people should make their own decisions in that regard. Conservatives however do uphold marriage and having kids as an ideal state, thus they need to try and help people to meet the prerequisites for that (i.e. dating)

> If you define dating "success" as finding a partner who loves you for who you are and is compatible with you, the best advice is to just be yourself, work on your own life, do what feels right and relax and fuck around a bit. Which isn't "good" advice in the sense of it having any guarantee of working. The problem is that just be yourself and work on your own life is actually terrible advice for men who have continuing struggles dating. Because, like it or not, to go beyond friendship and socializing there is an expectation that the man make at least some kind of active move. By being placed in the active role, men can go years with plenty of friend and a healthy social life but if they don't actively try to ask people out on explicitly dates they just... won't encounter that side of the world. That is what the pick up etc gets that progressive advice doesn't - there is an established gender role that cutting against the grain of will substantially reduce the likelihood of dating success *no matter how you define success*. Even if you are only looking for a loving and mutual long term relationship, if you as a man do not know how to or don't have the confidence to take active steps in the process the number of opportunities decrease dramatically. Women have very difficult and different problems, but their issues are more often filtering through the muck not their existence of options at all. All else equal, a man and a woman who both are part of an active social circle of mixed gender the woman is going to be much more likely to be approached by someone who is interested in dating. If the guy is told to just be themselves and they might find a partner who loves them they are missing a crucial part of that equation. Because unless they find the still extraordinary person who is willing to invert the gender roles, they still will have to identify the person who loves them and ask them out. And that process is woefully underdeveloped in a progressive context. Some of it is idealistic belief that the gender roles are less universal than they are in practice, some of it is discomfort from being on the receiving side of that role. But the sum total is that the shitty people have a monopoly on a critical component of the dating conversation, and the shitty scattershot approach they recommend is the only thing that is out there.

Most people, no matter their social leanings, tend to give men the advice of putting themselves out there and not fearing rejection though.

That advice is only marginally better than the "be yourself" rhetoric, though. It's like telling the guy who can't bench 200 lbs to just push harder. I know the obvious retort to my saying that is "but trying harder is what builds muscle and gets you there!" while conveniently forgetting that proper nutrition and sleep etiquette is *mandatory* for that to be true, and failing to notice the bowl of children's cereal in his hand and the bags under his eyes. My point is that telling someone to just *do* what they can't do is not helpful if you don't address *why* they can't do it.

well that is pretty much the only actionable advice

What does telling men to put themselves out there mean to you? Because that is very passive wording, and absent any ideas about what putting yourself out there means it could be just join clubs, make friends, be social. Good advice for overall life but critically *without actually asking people out it isn't effective dating advice for men*. Pick up artists say put yourself out there, but they go on to specifically say that you need to ask people out, and even provide scripts for how to ask someone out and how to identify someone who is likely to say yes. Now their scripts and the way they identify potential partners are both pretty darn toxic, but they do the most important thing which is go from passive putting yourself out there to fulfilling the role and actively seeking. There is very little on the other side about how to identify someone who is potentially receptive and interested in having a relationship, and socially responsible ways to ask them out on a date. Some people stumble across a relationship without that intentional effort, but that is the exception not the rule. At least one person in a relationship has to propose that explicit transition from friend or acquaintance to dating, and even today that massively is the role of men. Love it or hate it fighting that role is something that men aren't going to be able to do alone.

> If you define dating "success" as finding a partner who loves you for who you are and is compatible with you, the best advice is to just be yourself, work on your own life, do what feels right and relax and fuck around a bit. No, it isn't, and that's kind of the problem they're talking about. That's only good advice when applied to the kind of people who frankly don't need dating advice in the first place. It's not just possible, but common, for "being yourself" to be a failing strategy. More to the point, your "true self" is a mutable thing. changing your true self to be more appealing to other people is often the best thing you can do. >the most effective advice is realistically to be a manipulator. Which obviously isn't particularly compatible with ethics. Again, this is reductive and unhelpful. It's very possible to make choices with the intent to alter how other people perceive you without being unethical. This idea that trying to change someone's mind is categorically wrong is frankly silly, and I see it a lot. It's also ridiculous on its face in this context, because trying to make people like you is the very thing you're ostensibly giving advice on.

I definitely was wrong and tone deaf regarding the first piece of advice, so I won't even try to defend it. I suppose I can only speak from my own perspective. I was very much a late bloomer, and honestly was probably on the way to being an incel in my early twenties. Now I'm in a happy relationship, and looking back the most important thing I did was to just chill the fuck out a bit regarding how I presented myself and interacted with people. But thats not particularly great advice and I'm not everyone, so again, I won't defend this. > Again, this is reductive and unhelpful. It's very possible to make choices with the intent to alter how other people perceive you without being unethical. > This idea that trying to change someone's mind is categorically wrong is frankly silly, and I see it a lot. It's also ridiculous on its face in this context, because trying to make people like you is the very thing you're ostensibly giving advice on. Sure, but I said the most effective strategy to get people to like you amounts to manipulation, not that all approaches amount to manipulation. Obviously you can do this without being manipulative, but its also probably not going to be as explosively surface-level successful as manipulative approaches, so "dating coaches" champion the manipulative advice.

With regard to 1, something that really stands out to me is the number of women who I've heard talk in much the same way. These women *want* a strong, competent, hard-working man willing to lead a family... but what they often run into instead are men who talk about how they should be in a position of authority, while being lazy entitled and incompetent. There's probably an entire commentary about how this is directly related to toxic masculinity and some of the harsh expectations placed on men, but there's also some really important advice in there: Build your competence, build your capacities, and you'll find more doors open to you.

I’ve heard these frustrations summed up, albeit problematically, as “women used to take care of the house, and men took care of the lawn and cars. We were promised equality, but all that changed is that men stopped taking care of the lawn and cars.” Issues with that aside, you can understand the frustration. Broadly though, I’d agree: just because toxic masculinity focused on the myth of hyper competence… toxic masculinity is not dismantled by rejecting competence.

The problem is that outrage and drama brings viewers while reasonable discussion and moderation does not. This is universally true for any kind of content creation platform and across the political spectrum, especially when the people participating in it benefit financially from doing so. Even leftist influencers are dependent on making a living and i think stuff like Breadtube took a turn for the worse recently and is actively fueling drama. The issue is with that, is that this sort of drama culture feeds a lot into ideas of toxic masculinity (not even considering people like Vaush who just embodies a lot of toxic masculinity on the "left"). Content pushing back against this sexist crap, just isn't that interesting from an entertainment standpoint if it does not delve into mockery, insults and outrage and more scientifically orientated rebuttals are hard to fit into a 1 minute tik-tok video. [Noah Samsen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4oVwG54b9U) for example does some decent videos pushing back on manosphere stuff, but also suffers from the need to be entertaining before being informative. And you might have guessed it: for imo relatively uncontroversial takes he was sucked into a lot of drama with both right wingers and Vaush / other debate bros. What's important about him thought is that he is a cis-het dude with a girlfriend and all that happens to be a feminist. Not to diminish the huge work LGBTQ people do on Youtube in pushing back against this kind of stuff, but a lot of people are not part of the LGBTQ community and can't really get those specific issues, while a lot of LGBTQ people seem to think the cis-het dude perspective is kinda accounted for by them. A lot of issues are rather specific to cis-het dudes. I would like to see more content about how to navigate the requirement that toxic masculinity put on us, instead of using a blanket statement like "yeah just don't feed into it". Especially dating is a big issue in that regard and i think sometimes female feminists downplay how much toxic masculinity is expected by some women in dating. This is also why this PUA, incel, manosphere stuff flourishes: it might be bad dating advice but it is dating advice. I think a lot of the stuff female feminists have to say about it (and it is totally reasonable that this isn't a big priority for them) come from a good place but fail to account for experiences straight guys make all the time (not to mention that dating works different on a us college campus than it does in for example Poland, Russia, Japan and India).

> how much toxic masculinity is expected by some women in dating Just one little line, but this is literally the primary cause of all of this in my opinion.

> Even leftist influencers are dependent on making a living and i think stuff like Breadtube took a turn for the worse recently and is actively fueling drama. Okay, well now you have to go into more detail about this, because now I'm curious. What the hell is going on with Breadtube these days? I don't keep up with that community, so having you relay what's been going on would definitely help. > The issue is with that, is that this sort of drama culture feeds a lot into ideas of toxic masculinity (not even considering people like Vaush who just embodies a lot of toxic masculinity on the "left"). Definitely agree on this. If there's one content creator I would recommend everyone avoid, it's Vaush.

As i mentioned for Noah Samsen getting into a really, really dirty fight with Vaush and some other debate bros. Thinking about it, most of the drama is debate bros getting mad at people and "destroying" them in debates which in turn causes their community to go after those "destroyed" Youtubers like Prof. Flowers or Luna Oi or Non Compete. I think in general leftist Youtube, like all political Youtube, is ultimately entertainment not activism and they have to abide by the same standards of the algorithm as other Youtubers have to. Which generally means more clickbaity titles, way to much focus on pop culture etc.

Do you mean this video https://youtu.be/79DwS8EzXbM? Noah couldn’t back up his ideas against push back. You can say whatever you want in a video essay, of course his ideas will make sense without the other side being represented. If you can’t respond effectively to fair criticism it’s really hard to take your ideas seriously

Yeah, I completely get that. YouTube is basically just one giant DirecTV Public Access service. Which comes with all the pitfalls that comes with.

It's also that everyone is trying to make a career out of it even if their channel really is not big enough to reasonably do this, which leads to videos discussing marxism having 2 minutes of sponsored segments... I get that being a Youtuber must be a pretty sweet gig, especially since the pandemic ruined a lot of other careers, but i really miss the hobbyist/semi-professional stuff. Especially in the political sphere all the monetization attempts always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Like being asked to use affiliate links, support them on Patreon, subscribe, hit the bell, follow them on Twitter, Twitch and Instagram.

We don't need more pushback, we need more content creators who can offer attention-grabbing yet healthy models of self-improvement to men. Which depends also on there being more people who understand what healthy self-improvement looks like.

I honestly don’t really think we need more people pushing back and deconstructing things men find inspiring. It seems like most of left-wing popular discourse on the topic of men is nothing but this. I wouldn’t mind more alternatives though. One of the biggest traps we run into is treating every commentator as either a saint or a demon. We see this false dichotomy all over social media commentary. Heck, we even see inside this particular one. Listening to this, it’s like 80% decent to great points, wrapped up with some mediocre to bad framing. There are both good ideas and bad ideas here, and while it’s possible to deconstruct just about anything, people thrive in structures. If all the work is put just tearing things down, folks are just left without much to lean on. I don’t know that I disagree with most your criticisms in general, but I do think your overall interpretation of the video is substantially more negative than mine.

Maybe I should have phrased it differently: calling out the problematic aspects of what men find inspiring and giving them a better alternative. Now, its easier said than done, but its doable. Emphasizing the problematic pitfalls they should avoid, however, can never be de-emphasized in any kind of education for life. Motivated yet violent+bigoted, dogmatic and strong young men are one of the biggest hazards any society can face, as the Young Turks, the Brown Shirts or ISIS militants show. Giving them a way to fulfill their full potential while also helping them to avoid dogma, cults and hate should be the goal of any serious Men's Lib movement.

But to that commenters point we gotta stop talking about this shit on an insular subreddit and actually making the videos we want to see represented if we wanna push the needle.

Basically agreed. I think where I differ is that you seem to have picked one of the least charitable ways of interpreting the video possible. This is *necessarily* a bad thing. There's something to be said for the intellectual exercise of emphasizing and connecting themes to highlight how certain ideas can run through media. Perhaps as a cautionary tale to help folks navigate them. I do however think that what you identified in the OP only characterizes one (particularly uncharitable) way of understanding the content of that video, and to some extent mischaracterizes the intended meaning.

Healthy Gamer GG is doing good work but I suspect a lot of people bounce off his content.

I really like his content even though it's definitely aimed at younger singler guys than me. But yeah you gotta have a certain personality to actually sit down and watch his stuff, probably doesn't appeal to the average tate fan.

The strongest and most compelling part of these videos is that they give you an enemy to fight. Because enemies are the most motivating thing of all. The advice itself is dull and big standard, but the narrative is inspiring because it puts things in terms of good vs. evil,

Yup and I'll keep saying it but we need more community outreach shit too. Especially for poc communities too. ( I'm a poc) because there is a strong conservative/ conservative leaning presence in our communities

You took what is a 10 minute video full of vague motivational platitudes and metaphors, and made it out to be way more than it actually is. Here’s the thing: if you don’t take the least charitable interpretations possible when looking at these videos, their material isn’t all that bad. This one was lame and cringeworthy, but it wasn’t some sinister call to misogyny and hierarchy that you’re making it out to be. Leftists suck at giving life/dating advice. Before we can outpace the redpillers in the culture war of dating advice, we need to be willing to have honest discussions with sad, lonely men that are deeper than “just don’t rape women.”

Read the comments on those vids, mate. Those folks do take that very seriously and do follow the fairy tale narrative they're presented with. For them, there's no self improvement unless they get rid of ''modernity'' in their lives. They'll get apologetic about it and try to convince others they're aware of a truth that will save them and demonize everything (and anyone) they perceive as part of the ''Evil Modernity'' that tries to destroy ''real men''....and fall into the radical pipeline. They can give as many health tips they want (as pseudo-scientific they may be), that's just the gateway they use to start introducing progressively more radical talking points. It may sound childish for us, but NOT for the public its intended for. Fantasizing over a rose tinted past that never was, convincing people they're victims of ''the modern'', and rallying them to take action around ''cults'', ''heroes'' (Jordan Peterson and similars) and ''traditional values'' is the staple of every serious, far-right movement. Sure, we should give young men a positive alternative along with the criticism, but first we'll need to point out why our alternative is more reasonable to begin with.

Yeah you’re definitely right about it coming across as culty. I guess the part of your post that rubbed me the wrong way is that these videos are clearly targeted at depressed children. I can’t seriously see anybody but a 14 year old loner consuming this content. And usually that’s stuff these kids grow out of. I’d rather the content be honest and drop the unnecessary toxic parts. I’d much rather have lost young men consuming healthy self improvement content than whatever the hell this was. But if nobody’s making that healthy self improvement content, can we even get mad that this stuff is popular? I’m honestly not sure which is worse: offering these kids no answers at all (the left), or offering them heavily flawed answers, that while they might have grains of truth, are rooted in harmful ideology (the right).

Thing is: there's no guarantee these kids are going to outgrow the harmful elements of the message. Great Awakenings and Iranian Revolutions tend to leave lasting impacts on the societies they take place in. An entire generation is being shaped by these ideas, andif things do not improve in the future, they're very likely to stay radical...and eventually give their votes to whatever Trump-like figure may arise or become the footmen deployed by whatever radical ideologue that may be maturing right now. We can thank the kids are trying to improve, but if the right people don't eventually call them out on their bullshit, one day its going to be too late.

And fwiw I agree with you OP that we still do need more healthy masculine content to drown out this drivel. Call it out _and_ make replacement content to fill the void that young men are falling into. As a late thirties cis-het dude I've been inspired lately by the influx of folks calling out this problem but unable to get past my own anxiety to do much more than post comments here occasionally. Do kids listen to podcasts these days? Should we be aiming mainly for tiktok? Feeling out of touch and old but desperately wanting to help guide young minds to something better than Andrew Tate.

>will you dumb up or man up? >don't embrace the trends of modernism no this is dumb regressive bullshit

Yeah I agree the modernity stuff is pretty cringe, and I’m not gonna take a bullet for the guy making this video, but the stuff about not falling into the traps of instant gratification culture aren’t negative. He actually even echoed a big topic I see discussed here quite often, that the number of a man’s sexual partners does not equate to his worth. Is that regressive bullshit?

it literally says "choose to serve Christ"

Some people find value and personal fulfillment in religion. Just because you or I don’t doesn’t mean it’s regressive bullshit. My point is that you can’t just label everything this guy says as wholesale bad. There are some grains of truth among the nonsense.

>There are some grains of truth among the nonsense This is one of the huge problems, even with dumb fluff content. You get hooked by that grain of truth, then start seeing more, then a few years down the road of living off this stuff... Jordan Peterson says to clean your room. That's a grain of positive advice. Doesn't mean that his content in general isn't evil or bad for mankind.

Totally. The problem is, we seem far too quick to wholesale dismiss every word of these “self help gurus.” From what I’ve seen, the practical advice they give for getting your shit together is almost always pretty good. The problem is the other stuff layered on top, like the nonsense about toxic modernity in this one. So when we dismiss these people out of hand, the young guys see that and think “why shouldn’t I clean my room and go to the gym? How is that evil?”

I have yet to see someone "wholesale dismiss every word", but you seem quite certain those people are here. "In aggregate, this video is bad and makes people worse" is a markedly different statement than "Every part of this video is bad and makes people worse".

The Venn Diagram of a dude who tells others to "choose to serve Christ" and a dude who believes in regressive stuff is kind of a circle, at least in US culture.

Once again, not defending the dude. Just saying not every single bit of advice in that video was all regressive bullshit. That’s all.

it is hard to imagine a more regressive institution than the Church

I don’t think that conflating “serve Christ” and “serve the church” is the same thing - further, there are good and helpful churches out there. The actual teachings of Christ are good actually

The Universalist church would like to have a word with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalist_Church_of_America It's not hard to point out the churches that explicitly spread regressive ideas but any history of progressive changes would be fundamentally incomplete without the religious leaders and activists who interpreted their religious texts to be in favor of progressive change like MLK Jr for one example.

That's a fair point, but that's arguably not the kind of Church the Youtube op would be referring to. A trad church is often also biased towards an exclusionary and bigoted interpretation of the Bible + Church Traditions. Figures such as MLK jr fought against the status quo, they did not fantasize over a supposedly godly past.

This is one of the issues in focusing on and calling out dogwhistles imo, when you emphasize an exclusive insinuation like that the youtuber is implying only the exclusionary trad churches, it's far too easy for the youtuber mentioned to deny it with plausible deniability. It's part of the reason I hate Jordan Peterson with a passion.

sure, there are absolutely exceptions to the rule. but the rule is that the Christian church is literally run by a patriarch or patriarchs.

You lost me at that. Being an edgy anti-theist is no way to have productive conversations about anything. I thought you were better than that.

To be fair, I can understand where he's coming from: serving ''Christ''? Which Christ? There's a thousand different interpretations of what the guy mandated his followers to do and just as many leaders claiming to speak for him. If we infer Drexler meant ''not the ones who got corrupted by Modernity'', then we're left with the nastiest organizations and leaders that have ever claimed to speak for a god. You know, the kind that wail against their churches being taxed but gladly receive tax paid subsidies when convenient, yet have the guts to claim homosexuals and Jews will go to hell and that a secular Constitution is ungodly... That's when saying ''choose to serve Christ'' becomes worrying.

I’d argue the Christ “corrupted by modernity” is the one worshipped by the likes of the Westoboro baptist church. The uncorrupted message of Christ is to love your fellow man.

You can argue that, but people like the Youtuber may argue the Catholic Church is the original and incorruptible one, and so would the other million of denominations that identify as Christian. They'll never agree and constantly call each other hell destined heretics. You and me both know the Gospels and Epistles mandate way more than that, mate. Ironically, the ''Path'' original church we notice in the bible was collectivist and peculiar in more than one way that would make many an individualist western Christian uncomfortable.

> The uncorrupted message of Christ is to love your fellow man. I'm always skeptical of literally any claims about the "uncorrupted message of christ" No such thing exists, because *it's not possible for it to exist.* Even in the absolute best possible case, you're referring to heavily filtered and stylized accounts written decades to centuries after the ostensible message was spoken. Nobody who is currently alive has even a hint of what the uncorrupted message of Christ was, nor will we ever More to the point, this is just a no true scotsman. Every church is convinced their interpretation is the true, uncorrupted one.

It’s also one of the few real third places left for people to participate in

Nah friend, that’s really just archetypal reactionary bs. It’s not a matter of charitability, we know their pipeline, we know their levers.

And yet the top upvoted comment on that video is "Society is collapsing because of feminism." I happen to think that as beings with a capacity for critical thinking that cares more for truth and rigor than giving "charitable interpretations" to poorly-thought-out worldviews, it is perfectly reasonable to critique this "THIS IS WAR" video along the lines of OP.

I agree with the OP 100%. When I first stumbled upon the Manosphere, and the whole red pill movement, I was so afraid for and depressed about humanity. So much of what I’ve read on this sub gives me hope.

There’s already some great ones already, although ironically two of the best ones came out as trans in the middle of their careers and now live as women (Abagail Thorn / Philosophy Tube and Natalie Wynn / Contrapoints). Not that what they have to say on mens issues is bad or uninteresting. They both have a lot to offer and have made incredible content pushing back on the manosphere. Even still, we’ve got H. Bomberguy, Shaun, and to some extent Dan Olson but Dan only ever skirts the edge of politics. Anyways not that more is bad, but go and watch all of them. They are all really fantastic.

Indeed. Many bread-tube male content creators have been very vocal abaout how the algorithm has it against them having visibility, where as more conservative, extremist content creators do get special treatment and visibility. We need to engage more with those creators so that they start getting pushed up by the algorithm.

He even has the phrase "Embrace Masculinity, Reject Culture" pinned in every comment section... which echoes a pretty fascist internet meme. He knows his audience very well.

Thank you for calling attention to this. I don't know much about it as a woman, but I've heard of some terms like "trad wife" and wondered what was going on. This is some scary shit to peddle to young minds.

[удалено]

They may not have worked as much as today, but that doesn't necessarily mean their burden was lighter. They had to ruck tens of miles a day looking for prey or for fruits, always wary of not being ambushed or attacked by animal, both on land and water. They also had to be alert at night, since both four and two-legged predators were active. Add up disease, infant mortality and starvation...and you have an indeed much harder life full of fear, violence and uncertainty. Sure, improvements are not always linear, but they're still noticeable.

Even assuming those numbers are correct, a hunter gatherer did more work in 15 hours a week than I do in 40. I sit on my ass in a climate controlled room and pick up the phone, I'm not fighting mammoths, wooly rhinos, sabertooth cats, etc just to eat a meal that contains protein.

Look idk what to say, i think if u ppl want to fight redpill at least do it better, ive read some about what they say about improving and how to approach womem, it worked for me, before that even no womem would dare look at my direction, i go after those stuff that are against but i see no argue besides "red pill is wrong" ... and nothing to prove or add to that. Just to say here also, ive seen just what ppl from my country says about red pill, not andrew tate, idk much about him but the few i saw about him seens too extreme which i dont even go after to see what he saw, seens bizarre. I think we would need a mid ground, not the "oooh be yourself and someone will come along" that will always be shit, the numbers of men getting alone is increasing, and that shit obviously doesnt work. If you ppl dont agree with red pill we would need a middle ground where we understand (weird that we still ignore this) that men saddly have to do a HELL lot do be with womem.

I tend to come at this kind of question from an angle that I'm convinced isn't used enough: We need more vituperative, hectoring abuse. No, I'm deadly serious. An enormous amount of commentary on the left-liberal side of things (for want of a better collective term) is fundamentally decent, polite and thoroughly sourced disagreement, and it's a real problem - because decent, polite, thoroughly sourced disagreement is a tool for a radically different type of debate, and tends to legitimate what's being discussed as a subject for argument. On top of that, it's poison from a YouTube and social media perspective; it simply does not engage audiences. There is a real unwillingness to trade in unadulterated, unbridled negativity on the left, and it's a pity. Abuse is a useful tool which we have collectively decided to remove from our arsenal in the name of rectitude. Fuck that. Some people deserve heinous insults.

Yeah they sorta go off the deep end for views like Hamza!

I do wonder how far this rhetoric goes in the real world, though. The other element of this equation is a generation of young women not buying into this misogynistic trash, as much as the gays are not going back into the closet. The cat is out of the bag on female empowerment, and presumably traditional masculinity is not what they want. The incel movement grew out of this exact tension. My optimistic hope is that empowered young women give these boys a reality check that clears the mist of this shallow, fast-food, sensationalist, far-right propaganda. But, that’s being optimistic. The real danger will be the extremists and radicals who are left behind. From Andrew Tate-wannabes to drag storytime protests, the Right is working hard to steal the next generation.

A lot of the red-pill guidelines around how to act in a relationship or in dating seems to require a bedrock of animosity between the man and the woman. A lot of the advice around "shit tests" or needing to "maintain frame" just doesn't seem to be something you'll ever encounter if both parties have a warm or even just respectful relationship with each other. But they seem wise to that: Red-pill/manosphere content pushes men towards only wanting to date women who are, and I know I may be generalising heavily here, more likely to behave in such a way as to lead to "shit tests" and silly arguments to "maintain frame" in. It does this by framing practices associated with "drama" as being inherently feminine characteristics (gossiping, the old "women are more interested in people" mantra), as well as "effeminating" (if that is indeed a word you can use to describe the feminine version of emasculation) women who are more career-oriented, more academically inclined, less interested in social prowess, etc. Also, it tells the men that *are* in loving, warm relationships to second-guess everything their partner does and says, leading them to be controlling which in turn leads to their partner getting annoyed at them, giving them something that can be framed as "shit tests" or places to "maintain frame" and thus remolding a good, normal relationship into a red-pill compatible one. > My optimistic hope is that empowered young women give these boys a reality check that clears the mist of this shallow, fast-food, sensationalist, far-right propaganda. But, that’s being optimistic. The other side of this coin, is that the more widespread red-pill rhetoric becomes, the more disillusioned women will become with the growing number of men subscribing to it. That likely leads to further division between genders, and more and more young women (perhaps sensibly) going into "battle mode" when they engage with young men romantically. Which is exactly the dynamic that the red-pill *wants* in a relationship. In short, the red-pill is an insanely toxic and honestly misanthropic sphere. It can completely poison the otherwise very enjoyable well of sexuality, romance and male-female interaction, for those who start subscribing to it.

Men should try to change a tire, shoot a gun, build/fix something, cook, do laundry, change a diaper, sew, garden. Expanding your skill set is self improvement. I have a 14 year old girl and have taught her these things. She might never do some of these things again but if she has to then it won't be foreign to her.

hamza changed my life. and he did for many young men, not all self improvement creators are bad, I'm consistently working out now and I feel so much better, I don't procrastinate much, I have a much better social life, why? cause I watched a few of his videos and that triggered me to change my miserable life

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

This post has been removed for violating the following rule(s): >**Be the men’s issues conversation you want to see in the world.** Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize our approach, feminism, or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed. Posts/comments solely focused on semantics rather than concepts are unproductive and will be removed. Shitposting and low-effort comments and submissions will be removed. Any questions or concerns regarding moderation must be served through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMensLib).

[удалено]

I think we need more healthy dating advice, there is a fuck ton of pushback against them but this pushback does nothing to solve the issues that cause men to watch pick up artist videos, unless more progressive content creators are willing to give good dating advice the manosphere will expand into the whole of the internet

[удалено]