u/Candy-Corn1234

In the spirit of remembering those who paved the way, here are a few men who spent years fighting for men's issues—fathers' rights, challenged gender roles, male DV victims, fair courts, etc.—before passing on. Their work continues to inspire. Life is short, things change, but memories remain forever the same.

1. Marc Angelucci (1968–2020)

• Prominent American attorney and Vice President of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM).
• He litigated numerous cases on men's issues, including challenges to discriminatory laws (e.g., male-only draft registration, unfair child support/custody practices), and supported male victims of domestic violence.
• Murdered in 2020 at his home in California. His work drew attention to systemic biases against men in the legal system.

2. Earl Silverman (1948–2013)

• Canadian men's rights advocate and domestic abuse survivor.
• Founded the Men's Alternative Safe House (MASH) in Calgary—the first (and for a time only) privately funded shelter for male victims of domestic violence in Canada, run from his own home.
• Also started the Family of Men Society and a crisis line. He faced funding struggles and government indifference, which contributed to his shelter closing. He died by suicide in 2013, leaving a note highlighting neglect of male victims.

3. Herb Goldberg (1937–2019)

• Psychologist, author, and key figure in the men's movement of the 1970s–80s.
• Wrote influential books like The Hazards of Being Male (1976), critiquing rigid masculine roles, emotional suppression, and how societal expectations harm men.
• Advocated for men's emotional health, better relationships, and challenging stereotypes that hurt men. Seen as a leader in the "male liberation" side of men's advocacy.

4. Asa Baber (1936–2003)

• American writer and longtime Playboy columnist (his "Men" column ran for decades).
• Wrote candidly about men's issues, including fatherhood, divorce, custody battles, male perspectives on relationships, and societal double standards.
• Advocated for men's parental rights and pushed back against what he saw as anti-male bias in media and culture. He passed away from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) in 2003. https://youtu.be/SHobw3ZYG-0?si=krYt7LKjrdEe88bY

Other Mentions

• Richard Doyle: Early pioneer who founded the Men's Rights Association in the 1970s, focusing on divorce reform and anti-male bias in family courts.
• Roy Den Hollander was a lawyer involved in men's rights litigation but is highly controversial due to his later actions (murder-suicide in 2020); best avoided for a positive remembrance post.

These are the male privileges that the patriarchy gives to men.

I'm a pro-male supporter, and while looking into the etymology and definitions of common insults, I noticed something interesting about the noun "bastard."

The two most commonly cited definitions are:

1. A person born to unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
2. Slang:
   A. a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person.
   B. a person, especially a man (e.g., "that lucky bastard" or "poor bastard").

But many people don't realize there's a third definition:

> Something irregular, inferior, spurious, or unusual.

This extra layer — calling something (or someone) inherently "inferior" or "not legitimate" — adds a deeper sting when the term is used typically against men. Historically and linguistically, "bastard" ties illegitimacy, moral failing, and inferiority together, and society disproportionately weaponizes it toward males. Words like this enforces the idea that men are disposable, defective, or inferior. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard

Before I get started, let me clarify what I mean by the "manosphere." By this term, I am referring to red-pill influencers—mostly adult men who prey on young vulnerable men under 30—who sell often sexist dating advice. What many don't realize is that much of this content is heavily monetized. These influencers frequently exploit male vulnerabilities and grievances (which is also misandryist) in the modern dating market rather than genuinely advocating for men's issues.

Andrew Tate is a prime example. He is not a men's rights advocate; he has rarely, if ever, focused on systemic issues disproportionately affecting men. Using him as a representative of the men's rights movement is inaccurate.

That said, this doesn't mean that the claims of manosphere is 100% lies. Some observations within it contain truth: modern marriage can carry significant legal and financial risks for men in many Western jurisdictions, misandry exists in certain cultural and institutional contexts, and some systems exhibit gynocentrism (a focus on female needs and perspectives at the expense of male ones).

But remember, there are still good women out there to date. A good woman will not use her female privilege against you. So don't walk away from marriage. (I'm looking at you, MGTOW.)

I am pro-male spaces. Men, especially young men, need dedicated environments—"for the boys"—where they can discuss issues that disproportionately affect them, build genuine male friendships, and simply spend time together without external pressures.

To be clear, the manosphere and the men's rights movement are not the same thing (at least in my view). Most manosphere figures are red-pillers who appeal to male frustrations primarily to sell courses, books, coaching, or memberships with often unrealistic or overly cynical advice. In contrast, men's rights or male advocacy spaces focus on addressing specific male disadvantage or systemic issues—such as family court biases, male suicide rates, educational disparities, workplace deaths, and legal presumptions against men. These spaces are typically free of heavy red-pill ideology, do not primarily seek to extract money from men, and do not demean women as a core tactic.

In many ways, the manosphere/red-pill grift mirrors aspects of the femopshere/feminism: both can sell narratives of victimhood to their audiences for engagement and profit.

Source(s):

• The manosphere unmasked: How online cultures entangle young people in extreme ideas

• Trent Horn explains how manosphere influencers and OnlyFans creators sell fantasies to struggling young men

Class Determines Power, Not Gender

Elite theory (Mosca, Pareto, Mills) highlights how a small, organized minority — the elites — has historically controlled key institutions, wealth, and major decisions, in contrast to the large, unorganized majority. This ruling minority has always included both elite men and elite women. The vast majority of men were never part of this group; like most women, they were laborers, farmers, soldiers, or tradesmen in the broad underclass.

Elite women routinely exercised direct authority when their class position permitted it.

Examples of Upper-Class and Elite Women in Power

Women from aristocratic, noble, and royal families held formal and informal power throughout history. These were not rare anomalies:

• Queens regnant, empresses, and monarchs: Dozens across eras and regions, including Hatshepsut (Egypt), Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Victoria, Catherine the Great, Maria Theresa, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Queen Seondeok (Korea). In Europe between 1300 and 1800, roughly 30 women exercised full sovereign authority. In a study of European polities from 1480–1913, queens ruled in about 18% of reigns.

• Noblewomen and aristocrats: Medieval and early modern noblewomen managed large estates, inherited land and titles, served as regents, patrons of the arts, and political influencers. In 12th-century England and Normandy, they wielded lordship powers. British aristocratic women in the 18th–19th centuries influenced elections and shaped policy from behind the scenes.

• Household and indirect authority: In agrarian societies, wives, mothers, and household managers held substantial sway over family economies and local communities. Elite women extended this influence through kinship networks, inheritance, and alliances.

These women were not "exceptions proving male rule." They were elite-class actors exercising power on par with elite men. Ordinary men enjoyed no more systemic control or privilege than ordinary women. Voting rights, property ownership, and formal political offices were typically restricted by class (e.g., property qualifications), not extended as a universal male privilege. Most men were excluded along with most women.

Privilege derives from elite status — wealth, connections, education, and institutional access — far more than from gender. Today, an average boy faces similar structural pressures around economic mobility, education, workplace risks, and policy impacts as an average girl. These realities are shaped by current elites (in corporations, politics, tech, and media), which include both men and women.

Class position was the primary gatekeeper of power. It enabled authority for both elite men and elite women. Eras named after prominent queens (the Victorian Age, the Age of Catherine the Great, etc.) underscore how female elites actively shaped history, just as kings did. Power flowed from elite status — wealth, inheritance, networks, and monarchical systems — rather than any broad "male conspiracy." Ordinary men and women alike remained largely outside these power structures.

Elite women like queens regnant were not mere tokens. When their class allowed, they commanded armies, waged wars, managed empires, issued laws, and influenced culture. Most men (peasants, laborers, and the non-propertied) held no such power — exactly like most women. Class, not gender, was the decisive factor.

Women are more sexist than men when it comes to household chores.

The problem with equality is that women are often unable to accept that men should be treated equally. Many don’t actually want equality — they want control over men and special treatment. This isn’t equality, ladies; it’s a double standard.

Fathers are perfectly capable of taking care of children, but they’re often prevented from doing so because women want to control both them and the children’s relationships with their fathers. This is sexism, and it is especially evident in courtrooms, where women frequently claim they are solely entitled to childcare simply because they are mothers. The data shows that children tend to have worse outcomes with single mothers than with single fathers.

But I’m not talking about the difference here. I’m talking about presumed superiority: the ways in which a majority of American women actually think they are better than men in the entire domestic realm, from kids to kitchens. I’m talking about the things we don’t actually want to give up, the roles many of us want men to play, and the limited roles we are willing to let them play.

Consider the following scenario. You walk into your office on your first day of work and your boss, a man, says: “I have evolved biologically to do this job better than you can, but I’m going to let you try. To be sure it’s done right, however, I will leave you detailed instructions for every individual task. And when I travel, I will call in every couple of hours to make sure you are following those instructions to the letter.”

Most women would immediately complain to Human Resources and perhaps consider filing a lawsuit. Yet when I describe this hypothetical scenario to audiences of women, the laughter begins to ripple through the room by the time I reach “I will leave you detailed instructions.” This is precisely the way the majority of us treat our husbands or male partners when we leave them in charge of the children.

In an article in New York magazine, therapist Barbara Kass calls many of us out on this: “So many women want to control their husbands’ parenting.”

Some readers are probably thinking at this point: Of course! That’s exactly what we’ve been asking for. We want the men in our lives to pick up the slack, to be equal partners as caregivers so that we can be equal partners as breadwinners.