Mark Manson debates red pill guys on Jubilee

danneedsahobby · 2026-07-20T15:43:00+00:00

I think Mark did admirable work, but that he struggled in this format. And I say that as a huge fan. I’ve given out half a dozen copies of The Subtle Art after reading it helped me through a tough time.

I don’t envy his position. Men and boys are struggling, and plenty of people are out there telling them to be angry, and Mark is trying to tell them the kind of work they need to do. But it’s tough to hear and it takes courage and patience to do the work. But what he is saying is way more helpful.

If he was up there saying how mad he is at feminism like some of the others I’m sure it would be easier to get clicks and views. Because people look for scapegoats and easy answers. But I’m glad he’s saying what needs to be said.

partoe5 · 2026-07-20T21:25:41+00:00

My thoughts on it

First, I was surprised at the diversity of people in the panel. They're all "red pill" types but a completely different spin on it (some incel types, some Patrick Bateman types, a couple old school Gen X Dad types, and the Pickme girls). It was interesting to see them all together, all united by their resentment toward women and their mothers.
Ultimately, I didn't fully agree with any side. I definitely didn't agree with the manosphere guys but I also found a few of Mark's points or his agreement with the guys off for me
What I think Mark and his type fail to realize is
- A) They are still in a way part of the manosphere, IMO, because all of it is feeding into the mostly false narrative that something is wrong with men that needs to be fixed through guidance and mentorship, that men need to be taught how to be men, by various gurus and grifters. He just disagrees on the route (toxic influencers vs Gen X book writing influencers) and what needs to be taught. What I find most toxic about red pill/manosphere thinking is the false narrative that men are broken (which is ironic because if anything is a blue pill it's that false narrative--when we keep telling men something is wrong with them, whether it's feminists doing it or manosphere guys doing it they believe it).
- B) Too little is talked about the hysteria and disillusion that is behind manospheric thinking. In my opinion a lot of it is built on a lie. For example, Mark agrees with the guys when they say feminism has caused a lot of problems among men. I would disagree with that and argue that feminism is used as the scapegoat for problems men have created for themselves, often in response to feminism itself.
Building off my B) point, I think not enough was talked about the origins of the manosphere being connected to the rise of far-left thinking (including feminism). Well, they did talk about this but both sides framed it wrong in my opinion: They suggested that far-left thinking (ie, feminism) denigrated men to some degree, causing them to feel small and seek remedies. In my opinion far left thinking of the 2000s/Obama era (feminism/MeToo, BLM, QAI+, Trans rights, buzzy rhetoric on white privilege, heteronormativity, bias, etc.) actually spurred a BACKLASH and rejection that gave birth to not just the manosphere but similar far-right contrarian spheres (MAGA, far-right extremism, a whole new generation of white nationalism, religious conspiracy theorists, even anti-vaxxers)...not because these ideals denigrated these groups, but because many straight, white, christian men were so threatened and resistant to these ideals on face value that instead of exploring or humoring them, they decided to run from them and create their own Internet worlds that isolated themselves from them, only to realize (or really not realize) this only made things worse. This rise in contrarian, rebellious anti-intellectualism is poisoning the entire country. ...I don't think any of this was ever mentioned in the whole episode. Instead, the lie that society is the cause of men's problems (instead of men's own response to a changing, more liberated/progressive society) was perpetuated by both sides.
Lastly, I will add that I was also disappointed that the most obvious solution was not given. The solution to a lot of the "problems" (which are often self induced) men face is to address insecurity. The best way to be a man is to accept the man that you are, independent of what the left or the contrarian right says. This was not brought up and it did not seem like something Mark would even suggest. Instead he perpetuates the notion that there IS a RIGHT way to be a man, it's just not their way, it's his way. And I guess that means we have to "buy the book", "like" and "subscribe" to find out.

Altruistic_Emu4917 · 2026-07-20T15:24:07+00:00

Nice to see you here, bruh! We've had a discussion around it on this sub, I feel it would also need a discussion on the debate sub too lol.

OrdinaryMany6402 · 2026-07-23T03:42:31+00:00

I think the problem with the manosphere is that it hides its ideologies under the guise of self improvement. I know it was more about self improvement when it started, but now it seems to be about improving for other people, not for the individual. Also the talk around women. You shouldn't have to talk down on someone else to justify how you feel no matter the gender. Almost everything they do seems to be more about getting women. It seems theres a sense of entitlement when it comes to that, as if women are something to obtain rather than individuals with their own wants, dreams, and interests, like the men there. Its like its framed as women being the problem if they dont like a guy rather than it just being how they feel, you can't force that.

RedPillDetox · 2026-07-20T23:12:07+00:00

Who are you? Jon Sins? Dj Fuji? I cant remember who he used to guest coach other than those 2

Obvious-Face-77 · 2026-07-28T07:45:59+00:00

I thought Mark did really well, was open minded and did not look down on anyone. He absolutely won the debate, but the way he did it is what really stood out for me. I think many of the debaters responded positively to his friendly, non-judgemental manner, too. Well done, Mark! 👏👏👏👏

MountaineerChemist10 · 2026-07-24T19:49:12+00:00

lol none of red pill guys are well known 🤭

ExcitementChance4025 · 2026-07-23T16:38:17+00:00

"The Manosphere Is a Business That Profits Off Keeping Men Angry"

What Manson argued

The manosphere is a monetized rage machine. Figures like the Tate brothers and Myron Gaines exploit young men's anger and insecurity for profit. The incentive structure rewards keeping men angry, not helping them.

The counter-argument

"You're describing every media business on earth, including yours."

Outrage is the business model of cable news, political commentary, fitness influencers, and yes, self-help authors who sell books with profanity in the title to signal they're different from other self-help authors. Manson sold 20+ million copies of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck. He co-founded an AI startup. He's on Jubilee right now building his brand. His incentive structure rewards keeping people feeling like they need his perspective. That's not a gotcha, it's the point. Monetization doesn't invalidate the message. If it did, Manson's own career collapses under the same logic.

And the deeper problem with this framing: it poisons the well. By labelling the entire manosphere a "business," Manson sidesteps the question of whether any of the ideas have merit. A gym membership is also a business. Therapy is a business. Universities are businesses. The question isn't whether someone profits, it's whether the consumer gets value. And for millions of young men who learned to lift weights, manage their finances, develop confidence, and stop making excuses because of content that falls under the "manosphere" umbrella, the answer is yes.

Manson himself started as a pickup artist running paid coaching under the name "Entropy." He monetized male insecurity before rebranding into something more mainstream. He's not exposing a system. He's a graduate of it.

"You didn't discover that monetizing male insecurity is wrong. You discovered it's more profitable to be the guy who criticizes it."

"A Woman's Body Count Doesn't Matter"

What Manson argued

Body count is a weak proxy for compatibility. What matters is character, communication, trust, and how someone treats their partner. Using it as a screening metric ignores context and reduces people to a number. Claims like "body count predicts divorce" are correlation, not causation.

The counter argument

"Correlation not causation is a thought-terminating cliché when the correlation is this strong and this replicated."

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth, analyzed by the Institute for Family Studies, found that women with 10+ premarital partners had the highest five-year divorce rates at 33%. Women with 0–1 partners had the lowest. This pattern held across multiple cohorts. A 2023 study in the Journal of Family Issues using Add Health longitudinal data found increased divorce likelihood with multiple premarital partners and common confounders like religiosity and attitudes didn't fully explain it away.

Nobody's saying the number alone tells the whole story. But in every other domain of life, we treat patterns of past behaviour as the single best predictor of future behaviour. Employment history. Credit history. Criminal record. Relationship track record. To suddenly declare that sexual and romantic history is the one area where pattern recognition becomes "reductive" is intellectually dishonest.

Manson reframes the question as "character vs. number." But how do you assess character? Through behaviour. And a behavioural track record is exactly what a history of partners represents. The number isn't the verdict, it's a data input. Dismissing it entirely isn't nuance. It's avoidance.

"You don't ignore a résumé when you're hiring. You don't ignore a credit score when you're lending. But when a man applies the same due diligence to a life partner, suddenly he's shallow?"

"Porn Has Done More Damage to Men Than Feminism Has"

What Manson argued

There's agreement that porn can be harmful. But feminism isn't the real driver of men's problems either. Sweeping claims without clear data are unproductive. The answer is structural and economic ,not a single-cause scapegoat.

The counter-argument

"The data on porn is devastating. But pretending feminism has caused zero structural harm to men requires ignoring family court, education policy, and incentive structures."

On porn, the manosphere side mostly agrees with Manson and has been saying it longer. NoFap, retention communities, and anti-porn advocacy are manosphere staples. A 2024 study of university students found problematic pornography use was associated with higher anxiety, depression, stress, loneliness, and suicidal ideation. Research consistently links heavy use to erectile dysfunction in young men, decreased grey matter in impulse-control regions, and relationship deterioration. The manosphere was sounding this alarm while mainstream media was normalising porn as harmless.

But the framing of the question "porn vs. feminism" is a false binary. Both have caused measurable damage, through different mechanisms.

Consider the fatherlessness data: 23.5% of U.S. children live in father-absent homes. Children in those homes are four times more likely to live in poverty, make up 71% of high school dropouts, and boys from fatherless homes are three times more likely to be incarcerated by age 30. Family court systems that overwhelmingly default to maternal custody, no-fault divorce structures that create financial incentives for separation, and education systems that have deprioritized boys (boys are now significantly less likely to attend or graduate university than girls) . These aren't random structural shifts. They track directly to policy changes advocated for under feminist frameworks.

"You want to talk structural? Let's talk structural. 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. Who redesigned the family structure, and who's paying the price?"

"The Most Attractive Men Are Those Who Respect Women"

What Manson argued

Attractiveness isn't about being a "bad boy." It's a combination of confidence, authenticity, and respect. Research (David Buss, etc.) shows women across cultures value kindness and intelligence in long-term partners. Respect plus confidence beats dominance.

The counter-argument

"Respect is table stakes. It's necessary but wildly insufficient and pretending otherwise sets men up to fail."

Nobody's arguing men should disrespect women. That's a straw man. The actual manosphere position (at its best) is that respect alone doesn't generate attraction, competence, physical fitness, status, ambition, and social proof do. And Manson knows this, because he cites David Buss, whose actual research shows women's mate preferences prioritise resource acquisition potential, social status, ambition, and physical fitness alongside kindness.

The problem with "just be respectful and confident" as advice: it's incomplete to the point of being misleading. A man can be deeply respectful and deeply unattractive. Not because respect is wrong, but because attraction is a multi-variable equation and respect is only one input. Telling a 22-year-old who's out of shape, directionless, and socially isolated that his problem is a respect deficit is like telling a failing business their problem is they don't have a nice enough logo. It's technically not wrong. It's just not the real bottleneck.

The manosphere at its functional core, not its extreme fringe teaches men to address the actual bottlenecks: physical fitness, financial competence, social skills, purpose, and frame. Then respect becomes a powerful multiplier. Without the foundation, it's just politeness without presence.

Manson's framing also conflates correlation and causation in the exact way he accuses the manosphere of doing. Men who respect women AND are attractive tend to do well. Men who respect women but lack competence, fitness, and social skills do not. The respect isn't what's driving the outcome. The total package is.

"Telling men 'just respect women' without teaching them to build a life worth respecting is like telling someone to smile more at job interviews while their résumé is empty."

"Women Care More About Looks Than Personality"

What Manson argued

(Manson pushed back on this as overly reductive.) Attraction is complex. Personality, confidence, humour, social proof all matter. Reducing it to looks alone is a cope from men who don't want to do the internal work.

The counter-argument

"The data says looks are a stronger initial filter than anyone wants to admit — and pretending otherwise keeps men stuck."

Dating app data from Hinge, Tinder, and OkCupid's own research consistently shows that women rate 80% of men as "below average" in attractiveness (the OkCupid study is the classic reference). Match rates are overwhelmingly determined by photos. A 2024 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on speed-dating found that physical attractiveness was the strongest predictor of romantic interest for both men and women — stronger than personality, humour, or conversation quality.

This doesn't mean looks are everything. It means looks are the gate. You don't get evaluated on personality, humour, or values if you never clear the initial filter. And in a digital-first dating landscape where most young people are meeting through apps, the initial filter is almost entirely visual.

The honest answer is: looks are the opening, personality is the closer. Both matter. Manson would probably agree with that framing privately. But saying it publicly risks aligning with the manosphere, and his brand can't afford that.

"You don't get a second date based on your values if you never got the first one. The filter is real. Denying it helps no one."

Title	Mark Manson debates red pill guys on Jubilee
Author	becomesharp
Upvotes	50
Comments	57
Date	July 20, 2026 3:47 AM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/ExRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/1v1aked/mark_manson_debates_red_pill_guys_on_jubilee/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/ExRedPill/mark-manson-debates-red-pill-guys-on-jubilee.1585435 https://theredarchive.com/post/1585435

Comments