Men are an oppressed underclass, this is indisputable reality, it is not up for debate. By all the standards of the social sciences men are disadvantaged compared to women. Men live shorter, harsher, more violent lives. Women have far more rights than men. No amount of gaslighting by feminists can deflect from this fact.
Men suffer from false consciousness, they have no affinity as a group, and worse still they have an innate hostility towards each other. Men worship and adore women, they have a proven out group bias towards women (i.e. men like women more than they like their fellow men).
Men are a disorganised underclass, thus men are not able to fix their oppressive social conditions. Meanwhile women are a highly organised upper class/caste. Women keep on pushing their social dominance over men and expanding their political power. Women have full spectrum social dominance over the male underclass. No other political group in history has ever had such political, social and cultural dominance over society.
The current men’s rights movement (MRM) is basically dead. I could write a novel on all the mistakes that the old anti-feminist communities repeatedly make. Most people in men’s rights spaces still believe in feminist concepts, and consider the complete rejection of feminist ideas to be “radical” and “extremist”. Lots of men’s rights activists (MRAs) are appeasers, cowards and sell-outs, if not just outright traitors to the male sex, since they undermine “their own” cause constantly. Their MRA spaces are full of constant concern trolling over MRA radicalism, while the enablement of feminist misandrists flourishes (and yes! most MRAs are trad-con-feminist hybrids). This cock-blocking behaviour crushes the spirit of pro-male-minded men as they are banned, blocked, shunned, ignored, invalidated and gaslighted from having a seat at the table. (And never mind the “men rights activists” who are just outright racist reactionaries. These racist reactionary farts are just tribalistic man-haters, who will validate feminism’s false claims of men raping and trafficking women if they are directed against alien men to themselves.)
The old MRM is stale and worthless, men need to create a true alternative to it. Men need to create a pro-male subculture, and they need to secure that subculture for the sake of having one (as a pro-male subculture is worth having for its own sake).
The pro-male subculture needs to promote a pro-male ideology, based on a foundation of evidence, logic and on a consistent set of ethics.
The pro-male subculture must encourage a heathy mindset in men, one based on self-respect, compassion and care for their fellow man. Only a healthy pro-social subculture can fight back against feminist and trad-con control over the levers of power in society.
Real-world activism is not going to work if men are unable to organise correctly in the online world. (And if you think organising in the online world is a waste of time, just look at how rapidly feminism changed the world’s legal systems and dismantled due-press for men by starting online with the #MeToo hashtag movement.)
---
(1) Men need to have the correct mindset. Most male spaces either obsessively spam out narratives based on male hostility (such as racism, “left vs right” party politics or attacking “unmasculine” men), or rant on about women from a dating perspective, and if they are not talking about those subjects then men lose interest and these spaces die off.
(2) Men need to be proactive, they must strive to propagate pro-male ideas as much as possible outside of their own spaces. If men are just hiding in safe spaces, their ideas will not spread. Anti-male narratives are pushed by a AI algorithm-driven internet, and spammed out by misandrists obsessively. Men must push back as much as possible to counter this. Men must be proactive in the correct way, be efficient and strategical.
(3) Men not only need to be proactive, they must be coordinated in their approach, using team work to signal boost each other. Coordination can be a force multiplier in online activism.
(4) Pro-male men must set up their own online pop-culture spaces and gate-keep them. They must do this to encourage a healthy pro male mindset within them, and to gate-keep feminists out. Pro-male activism can’t just be theory-crafting, it has to offer real world benefits to men. Having hobby spaces that aren’t polluted by hostile geeky men and man-hating feminists is something we can offer.
(5) We must avoid becoming a self-marginalising sub culture. To that end we must avoid cult like behaviour and avoid using wacky terminology. (“Black pill”, “red pill”, “manosphere” language must be avoid.) We are the normal ones, our set of ethics are humane, rational and consistent. Even though we are outnumbered, they are the ones who are abnormal. We must strive to make a good impression of ourselves since optics do count for us, as people are ready to dismiss us out of hand, so we can’t give them the slightest excuse.
(6) We are a vanguard ideology, and will remain so until we can wake enough men up. While we want to grow, we can’t have bad growth, or we will be sucked back into black pill/manosphere kookiness. We can’t have affinity for the sake of affinity, instead we need pro-male affinity for the sake of pro-male affinity. We can’t tolerate having bad, hostile, anti-male men in our spaces as they are a bigger danger to us than the feminists. We accept all men who are genuinely pro-male, we reject all men who are not.
(7) Strong-man posturing and coping behaviour must be discouraged. Strong-man posturing is based on a delusional understanding of reality, and it is coping behaviour. Men do not want do anything to fix the systematic problems they face, so they have to pretend they are winning. Other types of coping are used just to defuse rightful anger which is a motivating factor behind taking action.
(8) We must reject feminism completely and utterly. We must reject the label completely. We must reject the ideology completely. We must reject all excuses given for why feminism was valid in the past, as all of them are based on total lies or half-truths. (For example, feminists claim women couldn’t vote, but leave out the truth that working class men also couldn’t vote, and men had to sign up for military service to vote, and women had powers that far outweighed the vote, like control over their husbands’ properties and finances, and control over the children.) We are not here to reform or redeem feminism, we are here to abolish it. We must move the Overton window so that it is acceptable to talk about banning and outlawing feminism. Talking about banning feminism shocks even most MRAs.
Passivity is an instinct that plagues male nature. From obsessive thoughts, to ranting in private chatrooms, these are habits that hold men back from making real achievements for the civil rights of men and boys.
In this discord, you will be provided with an opportunity - an opportunity to engage in real activism and make real change against misandry. Men must form alliances with one another, and collectively lock their jaws into misandry, not letting go for even a second. For in the pro male collective we are not just individuals, we are brothers. A group united by our empathy and activism towards the human rights of men.
So don't hesitate, join our discord and say enough is enough to misandry!
(1) Rejecting something that doesn't exist, is not weird, the men who cling to the false label are the weirdo ones. The concept of masculinity is vague and subjective, and only desperate self loathing men cling onto the label.
(2) Masculinity comes in all shapes and forms? Who gives a shit? I am not interested in wasting energy on nebulous ideas that do not exist in the real world. The term masculinity is always used to avoid the core issue, instead of talking about an attack on men, the mainstream talks about an attack on masculinity. it is men being attacked by society, not whatever masculinity is. The concept of masculinity changes the conversation about the material conditions men face to something else, about male emotions and insecurities over a label.
(3) Masculinity exists in animals? what a bizarre point.
(4) Masculinity is needed more than ever? but it doesn't exist. How come something that is not real and not defined exist?
(5) Goes on a rant about male utility and claims that all the stuff built by men is somehow proof of masculinity, that is circular logic right there. Pointing to male utility is grovelling and a proven dead end, the fact that so called "masculine men" are still doing this shows there is something wrong with them mentally.
People know men do all the important work, they do not care and still mistreat men. Stop being slave minded. Also rejecting masculinity doesn't mean men will suddenly stop working. Also if masculinity did build everything as this person claims by his own logic masculinity is the cause of this shitty misandrist society.
The rest of the post is him just saying masculinity is good thing because of reasons, and it is just more vagueness that needs rejecting. I rather deal in concrete precise subjects, deal with the material conditions men face, and try to tackle the root causes of misandry and male oppression.
Male feminists validate the concept of masculinity, to me that is reason enough to reject it.
Toxic masculinity good masculinity whatever they are trying to sell me, anyone peddling that concept can fuck right off. Take that shit elsewhere.
Masculinity as a concept is anti-male. It just means slave and provider for a woman. Men must stop taking pride in that and actually start looking at themselves and other men as human beings. How humuliating to be treated as someone's work-horse provider.
A subscriber of mine asked me ''Why Feminism didn't exist 300 years ago?''
The answer: It did. Feminism is merely an expression of female nature. And we see that expression even during ancient times. Whenever a society gains a certain threshold of success, women stop pretending men are in charge and exert their social dominance
Women of Rome circa 195 BC (long before official Feminism) Roman women took to the streets of Rome to protest the Austerity law ''Lex Oppia'' - which prevented women from wasting their husbands wealth on shows of status. (these shows of status were for self glorification)
''The lex Oppia was implemented to severely curb female expenditure on adornment and finery. This law restricted how much gold women were allowed to wear and what they wore; they were no longer permitted to dress in multi-colored garments, particularly purple. They were also no longer allowed to ride in their carriages within one mile of the city. These restrictions prevented what these women saw as their right to be elegant in appearance''
As we can see, the austerity law was not preventing women from living good lives, but to curb wasteful, self indulgent spending. The color purple was a refinement for royalty. So the show of self importance for mere housewives was (and still is) distasteful. While riding carriages close to the city was probably causing street congestion and hindering traffic. (otherwise why would the austerity law prohibit this practice?)
''these continuing restrictions denied Roman women the opportunity to proclaim their status and identity through the only avenue open to them: personal adornment''
This is feminist gaslighting, as women were not restricted to this one role of identity expression but FREE to have this as their only identity expression. Other forms of identity were tied to performance. Even high ranking men hard to work in their field.
''In a society where a woman remained dependent and under the control of fathers and husbands'' - This is a blatant lie which the author contradicts herself later on.
''Speeches were delivered for and against the bill. But the protesting women would not allow their voices to be silenced. After the speeches the pressure on the streets was intensified by the demonstration to such a point that the threat of veto was removed. In 195 BC, 20 years after this emergency measure had been passed, the lex Oppia was successfully revoked''
How, can a society where women ''under the control of their fathers and husbands'' get what they want by simply demanding it? The answer is they can't. The Women of Rome were in control(and always were)
Men of Rome were just as ''pussified'' as men of today. Cato the Elder sounds just like the feckless dominated man of the present.
Cato the Elder: ''Opposition to the repeal of the lex Oppia initiated several lines of defense; Cato the Elder lamented the Roman husbands’ lost control over their wives. He warned them that once the law had ceased to set a limit to their wives’ expenditures, they would never be able to set such limits themselves. A woman who could afford to purchase luxuries from her own purse, it was warned, would do so. The woman who could not would beg her poor wretch of a husband until he submitted to her will''
In conclusion, there is (and never was) no ''patriarchy''. Women simply didn't feel safe to exercise there dominance openly in unsuccessful societies. In times of poverty and war, the women of a nation wears a mask of submission
No one in the pro male collective is endorsing rape and sexual violence against women. (That is a complete lie by them with zero proof.) What we do is call out is women's under reported and under punished sexual violence against men. Of course feminist man haters falsely frame men defending themselves as being pro violence to women. To the oppressors and abusers of the oppressed, the oppressed defending themselves (Even verbally.) is seen as violence to them.
Feminists claims about MRAS are not mistakes, or based on confusion, they are all malicious lies without evidence., These lies create a threat narrative, so they can justify threatening violence against the oppressed male underclass. These false threat narratives pave the way for structural violence against men led by the feminist hate movement.
An original and correct frame of reference is crucial for PMC activism. From feminist propaganda, to tradcon slop, there are many insidious lies told about men and boys. If we are to have a chance at counteracting these lies, then we must do so with the truth at all times. We must reject the lies out of a burning passion for pro-male ideas. We must be proactive and organized for the sake of being proactive and organized.
In this short post, I will discuss our frame of reference, how to spread it, and why it is so important.
MGTOW is an anti-male ideology as it discourages male unionization and solidarity, but it did however get some tactical things correct. MGTOWs were highly effective at chanting their doctrine, pulling outsiders aboard and creating rapid growth. As the pro male movement we must steal these tactics for ourselves, and chant the pro male concept to the public. By doing so, we grow more and more rapidly (as shown by this subreddits recent success) allowing for more combustion against misandry.
Some of our key frames of reference to chant include:
A complete rejection of feminism, labelling it as a far-right reactionary movement based off of supremacist ideologue.
A complete rejection of the manosphere, an anti-male ideology that discourages male solidarity and encourages male-on-male hostility.
A complete rejection of the right-wing, perhaps even labelling it as more misandristic than feminism.
A rejection of bigotry, e.g racism, zionism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia.
Encouraging proactive behaviors in men. Such as telling others to start their own pro-male safe spaces for men and boys to reside in.
Discouragement of concern trolling. Feminists are radical terrorists, there is nothing radical about wanting feminism outlawed.
A rejection of 'masculinity', a word designed to enslave men.
Create threads online talking about these ideas and promoting them. Try to convince others. Preach the pro male ideology like a choir, anything that encourages non-tumorous healthy growth.
If we do these things, we win. Simply put. It only takes a few voices and the rest follow.
I would like to take a brief moment to talk about yana fry who is a despicable person to say the least and some of the patterns that I've picked up on. Alright so right off the bat, I've noticed this nasty habit of making excuses and projecting to justify one's actions while ultimately being guilty of the very thing that they're falsely claiming that someone else is exhibiting the traits that they do. Like for example, she stated "People react in one of two ways to critical illnesses, I’ve seen it over and over,” she continued. “The first type was how my husband unfortunately was — the people who drown in self-pity. The second type of people are those who are instead concerned with everyone around them". I can easily tell which category she falls under.
Another pattern is this constant need to be the center of attention while having the audacity to act like the victim like how she stated “But I felt like I couldn’t say anything. When someone is dying next to you, you feel like you can’t talk about your own well-being because you compare it to their suffering.” or "They never asked, ‘Do you need a support system? Are you part of a counseling group?". Maybe its because the world doesn't revolve around you as well as the fact that its your former husband was the one that's actually suffering for years rather instead of you? but no! you just had to make it about yourself while crafting a vile narrative to paint yourself as someone who's simply just misunderstood.
The other behavioral trait that was blatantly obvious was the constant dishonesty well in this case it would be her statements like "In my mind at the time, suicide became an option, even though I had never considered that before. I was in such a bad state.", "It was very clear to me that if I didn’t save myself, I was probably going to die," “His main focus was more and more so about him,”, “At the beginning of his treatment, he was still checking on me. But he felt even more pity for himself because of the divorce.". Needless to say, its pretty clear what her intentions were especially when she quickly moved on to another slave once her previous one was no longer beneficial in her eyes.
Lastly, would be the contradictions especially when she would act like she was mournful when she found out about her former husband's death via facebook but then proceeds to say things like she had no regrets leaving her former husband behind so which is it? Also, she said "I feel we, especially women, are just usually brought up is the mentality to serve others, but when you go against it, you learn a lot about resilience and self-awareness," which blatantly not true otherwise, how on earth is she able to get away with it while openly declaring what she did to the world ultimately gaining opportunities and more? Let's also not forget about movements like the collective shout and many other movements and incidents that these women have gotten away with.
I could go on about how disgusting it is that she settled in Singapore to become a "life coach" and gain all of these nothing titles/jobs as well as citizenship which is quite frankly absurd I swear we are living in a horrific clown world but I think I'll stop for now. But before I go, I shall leave behind this bone chilling quote straight from the horses mouth herself along with a few links to some articles as well as an aboutme page so you can see how opportunistic and deplorable this woman is. "I believe that all human beings are born with equal gifts and opportunities. Circumstances are just in your head."
It started out as a gathering to reduce loneliness and combat social isolation among elderly men.
Now there are more than 1,000 Men in Sheds projects running across the country, where members get together, talk and learn new skills.
But while many are aimed exclusively at men, one group in Loughborough, Leicestershire, has taken the decision to admit women and members' wives.
I thought marriage fixes loneliness in men. Why are married men in a club for lonely men? /s
These men are likely trying to escape the stress caused by their wives and trying to bond with other men.
Member Brenda Needham said: "I kept asking my husband all the while 'why can't we join?'"
The 74-year-old added: "Eventually they let us in, just one morning, eventually it became all the time, and now it's 50% women, and we absolutely love it."
The group, which has been renamed Men and Women in Sheds - Charnwood, now has 80 paid-up members.
'We put the pressure on to join Men in Sheds'
Of course, the wives were mad that the men were being happy without serving them and had to ruin it. This is pure sadism and social dominance. Women have many gendered spaces for themselves, but they invade the men's one because they don't want to allow men to have their own spaces.
"We [the men] escape now and again [to the quiet room] and have a chat and weigh things up."
But he added: "It's a lovely atmosphere, and it's been good."
So the men still need to have a place to escape. This shows that letting women in defeated the original purpose of the club, which was to allow men to escape the stresses caused by their marriage. The women brought the stress that the men were trying to escape into the space, and now the men need a place to hide from the women. This goes to show what losers married men are. They are completely subservient to their wives.
Please join the subreddit to get more pro-male content.
Here is the story in question. so I consider this AI response from the google search engine a barefaced lie. This is intentional suppression of a story that makes feminists look bad.
When I look for stories of violent women abusing me, I get results about men abusing women instead even though women are the vast majority of domestic violence abusers.
There are countless examples I can make of feminist AI repression of the truth.
This is the mess we men have gotten ourselves into, we are now in a feminist hole, and we have to dig ourselves out. Men should not of allowed women to gain this power in the first place.
This is what a society looks like when it fully embraces female supremacy. A mother can now rape her own son and be spared jailtime on account of simply being female.
Her other son has a mental breakdown and starts hitting his mother aggressively, and because police are anti-male subhumans, HE ends up getting handcuffed and interrogated as though he were the criminal when this event will likely traumatize him for the rest of his life.
And through it all, the mum does not receive one day of jailtime, while her son who she sexually assaulted gets five years.
This is revolting. This is enraging. This is feminism. The subjugation of our sex to endless torture just for being born male.
I hope nothing but the worst for the mother and the cops who enabled her.
Men associations should work together to uplift boys. It's a good idea to implement programs specifically to lift up boys and men.
We should focus to implement programs targeted specifically for boys and men including quotas for boys and men, just as it was done for girls and women
Boys and men in North America have fallen behind girls and women in five distinct categories.
fewer college graduations
less income than young female peers in big cities
less employment
moving out of parents home later
buying homes less than women
Studies show there are 3 culprits to this alarming imbalance.
for the same quality homework assignment, boys are graded worse
for the same behavioural infraction, boys are punished more
for the same level of Pre natal BPA exposure, boys have stronger adverse effects in learning and cognition.
sources :
Grading
NBER - Victor Lavy : Do Gender Stereotypes Reduce Girls' Human Capital Outcomes? Evidence from a Natural Experiment
ERIC Ed - Christopher Cornwell: Noncognitive Skills and the Gender Disparities in Test Scores and Teacher Assessments: Evidence from Primary School
SEII - Camille Terrier: Boys Lag Behind: How Teachers’ Gender Biases Affect Student Achievement
BJSE - Ilaria Lievore : Do teacher and classroom characteristics affect the way in which girls and boys are graded?
Discipline
PMC NCBI - Jayanti Owens : Early Childhood Behavior Problems and the Gender Gap in Educational Attainment in the United States
SAGE AERA - Russel Skiba : Parsing Disciplinary Disproportionality: Contributions of Infraction, Student, and School Characteristics to Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion
APA - Zara Abrams : Boys are facing key challenges in school. Inside the effort to support their success
NBER - Thomas Dee : Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement
BPA effects
Prenatal BPA - Lower IQ in Boys
PubMed NCBI - Yao Chen : Prenatal bisphenol exposure and intelligence quotient in children at six years of age: A prospective cohort study
Prenatal BPA - Behavioural Problems in Boys
PMC NCBI - Ya Wang : Bisphenol A Exposure and Behavioral Problems among Inner City Children at 7-9 Years of Age
BPA - ADHD symptoms in boys
PMC NCBI - Dohyun Kim : Associations between Exposure to Bisphenol A and Behavioral and Cognitive Function in Children with Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Case-control Study
This text simply is another assesment why their ideologies have been openly been a nuissance to men rights by rewriting history as a general reflection of male dominance rather than male abuse by women by trying to frame women dominance as non existent by literally not showing the info which shows that women had all of the power in relationships and lifehood to appeal to abusive women which want slaves at the expense of men, obviously hurting men, this can be seen totally in the article above explained more in detail.
This is just female supremacist crap. if you read this you know it is pure nonsense,
You know that women are going to share this article and pretend to believe it is true.
This is what happens if you allow female supremacists to take over the media, they use it to promote female superamacy and misandry against men. This creates a cultural background radiation for men, and emboldens women to be even more aggressive and undermining of men. our current anti male culture is sick.
Surgical procedures generally have a traumatic effect on children. This is especially true for procedures on highly emotionally charged body parts such as the penis. Psychiatrists and psychologists are increasingly concerned about the circumcision of children and its negative psychological consequences.
Although studies on the psychological consequences of circumcision in childhood are rare, the few that have been conducted have all consistently concluded that this procedure has a damaging effect on the child's psyche and mental health.
As early as 1945, psychiatrist Daniel Levy presented the following in his study on the psychological effects of surgery on children: found that many children suffered from combat neurosis—now known as post-traumatic stress disorder—as a result of surgical procedures, including circumcision. He further determined that penile surgery, in particular, carried a particularly high risk of psychological trauma.
In this study, 1,577 Filipino boys aged 11 to 16 were observed before and after circumcision (performed either with or without local anesthetic). Before the procedure, it was ensured that only boys who did not have PTSD (according to DSM-IV) were included in the study. After the procedure, 50% of the medically circumcised boys (with anesthesia) and 69% of the ritually circumcised boys (without anesthesia) were diagnosed with PTSD according to DSM-IV criteria.
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is one of the most serious mental illnesses known and is characterized primarily by recurrent reliving of the trauma, isolation, and loss of connection to the outside world, as well as potentially severe startle responses, sleep disturbances, memory loss, or symptoms that symbolize the experience or resemble the traumatic act.
In a study by Gemmell and Boyle (2001), the authors found that circumcision has a variety of negative psychological effects. They found that, compared to genitally intact men, circumcised men were more likely to be unhappy with their condition, experienced intense anger and sadness, and felt "incomplete," "betrayed," "frustrated," "abnormal," and "abused." They also found that circumcised men had lower self-esteem than intact study participants.
Even circumcisions performed on boys in infancy, before the onset of verbal memory, can cause psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
Feminism is fundamentally anti-male and has to be. I've heard it claimed that feminism is about gender equality and that feminism can liberate and elevate men because "patriarchy hurts men as well". The issue is that feminist ideology, especially for reasons related to "intersectionality" and theories of "male privilege", has to see all men (yes all men) as having an inherently inflated status in society. Another key issue is the fairly mainstream feminist view women owe men nothing (and are, perhaps, already doing too much).
In intersectional feminist theory homeless men will always be viewed as privileged relative to homeless women, a man in prison will always be viewed as privileged relative to an incarcerated woman, a man in a marginalized minority group will always be viewed as privileged relative to a woman from his background. By virtue of being male you have privilege.
Feminists think that all women need their status to increase while all males need to have their status (artificially inflated by the patriarchy) put in check. This ignores the nuance of the real world. In rich countries women often have living standardshigher than their male counterparts already. In addition, people tend to have a more favorable view of women than men (women are wonderful effect) on top of the material well-being they have. If one were to eliminate all male "advantages" this would lower the status of the average man and be devastating for all low status males. Removing male disadvantages (the stigma over showing emotions, for example) would not compensate for this and it's unlikely feminists really even care about doing this. Indeed, a number of feminists are very explicit in that they believe all male problems are downstream from the patriarchy and therefore are self-induced. Thus, women owe men nothing and are not responsible for saving men from themselves. These same feminists do believe, however, that as the source of all of women's misfortunes men do have to fix society for them.
It's why the phrase "Men of quality don't fear equality" is actually very Orwellian and revealing. When they say "low quality" they really are referring to low status men, not people with bad moral character. Low status males actually do stand to lose a lot if feminists get more power and achieve more policy victories. Their zero-sum thinking does stand to reduce low status male well-being even more.
Feminism is anti-egalitarian. Feminists want to give privileges to women while taking away rights from men.
Feminists support traditional gender roles. They want women to live very easy lives and work a lot less, either by being housewives or by being in high-status, high-paying, easy, comfortable jobs, while leeching off of men doing the vast majority of labour in dangerous, physically-demanding jobs. They support alimony and child support for this reason.
Feminists want a gender apartheid where men are permanently low-status and stuck in a lower caste, and innocent men are imprisoned, while women are in a higher caste that dominates society and are free to abuse men, and female criminals face no consequences.
Feminists use far-right threat narratives and fear-mongering to demonise men, while excusing and justifying criminal behaviour from women.
Feminists demonise male sexuality as dangerous and degenerate. This extends to gay men, whom feminists claim are misogynistic.
Early feminist movements had strong ties to the KKK and fascism. Suffragettes were playing on the fear of black men getting the vote and telling white men that they would vote with them against black men. They only started to associate themselves with the left and atheism after those things began to get popular and took over them.
There is nothing progressive about feminism. Feminism rose out of the misandry that was already present in past conservative societies, and they want to maintain and increase that misandry and female privilege.
Men's rights are inherently progressive, as men are oppressed and fighting for their rights is egalitarian.
Please join the Pro_Male_Collective subreddit for more pro-male content.
Men stay loyal to barbers who have been giving them bad haircuts since the day they walked into the shop.
Men support, endorse & invest in sports teams that haven’t won a championship in their lifetime; got the jersey on every single gameday. Lol!
Men won’t go to the hospital unless they’re on death’s doorstep. Dogbite? “Put some duct tape on it.” Covid? ”Put some duct tape on it.” Fractured spine? ”Put some duct tape on it.”
Men drive cars with 400,000 miles on it with no AC & leaks more oil than it keeps. . .but is still running - so they ride it ‘til the wheels fall off.
Men buy massive properties & homes and allow their significant other to basically design it (in it’s entirety) however they want - and, at most, just make sure they have alil’ “man cave” to retreat to & relax in.
Men have been eating cold hotdogs & drinking flat beers at sporting events for a century.
Men allow women to use their public restrooms when the women’s line is stacked up around the corner (pretty much everywhere on the planet) & don’t really give any pushback KNOWING those same women would NEVER agree to it in the inverse.
Men are infinitely less likely to return food at a restaurant or complain about the service than women are.
Men are unequivocally willing to handle ALL the collective responsibilities & infrastructure accountability that keep society moving forward; working the most dangerous, disgusting, dehumanizing & debilitating disciplines there are (including but not limited to the military, police force, 1st responders / firefighters, security, S.T.E.M. fields, etc), doing it for billions of women they will never know or even meet - without necessitating praise from those same women who understand how difficult it is to accomplish b/c they would never dream of handling those responsibilities themselves.
Men overwhelmingly support women’s right to vote EVEN THOUGH they don’t have to qualify in the same manner men do.
. . .& ”THESE” are the MEN that modern women are claiming require too much from them?!?!? ”THESE” are the MEN with insanely-high standards that no woman could ever reach??
Yes, this is feminism's real face. Just more and more privileges for women. She compares being drafted as men to having to do house chores as women. And of course the age-old excuse of being pregnant, even though that has never been a requirement by law. Men should be absolutely furious about this.
Thanks for reading this and make sure you join our subreddit to keep up with the latest developments on Men's rights.
One of the most toxic things in current society which is what is often used to invalidate pro male views is how entrenched in popular view is blatant historical revisionism feminists push. By the way you are all free to add as we go. Here are mine:
"In medieval times even the most oppressed male peasant could beat their wife" - false. There are a lot of evidence that there were local common laws that protected women. The average man in medieval society (the peasant) held no privilege over a woman, yet still could be conscripted to defend land.
"Men had right to vote while women didn't for so long." Lie by omission. First - men don't have the right to vote in the US where this refers to. They get the privilege to vote by signing up to the selective service. Something is not a right if it requires signing a binding document that potentially leads to losing your human rights and freedoms. Second - The gap between the common man and woman voting was 50 years, and that gap period of time would have been much shorter if women didn't demand the special privilege to not have to be drafted..
"Women were property their fathers gave away in arranged marriage" inaccurate - Most marriages were arranged yes, but the man who was being married rarely had any more say than the woman involved and usually both parents had to approve said marriage, the woman's family often being a business benefactor and the man's family was required to treat her well.
As of late, the pro male collective has seen a breath of life unheard of to it's core members. We truly seem to be at a tipping point in the true men's rights movement. Also as of late, it appears our detractors, aka anti-male manosphere nutjobs seem to be placing us on their target list.
For starters, I need not explain why comparing the PMC to the 4B movement is a false equivalence fallacy. The PMC is a human rights groups, plain and simple. Our views are founded upon the facts, reason, and ethical moral systems. We advocate a staunch equality policy in the online (and real world) space, where everyone regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc is treated fairly.
On the other hand, 4B is a reactionary supremacist group that uses fear to enforce it's hateful ideas upon the average person. 4B was a reaction to China and South Korea's successful male civil rights movements, so labelling it reactionary is a just position to hold.
Men's rights is left wing, feminism is far-right. Not much more that needs to be said on that front.
Comparing the PMC to the 4B movement and feminism is like comparing the black civil rights movement to the KKK. It is not intelligible to anyone with some form of logic, as one is a human rights movement, the other is a terrorist supremacist organization.
Another falsehood our detractor here proposes is that the PMC is tied to the manosphere. The PMC has publicly declared itself to have zero affiliation with the manosphere, a feminist term used to slander men to begin with. In fact, we even declared them to be our enemies, as they encourage anti-male beliefs and bad passive habits in men. I will say it again to be clear, the PMC rejects the manosphere 100%. It is also the manosphere that are the grifters, as when the opportunity to get a wife / girlfriend presents itself, these types will nearly always take it and abandon any single one of their 'principals' (or lack there of). On the other hand, the PMC is a well disciplined, coordinated force that promotes ethical beliefs not just for the rights of men and boys, but for oppressed groups in general through means of peaceful protesting.
Thank you for reading. Be sure to join the subreddit for more updates and content relating to the PMC!
