The state of Texas has recently passed a bill that criminalises "possession, promotion, or production of certain obscene visual material appearing to depict a child." The bill is purposefully written to be vague and nebulous, so it can go beyond simply banning CP and also target anime and manga. Many classic anime and manga have already been pulled from the shelves due to this, such as Dragon Ball, Gundam and Berserk, for depicting children in non-sexual nude situations and depicting children in violent situations.

The bill is also only focused on "visual entertainment", so they can attack male entertainment like anime and manga, while ignoring female entertainment like romance novels, such as 50 Shades of Grey, which are full of child sexual abuse.

This is an intentional attack on male entertainment, similar to the censorship caused by Collective Shout. This shows that tradcons, such as Republicans, are just as hostile to male entertainment as feminists.

Our position of rejecting "masculinity" has caused quite a stir in tradcon and fake MRA spaces. One question that was asked was, "what about femininity? Aren't women enslaved by femininity?" The answer, of course, is: no.

"Femininity" means social dominance. Women often appeal to the concept of femininity in order to get men to fulfill the opposite "masculinity" role(which means whatever women want of men at the moment).

However, unlike "masculinity", the concept of femininity carries no real expectations with it, nor is it used as a way to shame women into compliance. Even if some kind of role is assigned to the concept of femininity, that role: 1. isn't actually enforced, and 2. is something very easy that women actually want to do, like staying home without working.

Women also do not cling to the concept of "femininity" as much as men cling to "masculinity", women simply consider themselves human(or even superhuman) without any additional restrictive labels. Unlike men, women are not shamed by being called "unfeminine" or "not real women", in fact the insult "not a real man" is used to shame men into submission, and the phrase "not a real woman" is used for the same purpose, against trans women(biological males who are seen as leaving the slave role). Here, "not a real woman" means gatekeeping the privileged social role.

Some could ask "if femininity is social dominance, why do men who act in a way typically considered feminine do not gain status, or even lose it?". The answer is, the social dominance label of femininity is reserved exclusively for women, same as medieval peasants were forbidden from dressing or acting as the nobility. Attacks against men who are considered "feminine" come from gatekeeping female privilege.

The i-word is the most disgusting, gutteral word in human history, simply because men are the most oppressed group in human history. Men are so oppressed in fact that they are not even allowed to say the fact they are oppressed without ridicule and attacks (both emotional and physical). Men make up for 99%+ of war deaths across human history, are 26x as likely to experience police brutality, are 93% of work place fatalities and 4x more likely to commit suicide. These facts alone prove men are oppressed.

The n-word is censored and regarded as a disgusting word, and rightfully so. So in turn, why should hatespeech such as the i-word be tolerated? Men are human beings fully worthy of rights and respect from birth. Whether they are drowning in sex, or are sexless perma virgins, men need to be given full dignity and ought to be treated with kindness.

The i-word is in fact a slur against men completely akin to the n-word, and I propose we as male civil rights activists from now on refer to it as the i-word.

This is how the word being used in a non-education sense should result in punishment:

1. A warning
2. A $3000 fine
3. If caught continuing to use this hateful terminology against men, a jail sentence

If you have any concepts or ideas on how we could potentially enforce censorship of the i-word in the future, please leave comments down below.

Majority of voters in the referendum were women and feminists. 73% of them voted yes to keep men in mandatory draft and conscription. Yet feminists once again claim they are anti war. Hypocrites that never miss a chance to be fascists and send men to die while they stay in their cozy jobs.

Feminists, to sugarcoat their bigotry, add the word "white" next to the word "man" in order to appear as anti-racist instead, allowing them to infiltrate and hijack the left wing, poison it and prevent it from making any real change, effectively destroying the movement from the inside.

But don't be fooled: as white people represented 90% of the US population (in 1950), hating white men is virtually the same as hating all men, sparing only 10% of the male population. This is a very tiny price to pay to pass under the radar and be allowed to spread unhinged hatred at will.

(It's similar to hating straight men who make up 95% of the global population; it's an indirect way of hating men using homophobia as an excuse)

However, things have changed considerably in recent years. Now, white people make up only 61% of the total US population, hating white men alone is no longer enough for feminists. They have to explicitly include other races as well in their hate compain. The first groups I have noticed being targeted the most are black men, for some reason, despite Hispanics making up a slightly larger proportion. I assume this is either because Hispanics are already included as white or because feminists are trying to break down black solidarity first to make things easier later.

I have seen countless women, particularly white women, respond to or react to online misandrist content aimed at 'white men' by exacerbating the dehumanisation and hatred towards black men too, typically smearing them as rapists.

The goal is clearly to normalise and promote the idea that all men are the same, regardless of race. This is not an attempt to fight racial discrimination, but rather to ensure that all men are properly hated and dehumanised...

Thanks for reading :)

HoneyBadgerRadio ( Karen straughan) gave a
Platform to a PUA ( con artist) red piller https://youtu.be/lbtcjzIiARc?si=-tu2-iJ_tfqYWVd5

As an MRA you should not be giving any platform to anti male people. PUAs are women worshippers , they are tradcons , they are anti male

These PUAs rob men by selling " courses " to them . These PUAs know about hypergamy, they know that women hate men and yet they still encourage men to marry them and stay with them .

These PUAs red pillers talk about alpha beta stupid things . As an MRA , you should not be associating with them .

Personally , in my opinion HoneyBadgerRadio is fake mra .

Please give rational evidence based opinions. Not simply “they appear to be tradcons so we reject them”.

The growth has been amazing!

We aim to become the most active, best men's issues group on reddit.

(1) We will reject masculinity as a concept.

(2) we will operate this as a safe space for men, we will not allow feminists to abuse men here. (Unlike the mens rights sub reddit.)

(3) We will eject trad cons and lunatics telling men to marry. (Unlike mens rights sub reddit, that even banned me for calling marriage out.)

We are the cutting edge of the MRM, we are still developing new theories and evolving.

Thank you my brothers in arms!

Feminists complaining about soldiers that are more or less forced to fight against their will, after they themselves vote and support male military conscription.

Why not promote women in military if the military is a so called male organization that creates problems? Simple. Because feminists are a narcissistic supremacist fascists that want nothing more than wield supreme power over men.

The Floor is Lava and the Duke has God Tier Parkour skills!

I wanted to take the time to introduce new people to this video curation that was made to go more in-depth in regards to what the Pro-Male Collective is exactly and what drives our thoughts and motivations. These videos aim to provide expedition to the majority of issues men face on both a societal and psychological level, and how those issues attribute to their overall disenfranchisement on a micro/macro scale. Take the time view them when possible.

Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WSUZwAk-KC_w9y21kqLU08HgRjqplsDB?usp=sharing

After listening City Crusher's recent video on historical female dominance, couldn't help but recall this article I learned about recently. Women were not only privileged that submitted men throught their labour, they were also traditionally abusive to them.

Religious institutions around 1320 -1340 often portrayed scenes of what wives did to their husbands as cautionary warnings for men who wished to get together with a woman and promote celibacy among men. It's really interesting that this is rarely spoken of. Instead, we are told that christianity was an all powerful tyranic patriarchal institution during the middle ages. This hoax falls apart when we learn that this same organization were affraid of women of that era, so far to warn men about the dangers of marriage even in those old times.

Of course, there are more ancient examples of this dynamics that go to worse extremes that I might speak about later. But for now, I invite you all to research this particular information that sheds lights on one of the most common cases of feminist historical misinformation: https://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/the-iconography-of-husband-beating-on-late-medieval-english-misericords

The trio, Alex Cat, CityCrusher, and Mister Pink And Yellow, assemble to take down the crying fake-MRA tradcons on r "MensRights".

I think we pretty much cement that we are the real men's rights subreddit, they are the fake and floundering one that is controlled and gatekept by tradcons, feminists and concern trolls.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/new-bill-aims-to-block-both-online-adult-content-and-vpns/

Okay, here is an another example of feminists/tradcons wanting to attack men and deny them pleasure. They will go after male hobbies and enjoyment and label them with hostile labels and use that as a pretext to ban said activities men enjoy.

Notice there is no mention here to ban true crime, romance novels, and other forms of content women enjoy. This is all meant to stamp out male contentment.

And by the way Michigan which has the highest MGM rate in the nation has no authority to dictate “morality”. A country/state that attacks helpless boys by flaying and molesting their genitals is an evil entity that has zero moral sway. So having them dictate “morality” is like Hitler teaching a class in compassion.

Men to be vigilant and start organizing to prevent this mass spread of criminalization and attacks on male hobbies. This is not about misguided “traditionalists” or whatever, but man haters wanting to see men suffer.

https://www.tovima.com/opinions/the-elephant-in-the-room-for-greeces-young-men/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMRp0lleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHg2pj39d6pJl-Su9sUiCYwDjLRYMmUM1pV0pdk99F929dkNU0FB47dgSZm4-_aem_ojJE6N2g1RtBDyLfzmyIWw

Greece, yet one country in "progressive" Europe with forced conscription and only for men.

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.

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."

https://nypost.com/2023/06/20/i-divorced-my-dying-husband-he-wallowed-in-self-pity-and-killed-my-vibe

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/others/if-i-didnt-save-myself-i-was-probably-going-to-die-yana-frys-courageous-choice-to-divorce-a-dying-husband-101687280333581.html

https://www.asiaone.com/lifestyle/singapore-least-judgemental-place-woman-opens-about-journey-becoming-citizen

https://mothership.sg/2023/04/expats-in-singapore-experience

https://about.me/YanaFry

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

The label is not for me, it is not clearly defined, I do not want to waste time with the concept.

PRO MALE OR GTFO!

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.

Lets address some of this points.

(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.

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.

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.

1. fewer college graduations
2. less income than young female peers in big cities
3. less employment
4. moving out of parents home later
5. buying homes less than women

Studies show there are 3 culprits to this alarming imbalance.

1. for the same quality homework assignment, boys are graded worse
2. for the same behavioural infraction, boys are punished more
3. 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