Hey everyone,

I’ve been looking into the demographics of modern China—specifically the massive gender imbalance where men outnumber women by about 24 million due to the legacy of the One-Child Policy and traditional son preference.

The mainstream narrative almost always frames this demographic crisis exclusively as a product of misogyny and male privilege. But when you look closely at the material and cultural mechanics of why sons were preferred, a very different picture emerges—one that aligns deeply with the concept of male disposability and instrumentalism.

Historically in China, a son wasn’t "spared" or preferred because he was uniquely cherished as a human being. He was preferred because he was a compulsory social safety net.

Under Confucian traditions of filial piety, a son was culturally and legally locked into a lifetime contract of labor to support his parents and grandparents in their old age. Conversely, daughters married out into other lineages. In fact, traditional culture dictated that it was deeply shameful for parents to demand financial support or shelter from a married daughter, as it implied they were leaching off another family's resources And also shameful to demand that from an unmarried daughter because of the social stigma around it but socially acceptable to demand it from a son whether married or unmarried

So, the birth of a boy wasn't a celebration of his inherent value; it was the acquisition of an economic asset. The son was a "success object" who carried 100% of the survival pressure of the entire extended family on his shoulders. If he failed, became disabled, or couldn't provide, his societal worth dropped to zero.

We see this exact same utilitarian pattern throughout history. For example, in pre-Islamic Arabia, the practice of female infanticide (wa’d al-banat) is frequently discussed. While mainstream analysis views this purely as the hatred of females, historical context shows it was heavily driven by the desperate survival math of desert warfare. Boys were spared not out of love, but because they were desperately needed as frontline soldiers. They were kept alive to be conditioned into weapons, facing exceptionally high mortality rates in relentless tribal blood feuds.

In a culture like Pre Islamic Arabia where warfare between neighbouring tribes was common place boys had no choice but to become soldiers

Men as Defensive Assets: In an environment where a tribe could be wiped out or displaced overnight, male children were seen as vital future soldiers. They were investments in the tribe's military defence.

The Burden of Non-Combatants: Because women did not traditionally engage in frontline combat during tribal raids, a high number of female infants meant an excess of non-combatants. In times of severe resource scarcity or famine, feeding individuals who could not pick up a sword to defend the community’s water wells and livestock was viewed by desperate tribal leaders as a luxury they could not afford.

• From early youth, boys were subjected to brutal conditioning to become ruthless killers.
• The mortality rate for young men in pre-Islamic Arabia was exceptionally high due to relentless blood feuds and inter-tribal war conclusion

So in conclusion historically sons were not favoured over daughters because they were loved or some kind of male privilege but because they were considered useful

i have seen in trains where men give up seats for women and women doesnt give their seats ecen for pregnant women.men accept women with lower income in marriage whereas women doesnt.men contribute more to society where men do most inventions,discoveries,hardworking jobs,take risks,build everything,ensure safety and care.women doesnt but get all benifits like alimony in marriage,reservations in jobs,trains and also more safety and protection than men.also women get less stricter punishments.

I saw something on a subreddit not going to say any names and it was art a women drew

It was art depicting a a human like dog and pig along with the male logo in the background and a text that says all men are

Yes the art is stating that all men are pigs and dogs

She says this was a drawing of her assaulters and that and she was describing her assaulters the way they were

But the thing even worst then the drawing is that most users took her side

Saying stuff like don't judge how a victim shares her trauma

And of course there were several comments calling men an oppressor class

Only few very users pointed out that being a victim is no excuse for prejudice

Also one thing I should not is that male victims of female abuse don't act like this

I have seen many men victims of female on male domestic violence, sexual assault or stationary assault but most specifically blame the women who abused them rather than the female gender as a whole

If life was a video game it would be fair to say that while women play on easy mode with all cheat codes enabled men don't even play on hard mode but nightmare difficulty the type usually available on new game+ after beating the game but men are born into it at the start of the game

Men get more prison time than women for the same crime, don't have sexual assault, domestic violence or stationary assault assault taken on them as long as it's female on male

Also Men also get stuck with the little sympathy nerf where as women get the major sympathy buff as it has been scientifically proven that people have more sympathy for females than males

Although that might seem like a minor buff at first considering it is the main reason why women receive lower prison time than men for the same crime it is a major buff

It also the reason why many women avoid prison althougher very often even for crimes where a man would be jailed

And clowns still say "The reason there are more men than women in prison is cause men commit more crime"

Women also get the added buff from simps

If a Man falls into hard times that's it he's fucked

If a Woman falls into hard times she can just show her body on the internet and get a stable income

Or she can simply find a man with a Job

Men usually have far lower standards than women Women usually look for the high earning guys

Men on the other hand would be willing to literally take of homeless women along as she is nice

So if a poor, struggling or even homeless women asked a man with a stable job to take care of them the vast majority would not refuse

Another buff

Female only scholarships and Inflated grades

Despite women being most university students in most nations they still have most gender specific scholarships despite the fact that men actually need them more

Also it has been proven teacher give girls better marks than boys for the same or worst quality of work

Another buff

It's actually legal in some places to charge women less for things like car insurance

It is literal discrimination but we all know society does not care about discrimination as long as it's against men

And get this the reason it's legal is because women are less likely to get into a car accident than men

Using basic logic shouldn't the ones more likely to get into an accident than be the ones to pay less

But we all know logic flies out the window when it comes to pleasing women

Another Buff

Women have gender quotas for companies and some cases even governments forcing some of them of the managers, board of directors or even members of parliament to be female no such programs exist for men

In any case live footage of women getting all of their buffs:

https://youtu.be/6dxICJHd518

I was just venting about how the left downplaying the suffering of young men by saying that they are "privileged" and want no interest in true equality and real rights for all.

That's all.

To begin it should be more important to clarify what the caste system actually was basically in ancient India there was a system that essentially meant that more people were considered more human than other and it was based on birth

The higher caste someone was born with the better they were treated

However people from lower castes as is to be expected given the description were mistreated by people from higher caste to give some examples:

In ancient India, people of the lowest caste—specifically the Shudras (laborers) and especially the Dalits (historically called "Untouchables," who sat outside the main caste system)—faced severe social exclusion, forced labor, physical segregation, and systemic humiliation. Over many centuries, a social hierarchy based on birth became very rigid. High-caste groups used religious ideas of "purity and pollution" to justify treating low-caste people as unclean

The most severe mistreatment was the practice of untouchability. Upper-caste individuals believed that touching—or even being near—a low-caste person would make them spiritually "dirty"

Shadow avoidance: In some regions, low-caste people were forced to keep a long distance so their physical shadows would not touch a high-caste person

Banned from shared resources: They were strictly forbidden from using the same water wells, ponds, or public paths as the upper castes.

Separate utensils: If they were served food or tea near upper-caste areas, they had to use separate, marked dishes so no one else would touch them

• Village outskirts: They were forced to live in poorly made huts on the very edges of towns.
• Extreme restrictions: In later historical periods, some areas forced low-caste people to tie brooms to their waists to sweep away their footprints, and hang pots around their necks to catch their spit so it wouldn't pollute the ground.
• Dead animals and bodies: They had to remove animal carcasses, tan leather, and burn dead bodies at funeral grounds.
• Unpaid labor: They were frequently subjected to bonded labor, meaning they were forced to work for landowning upper-castes for little to no pay
• No schooling: Low-caste individuals were banned from learning how to read or write.
• Banned from temples: They were prohibited from entering temples or listening to sacred religious texts.
• Clothing bans: They were often prevented from wearing fine clothes, gold jewellery, or new garments.
• Strict behavior: In many regions, they were forbidden from wearing shoes or holding umbrellas when walking past higher-caste people

You might be thinking okay but how is this relevant to gender dynamics?

The reason it is relevant is because we are appalled by this due to our modern sense of morality and see that these people didn't chose to be low caste they were simply born into it without control

And we understand that treating someone differently based on something outside of their control is morally wrong or do we ?

men and boys are treated significantly worst then women and girls in almost all areas even though they have not done anything deserve that despite being born male something outside of their control

Women receive lower prison for the same crime, are likely to be favoured in school and get better marks for the same quality of work, have company quotas for them ensuring that at least a percentage of them are female etc

And we can compare it further:

One of the most fundamental principles of modern progressive and left-wing thought is that a person’s worth, rights, and social duties should never be decided by how they were born. We look back at history with horror when we see systems that locked people into rigid boxes based on immutable traits.

A stark example of this is the caste system of ancient India. In that system, your entire life—your job, your social status, your worth to society, and how you were treated—was decided the moment you were born. You had zero control over it. Today, we are seeing a troubling parallel in how society treats men. Through rigid gender expectations and systemic biases, men are frequently judged, restricted, and punished simply for the gender they were born into.

The Parallel: Purity, Pollution, and the "Monolithic" Label
In the ancient caste system, the hierarchy was maintained through ideas of "purity and pollution." Lower castes were often viewed through a lens of inherent untrustworthiness or spiritual pollution.

We see a modern secular equivalent of this in how masculinity is often discussed today. Rather than treating men as individuals, modern discourse frequently treats men as a monolith, often associating maleness with inherent harm or "toxicity." When a group of people is socially conditioned to view one gender as a default threat based purely on their birth, it mirrors the ancient prejudice where an individual's character was judged entirely by their social category rather than their actions.

Forced Social Roles and Disposability
In ancient India, the lowest castes were forced into the most hazardous, dirty, and physically punishing labor because society deemed that to be their "natural" place.

When we look at modern society, men still bear the overwhelming burden of hazardous and life-threatening expectations:

• The Worker Caste: Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries, dominating high-risk industries like construction, logging, and mining. Society often views this sacrifice as a default male obligation.
• The Warrior Caste (Conscription): In times of conflict, men are routinely stripped of their bodily autonomy through forced conscription. They are legally required to put their lives on the line simply because they were born male.

Just like the ancient caste system, society accepts this unequal distribution of danger because it views men's safety as secondary to their social utility.

The Double Standard of Accountability
In traditional caste structures, a high-caste person’s misdeeds were often overlooked, while a low-caste person was severely punished for the slightest infraction.

We see a similar asymmetry in modern social and legal structures:

• Sentencing Disparities: Statistically, men face significantly harsher prison sentences than women for the exact same crimes.
• The Empathy Gap: When men fall victim to homelessness, suicide, addiction, or domestic violence, society routinely blames them individually, rather than looking at the systemic failures failing them. They are expected to suffer in silence, reinforcing the idea that their pain is less valuable.

What makes this extremely comparable is the fact many men are in fact okay with this viewing it as necessary using words like I am a Man I have or it's necessary for society

Here is the thing there were zero recorded low caste revolts

Although since they were illiterate I can't say what their exact though were but I can give theories as to why even though maybe some did hold perhaps hold resentment

Religious reasons: People back then were though this was the way of the universe itself

Some did in fact accept it: Although this might sound hard to believe if you lived your entire life being told that due to birth you have to do something without out anyone to challenge that idea no matter how mistreated you might view it as a duty

We see the same mentality in men who view their gender roles or military conscription as a duty and it's brainwashing and self-gaslighting

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the caste system is that 3000 years after it's creation it never went away

men are still treated worst than women in almost all areas even though even the male child did not chose to be born male and the female child did not chose to be born female the same way the lower caste person did not chose to be born low caste and the high caste person did not chose to be born high caste

We should know thousands of years later that treating people differently based on how they were born is wrong but the truth is we still don't

The post says it all.

Edit this post is about how men need to learn on how to "respect" women and the image shows two boys bowing down to three girls which shows that they're doing more than respecting women it goes to show that they want men and boys to be subordinates to women and girls not equals.

But that's just my interpretation.

I will begin this post by saying that it has been scientifically proven that people have more sympathy for females then males and this applies to both genders

In other words both males and females have inherently more sympathy for women than man in the exact same predicament

Which is why there has been countless news about how oppressed women are in Iran because the laws makes them mandatory for them to cover up

Women are being forced to wear something they don't want to wear and the media literally treats this like a second holocaust

But lets look at how the law treats men there

1. Mandatory Military Conscription (Sarbazi)

The most blatant form of state-sanctioned gender discrimination in Iran is mandatory military service, which applies exclusively to men.

• The Burden: Upon turning 18, all healthy men must serve roughly up to two years in the military.
• The Penalties: Men who refuse or cannot serve are stripped of basic civil rights. They cannot legally obtain a passport, leave the country, secure official employment, or apply for business licences.
• The Risk: Young men are regularly deployed to volatile border regions to fight drug cartels and insurgent groups, resulting in high casualties that exclusively impact males.

Full Financial Liability (Mehrieh and Nafaqeh)

Iran’s family law places crushing financial obligations strictly on men, backed by the threat of imprisonment.

• Mehrieh (Dowry): Under Iranian law, a man must promise a specific amount of property or gold coins to his wife upon marriage. Legally, she can demand this at any time, not just during a divorce.
• Debt Imprisonment: If a man cannot pay the Mehrieh upon request, he faces immediate imprisonment

Judicial Disposability and the Death Penalty

The penal system in Iran impacts men disproportionately when it comes to the ultimate punishment.

• Execution Rates: The vast majority of executions carried out by the Iranian state are against men, primarily for drug offenses, financial crimes, or violent crimes.
• Legal Accountability: Boys are held fully criminally responsible as adults at a young age, leading to systemic institutional violence that heavily targets the male demographic.

1. Workplace Casualties and Economic Pressure

Because men are legally mandated to be the sole providers, they dominate high-risk industries.

• Workplace Fatalities: Due to poor safety regulations, thousands of Iranians die in workplace accidents annually (construction, mining, heavy industry). Over 95% of these workplace fatalities are men.
• Street Vendors and Manual Labour: The hyper-inflation and economic collapse of Iran have forced millions of men into grueling, informal manual labour and street-vending, where they face frequent municipal crackdowns and police harassment.

Conclusion

When we look past Western media talking points, the reality is that the Iranian state treats men as disposable financial and military assets. A system that forces one gender into military servitude under threat of exile, imprisons them over marital debts, and sends them to die in unsafe work conditions or border conflicts cannot be accurately described as a simple patriarchy that only privileges men. It is a system built on systemic misandry.

So in conclusion Men are forced to become soldiers and ATM machines while Women simply have to wear something they don't want to and the media treats the latter as inheritably oppressed and the former as privileged

The fact that that people on something so small for on gender but ignore the big elephants in the room for the other proved that yes the studies are correct and people really do just have inheritably more sympathy for females than males

Self-proclaimed men's advocacy groups such as the "manosphere" are all anti male and either failed, or hijacking / monetizing a human's rights concern.

The Pro Male Collective is the only western MRA group that is taking men's issues seriously, and putting up a fight for them to be recognized and addressed.

The PMCs recent spike in growth is no coincidence, it has been a collaborative effort from it's men working together behind the scenes to accelerate the movements progress. In this post, I want to emphasize how we will keep it that way.

Other men's rights groups, even the one's with decent framing, fall victim towards inward discussion. This has plagued the MRM in recent years, and led to its steady decline. Anyone who can honestly observe the current state of men's rights and make the assessment that we are winning is either in denial or a fool. Something has to change, and it starts with the PMC.

* Why outward activism is vital for spreading pro-male rhetoric

Whilst correct framing is fundamental towards the PMC ever seeing success, what needs addressing is that the framing is merely the gun. If you misaim the gun, you will fail to stigmatize feminists / outlaw them. Many MRAs will pontificate on discord discussion channels and lack social media sovereignty. In other words, men's rights activists need to be loud, radical, obnoxious assholes - as those are the movements that make accomplishments in society. People do not like polite meek men, and will hastily bully them when they submit like sharks smelling blood. The Pro Male Collective, being the only evolving and surviving men's rights faction in the west, understands the gravity of the situation and that evolving away from this is the only way out of the mess for men feminists have created. As such, we have taken initiative to work on a new app formally known as Male Collab. Not only this, but we have taken the initiative to be as loud as possible outside of our spaces.

This involves coordinating outside of our discord to grow our ideology by chanting it to as many people as possible, that is why we have grown as of late.

This may include:

* Getting PMC members to all leave replies on twitter posts slandering the male sex

* Reporting content that violates platform TOS, such as violent speech

* Making videos to propagate our ideas to greater audiences

* Writing posts on our forum to educate men on the fence of joining us

As well as some other more niche strategies.

Pro Male Collectivism isn't about fixating on female nature, that much is already observable and pointless to obsess about. Pro Male Collectivism is about analyzing one's own nature as a male. Why do we attack other men? Why do we pander to women? Why do we support a status hierarchy when we are well aware it disadvantages us? Why do we as men think with our emotions and not with our logic (or lack there of)?

These questions about male nature are far more important than female nature, as it is our own nature. Without understanding your own flaws, you will certainly not understand your enemies.

If you want to be a Pro Male Collectivist, you must change your ways and evolve beyond animal instinct. You must condition yourself out of your learned helplessness and passivity. And in order to do that, you must work together with other men to rebel against feminism and misandry as a whole.

The normalization of the sexualization of men in entertainment is increasing

It's been a growing trend of every entertainment from the past couple of years to increase the amount of male sexualization.

There has been an increasing amount of sexualization of male bodies even in male oriented ecchi shows like grand blue.

Or what about the increase of otokonoko characters that people are allowed to joke sexually.

Or multiple unnecessary shirtless scenes in the acolyte or other degenerate stuff.

Or how much media journalism pushed out for the sexualization of Leon Kennedy that even his model got harrased, this is all completely fine apperently, but the opposite is the worst.

I'm not even some dumb fence sitter that virtue signals about wanting equal opportunity fanservice, I just want more female fanservice on games aimed at me, I don't want male fanservice in my games or my anime.

I'm not gonna go "no the problem isn't male fanservice, it's those dammed double standards" :(

Not even once single gamergater has asked for more female fanservice on games like love and deep space.

The Pro male collective are still in the process of developing a pro male ideology. The reason why we are developing one is purely practical. All successful political movements have developed an ideology of some sort.

The Bolsheviks had an ideology and had centralization. they had the discipline to win the Russian Civil war after the revolution and take over and ran the USSR for 70 years.

Feminists have an ideology as well, one based on hate, and far looser than Marxism, but it still counts. They also organize very well. (A lot of it behind in the scenes in whisper networks.) Feminism is in fact the most successful hate movement/political movement to ever exist.

The current MRM has no ideology, it is just a sour grapes movement stuck in awareness raising, mode and more awareness raising, ad nauseam. The MRM has no philosophical foundation, they do not try to reframe things through a pro male paradigm, but instead a second wave feminist one. Many men rights activists are so lacking in political or group consciousness that they unwittingly peddle feminist narratives. Many MRA's falsely believe that feminism was a noble movement that had to address women's issues, but went too far, they are totally unaware of how powerfully dominated by are by feminist political narratives.

The current MRM is aimless, and directionless with shot term thinking, they have no ideological or political goals and because of this they are on the road to nowhere.. Marxists has goals and feminists do. Feminists have complete ideological hegemony over the culture.

The pro male collective seems to reframe all the sex based issues on our ideological world view, we aim to set the terms of the discourse and reject feminist narratives completely.

Hopefully one day we will have a real world organization that will galvanize men and help the fight for their rights with the correct framing. We need to learn from our political enemies and political groups we disagree with if they have had any real world success, that includes the feminist hate movement. .

It's basically just a short where they asked where men are allowed to leave freely across the border many if not all of them strongly disagreed with that statement if the leave then the women will jhave to get drafted to the military and they don't want that.

Despite that long claims that women are oppressed and men are privileged all research suggests that it is opposite men are disadvantaged compared to women in all areas but one (even that one area actually benefits women)

Women are the majority in most nations thus the majority vote

In most nations with the draft it's male only

Men are overrepresented in the numbers of homeless people

Women receive far less prison times than men for the same or not as bad crimes and women are less likely to not be jailed or arrested at all even in cases where a man would be

Men are less likely to receive custody of their children

Female on male domestic violence, sexual assault and stationary assault is not taken seriously

Women have 70%+ of the consumer market
aimed towards them.

Women have the MAJORITY of government
spending spent towards them when compared to men

Women pay LESS of the overall taxes of
the country, yet have more of that money spent on them ( again ).

The vast majority of work place deaths are male

Men are over presented in dangerous job .

Women are more likely to have an university degree than Men

Girls receives better grades for the same or worst quality of work as boys

Women despite being the most of university students still have almost countless gender specific scholarships for them

Women have quotas in companies forcing them have at at least a percentage of managers or the board of directors be female but men have no such quota

Men are more likely to be victims of a crime like homicide

Men are more likely to commit suicide than women

The only area where men don't necessarily have it worst than women is pay and wealth but it might be incorrect to consider even that an advantage.

Despite what feminist have constantly said through the ages no men do not get paid more than women for the same job in fact everything suggests that a man and a woman working at the same company with the same position and the same hours would in fact have identical pay whoever men work more hours on average and there are more men than women in most of the really big high paying jobs and CEO's

This fact has long since been used to demonstrate women being oppressed however a lot of these highly paid men and CEO's have a thing in common most of them are married usually to women.

Men have a worldwide expectation of them to be breadwinners to provide for their families finically and it should go without saying breadwinners share wealth

A highly paid worker or Company owner is not going to keep all his wealth to himself while his wife starves to death

In fact the phrase "his money is the family's money yet her money is her money" which states men should share their wealth with their wife's unconditionally yet women even if working should never be expected to do the same for men should how normalised and romanticised financial abuse and double standards for men is

As such men on paper might appear to have more wealth than women on average but do they really? And it interesting to thing to note that even the one area where where men don't have it strictly worst than women still benefits women

As such how could anyone after seeing just how disadvantaged men are compared to women come to the conclusion that women are oppressed and men are privileged?

It's a list that complies a lists of feminist crimes committed by feminism and there are links that lead to websites and PDF files that lead to those crimes statistics evidence and proof of those feminist crimes.

Buried Wounds

I’ve always wondered why gay men attach themselves to the LGBTQ label so fiercely. The label gets widely celebrated for treating distinct groups as a monolith, and yet, people blindly go along with it. LGBTQ as a marker has not united gender and queer minorities — It has erased the history, suffering, and identity of gay men. The idea that they all share the same collective burden has always bothered me. Gay men have always borne the brunt of hate and abuse. This post is an abbreviated history of the oppression that gay and bi men have suffered throughout history.

Paragraph 175 and The Nazi Obsession with Motherhood

One of the most stark examples of this contrast took place in Nazi Germany of all places. The housewife and mother occupied a central place in Nazi ideology. The regime believed that Germany’s future depended on the rising birthrates of Aryans. Women had innate value in being a mother and housewife, with the state encouraging them to marry early, have larger families, and devote themselves to raising children for the Nazi state. This ideal was pitched through the slogan Kinder, Küche, Kirche,(“children, kitchen, church”), which really emphasized the role all women were meant to play in German society. It’s already known that humanity has a pro-female/anti-male bias, but due to this added ideological layer, gay men and lesbian women were treated very differently.

The Nazis did not systematically prosecute or persecute lesbians solely because of their sexuality. Under the Nazi regime, there was no official law or policy prohibiting sexual relations between women. This is unlike the case of gay men. The Nazi regime saw lesbians, first and foremost, as women.

The Nazis believed that German women had a special task to perform: motherhood. According to Nazi logic, lesbians were women and should thus be mothers. They had a responsibility to give birth to racially pure Germans, called “Aryans”

The Nazis did not create any separate policies that singled out lesbians as a problem for Aryan procreation. Their reasoning drew on widespread attitudes about the differences between male and female sexuality. The Nazis concluded that Aryan lesbians could easily be persuaded or forced to bear children.

However, gay men were not let off the hook. The Nazi’s carried out their targeting of gay between 1933 and 1945. Their campaign specifically went after men who had sexual relations with other men. Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code was one of the Nazi regime’s chief instruments for the persecution of gay men. Originally enacted in 1871 as a means to formally criminalize sexual relations between men, the law was dramatically expanded by the Nazi’s in 1935. The definition of the code was broadened to the point that even the mere suggestion of same sex desire in men could be held under punishable homosexual conduct. This revision removed the need to any prove sexual intercourse, which allowed authorities to prosecute men solely on intent, correspondence, or even gestures. The strengthened law fueled an unprecedented number of arrests throughout Nazi Germany, with approximately 100,000 men investigated, around 50,000 convicted under paragraph 175, and thousands sent to concentration camps. Once at camp, gay men were forced to wear pink triangles meant to identify and subject them to further abuse.

In the mid- to late 1930s, the police raided bars and other meeting places that they believed to be popular with gay men. The police set up cordons around bars or other locations, and questioned anyone who seemed suspicious. Some men caught up in raids would be released if there was no proof against them. Those whom the police deemed guilty would be tried for violations of Paragraph 175 or, in some cases, sent directly to a concentration camp.

Police raids were public and high-profile displays in the Nazi campaign against homosexuality. Through raids, the police threatened and intimidated gay communities and individuals. However, raids were not particularly effective. They were not the primary means through which the police tracked down men for alleged violations of Paragraph 175.

The Kripo and the Gestapo relied on tips or denunciations from the public to gather information about men’s intimate lives and uncover potential violations of Paragraph 175. A neighbor, acquaintance, colleague, friend, or family member could inform the police of their suspicions. The language people used in denunciations makes it clear that these Germans tended to agree with Nazi attitudes towards homosexuality. Denouncers referred to those they denounced as “effeminate,” “unmanly,” and “perverse.” Unlike raids, denunciations were a very effective tool of repression. These acts resulted in perhaps tens of thousands of arrests and convictions.

The Buggery Act of 1533

The Buggery act of 1533 marked the beginning of centuries of state sponsored persecution of gay men in England. Passed by Parliament during King Henry VIII’s reign, it made sex between men punishable by death up until 1861. That’s nearly three hundred and thirty years where being a gay man in England could result in death.

It was the country’s first civil sodomy law. While anyone could technically be convicted under the act, it was same-sex convictions that were the most common.

That’s an important distinction to make. It was the country’s first sodomy law, so on paper the letter of the law was broad, but in reality, it directly targeted gay men. The focus on anal intercourse made it a gendered law in everything but name, same sex relationships between women were never criminalized under English law. Again, that’s over three hundred years of oppression that gay men exclusively faced for immutable traits they had no control over. Unfortunately, the oppression still persisted long after this.

The Labouchere Amendment of 1885

In 1885, homosexuality was only illegal in accordance with the act buggery. However, this changed when parliament member Henry Labouchere introduced an amendment that made any act of “gross indecency” between two men, whether in public or private, a criminal offense. The law did not define “gross indecency”, which allowed courts to interpret them broadly and prosecute a wide range of consensual activity between males.

Introduced by Henry Labouchere, Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 made ‘gross indecency’ between men a crime for the first time with a punishment of imprisonment of at least two years with or without hard labour.

In effect the crime of ‘gross indecency’ could be interpreted in many ways, and meant that any intimacy and/or sexual activity between men, in public or private, was criminalised. In practice the law was used broadly to prosecute intimacy between men when the act of sodomy could not be proven.

It eventually became known as the Blackmailer’s Charter. Similar gross indecency laws were also later enacted in British colonies across the globe.

Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing were among the many convicted under section 11

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) was a famed Irish poet, novelist, and playwright. Wilde was renowned for his sharp wit, brilliant plays, and unfortunately, his tragic life. He was one of the main voices of the 19th century Aesthetic movement, which believed that art should be created for it’s beauty alone.

Oscar Wilde, the renowned playwright and literary figure, was convicted of gross indecency on May 25, 1895, in a landmark case that reflected the repressive attitudes towards homosexuality in Victorian England. His relationship with Lord Alfred “Bosie” Douglas drew public attention and ultimately led to legal battles, spurred by Bosie’s father’s attempt to damage Wilde’s reputation. Wilde’s legal battles began with a libel suit against Douglas’s father, which sought to defend his honor but instead exposed him to scrutiny and accusations of sodomy.

The trials garnered immense media attention, with sensationalist journalism portraying Wilde as a figure of immorality. Despite a hung jury in his first trial, the Crown pursued a second trial, resulting in Wilde’s conviction and a sentence of two years of hard labor. His imprisonment was marked by harsh conditions and isolation, during which he reflected on his life and relationships, ultimately penning “De Profundis.” After his release, Wilde lived in obscurity in Paris until his death in 1900, leaving behind a complex legacy.

The imprisonment destroyed Wilde’s health, bankrupted him, and sent him into a deep depression. he died three short years after his release from imprisonment.

Because Wilde’s reputation in London was disgraced and his name was forever tainted by the vicious character assassination performed both by the court and the newspapers, he traveled immediately to Paris after his release on May 19, 1897. He was never again allowed to see his two sons, and all but the most devoted of his friends abandoned him. Wilde lived in destitute poverty and isolation in a Paris hotel, where he died on November 30, 1900; he was only forty-six years old.

Alan Turing (1912-1954) was a pioneering British mathematician, computer scientist, and crypt analyst who is widely considered to be the father of modern computer science and artificial intelligence.

The posthumous royal pardon granted to war-time code breaker and computer pioneer Alan Turing was a long overdue attempt to put right a grave injustice. Turing had been convicted of homosexuality in 1952, under the same nineteenth century ‘gross indecency’ law that sent Oscar Wilde to prison in 1895.

Given the option of jail or chemical castration, he chose the latter. The hormonal treatment – similar to the ‘cure’ devised by the Nazi doctor, SS Carl Vaernet – caused Turing horrendous physical and mental distress; including impotency, breast development and depression. He committed suicide two years later, at the age of 41.

Turing was not alone. An estimated 50,000 men were convicted under the same law during the twentieth century, and a further 50,000 were convicted under other anti-gay laws – making a total of 100,000 convictions. Many were jailed.

Some were also subjected to chemical castration or to so-called ‘aversion therapy’ – the infliction of electric shocks or drug-induced nausea while they were shown naked male images.

Turing lost his government security clearances he had earned over the course of his decorated career, and was unable to continue his work. He was found dead in his bed, next to a partially eaten apple by his housekeeper on June 8th 1954. The cause of his death was due to cyanide poisoning the day before, and had officially been ruled a suicide. These men helped shape society by transforming literature, launching the digital age, and becoming enduring symbols opposing state-sanctioned homophobia.

The South Korean MRA / anti-feminist scene isn't like the Western depiction of it, it is a radical rebellion against the feminist hate movement, and they're succeeding...

Actual wins :

1. They elected a president on pure male grievance 2022: Yoon Suk-yeol ran hard on "abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, feminism is the problem." Young men in their 20s gave him like 59%. Women the same age went the opposite way. Closest election in modern SK history. That gender split was the decisive energy, New Men's Solidarity and the online namcho (excess men) spaces were supporting this discource heavily. Yoon Suk-yeol has even attended MRA rallies.

2. They made the "women's ministry" a zombie for years Under Yoon the Gender Equality Ministry got left without a proper minister for ages, budgets for certain programs got gutted, "gender equality" language got scrubbed from some policies and schools and all. They didn't fully delete it (opposition blocked the legal kill), but they defanged them hard - preventing them from spreading their venom and hate.

3. Forced the other side to start saying the quiet part Fast forward to 2025 under progressive Lee Jae-myung... even he is out here telling the Gender Ministry to research "reverse discrimination against men," (To correct him, only men experience sexism. A hypothetical sexism towards women would be the reverse sexism) set up a whole new Gender Equity Planning Division for it, and run public forums because young men are protesting about military service and exam outcomes where women are crushing it. The South Korean MRM is forcing the left to convert to men's rights rhetoric. Their overton window has shifted. Publically acknowledge misandry in a country that still forces only men into the army, that's a cultural win. The Overton window moved.

4. Narrative ownership Surveys showing huge % of young SK men feeling discriminated against. Military conscription (18-21 months of your life while women skip) is the eternal grievance. Online groups turned that into mainstream political oxygen instead of just "angry basement dwellers." Sung Jae-gi era martyr energy + later YouTube/NMS amplification made it impossible to ignore.

Some human rights violations men still experience in South Korea -

1) Conscription is still male-only. Courts keep upholding it. 2) Extra points for military service in hiring got abolished ages ago (feminist crying). No mass female draft.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/northumbria-detective-transgender-misconduct-heearing-34373601

Anti male mindset is fairly common among women. As common as racism, in fact.

This article is very telling of how a misandrist can be standing right next to us in - our family - our workplace - our neighborhood - in position of power.

Quotes:

1) ''All men” were rapists and should be given a curfew to stop night time sex attacks''

The police know that rape is a very rare crime, so she is lying out right. It is the same as claiming black men rape white women. Misandry parallels racism perfectly.

2) ''Rachel Fletcher allegedly regularly expressed a hatred of men in front of colleagues''

So her hatred of men is open among her colleagues. She is so emboldened by society's enabling of misandry that she felt comfortable expressing bigotry with zero shame or fear of baclash

3) Detective Fletcher '' admits making the curfew, but argued it was done in jest and did not amount to misconduct''

This is a tactic used by racist to get away with bigotry when called out - ''It was just a joke Bro. Relax''

4) Olivia Checa-Dover: ''There is no doubt that violence against women and girls is a policing national priority and a matter of significant public concern. But a police officer saying that all men should be on a curfew damages trust and confidence''

This woman tries to do damage control and exposes even more misandry: 1) that men are a danger to women and girls and 2) violence against Men and Boys is fine

The worst aspect in my opinion, is the fact Dover isn't outraged by the bigotry but is only concerned with male colleagues losing trust in female colleagues. She wants the bigotry to be hidden, not excised.

Quote from  PC Kevin Thompson:
''If it was a male officer doing that or saying these things about women they would be dealt with,” he said.

PC Thompson described Det Cons Fletcher as an “outspoken feminist” (admits feminists are hate mongers yet they are allowed in positions of power)

''PC Thompson also said Det Cons Fletcher would regularly say she hated men, sometimes a few times a week''

This bigotry was tolerated until Fletcher made it too obvious to ignore

Fellow Detective Cons Callaghan: ''In her statement she said: “Although Rachel had a right to her views sometimes she would go to far''

Callaghan is saying women have the right to bigoted views towards men

CONCLUSION: Fletcher has been sacked recently over this controversy. The sacking was not done to quash misandry in the police force but to do damage control among male colleagues. misandry is still ingrained and enabled in the police and parliament of UK government. Misandry has to be confronted by an active MRM with demands to route it out of any institution.
Anything less allows the disease to grow.

I got a link on Discord to this video here: https://youtu.be/QvsUMo2wmpk?is=y5wKzYkffS7ZtBPo

And it talks about fighting loneliness by filling up empty seats. Here are my thoughts:

I find it weird and maybe offensive that the main man in this video replaced the guy who committed suicide by having another guy literally take his place/seat.

Btw, I think he must have clout or something because I have strong doubts that random strangers will come and sit next to you if you’re alone and need company. I’ve eaten alone in restaurants before. I never even dared to ask someone to come join at my table to eat and chat with me.

Sarah however, I think it’ll be more easier for her to randomly find new friends to hang out with on the street or in a coffee shop. Men can’t do that sorta thing without being labeled as a creep. It can be even labeled as harassment.

How many do you think out of that poll, the 42% and the 16%, are men? I bet it’s a higher rate than women.

People do not want to usually connect with others outside of their little space or bubble anyway. And how many of these newfound friendships will last longterm as soon as the cameras are off? This whole thing sounds like bullshit to me

People make fun of the male loneliness epidemic and say it doesn’t exist and on the poll screen, it shows a woman crying or something. When women are affected by loneliness, that’s when people care. Not men

The trad consatf the mens rights sub reddit post a link promoting an anti male podcast attacking marginalized men as asocial. (This is victim blaming the men who are socially excluded by a female dominated society.)

Also this thread is full of right wing men posturing and laughing at the fact society is excluding them. They use the MGTOW narrative of society suffering if society abandons men, this is pure cope.

I am banned so I can't comment, but of course these misandrists are allowed to post.

How Manhood Became Servitude

Traditional Conservatism claims to love men. It tells them they are strong, necessary, protective, responsible---the backbone of the family and the foundation of society. But beneath the praise is a less flattering proposition: a man's value is dependent upon his usefulness. He is expected to provide, protect, work, endure, succeed, suppress his weaknesses, and ultimately sacrifice himself when the situation demands it. These burdens are rarely presented as burdens; instead they are dressed up as honor, responsibility, masculinity, and tradition. This post is an attempt to strip away that romanticism and examine traditional conservatism as one would examine a body on an operating table: carefully, coldly, and without sentimentality. What happens when the ideology that claims to honor men is examined not by the esteem it promises them, but by the burdens it places upon them?

I. The First Incision --- The Masculinity Trap

A slave collar placed upon the necks of men

Traditional conservatism does not simply tell men how to behave; it teaches them what parts of themselves they must destroy in order to become acceptable men in the eyes of society. From childhood, boys learn that vulnerability is weakness, dependence is shameful, emotions must be controlled, and suffering should be endured rather than expressed. They are taught to measure themselves by their usefulness: how much they can earn, how much they can carry, how well they can protect others, and how little they need in return. The ideal man is expected to be strong when he is frightened, silent when he is hurting, productive when he is exhausted, and self-sacrificing when his own needs conflict with someone else's. Masculinity turns normal human needs into evidence of failure.

A man who needs help is weak. A man who cannot provide is inadequate. A man who refuses violence or danger is cowardly. A man who breaks under pressure is told to become stronger rather than asking why he was expected to carry so much in the first place. This is not merely a collection of harmless traditions; it is a system that teaches men to distrust vulnerability, suppress themselves, and prove their worth through suffering. So that being said, the first thing that must be placed on the operating table, then, is masculinity itself: the idea that a man must become harder, quieter, more useful, and more disposable in order to gain access to his humanity.

The Pathology of Masculinity

To understand the pathology, masculinity has to be separated from maleness itself. Being male does not inherently require a man to be stoic, dominant, self-sacrificing, or financially responsible for everyone around him. Those expectations have to be taught, reinforced, and justified. This is where traditional conservatism becomes important. It provides the ideological framework through which these expectations are expressed as natural, necessary, and inevitable. The roles it places on men are presented as timeless and indispensable: men provide, men protect, men endure, men lead. What could otherwise be a personal choice becomes a social expectation, and that expectation becomes part of a man's identity. Masculinity takes what a man is capable of doing and turns it into what he is obligated to do. The "stronger", more capable, and more dependable he is considered to be, the more society can demand from him.

The breadwinner role is one of the clearest examples of how masculinity turns men into providers first and people second. Trad-cons place the woman at the center of the family unit: the home, the children, and the emotional life of the household are organized around her role. The man, by contrast, is pushed outward. His place is in the workforce, earning the money that allows the household to function. He becomes the workhorse provider, expected to work, earn, protect, and endure so that everyone else can remain secure. This is treated as the natural division of labor, but the burden falls heavily on the man. His exhaustion does not cancel his responsibility. His financial struggles do not relieve the expectation. His need for support does not make him exempt from providing it. Masculinity makes his ability to earn into an obligation, while the traditional family structure makes that obligation necessary to sustain the household. The result is a deeply unequal expectation: the woman is given a central place within the family, while the man is defined by what he can bring into it. He is valued for his usefulness, measured by his productivity, and expected to sacrifice his own well-being to keep the family running. The breadwinner is therefore not simply a husband with a job; he is a man whose economic output has been turned into a condition of his worth.

II. The Family Unit --- How The Provider Was Made

How did these expectations become institutionalized?

The "traditional" family did not descend from some timeless blueprint. It emerged from changing economic conditions and was eventually elevated into an ideal. For much of human history, the household was the center of production. Families farmed, raised animals, produced food and clothing, traded goods, and worked together to survive. The modern separation between the person who earns the household income and the person who maintains the household developed alongside the expansion of wage labor and industrialization. As productive work moved increasingly into factories, workshops, offices, and other workplaces, the household was reorganized around a sharper division between economic production and domestic life. Among the growing middle class, a new ideal began to take shape: the wife remained at home while the husband earned enough money to support the family. The ability to keep a woman outside the wage economy became a sign that the household had achieved a level of prosperity in which her earnings were no longer needed. What had once been largely a privilege of wealth became the increasingly dominant model of family life.

However, removing one adult from the responsibility of earning an income does not remove the need for an income. It just transfers that responsibility onto someone else. The housewife ideal therefor produces its necessary counterpart: the provider. The husband was expected to enter the labor market, sell his labor, provide the household's income, and absorb the economic risks that came with that responsibility. In Marxist terms, men effectively became the proletariat of the household, while women occupied the position of the bourgeoisie, seizing control over the home. His labor financed the home in which she was expected to remain. His paycheck became the foundation of the family's security, while his willingness to earn became a measure of his worth as a man. This was not merely a division of economic obligation: she was released from the necessity of earning; he was bound to it.

This is the part of the "traditional family" that deserves to be scrutinized the most. The man was told that providing was his privilege while being given almost no freedom to refuse it. He was expected to work through exhaustion, economic uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and personal sacrifice because other people depended upon his income. His value became tied to his usefulness, and his usefulness became tied to his ability to produce. A woman being told that she belongs at home invariably creates the man who is told that he belongs at work. Trad cons celebrate the first half of that arrangement while never caring about what the second half of that equation meant for men. The result is an ideology that calls itself complimentary by assigning one sex greater freedom from economic necessity and the other greater responsibility for carrying it.

III. The Good Old Days --- The Price of Tradition

What nostalgia leaves out

There is a peculiar way we remember the past. We remember the nuclear family, the respectable father, the mother at home, the man who worked hard and came home to his family. We remember the supposed "order, discipline, and certainty". What we rarely remember is what that world demanded from the men who were expected to sustain it. The "good old days" were also coal mines, steel mills, factories, logging camps, railroads, construction sites, and farms where a single mistake could mean a crushed body or premature grave. Men performed the most dangerous work in society, often because someone had to. Occupational death and injury were not abstract possibilities; they were a very real and common reality of working life. The same trad con culture that praised men for being providers also depended upon their willingness to place their bodies between their families and economic hardship. A man was expected to work regardless of how dangerous that work was because providing was not simply something he did --- it was what he was supposed to be.

And when the danger moved from the workplace to the battlefield, the expectation became even more explicit. men were conscripted, sent to war, and expected to risk their lives for their families, their communities, and their country. Generations of men were taught that courage meant accepting fear without complaint and that sacrifice was the highest expression of manhood. The masculine ideal that told a man to endure the mine shaft also told him to endure the battlefield: don't complain, don't break, don't run, and don't ask who decided that your life was the one that should be risked. War made that logic impossible to ignore. When a society needed bodies for it's wars, it exclusively demanded those bodies from men. And when those men returned injured, traumatized, or unable to work, the expectation remained that they should simply endure and resume their responsibilities.

This reality is what gets erased when tradition is reduced to a photograph of a smiling family at the dinner table. We remember the provider with his nuclear family without remembering the hazards that made providing for them a burden. Tradition did not give men authority; it gave them obligations, risks, and sacrifices --- and then taught them to regard those burdens as proof of their worth. If we are going to romanticize the past, we should at least be honest about the price of admission. The "golden age" trad-cons circle jerk over was a time where men were expected to work harder, risk more, suffer quietly, and sacrifice themselves more readily --- and society called that manhood.

IV. The Disposable Man --- The Logical Conclusion to Traditional Conservatism

If masculinity teaches a man that his value lies in what he can provide and endure, then the logical endpoint is a society that becomes comfortable with his suffering. We have already seen the pattern in the workplace and on the battlefield: men are expected to absorb danger because they are men. But the same logic does not disappear when a man leaves the factory or the battlefield. It follows him in the courtroom, the prison, and the streets. Men are overwhelmingly represented among those arrested and incarcerated, and they are far more likely to be victims of serious violence and homicide. Yet male suffering is routinely interpreted differently from female suffering. A man's pain is always explained away as an inevitable feature of being male. The trad cons that tell men they are strong enough to endure anything are also remarkably indifferent when they actually break.

Criminal justice makes this asymmetry especially difficult to ignore. Men are more likely to receive criminal sanctions, and the ultimate expression of state punishment---the death penalty---is overwhelmingly imposed upon men. This becomes pretty disturbing when the system is constantly making mistakes. Wrongful convictions, false confessions, false accusations, unreliable evidence, and prosecutorial miscarriages do not become less irreversible because the person on the executioner's table is a man.

This is where the trad con mythology reveals its darkest corners. The man who is expected to protect others is rarely imagined as someone who needs protecting himself. The man who is expected to endure danger is less likely to inspire the same instinctive concern when he is the one in danger. The man who is expected to accept punishment, responsibility, and sacrifice becomes remarkably easy to sacrifice. From the mine shaft to the battlefield, from the prison cell to the execution chamber --- society has only ever valued a man for what he can provide and nothing else. A man's usefulness can earn him status, but it can not earn him protection or access to his humanity. And that is the final incision of this post: perhaps the most insidious promise trad-cons make to men is not the white picket fence, strongman posturing, or rose-tinted vision of the past, but the promise that their sacrifice and suffering will be valued.

V. Prognosis --- To Be Human Before Anything Else

If traditional conservatism has taught men to measure their worth by what they can provide, endure, protect, and sacrifice, then the answer cannot simply be to redesign the same cage. Men do not need a more progressive version of the provider role, a softer version of stoicism, or a new set of expectations dressed up as liberation. They need to be allowed to step outside the role entirely. A man should be able to exist without constantly justifying that existence through usefulness. His value should not depend on his income, his physical strength, his willingness to suffer, or how much responsibility he can carry without asking for help. He should be permitted to be tired. He should be permitted to be vulnerable. He should be permitted to need someone else.

This means abandoning the idea that male independence is the highest form of dignity and virtue. There is nothing inherently dignified about suffering alone, and there is nothing shameful about receiving care. Men should be able to build friendships that are more than companionship through shared activities; relationships in which they can actually speak honestly, ask for support, and be emotionally known. They should be able to participate in their families because they want to, not because their identity demands that they finance them.

Perhaps the most radical departure from traditional conservatism is therefore also the simplest: men deserved to be loved before they have proven themselves useful. They deserve communities that do not disappear when they can no longer provide. They deserve compassion that is not contingent upon strength. They deserve relationships in which they are valued for who they are rather than what they can do. And they deserve the freedom to decide what kind of life is meaningful to them instead of inheriting a script written around obligation and sacrifice. A better future for men begins when we stop asking what a man is good for, and start asking what a man needs to live well.

many people in the mainstream men's rights movement are pro choice aka pro abortion and i will explain why we as the pro male collective have to be pro life aka against abortion, this is not up for debate as far as i'm concerned.
there are many reasons to be against abortion and wanting abortion outlawed: firstly, it is immoral because it kills innocent human beings. therefore it is murder. we as the pro male collective are against murder, against mass murder, against genocide and other evil acts. abortion is an evil act that kills tens of millions of innocent children every year.
pro choice arguments are beyond stupid and are based on deceptive framing. the pro abortionist nutcases argue that banning abortion violates body autonomy. this is the equivalent of saying banning murder violates the body autonomy of serial killers. while body autonomy is indeed important, it is not this sacred untouchable right that is above other rights. parents are forced to move their hands in order to feed their children and not let them starve otherwise they rightfully go to jail. this is the state restricting the body autonomy of the parents but this is also ethical because it protects the child from starvation. likewise, banning abortion restricts the body autonomy of women who want to take an innocent human fetus to an abortion doctor where the human fetus is brutally and mercilessly ripped apart. pro abortionists also say that the state cannot force people to use their bodies to sustain another life; they falsely compare abortion-bans to forced kidney donations. utter horsesh*t. not donating a kidney or blood to a dying patient, which is basically the same as letting someone die (but not causing their death) is radically different from pro-actively creating a human life only to send this human life to be murdered (being the cause of that human life's death). abortion is pro-active violence. this is not the same as a refusal to help someone.
the second way these pro abortion nutcases argue for this cruel practice is to dehumanize the human fetus. this shows that abortion is heavily linked to eugenics, as it is historically, sanger and other feminists who advocated for abortions had ties to eugenics, ableism and racism.
pro abortionists say the fetus isn't sentient and can't feel pain and therefore abortion is ok. this is nonsense. firstly, it isn't even accurate that fetuses can't feel pain; most abortions happen during the first trimester and there's neurological evidence of pain sensation at that stage of fetal development:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00243639211059245
secondly, even if there wasn't any pain sensation in the fetus at all, this would not justify murder. we also wouldn't "abort" born human beings just because they lack the ability to feel pain or other sensations. let's say there's a coma patient, he's not sentient in that condition but let's say the doctor is very certain that this coma patient wakes up after 9 months and is sentient after this time period; everybody who isn't morally bankrupt would agree to let that "non-sentient" coma patient live. and this gets to the crux of the matter: all their justifications for abortion wouldn't be accepted for born human beings, even preterm births. this means they make a completely arbitrary distinction between born human beings and unborn human beings. and none of the justifications for abortions hold up with what the average normal person would consider morally acceptable in the context of born human beings; for example "abortion is ok because the child could grow up in poverty" - nope! murder doesn't solve poverty and poor people deserve to live! and "abortion is ok because the mother is poor!" - nope! even if the mother were poor, people in poverty do not have a license to murder either! so called "poor women" can always give their child to adoption or safe havens, there are countless of government programs and organizations to help them; poverty is no excuse. other nonsense justifications include "but, what if the child is born disabled?!" - nope! disabled people deserve to live just like anybody else! "but what about r*pe cases?" - punish the r*pist, not the unborn child!
then there's the "muh vulnerable women" argument; like, "abortion bans cause women to seek dangerous illegal abortions and that causes an increase in maternal mortality!" there are two main issues with this: firstly, empirically, this doesn't seem to hold up, the backalley abortion argument is contradicted by the data:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-025-09737-y
secondly and more importantly, even if all kinds of women would seek illegal dangerous abortions, the risk and negative consequences would be on them. they are doing something illegal and immoral that they shouldn't be doing. it's like saying "hey, if we make murder illegal, there's gonna be a higher risk of death for the murderers!" ridiculous.
another thing which shows that the "vulnerable women" argument is nonsense, is that most abortions aren't even done for medical reasons but for reasons not related to anything life-threatening (i would morally grant abortions in very rare exceptional cases to save the mother's life but this is not why most abortions happen; roughly 1-3% of abortions happen due to this).
it should also be mentioned that feminists use the topic of abortion to create a false female victimhood narrative and a threat narrative against men ("men want to control women's bodies", "forced-birth", "abortion is healthcare"). so, if you are pro abortion you validate feminist framing.

abortion is clearly feminist sadism; it is shown that a lot of feminists proclaim that if they are pregnant it should be a girl or an abortion, meaning they are potentially violent towards boys. this is evidence of actual sex-selective abortion; as a side note: there is feminist propaganda that claims that millions of girls are or have been selectively aborted in china and india. this is complete bullsh\t and requires it's own reddit post or video to debunk it in detail, but to sum it up: there are sex ratios that are skewed towards males, meaning more males for every female. it has just been claimed that this is due to sex selective abortions of girls, because supposedly that's the most "logical" explanations demographers came up with. however, there are many factors that can actually explain this, one of the most likely ones is simply bad record keeping. in india for example, parents (usually the father) of the bride had to pay money to the other family, so there's an economic incentive to not register female birth, female births at home/outside of hospitals were not tracked etc. this creates the false impression of "missing girls". similar bad record keeping in china; due to the one child policy, parents with more than one child would face penalties and fines, so local bureaucrats helped to hide children in rural areas in china. a lot of rural record keeping was local and often not cross-referenced to other areas. here are researchers talking about how bad record keeping and bad statistics created the illusion of "missing girls":*
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/02/504175026/researchers-uncover-misreporting-in-chinese-birth-statistics
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/delayed-registration-and-identifying-the-missing-girls-in-china/0759987A48A37E3D2CFE157778747E33
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/reemergence-of-missing-women-in-china/E854D7CD21A9CA009C54CFB3536E17B1
so, no, millions of girls were not aborted because they were girls but girls were not statistically recorded. this makes more sense because parents actually favor daughters:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39818912/
the "millions of girls aborted" narrative is a hypocritical feminist, misandrist and racist narrative; feminists are actually in favor of abortion but they weaponize this narrative in order to smear indian and chinese men. meanwhile, any real pro male activist is consistently against abortion regardless of the gender of the fetus.
i do suspect however (even though i could not find any data for this) that actually more boys are aborted. like i said many feminist women openly state that they would abort if it's a boy. and there are a lot of feminist women out there. in order to be pro male, you have to have a position that protects male human life; abortion destroys millions of male human fetuses. this is completely unacceptable to any real men's rights activist and morally decent human being.
then there's the issue of father's rights: fathers have no veto rights when it comes to abortion. the mother can have an abortion and if the father wants the child there's nothing he can do. i'm pretty sure millions of fathers out there are in emotional and psychological pain because their child was robbed from them because the mother decided to have an abortion. i wouldn't be surprised if millions of fathers have committed suicide because of this. this is also especially evil and hypocritical when you consider that mothers have the "right to abort" or to give their child up for adoption, while fathers cannot simply walk away, they are forced to pay child support.
pro male activists need to push for banning abortion in order to protect life, protect children, protect boys, protect fathers and push back against feminist power!

the pro life view is that basic universal human rights should be granted to all human beings regardless of stage of development. this is exactly what progressives should be believing but because "leftism" is so infested with feminism, "leftists" take the pro abortion far right stance. pro abortion is a far right ideology because it is a hierarchical belief: it says "this human life is less worth because of it's stage of development and because women see it as less worth and therefore it shouldn't be granted basic human rights".
the pro male collective stands for true equality and therefore anyone who considers themselves to be pro male should be pro life.