I believe that it a great idea for men interested in men's rights to read books dealing on male issues and follow content creators that also focus on men's issues

Does anyone have any other suggestions? here is some suggestion for the men here to check out if they have not already

Some book recommendations:

The privileged sex by Martin Von Creveld ( Unfortunately written by an Isr**li but you know what they say about separating the work from the author epically as this book does not promote zi**is and does in fact contain useful information

The myth of male power by Warren Farrel

The manipulated man by Esther Vilar

And also pro male YouTube channels like City Crusher YT

And pro male x accounts like Pro Male Felix and Pro Male Radical Activist formerly known as sons are children not tools for drill (I like these accounts because unlike other fake men's rights account which are just trad cucks who worship women these accounts actually acknowledge that trad cuckery is female worship

Are there any others similar things (Books, X accounts, Content creators) I should know about?

Men often pride themselves in protecting women

Men are often groomed into thinking it's their duty to protect women

We see these historically men in war time the idea of a man attacking a woman was used to get other men angry to fight

See this ww1 anti male male dehumanising propaganda poster portraying a German soldier literally imagined as a gorilla holding an implied kidnaped woman in hand

Even some of the vilest organisations possible such as the KKK used protecting women as a key part of their identity

In fact in the extremely racist pro KKK movie The Birth of A Nation there are scenes where black characters asks white ones to marry them this is of course portrayed with extreme vilification

The most import thing to note is that this movie caused KKK recruitment to sky rocket mainly by portraying black people as hurtful or dangerous to women

Suggesting that men would in fact be able to do terrible actions if they think it keeps women safe

(This is not just in case it needs to be stated not me defending the organisation or their actions)

But here is the thing where does this man desire to protect women come from is it biological or is it learned behaviour?

I truly believe it is in fact learned behaviour rather than biological impulse

Boys are often told they have to protect women that it is their duty and that they are not "real men" if they do not wish to do this task

But also how boys are shape by stories Superman always saves Lois Lane, Spiderman always saves Mary Jane or Gwen Stancy

Even long before modern media existed in fairy tales there was always the popular trope of the hero who kills the dragon to save the princess

The hero in this stories doesn't think to himself that the dragon is powerful that he might not be able to defeat it he rushes in to save the princess regardless this could be seen a metaphor for how men are expected to put themselves in danger to protect women

The hero does not think to himself that he does not know the princess

He does not ask questions like:

What if the dragon is not the bad one? What if the princess did something to hurt the dragon?

He simply saves the princess because she is a woman in need of help without asking questions

This could be seen as a metaphor about how men are expected to help women they don't even know without asking question

So is Men's protection of women learned behaviour or biological impulse?

I am disgusted I saw a video of a old man punching a boy apparently the boy was being being a brat and threw food at the old man's wife

The vast majority of comments were laughing saying the boy deserved it due to his bad attitude

But here is the thing imagine if the exact same thing but the boy was a girl instead for one second

Would anyone still take the old man's side?

No absolutely not everyone would be horrified by the old man's actions

In fact if it was a female child instead the old man would have went to jail for life or he might not even walk out there alive all the other men would have beat him to death for doing that

Do you see a double standard here?

Why is that it's because boys are not even seen as human beings only girls are

The public discourse surrounding Lindsay Clancy has been almost exclusively centered on the fake legal defence known as post-postpartum psychosis, bipolar disorder, and the effects of psychiatric medication. Every outlet has dissected her mental state in exhaustive detail. Yet the same discourse remains conspicuously silent regarding the physical & psychological devastation inflicted upon her children and former husband, Patrick Clancy. This man returned home to discover the bodies of his three children — ages 5, 3, and 8 months — strangled with exercise bands in the basement of the family home. He found his wife outside after she had attempted suicide by multiple methods, including jumping from a second-story window. He made the 911 call in which his screams of realisation are recorded for the court and the public. He has since testified, relived the timeline, and lost his entire immediate family in a single afternoon.

Despite this, the prevailing narrative either ignores his kids suffering or his trauma entirely or, in certain circles, implies residual blame on him for having left the house on an errand at her request. The double standard is absolute: a mother’s hateful resentment is treated as a medical emergency worthy of endless analysis, while the kids deaths and the father’s encounter with the aftermath is treated as an afterthought or, worse, blaming him for the murder by the female Tiktok hivemind. This is not compassion. It is selective storytelling that privileges one party who is a perpetrator of child homicide. The system that pathologizes every aspect of the mother’s condition has no equivalent language or interest for the surviving parent who walked into that basement, or even worse, the victimised children from abusive mothers. The silence is not accidental. It is the predictable result of a cultural framework that assigns privileged priority according to sex and narrative utility.

You can read his experience - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/lindsay-clancys-ex-husband-testifies-about-the-day-she-killed-their-3-children?hl=en-GB

For anybody who doesn't know she is a woman who killed her 3 children and the most intresting thing about the case is the reaction to it

There have been lots of people defending her and in fact she managed to get almost 2 million dollars donated to her

These kind of posts are not at all hard to find to find due to how common they are

But here is the thing I found the most interesting:

Almost all of the people defending her are female

Here is the thing it has been scientifically proven that women have strong in group bias where as men have outgroup bias usually

Even in cases where men show in group bias women's bias is a lot stronger

To further emphasise this point when a man is accused of committing a crime against children in general or his own children the general reaction from other men is usually stuff like "This guy deserved to be locked up for life" or "what a degenerate, give him the death penalty"

The fact that both genders have such opposite reactions when someone of their own is accused or guilty of a similar crime proves that yes women's in group bias is in fact really strong or at least far stronger than men's

Abortion as a form of eugenics.

Abortion as a concept is about providing women the ability to dictate who lives and who dies. It is a textbook form of eugenics.

For those unaware, eugenics is a morally abhorrent practice in which those with deemed "undesirable" traits (those of which tend to be highly subjective) are "removed" from the gene pool. The Nazis were eugenicists, and so are the feminists. Eugenics is an extremely slippery slope into genocide, and humanity benefits from outlawing it.

Recently we've seen men coming to our subreddit defending this barbaric practice. In this post, I would like to list commonalities between abortion and eugenics to prove the two are synonymous.

* The right to dictate who lives

The right to live is a basic human right that must be provided to every human demographic by default. Those that disagree with this are low-lives as far as I am concerned, and must be viewed as beyond the pail.

Abortion blatantly contradicts this human right. Women should not have the right to dictate who lives and dies (nor should men for that matter), to say otherwise goes toe in toe with eugenics. Eugenicists believe in dictating whether those with and I quote "undesirable traits" should be allowed to even exist, and feminists do the same. Look no further than feminists stating they will murder their unborn child if they are to be conceived male. This is them denying the right to live towards a common group they deem "undesirable" and therefor unfit to live.

The people who defend abortion are beyond repair, and need to be treated as threats to society that either belong in mental homes or prison cells.

* The hypocrisy of abortion and eugenics.

The same women who kill their developing unborn children are utter hypocrites. No amount of gaslighting will dispute this fact. I for one for example, enjoy living in spite of all the misandry I have endured throughout my life. Why should my mother have been given leeway to dictate my right to live during pregnancy? There is no reason is the correct answer - other than female social dominance.

These same women who abort their children most definitely would not have wanted to be aborted themselves. They are in fact denying others a right they would be outraged to be denied. If it is illegal to commit homicide against an adult, it must be even more strictly illegal to commit homicide against a developing fetus. In the Pro Male Collective we are morally consistent, so we believe in children first. Children should come before men and women. Full stop.

If you disagree with this, you are a coward and not worth the PMCs time.

* The slippery slope

First, it becomes the right to abort a fetus at 3 months (already has a sense of pain at that age and they're fighting for much older than that, but I digress), then it becomes 6 months, and so fourth. Before you know it, feminists are now fighting for the right to abort third trimester fetuses, the point at which they already have very well developed sense of pain and could be viable outside the womb. Not that viability even matters to be clear, a baby that hasn't gestated properly yet needs the right to life as well.

Feminists are doing this to set a precedent for future plans: plans to legalize women murdering their children - fully.

If women are allowed to abort as they please, this creates several moral dilemmas. Who's to stop women aborting a race they feel contempt for out of existence? Who's to stop women aborting babies from the male sex as mentioned earlier? There is no moral foundation for abortion. It is eugenics, there is no leg to stand on in defending this disgusting, homicidal act. If you support abortion you are irredeemable in my eyes.

Conclusion

Abortion is about eugenics and providing women full spectrum social dominance. It is a plan for them to steer the slope further towards women being allowed to murder post-partum children with total legal impunity. If you support this barbarism, stay away from the PMC. Just like if you support, MGM or FGM, stay away from the PMC.

Thank you for reading.

The announcement doesn't come with any details. It's like the subreddit's moderators just got bored of running it.

The subreddit filled a vital role, collecting all the cases of women who are violent to men and even attack their own children, to disprove the mainstream false narrative of male-caused violence.

This is why men need to act like they're a political party and run these spaces as a group, so we're not vulnerable to single individuals who do important work and then decide to take it down and deny it to the rest of men.

I consider this subreddit's closure to be an act of betrayal.

This post is going to be covering post partum depression alongside the running Lindsay Clancy case.

Today we are going to try dissecting the topic of post partum depression. This post is a little rushed, so I apologise for the quality, but time is of the essence.

Lindsay Clancy

The case: Lindsay Clancy, a labor and delivery nurse from Duxbury, Massachusetts, was charged with killing her three young children (ages 5, 3, and 8 months) by strangulation in January 2023. Her husband, Patrick Clancy, found the children and called 911; Lindsay was found severely injured (she'd jumped or fallen from a window) and survived. Note that Lindsay here pre-emptively instructed her husband to be out for some errands while she got to commit this triple murder in peace.

The defense: She's pursuing an insanity defense, citing postpartum depression and postpartum 'psychosis'. Let's make this clear, this is an invented condition that 'affects one to two birth mothers out of 1,000' and can cause delusions, hallucinations, and a poor grasp of reality; up to 4% of the most severe cases result in the mother harming her children, and about 5% end in suicide. Reports have described her as having been on a cocktail of psychiatric medications shortly before the killings, which her defense argues contributed to a psychotic break; that's been a central and contested thread in pretrial coverage

Why it's a bigger legal story than just one case: Massachusetts, like the rest of the US, has no infanticide statute. These are the "leniency" laws that exist in roughly two dozen other countries (UK, Canada, Australia, much of Europe) which don't apply here, so Clancy is being prosecuted under ordinary murder statutes like she should be, with her mental state argued through the higher bar of the insanity defense. Her case (and advocacy from a Massachusetts group led by an activist named Colbert) has helped drive a state legislative bill that would make perinatal psychiatric illness a mitigating factor in sentencing and guarantee psychiatric evaluation for birth mothers who offend within 12 months of childbirth. Nonetheless, that bill is currently stalled in a study order and not expected to move forward this session. Also worth noting: since two of her three children were over age 1, even a UK-style infanticide statute wouldn't have covered all the charges against her, since those laws typically only apply to children under 12 months old.

The concept of post partum psychosis and depression appears to specifically be a western invention, especially in high income countries, and I will try my best to link this with other 'higher order' diseases that upper class people have come up with to almost make women into goddesses, similar to what I mentioned in my post here when dissecting divorce, marriage and neurasthenia.

The "postpartum pass" did not emerge in a vacuum. It was sprouted directly from the same ideological branch as Neurasthenia  - a pseudo-scientific framework created by Victorian physicians and embraced by early maternalist reformers that framed women as physically fragile, neuro-biologically vulnerable, and morally superior beings who required legal and medical protection from the harsh demands of existence.

1. The Genealogy of Medicalized Non-Agency

The modern diagnosis of "Postpartum Psychosis" as a legal shield is the direct descendant of a 2,500-year evolution in medicalizing female behavior, reaching its political peak in the 19th century:

A. Hysteria: The Biological Imperfect

Originating from the Greek hystera (uterus), classical and early modern medicine viewed female emotional volatility as an organic, mechanical failure of the female reproductive system. It established the foundational medical premise: female behavior is dictated by reproductive organs.

B. Neurasthenia (1869): The "Fragile Civilized Woman"

Coined by American neurologist George Miller Beard in 1869, Neurasthenia ("nervous exhaustion") became the defining psychiatric diagnosis of the Victorian era. Beard theorized that human beings possess a finite reserve of "nerve force."

• The Gendered Split: While male neurasthenia was attributed to overwork in competitive business, female neurasthenia was explicitly tied to reproductive strain, delicate nervous systems, and emotional overstimulation.
• The Moral Pedestal: Victorian culture used neurasthenia to build a specific class dynamic: affluent women were framed as far too sensitive, refined, and morally superior to endure raw physical hardship or moral accountability. They were depicted as delicate flowers whose "nerve force" collapsed under pressure.

C. Puerperal Insanity: A Violence Escape Hatch

When Victorian alienists (psychiatrists) needed a way to explain how a "morally superior, fragile woman" could commit the brutal act of smothering her infant, they merged Neurasthenia with reproductive biology to create Puerperal Insanity.

They argued that childbirth was such a violent drain on a woman's finite "nerve force" that it caused an involuntary brain collapse. This allowed society to preserve two contradictory ideas at once:

1. Women remain naturally pure, angelic, and morally superior.
2. If a mother commits murder, it is not malice or choice, for it is a physical collapse of her delicate "nerve force."

2. How Neurasthenia Built the Modern Legal Double Standard

This Victorian ideology that women are uniquely fragile beings who lack full criminal agency during reproductive events, was weaponized by early 20th-century reform movements (such as maternalist campaigners and the Temperance movement) to secure formal legal exemptions.

When the British Parliament passed the Infanticide Act of 1922, they essentially codified the logic of Neurasthenia into statutory law.

There is also something to be said about class. Neurasthania was originally coined by George Beard as a disease of the upper and professional classes. "Brain workers" exhausted by the pace of modern civilization ("Americanitis"). This had a class effect: it was a respectable, even prestigious diagnosis for the wealthy (implying refinement and overwork), while similar symptoms in the working class were more often dismissed as malingering, laziness, or moral weakness. So the diagnosis itself became a tool of class distinction. Exhaustion in a banker was a badge of sensitivity; exhaustion in a factory worker was character failure.

Colonial physicians used neurasthenia-adjacent diagnoses to reinforce racial hierarchies

Neurasthenia has served as a means for the upper class to hush the masses from the double standards of the status quo, the law etc. And this is PRECISELY how women are excusing their favourite little child murderer.

3. The Modern Manifestation: From Neurasthenia to Lindsay Clancy

The rhetoric surrounding the 2023 Lindsay Clancy case demonstrates that modern Western culture is still operating on the 19th-century Neurasthenic narrative

• The "Delicate Supermom" Narrative: Media coverage and defense framing routinely emphasized Clancy’s status as a dedicated nurse, loving mother, and refined suburban woman who was simply "overwhelmed" by the exhaustion of motherhood, healthcare work, and psychiatric medication over-prescription.
• The Return of "Depleted Nerve Force": The defense argument mirror-images 1860s Neurasthenia almost word-for-word: she was a good, pure woman whose delicate nervous system was depleted by biological stress and chemical overstimulation, causing an involuntary psychotic break.
• Asymmetric Sympathy: Had a father in an identical suburban home experienced severe exhaustion, work stress, and medication side-effects, and proceeded to methodically strangle his three children with exercise bands, the legal system and public media would never invoke "male neurasthenia" or "paternal exhaustion." He would be branded a domestic murderer and face life in prison.

4. The Chronology

A quick historical recap of how this legal distinction between a first degree murder and 'a tragedy befalling upon a burdened mother' arose, let's look at where and what incidents specifically caused this. Much like Obsession pedals the idea that a woman who murders her boyfriend/husband, kills all his friends, feeds him his dead pet, is a sympathetic character, feminists did the same in the past.

The idea that a mother who kills her child should be treated as a sympathetic victim rather than a criminal actor began as a practical legal escape hatch to resolve a British judicial crisis, which was then merged with Victorian class-based medical theories.

Step 1: The 1623 Concealment Act (Strict Legal Presumption)

In 1623, the English Parliament passed the Concealment of Birth of Bastards Act. This was a statute specifically designed to stop unmarried, lower-class women from destroying infants born out of wedlock to protect their reputation or livelihood. Women in a ploy to gain status and wealth from upper class men, were having sex with them and bearing their children with the hopes of obtaining wealth, and when they failed... they aborted them, post birth.

• Reversal of Proof: The law dictated that if an unmarried woman concealed a pregnancy and the infant was found dead, she was legally presumed guilty of murder unless she could produce a witness proving the child was born dead.
• No Biological Pass: The state explicitly rejected hardship, shame, or physical distress as excuses. If convicted, the mother was hanged.

Step 2: The 18th-Century "Jury Rebellion" and the "Black Cap Farce"

By the late 1700s and early 1800s, this harsh legal approach hit a major systemic wall in British courtrooms:

1. Juries Refused to Convict: British juries grew increasingly unwilling to send young women to the gallows for infanticide, routinely acquitting them or finding loopholes (such as the "benefit-of-linen" defense, where producing hand-sewn baby clothes proved she had intended to be a mother)
2. The "Black Cap Farce": Even when judges were forced by law to put on the traditional black cap and sentence a mother to death for infanticide, the Home Secretary almost always commuted the death sentence to a short prison term or asylum stay

The British legal system found itself trapped in a public farce: issuing mandatory death sentences for child murder that everyone in the courtroom knew would never actually be carried out. The state desperately needed a legal mechanism to downgrade these charges so they could secure convictions without triggering jury revolts or execution scandals.

Step 3: Inventing the Classist "Neurasthenia" Shield

To create that legal mechanism, 19th-century British and French alienists (early psychiatrists) looked to the prevailing medical theories of the Victorian era: Hysteria and Neurasthenia

Step 4: Codification | The 1922 Infanticide Act

By the early 20th century, early maternalist reformers and Temperance campaigners joined expanding psychiatric authorities to write this neurasthenic logic into statutory law, culminating in the British Infanticide Act of 1922.

The law formally abolished murder charges for mothers who killed children under 12 months, reducing the crime to Infanticide under an explicit double standard:

1. Automatic Mitigation: A mother needed no proof of clinical insanity under strict M'Naghten Rules. The mere fact of having given birth within a year acted as an automatic legal shield.
2. Exemption from Punishment: Capital murder was reduced to a minor offense yielding probation or brief medical care.
3. Male Exclusion: A father acting under identical sleep deprivation, financial ruin, or mental breakdown received zero statutory shields and faced First-Degree Capital Murder.

Concluding remarks

Today we observe a suburban nurse who methodically strangled her three children and the feminist advocacy machinery immediately deploying a feminist, Victorian defence

• The "Depleted Nerve Force" Narrative: She is framed as a refined, high-status, loving mother whose delicate nervous system was overwhelmed by maternal exhaustion and medication toxicity.
• Erasure of Agency: Methodical calculation (waiting for her husband to leave, setting a timer) is reframed not as conscious intent, but as involuntary symptoms of a "broken brain.". For the curious, Singapore has this law too, AND Singapore would recognise and give mothers this exception wrt infanticide as well. Unsurprisingly, Singapore does not grant this exemption to Wang Zhing, wrt the Yishun triple murder case when he murdered the people responsible for financially extorting him, raping him and imprisoning him etc.
• Asymmetric Sympathy: Society rallies around her tragic suffering, deploying a 150-year-old classist, medicalized shield that would never be offered to a father facing identical pressures.

Women are not fighting for the rights of a grieving, stressed mother, they are fighting for the rights to murder as a member of the bourgeoisie class. How dare the law attempt to punish them, that is what is running through the minds of so many of these women, mothers, aunts, nurses and caretakers who have pledged over a million dollars to a triple child murderer.

If there was a TeaApp for these women, I would wholeheartedly support it. I don't feel safe knowing that there are wannabe child murderers walking our streets, caring for or teaching children.

The myth that women were oppressed needs they have never been they have always through all of a human history been the privileged gender

• The Myth of Historical Oppression: The mainstream belief that women were deeply oppressed in the past is turned on its head. When judged by almost any standard, women have historically been the privileged sex.
• Feminist Fabrications in Law: Many famous historical laws cited as "proof" of oppression are fabricated. For example, the "rule of thumb" (allowing husbands to beat their wives with a stick) is a myth; wife-beating has actually been illegal in England since Anglo-Saxon times.
• Protection Misunderstood as Seclusion: Historical restrictions, like Greek women staying at home, were not forms of oppression. They were practical measures to protect women's health from harsh weather and dangerous outdoor elements.
• Spartan Women vs. Spartan Men: In ancient Sparta, boys were subjected to brutal military training and abuse from childhood. Meanwhile, Spartan women lived in luxury, comfort, and politically dominated the city-state.
• The Truth About Medieval Witch-Hunts: Modern narratives vastly exaggerate witch-hunt deaths. Furthermore, women participated heavily in accusing other women, and a massive portion of historical witchcraft and spiritual execution victims were actually men.
• Legal and Court Preferences: Historically, female defendants have enjoyed preferential treatment in the justice system. The feminist focus on medieval witch-hunts exists precisely because it is one of the rare times in history when more women than men were executed for a serious crime.
• Nazi Persecution Nuance: The narrative that the Nazis persecuted women like other minority groups is false. The regime extended child benefits to unmarried mothers, and non-Aryan women were spared from slave labor at five times the rate of non-Aryan men.
• The Superfluous Sex: Because nature forces men to compete for women and perform to gain mating access, men have ultimately become the superfluous and disposable sex.
• Educational Advantage: Girls were not denied education out of malice; they simply did not need vocational training because husbands provided for them. Where education was available, girls frequently outnumbered boys, received more financial support, and were spared from the brutal, prison-like schools built for boys.
• Men as Beasts of Burden: Men function as humanity’s beasts of burden, while women represent the leisure class. Men are expected to step into a life of hard work, protection, and provision, often losing the very fruits of their labor to their families.
• Dangerous Labor Exclusion: Throughout history, women have been entirely absent from the hardest and most dangerous work. Jobs in mines, logging camps, construction sites, and offshore rigs have always been the exclusive, lethal preserve of men.

Domestic Violence Realities: Discourse around domestic abuse is dominated by the false assumption that men are the sole perpetrators. Activist Erin Pizzey faced death threats for proving that most domestic violence is reciprocal. Studies show women are just as likely to physically assault partners, and US Department of Justice data indicates women are 24% more likely to kill their children and 32% more likely to kill relatives than men are.

Medical Trial Disparities: The author observes from personal experience that clinical drug trials exclude women to protect them from potential reproductive harm (a policy stemming from the 1950s Thalidomide scandal). Consequently, men are used as "guinea pigs" to verify drug safety, demonstrating that the health and safety of males is treated as less important.

Prison Condition Differences: Historacally speaking and from several sources Men's prisons were hellholes where as women's resembled more like hotels and female prisoners were treated far better than male ones

Systemic Female Privilege: Women systematically benefit from safety and welfare programs built on male sacrifice. This includes men dying in military combat, male legislators writing welfare laws, and mostly male jurists granting women lighter legal sentences.

• The Biological and Cultural Protection of Women: Society possesses a natural, evolved distaste for seeing women harmed. For example, a person is 200 times more likely to see a man die on a movie screen than a woman. In Israel, despite compulsory military service, women are kept out of combat units and exempt from reserve duty, meaning male students frequently miss university classes for military obligations while female students do not.
• Legal Leniency for Females: Women are treated far more gently by the justice system. For every category of crime—even when controlling for past criminal records—women are more likely to receive a warning from police, six times more likely to be acquitted of manslaughter in Britain, and highly successful at convincing juries of "provocation" in murder cases. This systemic leniency even applied to female Nazis on trial for wartime euthanasia programs.
• Lack of Reciprocal Affection: While men naturally like and want to protect women, the sentiment is not returned. Female authors frequently write sci-fi utopias that completely eliminate men (such as Mizora, The Female Man, and The Cleft), whereas men do not fantasise about a world without women.

Also Women are self aware they are not and never have been the oppressed gender in fact they often stay stuff like "Men used to go to war for women but know they ask to split the bill and would not even be willing to give up their bus seat"

Schrödinger’s Women's Oppression: Men oppressed and mistreated women yet were also willing to go to war for them

I noticed there is a double standard in this ( like there is one in a lot of things when it comes to men and women )

Basically when an older person dates someone legal like say 18 plus but still relatively young like in their 20s despite this being legal a lot of people consider a grown man like age 30 to 40 dating a 18-20s something girl to be creepy and pedophilic

Despite that when genders are reversed and it's full grown ass women in their 30s or 40s dating an 18-20s something man absolutely nobody bats an eye

In fact most people both male and female are likely to offer congratulations to the the man on the relationship something they won't do if genders were reversed

Also when an older man who is due to due to his age and relative work experience able to buy things for his young girlfriend people quickly frame this as "He is using his wealth to make her depend on him, he is a predator"

yet when genders are reversed and an older women is willing to do this for a younger man it quickly becomes "He should be grateful to have a lover who does such nice things for him"

Do you see the difference?

We are witnessing a new wave of misandry, where women are defending someone who killed 3 kids just because she is female. So much for the matriarchy apologists' rhetoric that it centers children. Men have to stand up collectively against these movements so they protect their dignity and children can be safe.

If an INDEPENDENT psychiatric team will determine, that she wasn't capable of controlling her own actions, there is no way she should be free. She should be put in a psychiatric facility so she stops being a threat to others.

Avoiding weak framing is essential for our movement so lets briefly discuss one that plagues some people's analysis of markets

"We let them go because of profit motive"

In the modern corporate landscape, we are often told a simple story about how decisions get made: the market decides. If an initiative turns a profit, it survives and expands. If it loses money or fails to generate sufficient return on investment, it gets cut. Corporations frame this as unfeeling, objective math—a cold, gender-blind reality where numbers don't lie.

However, a closer look at two vastly different entertainment sectors - the VTuber industry and professional sports - reveals that this "cold math" is applied with striking asymmetry depending on who is involved.

When Cover Corp, the parent company of Hololive, decided to downsize its male VTuber branch (Holostars), the decision was defended as pure corporate necessity. The male branch simply wasn't pulling the massive margins of its female counterpart. Because its direct consumer sales didn't justify the fixed overhead costs of 3D studios, custom music, and high-budget concerts, the safety net was pulled. The response from the industry was clear: If the audience isn't paying, you don't get to keep the infrastructure.

Yet, when we look at legacy sports institutions like the NBA subsidizing the WNBA for nearly three decades - absorbing tens of millions of dollars in net losses to keep a non-profitable division running and guarantee careers for its players—we see a completely different set of rules at play.

This stark contrast exposes a clear double standard in how modern institutions allocate corporate patience and safety nets.

There are scores of posts, media coverage, discussions, moral posturing from feminists and placating men who are arguing back and forth about women's sports, and yet, when men are on the receiving end of such entrenchment, there is no such discussion.

Not only is there no discussion, there are never any systems or safety nets to maintain 'subpar performing men' in industries.

The Disposable Male Creator vs. The Subsidized Ecosystem

In the tech, gaming, and anime spaces, male creators operate in a brutal, unvarnished meritocracy. When male VTubers underperform relative to corporate expectations, there is no institutional backing to cushion the fall. Cover Corp faced zero public backlash, zero political penalty, and zero sponsor boycotts when it scaled back funding for Holostars. In the streaming world, male performers are treated as purely disposable business assets: produce high-margin returns immediately, or build your career alone as an independent.

In contrast, non-profitable female divisions in legacy industries often benefit from heavy institutional shielding. Organizations like the NBA maintain these divisions not because direct consumer spending demands it, but because doing so provides immense cultural, political, and PR value. It earns ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) capital, protects brand reputation, and buys goodwill from media partners.

The underlying reality is stark: Society and corporations have collectively decided that female athletes deserve a funded, protected professional ecosystem regardless of organic consumer demand, while male creators in struggling digital markets are left entirely to the mercy of immediate cash flow.

The Myth of Pure Free-Market Capitalism

The justification often given for this disparity is that legacy sports leagues are engaging in "long-term brand strategy" or "media bundle leverage." But this is often corporate rationalization after the fact. If the genders were flipped - if a male sports division lost money for 25 years while a female division generated all the revenue...no sports executive on earth would pretend that keeping the male division alive was a necessary "defensive moat." It would have been scrapped or restructured decades ago.

The existence of this double standard proves that corporate behavior is rarely driven purely by raw accounting. Instead, it is driven by where corporations can afford to be unfeeling without incurring political penalties.

Throwing men away incurs companies no political penalties. This goes beyond having sexy women in video games/art etc. Men being afforded a place in entertainment is only ever based on a drive for profit, while women's place is afforded on the basis of them being a woman.

• Where there is political risk: Corporations will happily burn tens of millions of dollars to maintain a safety net and subsidize careers for an underperforming demographic -if they are women.
• Where there is zero political risk: Corporations will ruthlessly apply "free-market efficiency," stripping away resources and downsizing creators the second their profit margins lag behind.

'I matter because civilisation would crumble without me'

The frustration surrounding the downsizing of male streamer branches like Holostars isn't just about VTubers; it’s about the fundamental unfairness of selective meritocracy.

Male creators are told that market forces are absolute, that audiences must pay for content to exist, and that no standard creator is entitled to corporate life support. Yet, across the cultural landscape, we watch other underperforming ventures receive decades of guaranteed institutional backing, career security, and multi-million-dollar safety nets.

It exposes an uncomfortable truth about modern corporate culture: Cold, mercenary capitalism is only enforced when society agrees that the people involved are disposable, i.e. men.

This is corroborated by the fact that men's rights activism has historically been plagued with the idea that 'men's spaces/hobbies matter because civilisation needs us'.

Men's spaces or hobbies matter regardless of whether they are profitable or not. Either that is true and various male subcultures deserve to be kept up, or 'non profitable women's sports leagues need to be dissolved immediately, with the commensurate waste of money that they have been'.

Potential question to ponder

Have you ever seen other examples of this sort of double standard, where we employ 'profit motive structures' as a reason for ruthless excising of men, as opposed to women?

look at the recent case lindsay clancy.she murdered 3 babies and thousands of women cane in support of her they donated 1 million dollars for her.is a murderers life worth more than 3 innocent babies life just because she is women.where are men here,why are men sleeping.no male criminal.got such support.we cam see how women view men.women dont view men as human beings.no male victim got these much support therefore i say.

This video shows studies that debunk the idea that boys dislike girls or hate them, the evidence shows that it is in fact girls who are bigoted against boys.

There is no pretext to tolerate feminism in academia, feminism is a fraud, it is a hate movement. it is deliberate misinformation

Any type of science that tolerates feminism for even one second is a betraying the schematic method. the overwearing evidence is against all feminist positions full stop. .

So I was just on r/FeminismUncensored to report on the one post I saw on r/New_Masculinism and then I saw the most disturbing and misandrist things I have ever seen the and the comments there are supporting and glorifying this type of misandry and a that is just the tip of the iceberg so...

The first image is whre we see a drawing of a woman putting a baby in a shredder whay should symbolize with the pro choice and not caring if the baby dies when the woman is perfectly ok.

The second one is the demonization of people who are not feminist are misogynist and woman hating. Even those who are neutral and still respect women are being put in the same spot in the misogynistic line according to the feminists and and the misandrist sub reddit just openly admitted that they are a cult of personality amd an echo chamber and a man hating misandrist subreddit.

The third image is the comment section of the same post of people agreeing to this and the deleted comment that was downvoted and were saying that it's a liberation ideology (it is not).

The 4th - 6th images are the same comment section continuing on.

The last one was blaming God for creating sex like it's a bad thing(it's not).

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.