The new channels I’ve added to the pro-male list are Baifo MRA, TheTiredMan, Pro Male Spectre and PMC Front Lines. Each of these channels have a healthy number of videos under their belt and are steadily producing more. The pro-male movement is regaining strength, it now has more people than before who are spreading the pro-male message!
Here are my video picks from each of their channels to showcase their strong mettle:
As you can see, 9 out of 10 search results for total murders in Australia instead just give you “women murdered in Australia”. This is an appallingly shoved-in bias that ruins the search function; especially since men in every country are murdered far more than women are murdered, by every official crime statistic.
So essentially, Google’s search engine is so badly ruined, if I use it to look up neutral and objective murder statistics for a country, Google instead shoves propaganda for “women murdered” down my throat. You can thank feminists in charge at Google for doing this.
And there is no simply moving from Google to alternatives to escape this. Feminists have infiltrated all tech companies from big to small, they have control over Bing and DuckDuckGo. Search from them and you get the same feminist propaganda being fed to you as well. The feminist lock-down of search engines is here, just like their lock-down of mainsteam media and of Wikipedia. Although I think Yandex is free from feminist influence, and still has all the good search functionality intact, they are located in Russia, so it will probably be a few years tops before feminists gain control of Yandex and total that search engine as well.
The real solution to stop this is to fire feminists, suppress feminists. Never hire or appoint a feminist to begin with, or else this kind of ruin happens. Feminists are to be treated like Nazis, they enter things just to have their group completely take it over and eventually destroy it in their aim to fearmonger and suppress men. Each and every single time.
-Alex Cat
Johnny Depp has won his defamation case against Amber Heard. However despite this glimmer of justice, a greater problem looms over us: the feminist-run mainstream media continues to pump out lies attacking Johnny Depp’s reputation, and calling Amber Heard a victim of domestic violence. Even though as we all know now, Johnny Depp was the real victim of domestic violence and Amber Heard was his violent abuser.
The feminist-run mainstream media will carry on lying like this for any man or even teenage boy (like with the Cyprus rape case) who suffers from false accusations or even domestic violence from any woman. They’ll carry on misrepresenting female abusers and false accusers as female victims. Feminists of course have an agenda for this: it is to give women complete power to abuse and assault men, and to deny men any right to defend themselves from female abuse. The feminist-run media will work harder than ever to ensure no man can receive justice again like Johnny Depp.
Due to this, this blog post will serve as a media boycott list for all newspapers and media corporations next to their articles spreading disinformation on the Depp-Heard case, protecting Amber Heard and defaming Johnny Depp. We will continue to update this blog post by adding more such articles as we find them. Commenters are also welcome to share such articles they find in the comments if we miss them in our list. We want people to be able to spam out this boycott list to every space they hang in. What we need is to pain a culture-wide black stain against all media that has feminists and thus advances misandry. This is how we retaliate.
(Archive link not available)
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
00:00 — (Gayle King) The jury's decision in favor of Johnny Depp and his defamation suit against Amber Heard came down to the details of that particular case, but some argue that this verdict could have broader implications for the MeToo movement, and discourage women from coming forward with their own stories of abuse.
00:16 — (GK) We're joined now by New York Times investigator reporter Jodi Kantor, you know her well because she helped spark the MeToo movement back in 2017 with her allegations—her reporting rather on the allegations—against Harvey Weinstein.
00:28 — (GK) Jodi... good to have you back at the table, you're the perfect person to talk to this case about, because there are a lot of chat about not this is going to set the MeToo movement back... that Amber Heard was... for whatever reason, not believed. What is your take on the case, does it set the MeToo movement back?
00:46 — (Jodi Kantor) Well... you know, in many way this did not resemble a classic MeToo case. This kind of belongs to the tradition also of celebrity trials that turn into public spectacle. This was a very bitter divorce in which these two celebrities' personal lives kind of tumbled out into public view.
01:08 — (JK) There were some MeToo allegations here, there were some allegations of sexual violence. And I think the relationship to MeToo is the worry that there could be a chilling effect on women coming forward.
01:20 — (GK) Do you feel that?
01:21 — (JK) Well... the way Amber Heard was attacked, was in one sense very familiar, there was a lot of misogyny that we've seen before...
01:29 — (Nate Burleson) You mean by the public?
01:30 — (JK) ...By the public, and especially online. There was kind of a weaponization of the reputational warfare online. There was almost this hate machine built against her on Tik(Tok)...
01:42 — (GK) Have you ever seen anything like that?
01:43 — (JK) I had never seen it, at that level, and directed at one woman at that intensity.
01:52 — (GK) What did you make of a split verdict? — I mean, HE won overwhelmingly.
01:56 — (Tony Dokoupil) He won all of his... all the counts on his side.
01:58 — (JK) But like everything else about this case, it's just messy. There are not clear black-and-white conclusions here.
02:08 — (TD) I mean... Is that really the case? — I mean, there does seem to be a definite as you point out, online preponderance and support for Johnny Depp, so much so people are coming up with all these theories as to why, and may could be the facts, and you have the jury on the three counts, siding with him. She only won on only one count, and it involved something Johnny's lawyer said.
02:29 — (NB) Right.
02:29 — (TD) Umm... So, is it really a 50/50 no one wins here, or did Johnny Depp take this one?
02:34 — (JK) Well I don't think it's 50/50 but it was a very unusual kind of split-cross-verdict in which each side was blamed of it. But in the court of public opinion, I mean that's where... I mean this trial was conducted like a sports event that was shown live on TV...
02:54 — (NB) Yeah...
02:54 — (JK) With... It may have been slightly familiar to you with...
02:57 — (NB) Yeah...
02:57 — (JK) With... you know, it must have been surreal watching a trial play out in that way. And the cheering for Johnny Depp. But also the desire to belittle Heard, is really I think the legacy in what's so overwhelming.
03:11 — (NB) It seemed like Johnny Depp was the home team, and people were cheering for the home team.
03:15 — (NB) Umm... You say that the fact that Amber Heard faced a defamation lawsuit is scary to all women. Why so?
03:23 — (JK) So that's really important, because even though this is a very very high profile case, it's not singular, we have seen other instances in which defamation lawsuits have been brought against women who came forward with MeToo allegations. So that's a very scary prospect for women who are contemplating making a public complaint.
03:45 — (GK) Yeah, that's what I'm wondering, do you think that this will hurt other women who may be thinking about coming forward?
03:50 — (TD) And should that be the lesson, "Watch out", or is this an isolated case with its own particular details, and other women should still feel confident in coming forward?
03:58 — (JK) Every case is different. But I think first of all you're right, this was pretty singular. Most women don't have Amber Heard's liberty, they're not going up against Johnny Depp, with his fans, so I think you're right to caution about extrapolating too much from this. ...But... I've spent a lot of time with women who are deliberating coming forward about something, and they ARE looking in the public square.
04:21 — (JK) You know years ago it was, "Well what about what happened to Trump?", "What about what happened to Cosby?", you know, like... how do I consider my own story and decisions in light of what they're going through. And so I do think women will look at Amber Heard and say "I'm not equipped to go through something like that". Whether it will be determinative for them, I don't know, but because this trial just got so much attention, I think it will be a factor for them.
04:49 — (NB) Jodi, we appreciate you, thank you so much.
04:51 — (JK) Thank you.
https://archive.ph/AUo8T (Video unavailable in archived link)
I’m writing this in light of this recent post shared on r/science (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/s2w9o3/researchers_studying_incel_activity_on_social/ | archived link: https://archive.fo/4XprM) that blames “incels” on ‘male dominated sex ratios’ (a profoundly misandrist narrative in itself and one that just doesn’t add up when you see that even in places where women outnumber men, many men aren’t in relationships).
Notice that you can see this article was even shared and gloated about on the sub r/IncelTear which proclaims to be against redpill and blackpill ideas but has no problem with endorsing the idea (often propagated in redpill and blackpill spaces) that “incels” are a product of “male dominated sex ratios” (https://np.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/s2y1x4/researchers_studying_incel_activity_on_social/ | archived link: https://archive.is/V9mVJ).
The study (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09567976211036065?journalCode=pssa) itself looked at twitter posts from 2012 to 2018. Blackpilled incels are a recent phenomenon, so unless they were profiling true forced loneliness (TFL), they likely bunched in MRA type posts or just random venting by some men with no real ideological or political persuasion and classified them as “incel” for most of the timeframe of study, as blackpilled incels didn’t really exist until r/incels went up in 2016.
However the narrative the researchers (Robert C. Brooks, Daniel Russo-Batterham, and Khandis R. Blake) are trying to push, is that having too many single men without jobs is potentially extremely dangerous to societies. For some reason society feels threatened by the possibility that men can have a normally good and successful life without women included in it. Female independency is promoted and praised by society, while male independency isn’t even seen as a possibility, but is seen as a threat. See the obvious sexism and misandry here? Men’s lives have to be all about women, anything outside of that is perceived as a threat by the female supremacist establishment we live in and that rule over us. They don’t just talk about how single men or unemployed men are a threat if they are too numerous, they also talk about sex ratios and how too many ”excessive men” are the cause of all the world’s ills.
These people have so much in common with fascist rulers and war-mongers, as historically war has not been about winning battles or power, but it has all been about mass extermination of certain amounts of the male population. These wars don’t bring about male shortages for no reason. Evidence suggest that for the most part, wars are really just androcides. Incels and a lot of MGTOWs also dream about returning to this type of lifestyle as a societal course correction. Far right nutters like Black Pigeon Speaks have also ranted about the dangers of ”excessive men”, as have even feminist ideologues like Valery Hudson (archived:https://archive.is/9eAIa, https://archive.is/Swe3Y). Paradoxically, it’s right-wingers and manospherian-types who are the bigger fear-mongers of ”excessive single men”, as for the most part feminists are rather silent on it and a handful of feminists even oppose the idea, while the only feminists who voiced support for this are the so called ”anti-incels” and some TERFs who identify as ”pink pill” or ”black pill”. Feminists are largely silent about it and many in fact think the population composition is irrelevant, they are mostly just in favor of privileges for women only above men. It’s ironic how it’s far-right nutters, traditionalists, blackpillers, redpillers and manospherian-types who are the biggest proponents of this false narrative.
Unfortunately for them, evidence doesn’t back up their claims, and while statistics show that married men outlive single men, traditionalists openly manipulate and exploit these statistics (often by grouping together single men that never married with divorced men) to promote the false narrative that marriage will make you live longer, because correlation obviously means causation when it suits ideologues, so naturally they will also use this to fear monger about ”excessive single men”.
The problem is, if this is true, then there should be more wars than before,. Posters on the r/science thread are now even going as far as saying what caused WW2 was, ”large numbers of single unemployed men”. However, men are more likely now than ever before to be single, and marriage rates were in fact larger during long war periods (https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8b7a61a7-6e8b-4a25-973c-4345e98b47d4/marriage-1.png) so wars should be more common and more violent now by their logic. Yet wars are if anything less prevalent today and they’re not more violent either. Violent crime should be skyrocketing to historic high levels yet that isn’t happening either despite the sharp decline in marriage, and murder was more common in the 1980s than it is today in the U.S. (https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/113F3/production/_119034607_a59ec7ae-4a34-493b-90f1-062c9d268e86.png). Yet men were more likely to be married back then and less likely to be single, divorce was also less common, and men were also less likely to be jobless back then than they are today (https://econofact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/LBFblackpowellSOCMEDIA.png). Yet still with all these factors and trends in the opposite direction, violent crime is less prevalent today than ever before (https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990.jpg).
If single unemployed men are to blame for all the world’s ills, how come when marriage was more common as was fatherhood (total birth rate in the U.S.) (https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020.jpg) and men having a job, violent crime rates including and specially murder were more common? They should be more common today now that fertility and marriages are at a record low, and that fewer men also have a job, and yet that’s not the case.
Not only that—not only do all the above groups fear-monger about ”excessive single men”, they seem to believe that violent crime is a biologically male trait. Violence seems to be a male thing to these people. Unfortunately contrary to these people’s ideas that men are becoming more violent, it’s actually women that are becoming more violent in countries with growing populations of single men, such as United States (https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/arrest_by_sex_1980_2017.png) and the younger age groups and younger generations of women ARE THE MOST LIKEY TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW (https://www.rand.org/news/press/2019/02/25.html). Now they will tell you that men are overrepresented in prison because men commit more crimes (male percentage of U.S. prison population as of 2021 is well over 90%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/252828/number-of-prisoners-in-the-us-by-gender/). Sadly the overrepresentation of men has very little to do with the idea that men commit more crimes than women, and more to do with with the FACT that the criminal justice system privileges women at the expense of men, so women are less than 10% of the prison population but are 27% of criminal arrests, 41% traffic violation offenders, 37% of those getting stopped by the cops in the streets, and have 63% shorter criminal sentencing than men convicted of the same crimes (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=law_econ_current) …now something isn’t adding up here. Could this be due to female privilege at its finest at work here (https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/women_arrests_contacts_2015.png)? Now considering that the most recent generations of females growing up are the most violent ones and the most likely to commit crimes as well, I guess it’s time to start seriously talking about ”excessive numbers of women”, right “blackpillers” and “anti-incels”? Thought not.
If highly masculinized sex ratios means too much violence, why do large urban areas, metro areas and inner cities who happen to have feminized sex ratios have much higher prevalence of violent crime than disperse rural areas, small urban areas and suburban areas that are known for highly masculinized sex ratios? How come Latin America and the Caribbean which are known to have among of the most feminized populations in the world, ARE ALSO THE MOST VIOLENT AREAS OF THE WORLD? How come India and China which are known for the supposedly high male-biased sex ratios, are far below the global average when it comes to violent crime? How come eastern Europe, the most feminized part of Europe, is also THE MOST VIOLENT PART OF EUROPE (https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/cropped-Homicide-Rates.jpg)? So in conclusion, the prevalence of violence has nothing to do with how supposedly lopsided the male to female sex ratios is. Single men (unemployed or not) in large numbers are NOT to blame for all the world’s ills nor are they a potential threat that needs to be dealt with and monitored. Traditionalists, redpillers, blackpillers, right-wingers and others that advance these arguments (such as inter-sectionalist, liberal and radical feminists) are just sadistic woman-worshipers who want to see other men mass murdered, for no good reasons than the following: their hatred of other men, their idea that men in a large group are a threat or deserve to be portrayed as such, and their idea that men without women are “subhuman” or delusional, and they’ll invent BS excuses to justify it, that’s all.
This is a guest post by a supporter of the Pro_Male_Collective. Our guest writing for us here didn’t specify that he wanted to be named.
Many tradcons and feminists alike are supporters of this idea of men being the less biologically important sex and use it to argue against men having full bodily autonomy.
They would have you believe this concept purely biological and is a fact of life that cannot be questioned.
Here are some things they don’t mention:
The inbreeding that will occur from such a scenario in successive generations that can result in genetic defects that kill out the host population anyway. This has been speculated to have played a part in contributing to the disappearance of other animal species, such as mammoths (original link: https://www.science.org/content/article/did-inbreeding-doom-mammoth | archived link: https://archive.md/V65SE).
If men are needed to protect women, then a country with less men (as a result of most of them being killed off) is more vulnerable from countries with more men.
Male conscription wasn’t commonplace all over the world, if it was there would have been no need for draft laws and there would have been no such incidence such as the draft riots (original link: https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/draft-riots | archived link: https://archive.md/Qq6bn).
Male conscription become widespread because of imperialism in western countries (original link: https://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/legislation/c_conscription.html | archived link: https://archive.md/fbI9u), it was not the norm throughout history. Many nations didn’t always have male only conscription. Examples include the United States prior to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
If males were expendable, the idea of doing away with male only conscription wouldn’t even be up for debate, with male only conscription being something that could not even be challenged in the court of law or legislature. Instead anti-male people try very hard to justify the idea that males are expendable, showing that this notion is not universally accepted and that this discriminatory policy is in fact capable of being challenged and done away with.
While the average man is stronger than the average woman, there are plenty of men that are physically weaker than the average woman, yet those men were forced to fight in past wars.
Many politicians even insist on drafting older, less physically fit men in the 30-49 age bracket (original link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-chip-roy-gop-ndaa-daughter-draft-removed-legislation.amp?__twitter_impression=true | archived link: https://archive.md/RSTaO) just to protect women. It has nothing to do with combat readiness, but everything to do with blatant pandering and pushing special privileges for women.
Advocates of or those that condone male only conscription have admitted they have an agenda to try and reduce the “excess” male population (who they conflate with “incels”) (https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/11/the-new-superfluous-men/ | archived link: https://archive.md/gaKZw) (https://unherd.com/2020/06/incels-could-become-the-new-vikings/ | archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200626011051/https://unherd.com/2020/06/incels-could-become-the-new-vikings/), much like blackpill incels who have argued in favor of eugenics and culling a portion of the male population to better their dating chances.
Adding to the pseudoscientific basis, a lot of religious tradcons that proclaim not to believe in evolution repeat evolutionary psychology justifications for treating men as expendable second class citizens that are less reproductively valuable than women. They try to get around this by claiming they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, but it shows their hypocrisy.
Male only conscription is oriented around the idea that you only need a few men to impregnate women, but ignores how there are men that are gay and so don’t impregnate women and that post menopause, women have a very low chance of getting pregnant. It also neglects to mention who will raise the children that are given birth to and is sexist in assuming how women are better caregivers than men, even though child abuse rates are higher for women than for men.
The idea of “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” was popularized (original link: https://heartiste.org/2013/03/21/the-fundamental-premise/ | archived link: https://archive.md/vgRbS) by PUAs and white nationalists (including PUAs turned white nationalist like Roissy/Chateau Heartiste) that wanted to cut down on male competition and were against the men’s rights movement from the start (original link: https://heartiste.org/2011/07/23/a-traditionalist-manifesto/ | archived link: https://archive.md/9OaPi). Now republicans running for office like Justin Waters try to repeat this myth to justify the idea of men being expendable and defer to alt-right eugenecists like Steve Sailor (archived link only: https://archive.md/gz3Es, original link: https://www.pinkerite.com/2019/12/the-racist-logic-of-steve-sailer.html | archived link: https://archive.md/yWHVR).
As long as this idea persists in the men’s rights movement, progress on men’s rights issues will never be had. It’s this popularization of the anti-male myth of male disposability/male expendability that stalled progress in the men’s rights movement against anti-male laws. After all, if men are disposable/expendable, what use is there even trying to fight against them being discriminated against?
Merriam-Webster, the company behind the de facto standard dictionary for American English, is giving us a lesson in feminist etymology.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/spinster-meaning-origin
“The jump from spinner to single lady is likely an economic one. Some scholars suggest that during the late Middle Ages, married tradeswomen had greater access to raw materials and the market (through their husbands) than unmarried woman did, and therefore unmarried women ended up with lower-status, lower-income jobs like combing, carding, and spinning wool. These jobs didn’t require access to expensive tools like looms, and could be done at home. By the 17th century, spinster was being used in legal documents to refer to unmarried women.”
Women who were accessing resources via marriage were apparently at an advantage over single women. I think this sounds reasonable, but where is the patriarchy in this. All the men were doing was to give up resources in exchange for association with women. Of course, you could say that these women were using the tools and materials provided to them by men to produce useful goods, so they were actually contributing. This is true but it doesn’t change the fact that they were benefiting from free or cheap access to materials and tools via association with men. They were not being oppressed or taken advantage of in any way by their husbands.
This excellent write up comes from Reddit user OkLetterhead9, who wrote this as a Reddit post to our ProMaleCollective subreddit. Please check out his original Reddit post HERE, and give it your vote and input as well.
OkLetterhead agreed to allow his Reddit post to be turned into a blog post here, so I reproduced it below.
Recently I’ve seen (in anti racism workshops as reported by the media) some activists when talking about white supremacy they use the term “white male culture” ! as if all white men (and only white men) are responsible for the racism. white women are innocent. this reminded me of this paragraph from the article “The feminist chameleon” by Xavier Jones .
Feminists promoted a false equivalence between the struggle of race and gender. They would even promote themselves as the gender equivalent of the Civil Rights Movement. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop there. People of Color and “women” were told (by feminists) that they had a common enemy: the white man. This relieves white women from any responsibility for their racist history — as they are an “oppressed group.” White women, even to this day, consider themselves champions of racial equality for pointing their fingers at white men for all of society’s ills. Rewriting history and liberating a group of people from accountability doesn’t achieve racial equality. Yet, society continues to present this as a legitimate fight against racism.
But in the reality white women were very involved in white supremacy too. One of the most prominent groups is United Daughters of the Confederacy:
The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is an American hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894 in Nashville, Tennessee. It has been labeled neo-Confederate by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups and extremists. The stated purposes of the organization include the commemoration of Confederate States Army soldiers and the funding of the erection of memorials to these men. Many historians have described the organization’s portrayal of the Confederate States of America (CSA), along with its promotion of the Lost Cause movement, as advocacy for white supremacy, and have asserted that promotion of the Confederate tradition has been led by the UDC.[8] Until recent decades, the UDC was also involved in building monuments to commemorate the Ku Klux Klan. read more here
They are responsible for all the confederate statues in the south ! They also created textbooks committee to “spread the truth on the confederate history” in public schools and library. what is this mean ? well this is a paragraph from a history book approved by them:
The master often had a barbacue or picnic for his slaves, then they had a great frolic. Even while working at the cotton fields they sang songs.
Yes, the goal is to whitewash the history of slavery. and other things .. (watch this video for more)
In the recent years we also witnessed the rise of viral “living while black” video. a white person call the police on a black person for doing nothing. or this is how it was presented by the media. but if you watch these video it’s white woman calling the police on a black man ! the gender element on racist profiling is erased (the victims are almost always men, and the perpetrators are almost always women). The gender in the history of Lynching in the US is also never mentioned by historians. for some reasons when an issues affect mostly women it is considered a gender issue, but when the majority of victims are men the gender is ignored.
those are just two examples, women are very involved in social problems and movements that are described as “male thing” by the social commentators to demonize men and masculinity. anti abortion is another example. women are more likely to be pro life in the US but the feminists blame all men for anti abortion ! The recent bill on abortion in Alabama was written by Terri Collins (a female politician) and signed by Kay Ivey (female governor)
The same thing in Muslim countries, women are VERY active in the “Muslim Brotherhood” which is the biggest Islamist movement. i can write a post about that if you are interested.
Here is a picture of women’s protest in support of Mohamed Morsi the muslim brotherhood candidate for presidency:
Feminists have talked about how society has a background radiation of misogyny, on how painful it is having to live in a society that permeates misogyny throughout the culture causally. Anyone with half a brain will realise this narrative is complete bunk, as we live in a female supremacist society where women are worshipped and have more rights than men.
Where does this bullshit concept of misogyny permeating in the culture come from then? If you observe how females behave towards men, you will realise that a lot of feminist accusations against men are projection. What women accuse men of doing, women in fact do to men.
Women have managed to create a culture that spews radioactive misandry against men.
The male identity in society is considered he lowest of the low. It seems that only men are fair game for abuse and marginalisation. Women either hold men in contempt or are indifferent to them, while most men do not feel any affinity for other men, and many of them dislike other men just as much as any radical feminist. So this means men are the punching bag of what ever hostile group that wants to vent and lash out. Reactionary politics is based on attacking other groups of men.
Women who tweet kill all men are not angry, and they do not have daddy issues. Women who tweet kill all men are coldly sadistic and reveling in their social dominance over the male sex. The hashtag killallmen is designed to attack the self esteem of men, and normalise a climate of disrespect against the entire male sex. Many men laugh the hashtag off as “girls with daddy issues” This is just cope, because the same men would lose their minds if another groups of men were talking about them in the same way. Men laugh female aggression off, so they can suppress the rightful anger they should feel.
I wonder how young boys coming across the killallmen hashtag will feel, how will they react? What sort of messages do they internalise. These boys will soon learn that society doesn’t have their back, and that they are fair game for abuse.
Females are not just content to broadcast messages of contempt against boys to attack their self esteem, but they will also do other things to sabotage the well being of boys including down marking them at school for any work they do compared to girls.
Men need to learn the true natures of the female sex, and come to terms with it, they have to accept the truth and figure out what is to be done.
The era of women not being socialised and being free to abuse men with complete impunity hast to end, this can only end if men want it to, and work together to end it. Women have to be held to the same standards as men, if society is to progress and become decent, the era of woman being a higher caste has to be ended.
The first step is to push back against the killallmen hashtag, and hold twitter accountable. No other group has to put up with abuse like this, men shouldn’t have to either.
Misandry makes men ‘feel bad’.
No, misandry results in men getting routinely genitally mutilated, drafted, locked out of the job market by affirmative action, locked out of education, denied homeless shelter, jailed, fired and murdered by false accusations, and forced to pay for kids they can’t see. …so this feminist is just lying through her teeth.
Misogyny kills women…
No it doesn’t. Misogyny doesn’t kill women, as misogyny pretty much doesn’t exist, and also, women are privileged. Women live longer lives suffer less violence, and have more rights than men.
Also, women are the primary killers of children, and commit most of the domestic violence.
Also again, I’m not going to take the “misogyny” word seriously, as it is way overused, and doesn’t mean someone who hates women. The way it’s used, it just means any man that women find creepy and low-status, and want nothing to do with. Calling someone a “misogynist” is basically the same as calling them the n-word.
…and trans and genderfluid people.
This is very cheeky. This feminists is using trans and genderfluid people as her shield, when it’s feminists who shit on them and call them misogynists and groomers. Also, it’s WOMEN calling the cops on trans-women in women’s bathrooms, that’s behind transphobia—because these women view trans-women as guys in dresses, and thus consider these guys-in-dresses dangerous and predatory. So to the feminist who tweeted this, look to YOUR OWN sisters for the incitement of anti-trans violence.
There IS a difference. If you’re a man and feel ‘bad’ when someone says #allmenaretrash, then step up. Get uncomfortable. Ask yourself difficult questions. Call out other problematic men.
This is ironic. These feminists cannot get uncomfortable, nor introspect and ask difficult questions. This feminist is just projecting her own traits.
She tells us to call out other problematic men, when she does this next tweet:
We don’t fucking owe you any appreciation for doing the bare minimum of speaking up for women, after women have suffered systemic abuse and exploitation in a patriarchal system since centuries. I’m sorry, the truth is usually hard to swallow.
This feminist shamelessly calls us to speak up, when she is privileged and drunk on false-victimhood, then she says “we don’t owe you any fucking appreciation, for doing the bare minimum of speaking up for women.” …No-no-no-no…
To the feminist who tweeted this: I don’t speak up for women, and I certainly don’t speak up for YOU. I’ve got no regard for you or your fate, whatsoever.—If a bus ran you over right now, I just wouldn’t care. I’d shrug my shoulders and go “MEH!…”—Because YOU hate men. You hate ME. And I take that very personally.
Women have NOT suffered “systemic abuse and exploitation in a patriarchal system” …BUUULLSHIT.
That’s enough bulldozing these false claims.
Bottom line: Feminists need to stop trying to justify their unprovoked hatred of the male sex.
-Alex Cat
This is a feminist thread on twitter that shows what feminists have to say about Marc Angelucci’s hit-and-run murder. It just goes to show that feminism is a supremacist hate-movement that celebrates murder of men, next to obstruction of their equal rights.
The fact this defaming link comes from “queerty” shows how disappointingly feminist the LGBT movement is, and why gay men need to leave the LGBT for their own good.
Also, the bottom feminist is just shoehorning “lazy white asshole” for no good reason. This is just feminist race-baiting. Feminists have a documented history shitting on black men, as well as Muslim, and Jewish men—calling black men terrifying rapists and walking abortions. Also it’s unlikely we’ll ever see a “racially concerned” feminist turn on white women, and call them lazy assholes. Feminists have a bare-faced cheek to concern about race.
Marc Angelluci is such a rarity in the men’s rights movement—a men’s rights lawyer who was actually winning cases for men, like rendering the male-only draft unconstitutional in the United States; so he was the rare MRA actually getting things done—the murder of him is like killing a unicorn.
Pro Male Collective 
You must be logged in to post a comment.