Correct frame of reference - why it matters.

The Pro Male Collective has seen a new surge of new members as of late, often of which wonder how to correctly frame things as well as why it is so important to our movement.

In this brief post I would like to point out how to correctly frame men's issues in addition to errors we've discovered so that future MRAs can avoid them. Remember, all successful political movements share a centralized goal for their ideology alongside ideological standards, and achieve it through means of accurate framing.

* How do I correctly frame misandry?

If you ever want to know if something is misandry, simply replace women with "whites" and men with "blacks". There is a reason the feminists hate this analogy of misandry compared head-to-toe with racism - because it is too damn accurate and effective.

Some effective statements include:

"Feminists are gender white nationalists."

"Femicide as a concept is identical to the concept of "white genocide" - it doesn't exist."

"Feminism doesn't belong in a civilized society. It is a hate movement akin to the KKK or Nazism, and therefor should be tossed in the dustbin of history."

* How do I correctly respond to defeatism & the manosphere? (The manosphere is the enemy of the men's rights movement)

In the PMC a pattern we have noticed is a correlation between defeatism and appeal to nature rhetoric. I could point to the countless examples of humans compartmentalizing biology successfully throughout history, but I digress. The manosphere also concedes to the appeal to nature fallacy, meaning I believe it is apt to focus on responding to just that.

Some effective statements include:

"Murder is natural. Do we tolerate it? No. It is a highly criminalized action that is getting less and less common with time through compartmentalization of violent impulses and illegality. Why can we not achieve the same effect against misandry?"

"Appealing to nature is pointless. With time and effort, we can compartmentalize our instincts to attack other men through social combustion - racism is likely linked to genetic in-group bias instincts / anti-social traits, yet it is abhorrent and therefor we outlawed it."

"If nature is the end-all be-all of humanity, why does civilization exist at all? Society is not an entirely naturally occurring event. Our culture affects our biology, and our biology affects our culture."

Keep in mind the reason men are stuck in their current situation is because they just give up before they even try.

* How do I correctly frame feminism's end of the political spectrum?

Many men will attempt to fight the feminist hate movement with a false framing of the issues at hand. If you frame feminism as leftist, you are essentially giving them leeway to play martyr as underdogs punching up. This allows them to impersonate actual human rights movements, such as the civil rights movement. Of course in reality, they are tyrants punching down on men - a politically helpless class. On the other hand by framing them as far-right they cannot deflect and play victim, as they are categorized the same as other hate movements like the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis.

Some effective statements include:

"Feminism is an alt-right movement. Abortion proves that due to being a form of eugenics, as it provides women the ability to dictate who lives and who dies."

"Feminism is far-right. It is the worlds oldest, and most successful hate movement ever."

"Feminism is a capitalistic, imperialistic ideology. Women voting and lobbying for men to die in wars they are not required to fight in proves this, and men being the majority of the working class yet the minority of the consumer spenders."

In a war to protect men's human rights, in order to succeed you must realize your frame is everything. Incorrect framing leads to dead-ends, as you are fighting inaccurately.

Thank you for reading.

Pro Male Collectivism is a radical breakaway movement and or ideology from the rest of the men's rights movement. We invite left-wing pro male MRAs to join us in defeating the feminist hate movement.

So far we have taken down several female supremacist subreddits and tweets, set a men's rights forum up, and have a coming soon messaging app / application to provide a safe space for men and MRAs alike to discuss their hobbies in addition to fighting for men's rights (This space will be unbannable by feminists).

So don't be shy, come and join us for real material benefits for men!

(Some of our current content creators include CityCrusher, A shield for men, mister pink and yellow, alex cato PMC, BasedCrusher, Pro Male Vendetta, Wrathfulhornet4, and latesignaltv to name a few.)

Inaccurate frame of reference.

When a man brags about the fact he is stronger or better at mathematics than women, it is in fact hollow posturing. In this post I would like to explain why these sorts of men demonstrate a complete lack of self-awareness and or class consciousness.

Let's start with the men who posture about how much stronger than they are than women.

* These men will cite the fact that men have superior fighting adaptations to women as if it is proof that men are dominant, that they are somehow in fact the boss of women This makes little sense as it in fact proves the opposite. Whilst it is true men have double the upper body strength of women, these right-wing bible thumpers lack insight on the root cause of the natural selection at play.

Men have evolved superior physical anatomy for self-defense and working. The higher lean muscle mass and density? That is there for men to defend themselves from the higher prevalence of attackers against them. This does not prove men are dominant, it proves men are more likely to be victims of violence through signs of defensive anatomical adaptations - violence is something a leisure cast does not need to worry about relative to an oppressed class, feudal lords tended to be much weaker than their peasant worker drones. This disproves "patriarchy" theory, as it explains why women do not need to be strong.

When you point these things out to right-wing men, they will then point towards the higher general intelligence of men as proof men must somehow be dominant. Excusing the fact that men lack certain kinds of organizational and social intelligence (the one's needed to collectivize on the political level), this once again proves the opposite of "patriarchy" theory. It shows that women in fact do not need to have a good spatial / pattern recognition, or other such forms of intelligence men generally outperform in.

Slaves were better at innovating, more responsible, and stronger in a lot of senses. What does this prove? That men are forced into a work-mule slave provider role - that is what. If these things men have are just tools to be used by their superiors (women) for their own benefit in addition to oppressing men, are they really something to brag about?

There is no wonder why you see tradcons such as Turd Flinging Monkey waffling on about "Bringing back the patriarchy". They are so delusional, so low-IQ, that they truly believe men are in a dominant position. Men have nothing to brag about as they are currently utterly defeated, enslaved, and marginalized.

If that is going to change however, men must organized politically. Men must confront the reality presented to them, as that is the only way they can change it for the better.

Disorganized, hypocritical, and unable to make any meaningful impact.

* Right-wing politics is completely useless. It offers no material benefits to any true pro-male men's rights movement. It centrifuges itself in reacting and refusing to act. The thing is, the ruling class is never the reactionaries who refuse to act. It is the radical, vocal, and highly organized.

Take a subreddit such as r/KotakuInAction . They have been chanting "Go woke go broke" for over a decade now, and probably will continue to for the foreseeable future. What has this achieved? How has this protected arts marketed towards men? It hasn't to be blunt, in fact quite the opposite as it has converted more men into backwards thinking that leads nowhere. Additionally to make it worse, when one even tries to critique their old outdated methods you are met with a ban or your post being removed. Mind you, this is the same group that free-speech concern trolls at any other far-right group being censored.

This is the problem with topics relating to men's issues, or the broader "manosphere" in general. They are loaded with anti-social men who censor the very people who want to bring actual positive change for men & boys into fruition. They prevent it from ever taking place. These narcissistic men are solipsistic, and are in fact the enemy of pro-male men. They concern troll about free-speech to protect their shitty politics, yet when good pro-male politics is brought to light they demand it be censored. They believe they, as solipsistic individuals, are the only humans in the world to deserve a voice.

I could explain why free-speech absolutism and letting the alt-right speak is an abhorrent, terrible idea for society, but I digress.

Men are scattered from one another on the right. They do not want to work with other men as they themselves hate other men. Pro-male men must completely reject the right-wing method as well as their members. They will do nothing to promote the common interest of men & boys.

We as the Pro Male Collective, a true leftist movement, must be a highly organized cast of radicals. That is how the Christians took over Rome, and that is how the Pro Male Collective will take over the mainstream narrative. We must separate ourselves from solipsistic men aggressively, and gatekeep them out of hand.

Fighting feminism for the wrong reasons, and still failing at it.

Right-wing men are failures at defending their own rights. This is due to two main reasons:

* Refusing to frame feminism for what it is
* Obsessing about dating and restoring the "traditional family unit"

Without touching on the topic that the nuclear family is not even true traditionalism (the extended family is, which had men living with their families for very long timespans), these men want to reinstate an obsolete outdated system which is based upon men working themselves to death for lazy stay-at-home parasites. I do not want to go to the past where technology was shittier so that some right-wing troglodyte can mate guard a woman. And young, sane minded MRAs certainly do not either. All movements thrive from appealing to younger audiences, and this is why right-wingers will fail every time at defending men's rights.

These men obsessively go on tangents about dating, like non-stop. The PMC is against all forms of dating obsessions. That includes the MGTOW "I refuse to date women" posturing for deselected men, and the PUA fake your status to get the girl through self-improvements types.

Another failure of right-wing men is their inability to correctly frame feminism (an alt-right movement, by the way) as the logical conclusion of female nature playing out in a post-industrialized society. They will grasp at straws looking for any excuse as to why their women are abandoning and oppressing them.

Is it the Jews? The cultural Marxists? The Martians brainwashing women? Right wingers can't seem to make up their mind, and pontificate on excuses for women's abhorrent behavior. All the while they are placing hyper-agency onto men.

In conclusion, I made this post to point out why the PMC is so strict against right-wingers, and will reject them at all times. We will gatekeep anyone who has a belief that contradicts the pro-male cause.

Thank you for reading.

https://preview.redd.it/187808mmfdgh1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=939ef79ee0efad836e1a7d24a0746856a6f6a410

You cannot be left-wing and a feminist, and in this post, I will list fundamental the reasons why.

* Colonialism and reactionary rhetoric

I recently had a voice call with ItsComplicatedChannel, a great Pro Male Collective ally. He was oblivious to why feminism is far-right rather than leftist or "woke". He was however eager to learn, and so I have decided to make this post to better elaborate on why the PMC has come to these types of conclusions.

Too often the feminist narrative of the oppressed woman punching up is forced down our throats as men. It is used to post-hoc rationalize the reality of women punching down on men. There is no gender war, there is a gender beatdown on men. This can easily be proven by in-group bias / out-group bias studies that show women's automatic preference for women to be 5x stronger than that of men's. If men do not like men, and women do not like men, how can there be a gender war?

Feminists use Nazi and or KKK tactics routinely. An example of this is posturing about superiority all the while playing the weak victim. Nazis would degrade Jewish people as weak, useless, sub-humans - frequently even comparing them to animals! They would do this whilst framing Jewish people as strong, making claims that they somehow were subhuman animals whilst also secretly controlling the world. A clear contradiction of narratives. Feminists too do this. They center on a narrative that women are superior and men are doofus like beings whilst simultaneously framing men as strong, oppressive rapists of women. Do you see how this makes zero sense whatsoever?

Feminists do this via the motivation to prevent advancements of male civil rights. There is a term for this type of hateful crap towards a group. It's called being a reactionary - something other far-right movements such as Nazism and KKK members engage in provocatively. KKK members were against the advancement of racial civil rights, Nazis were against the advancement of Jewish civil rights, and feminists are against the advancement of male civil rights.

It isn't even just reactionary rhetoric such as framing men as feral rape beasts to deny them basic human rights. It is also colonialism.

CollectiveShout and Sweet Baby Inc have time and time again been caught vandalizing some of humanities greatest art pieces primarily enjoyed by men. This is done out of sadism, and a desire to prevent men from enjoying our lives. Their vandalism usually consists of harmful, damaging stereotypes about men & boys. In other words misandry.

What is progressive about degrading another less fortunate group of humans (Life span gaps prove men are less fortunate)? What is progressive about stomping down on an underclass? Nothing. That is what.

Leftism is about progressing society towards a more evolved and rational state than the last. It is about equality, empathy, and class consciousness. Conservatism is about remaining in the past, resentment, hate, and rejecting positive social changes brought fourth by leftist states. The Pro Male Collective is about equality, empathy and class consciousness for men - therefor we can conclude it is a leftist stance. On the other hand - feminism is about remaining in the status quo of kicking down on and hating men, using reactionary tactics to uphold this rampant misandry. Therefor, we can conclude feminism is the far-right stance to hold on politics.

* If feminism is far-right, why do they claim to be left-wing?

Good question. Why do Nazis claim to be socialists in spite of enforcing Capitalism? The reason why is political assimilation. I made an analogy to ItsComplicatedChannel between John Carpenters "The Thing" (Brilliant horror movie, by the way) and feminism. Feminists assimilate left-wing DNA, and then imitate leftism. The reason why being a political strategy.

By pretending to be left-wing, feminists can effectively posture as underdog martyrs. Of course in reality MRAs are the underdogs, but I digress. They can compare themselves, a female supremacist hate movement, to the actually left-wing civil rights movement for discriminated racial minorities & sexualities. This gives them the leverage to frame men as oppressive monsters - a clear cut projection of feminism, as feminists are oppressive monsters.

By doing so, feminists can put men and male civil rights activists on the defensive. And so many fake MRA hijackers / manospheretards are so dumb, they overtly fall for this nonsense.

By pointing out the objective reality that Pro Male Collectivism is left-wing and feminism is far-right, we actively deny feminists the ability to play victim anymore. The jig is finally up, and feminist ugly insides are revealed to the greater public.

Thank you for reading.

https://preview.redd.it/441884b9z6gh1.png?width=220&format=png&auto=webp&s=510ddf0ed37a21fe7af37f67056084d61a52148f

We have just hit 40.3k monthly views on the subreddit and are now growing exponentially on reddit once more. Keep up the good work guys!

Also topics irrelevant to men's rights will be removed, particularly the one's ranting about female OFs, women being "sluts and whores", etc.

Networking, gatekeeping, and solidarity are key to a successful men's rights movement.

In this brief post, I would like to point out some errors in the MRM documented by the Pro Male Collective. I want to demonstrate how men's rights activism is done correctly, as well as incorrectly.

The mainstream MRM is in a lower state than ever. It is filled with passive, utterly defeated men getting their butts whooped by feminists. But it does not have to be this way. There can be a successful rebellion formed again the far-right (feminism is far-right).

Anyone still under the misguided belief the MRM is somehow winning or stronger than ever is beyond the veil in my honest opinion, and should leave now. The men's rights movement is a disgrace to men's issues at best as it invites traditional conservative, racist, antisemitic hijackers into it's doors with open arms. These hijackers fundamentally contradict pro-male stunts, and need to be rejected out of hand.

Men have a learned helplessness. One so severe they cannot even stick up for themselves on the political level to defend their own human rights. The only solution to this issue lies within men, and their ability to evolve towards proactive pro-male rhetoric. To evolve beyond male-on-male hostility.

I will now list a few important policies and strategies any successful MRM must enforce, as well as go in depth describing each individual purpose.

* Gatekeeping

* Centralized forces

* Organization

* Ruthlessness towards misandrists

* Pro Censorship

* Gatekeeping

All successful political movements have standards. They expect something in exchange for accommodating the individual into their movement - without it, no movement would ever succeed. They would derail into misfocused rants about topics that have nothing to do with the intended goal.

For too long tradcons have hijacked the men's rights movement for just this reason - a lack of gatekeeping. Male civil rights groups need not fear a lack of recruitment for this reason, as tumorous growth is more counterproductive than no growth at all. Serious MRAs must practice a sort of male version of Briffault’s Law. This means that in circumstances where the pro male movement derives no benefit from someone, no such association takes place. They must be banned from entering in order to prevent derailment.

* Centralized forces

A men's rights movement, like the civil rights movement, must be centralized ideologically. If the movement is decentralized ideologically, it leads to infighting and factionalism. There is therefor less organization (more on that later). This ties back to Gatekeeping, as the MRM must be extremely choosey with who is selected into the movement.

Frequently MRM's that lack centralization will be met with concern trolling tradcons who want to prevent pro male action from taking place. If an MRM does not centralize onto a common ideology and goal, it will always fail.

* Organization

The reason men are ruled over, bullied, and stomped down on by women is a lack of organization. Whenever the feminist movement even moves an inch, there should be national protests from men everywhere demanding more aggressive censorship of them. Yet there isn't - instead men relay onto different fringe ideologies, lack a common goal, and show total disinterest in their own human rights. This is a massive problem for men, as in order to kick a men's rights movement off the ground towards success, it will require organization.

Some organizational strategies involve:

- Networking with other men, such as using live communication to organize men into activism

- Role based hierarchies, i.e allocating men to specific tasks. This means each male will have his own task to focus on and progress will be made more quickly, making the MRM pound-for-pound stronger.

- Educating other men on pro male ideology, as it proves new men to be organized.

* Ruthlessness towards misandrists

There is no debate to be had with these people. Misandrists display anti-social tendencies that can be categorized as cluster b personality disordered. They are in layman's terms just bigots. It doesn't get more simple than that.

Some people cannot be expected to behave and treat others with respect on their own. Some people require external forces pressuring them to do so.

* Pro Censorship

This is a foundational principal any serious MRM will have. Not only did feminists censor men's voices first, but free-speech absolutism is in all honesty a shit concept. If your viewpoint inflicts real world harm on an innocent group of people then it should be censored. Feminists have shown their viewpoints do cause real world harm towards men time and time again. Whether it be alimony, child support, Duluth model, false accusations, feminist shooters, etc. For these reasons, MRM must be pro-censorship within their favor.

Thank you for reading.

Joker is inarguably one of the most pro-male films ever made, and my personal favorite depiction of the character. I have my reasons for this, and in this post I would like to share some of them.

The Joker (2019) movie depicts a low-status man named Arthur Fleck. He is hurdled with waves of abuse, neglect, and chastisement for his condition (it is scientifically named the pseudo-bulbar effect, and is characterized by unusual smiling and fits of laughter that do not align with the person's exhibited emotions).

No matter what corner of life Arthur Fleck turns, he is met with the same ruthlessness, lack of understanding and no remorse directed towards him. He is depicted as even being kind at heart, as shown by his desire to cheer children up with terminal illnesses at the hospital. This is a clever writing decision, as it shows Arthur Fleck is in fact not the bad guy, but merely a guy who has been faced with abhorrent treatment - and more so that such bad treatment can break any man.

Feminists hate Joker because it isn't a Joker film, it is an Arthur Fleck film. A film about the life of the average man.

And the life of the average man isn't exactly pretty, it is something that feminists undoubtedly do not want realistic depictions of. This is due to the fact it's grueling, brutal nature may even begin to instill empathy into the average person if seen for what it truly is as cinema has strong influence over people's opinions.

But there is another reason why feminists didn't like it, more on that later.

After interacting with Thomas Wayne and hearing he adopted, Arthur searches at Arkham state mental hospital to find answers. He is met with a document folder filled with information about his past, including child neglect, abuse, much of which the director has implied to be sexual (Todd Phillip's originally scripted Arthur Fleck to say "Knock Knock, turns out I was sexually assaulted"). All of which was enabled by his mother.

This is parallel to real life as most child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by single mothers, like Penny Fleck:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200602004437/https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2018.pdf

An interrogators lines were and I quote "Arthur was found tied to a radiator, malnourished, with multiple bruises across his body and severe trauma to his head."

Arthur's condition was not a freak accident or natural occurrence, it was in reality deliberate neglect and sabotage of his future. Where was the state to intervene? Why was Penny Fleck even allowed to adopt in the first place? I will tell you why - female privilege and more importantly misandry. They did not like the fact that Arthur was male so they set his mental illness up to happen.

This is not hyperbole. We see countless cases and real-world examples of such things happening. Family courts provide sole custody to abusive mothers of boys over loving caring fathers. Family court bias is an objective reality and proven statistically.

That was the final blow to Arthur's psychology, he could not take his abuse any longer. He entered the hospital his mother was housed at, and proceeded suffocate the abusive mother to death. Are you beginning to see why feminists didn't like this film?

This is so cathartic for men, as it depicted an abusive mother getting punished with death.

To be clear, I am not condoning violence with this post, I am simply pointing out how this was depicted. The director didn't justify nor post-hoc rationalize what Arthur did. He instead depicted the whole ordeal as tragic, and what an abused man can be driven towards.

Joker went against the standard men are evil trope, and depicted cases of men being violent realistically. Rather than the hateful and two dimensional men are biologically violent stereotype, he showed the backstory as to why some men are driven towards violence and snapping. I truly do believe this is the most pro-male film ever made so far, and I do hope in the future if the PMC rises into the top of the social hierarchy we can produce more to expand on this concept.

That is all for now. Thank you for reading.