u/franzflocherwin775

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

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

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

i recently asked google ai this:

https://preview.redd.it/vgcrvdgm1egh1.png?width=505&format=png&auto=webp&s=a7f2fd58f8c9af781680ac7c0e08f03574968a2a

and the ai agreed with me and found what i wrote to be logically coherent:

https://preview.redd.it/y1w5olyc4egh1.png?width=528&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2c4f55910d8287438fecca98f29c3617d447e92

it's clear to anyone in this sub reddit that i described the dynamic between women (group x) and men (group y); due to feminist bias of ai, i avoided the terms men and women but kept the reality of the dynamic:
- women are much better protected (from any kind of violence, harm or consequences)
- women are treated favorably by society and the law (women are not drafted, women are less policed, get lower sentences for the same crime, get affirmative action, get majority of custody, there are gendered laws that protect only women etc.)
- women get more care and empathy from people, are better liked by people
- women have a longer life expectancy and higher living standards than men (living standard should not be measured by income because women work less thus they earn less, but they have better living standards by any other metric: they occupy the most comfortable positions in society by staying more at home while the men work in hard and dangerous jobs/work long hours and even if women work in paid labour they can easily get by working mainly part-time and very easy jobs; women enjoy most government benefits)
- men do most of the actual work in society and pay most of the taxes and bear most of the risk in society (not just at work, like doing risky jobs, but also legal and financial risk - marriage and starting a family or simply living with their girlfriend is already a risk that could cost a man half their possessions, freedom and dignity because of common law marriage and/or alimony and child support); men bear also the highest risk in the case of war because of the male only draft
- women get provided for by men; even single women without kids, who do not get directly provided for by male wages, get provided for by the male taxpayer and the male worker who keeps the infrastructure of society running

we can conclude from all this that women have a higher social status than men. this is logically coherent given the facts of reality. women are the upper caste of society.
let's address some of the "nuance" the ai was talking about:
women have more power than men actually, even if men outearn women or there are more male politicians than women etc. the ai even admits: "there are rare structual exceptions where a group performs the labor and holds material power, yet yields high social prestige to a protected or venerated class" women being more powerful than men is not an exception but the norm in human society and men don't just yield high but higher social prestige to women. women also hold more material power than men actually because women are the majority of consumer spenders and by being dominant over men, women directly or indirectly dictate material conditions. directly with demands of luxury items and indirectly by hypergamous selection. a rich man being a millionaire who owns mansions can easily lose his his property to a woman who has a lower income-level and he'll be paying child support and alimony for the rest of his life. male "power" is mostly relevant in relation to other men.

for a more detailed explanation as to why women have more power than men, please watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx8xTmDRbMI
the basic premise of this video is that women have the "principle of least interest" on their side, which states that "the person or group that has the least interest in continuing a relationship has the most power over it." this applies to women because men love, desire, and care for women and being in a relationship with a woman far more than women love, desire and care about men. there's also empirical evidence presented in the video.
because men are so desparate to be in a relationship with a woman and to continue the relationship with the woman, while women are extremely picky, men are in the same position as the worker who's having a job interview or a worker who has to perform to keep his job, while women are in the position of the capitalist who has more bargaining power.
someone might say that men have more income therefore they have more bargaining power because "they keep women in economic dependency". this is nonsense. women always have more options than men in the dating market, so if one high-earning guy rejects or leaves them, they can easily find another guy who will submit to the woman's demands; and even if the woman doesn't find any man, they still can get welfare paid for by the male taxpayer. women also have better access to the job market, better access to education, better access to housing and more women's shelters. so, even in the very rare event of not finding any man that provides for the woman, she is not on the brink of starvation or at risk of becoming seriously impoverished. meanwhile, if a man is low status and unemployed, he's at a very serious risk of becoming socially isolated and even homeless; he has nowhere to turn to.
men being submissive to women is not just theoretical but an empirical reality. men adjust their behavior to what women want or what men think women want:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103111002319
"men's beliefs about women's attitudes about risk taking causally influence men's level of risk taking"
"single men adjust their level of risk taking to match what they believe women find attractive. Men involved in a relationship did the opposite: they adjust their behavior to not match what they believe women consider attractive—possibly with the goal of relationship maintenance."
men signal and/or engage in risk-taking behavior to get into a relationship with a woman and men signal stability and performance to maintain that relationship. if men were really dominant over women, why would men have to adjust their behavior to fit female preferences? it makes more sense that women have psychological and emotional control over men, to explain this pattern.

so, both logically and empirically, women are proven to be the dominant gender, the ruling class and men are submissive to women. this fact refutes all of the foundational dogma of feminism.
it is very important that men realize their class-position and build solidarity with other men and fight for men's rights collectively. even men who have negative views of feminism still believe that there is or ever was a "patriarchy"; i hope this post has shown why patriarchy is incoherent nonsense and has never existed. the human species is fundamentally matriarchal.

Men get constantly bombarded with claims of "misogyny" aka hatred of women; misogyny is supposedly everywhere and very pervasive and a massive problem. there probably isn't a day or a week i don't hear or read about "misogyny", either on the news, online, on youtube or offline. i want to explain why the use of the word "misogyny" is almost always invalid and/or incoherent; as the PMC we rightfully reject the term misogyny on the basis that it's usage goes way beyond the actual meaning of the term ('hatred of women') and also it's usage and perceived prevalence is grossly disproportionate to the actual occurance of "hatred of women" even if we were to accept the phenomenon of "misogyny" as actually existing.

firstly, i want to give a couple of examples as to how the word "misogyny" is applied incoherently. the misuse of the term misogyny can be categorized as follows:

1. claiming something is "misogyny" when it's just critiquing or disliking an individual woman
2. claiming something is "misogyny" when it's actually misandry
3. claiming something is "misogyny" in a non sequitur manner when men complain about their plight

i give a couple of examples for each category:

1.) movie youtuber zaffy some months ago was called a misogynist on twitter because he was critical of The Boys' female character "Starlight", he called her the most uninteresting character and called out her mistreatment of her boyfriend. this is clearly not "hatred of women" in any sense of the word. zaffy was critical of the writing of the character starlight independent of her being a woman. yet people throw around the term misogyny in situations like this; a man being critical of a woman, especially a woman who represents feminism (like the character starlight does) is immediately branded as misogyny.
another example: on the intelligencescaling sub reddit where fictional characters outsmarting abilities and intelligence are scaled (like powerscaling), there are some people on this sub reddit and on youtube who complain about "misogyny" because supposedly female characters are downplayed; this is complete nonsense. female characters are often ranked very high (characters like beatrice, akane kurashiki, yumeko, kanade etc.), ranked often above many male characters like paul atreides, fang yuan, yuuichi, light yagami etc. there's no evidence that female characters are systematically downplayed (whatever that even means); but even if the top ranks of the sub reddit were mainly male characters, so what? this is not misogyny, because fiction reflects real life and the simple truth is that most inventors, military strategists, scientists, chess grandmasters etc. are male (saying this fact is probably already "misogyny" in the eyes of many, even though it is a verifiable fact). authors of fictional works and readers who analyze them don't go "hm this character is a woman so therefore i ignore all her impressive feats".

2.) people often call something misogyny when it's actually misandry: for example, so called "effeminate" men or gay men being slandered or demonized is called misogyny with the false argument that those men are treated worse because of their feminine qualities and that supposedly constitutes hatred of women. again, this is complete nonsense and it's easy to see how: homophobic men or women who go after gay men or "effeminate" men have no problem with "feminine" women, in fact they love women and they love "feminine" women; homophobic tradcon men buy make up and other "feminine" luxury items for their wives all the time. so, people love women and love women-like qualities; some men being "effeminate" is just used as an excuse for misandrists to attack them.
another example would be so called "transmisogyny"; that's actually transmisandry. transwomen and transmen are attacked by TERFs and other bigots for being perceived as male. TERFs are very clear and open about their hatred of men. so, to call being attacked for being perceived as male "hatred of women" is completely incoherent.

3.) men venting about their low status or plight in life and society is already considered "misogynistic"; this is feminist sadism. it means "how dare the male peasant speak up and complain about his position in the caste system, he should just shut up and take it and know his place!". for example, pointing out how boys are discriminated against in school or expressing negative emotions about circumcision is already used as a pretext to smear men as "misogynistic incels". so, men not wanting boys to be downmarked in school and not be mutilated is "hatred of women" according to these bigots. this is evidence that the term misogyny is used in a non sequitur manner to silence men.

this concludes part 1 of this series on misogyny. the term is clearly used as an instrument of power against men, not to describe any actual phenomenon. in fact, the constant use of the term misogyny is actually an expression of misandry as it is used to keep men in line to submit to women and feminism and demonize men as hateful. this is also projection because feminists are the ones who hate men, which they even admit and have proven with their actions consistently throughout the history of feminism.
in part 2 we will examine the empirical side of misogyny vs misandry in the general population. spoiler: misogyny is practically non-existent, while misandry is very common. in fact, pro-female bias and anti-male bias is detectable in humans from a shockingly young age.

we hear time and time again that there's bias against women in STEM. this is a feminist lie. the exact opposite is the truth, women are favored over men and even though this is clearly the case, the feminist governments are still funding more programs to get more women into STEM/pushing men out of STEM.
the claim that there's bias against women in STEM is underpinned by bad evidence and very old studies that are cited countless of times; the totality of the evidence, including multiple experiments and meta studies shows no bias against women and shows bias in favor of women. here's a recent literature review talking about this:
https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.T2026062800003190961871258
there are CV-matched experiments listed in this paper, that prove pro-female bias:
"There have been seven published studies of matched CVs or matched vignettes, the first appearing in 1999 and the most recent appearing in 2025."
"In each experiment, faculty members were asked to rate CVs or vignettes that were identical except for gender. In some experiments, faculty members were asked to rank CVs in order of preference for hiring (socalled hirability ratings), while in other experiments faculty were asked to rate the overall strength of the CVs and how much salary they would recommend if the person was hired, and/or how willing they would be to mentor the applicant if hired."
"Six out of these seven matched-CV experiments found that a CV with a woman’s name was preferentially evaluated. Faculty across North America and Europe rated the women as stronger than the men, even though their CVs were identical. The sole exception was the smallest and oldest of the seven studies, Steinpreis et al. (1999) (N = 238). (It is also the most cited study, which cannot be simply due to it being the oldest, because it continues to be cited today more often than all but one of the subsequent studies.)"
experimental evidence proves that women are favored even if a man is equally qualified. the only study that found the opposite is the oldest and most cited one, reinforcing feminist bias.
the strength of the pro-female bias is huge:
"The female advantage in the six studies is often quite large; women are preferred over men between 56% and 75% of the time"
"The largest female advantage in matched-CV experiments was reported by Henningsen et al. (2021) who found that German, Swiss, and Austrian women were preferred 75% of the time (i.e., 3 out of 4) over identically accomplished men."

real world data, not just hypothetical experiments, shows similar pro-female bias in hiring:
"As can be seen in the actual hiring data reported by the National Research Council (NRC), women were less likely to apply for tenuretrack jobs than men, but when women did apply they were hired more often than men. And this was true for every discipline studied by the NRC"
"Many other studies, both in the U.S. and Europe, reveal similar pro-women hiring biases. For example, an analysis of professorial hires between 2007 to 2017 at the largest Norwegian university found that women were slightly more successful than men (Moratti, 2020). And as seen below, on a national level, pro-female hiring occurs in North American computer science where the female advantage is very large. Once again, if women applied for professorial positions, they were usually more successful in getting hired than men. The problem is that women are not as likely to apply, and that this is true in most countries."
the last sentence is very revealing about this paper's own pro-female bias, phrasing it as a "problem" that women less apply to computer science; if women had the same interest as men in computer science they would almost completely drive men out due to pro-female bias. the paper itself falls into feminist framing a couple of times unfortunately, however it cites useful data.

the paper also details some feminist backlash against data that challenges feminist narratives:
"When findings that challenge the dominant narrative are discouraged—or worse, suppressed—entire bodies of research may promote false conclusions (Clark et al., 2023). This is already happening in the domain of gender bias, as can be seen by the sample quotes appearing in the mainstream science media presented in the introduction to this paper. And the repercussions can be and frequently are felt by researchers who have challenged the dominant narrative. We conducted an informal nonscientific email survey of 40 active gender researchers who were cited in various articles. We asked them what happened when they attempted to publish their findings, and to provide examples. Twenty-one gender researchers responded, eighteen of whom described various threats and harassments they encountered as a direct result of their findings refuting the dominant narrative. As can be seen, they perceive dangers facing those whose research does not support the dominant narrative. A number of them indicated that they are considering no longer doing gender research, and stated that they discourage their graduate students and early-career colleagues from working on questions that challenge the dominant gender narrative, out of fear that this could lead to negative consequences in publishing, receiving funding, and being hired."

one of the researcher's responses even mentioned how her family was threatened:
"One researcher recounted an audience reaction when a group of women faculty on her campus invited her to discuss her findings that ran counter to the dominant gender narrative. One professor in the audience told her that she hoped the researcher’s own children (who attended the same university as the professor in question) never ended up in any of the professor’s classes, because “they would not have an easy time there.”" this is disgusting! as you can clearly see feminists even bully other women into silence if they run against the feminist agenda. feminism is mainly about harming men. if feminists systematically filter out dissenting researchers, academia can be described as nothing more than a feminist echo chamber. it's worse actually because the prevailing feminist "research" is often cited by the mainstream media, influencing the public and government policy to suit feminist interests.

the pro-female favoritism and anti-male discrimination is not just implicit but also explicit, as many universities have been found to promote discriminatory programs:
https://www.govtech.com/education/Do-Women-STEM-College-Programs-Discriminate-Against-Males.html

as we can see there's no bias against women in STEM, there's a massive pro-women bias in STEM and academia; yet governments around the world still promote and fund programs that try to get women into STEM:

google ai research result

there's also clear evidence that women are simply less interested in fields related to STEM than men:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/

none of that discriminatory behavior against men is justified; my prediction is that more and more men will be driven out of STEM and academia in general, many high IQ innovative men will be unable to pursue their dreams and will be driven into low status jobs or unemployment. and of course, if the anti-male bias in STEM and academia continues, this will also be damaging to the quality of science itself.

it is important to have pro male counter memes; feminists have perfected the art of spreading disinformation about men in the form of fake short hand statistics like "1 in 4 women" or "1 in 3 women" or "1 in 10 men admits to..." feminist media pumps these fake stats out like a factory.
we need pro male counter memes, like these short hand statistics but unlike feminists our stats are actually true:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02717-0
"In the present sample, 71% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization by a woman at least once during their lifetime." 71% is roughly 7 out of 10 men victimized by women.
as for how many women admit to sexual aggression against men, here's this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25854587/
"a total of 260 female college students answered to an online survey. Among them, 93 (35.8%) reported having committed some form of sexual aggression against men"
almost 40% of women in this sample: 4 in 10 women admitting to sexual aggression against men!

we as pro male activists need to create counter memes, please use these short hand statistics or other such statistics (if you can find better ones) to have short digestable memes for the average internet person. movies like obsession and the feminists who promote this misandrist movie plant the idea in people's head that the average guy is a hidden predator, which is a disgusting lie. we need to show that male victims of sexual assault by WOMEN are not protected:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/these-men-say-women-raped-them-but-the-law-doesnt-agree_uk_5d396ed7e4b0419fd338515d
feminists are the biggest hypocrites and hate mongers; we need pro male counter memes to expose them!