https://www.bbc.com/news/education-31751672

This structural violence against young boys.

https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/sejm-przyjal-ustawe-women-on-boards---wieksza-rownowaga-plci-we-wladzach-spolek-publicznych

Yesterday Polish Parliament (Sejm) adopted the European "Women on Boards" directive about gender parities in big corporations. This is a deform targeting gender-equal system which promoted merit over gender and is a step for further diminishing of mens' rights. The act isn't approved by the president yet

Explaining the polish political landscape, the goverment is a grand coalition of liberal tradcons (PSL, KO and PL2050) with fake progressives from "New Left", while the president is from MAGA-supported party.

I will make an update post when this directive will gain full legal power

Serving as the 2nd half of my prelude to the Temperance movement. I want to bring to light the major players of the temperance movement in this separate post. I will be attempting to string together the events of the temperance movement in the later posts in a proper write up later down the line.

If you spend any time tracking the modern machinery of family law, the endless loop of anti-male media tropes, or the systematic extraction of men's assets in the family court system, you can hit a wall of profound exhaustion.

Everywhere you look, the problem is framed as an amorphous, shape-shifting monster. It's "systemic," "cultural,", and these statements are true. But remember, these are enforced. Forgetting that denomination, one's thinking can delve into considering this a natural evolution of progress.

This framing can be psychological trap. It breeds learned helplessness. When you tell men that they are fighting an invisible, multi-headed historical ghost, you paralyze them. If a system has no authors, no blueprint, and no coordinates, it cannot be fought.

But here is the cold, liberating reality: The legal and moral matrix that weaponizes female vulnerability and enforces male liability is not a force of nature. It was engineered by people, specific people.

If you want to stop feeling helpless, you have to stop looking at the system as a ghost and start treating it as an apparatus. It’s time to get familiar with some of these people.

Ideological Manufacturers

To understand how the modern family court can pathologize a man’s behavior based on un-falsifiable, subjective "mental injury" while leaving his lifetime financial liabilities entirely intact, you have to go back to the early 19th century.

When the Industrial Revolution pulled physical work out of the household and moved it into the marketplace, the elite daughters of the fading New England agrarian aristocracy faced a material crisis: they had lost their traditional economic utility and their marriage market value.

To survive, they didn’t launch a revolution for absolute equality. Instead, they formed a highly organized literary and moral cartel to manufacture a brand-new asset class: Female Moral Superiority and Psychological Fragility.

Here are the key historical players who coded the software that still runs our legal system today:

1. Catharine Beecher [1800–1878]: The High Priestess of "Indirect Power"

Catharine Beecher was the chief ideological architect of the "Separation of Spheres."

• In her masterwork, A Treatise on Domestic Economy (1841), Beecher executed a theological inversion. She threw out the old Calvinist view that women were morally weak, replacing it with the myth that women possessed a naturally superior, pristine spiritual essence.
• Beecher explicitly opposed women’s suffrage and told women to stay out of public politics. Why? Because she realized that by remaining an "insulated angel" in the home, a woman could claim total moral neutrality while leveraging intense, un-falsifiable psychological influence over the men who funded her. She taught a generation of bourgeois women how to trade formal power for absolute, state-enforced protection.

2. Sarah Josepha Hale [1788-1979] | The Print Cartel: Godey’s Lady’s Book

Led by editor Sarah Josepha Hale, this mid-19th-century media powerhouse reached an unprecedented 150,000 subscribers, operating exactly like the high-society afternoon media algorithms of today.

• The Product: Godey’s did not just sell fashion plates; it sold a standardized, class-conscious performance of female fragility. It taught middle-class women that having a sensitive nervous system, suffering from "languor," and requiring absolute emotional deference from men was the ultimate marker of high social status.
• The Consequence: They successfully transformed a woman's emotional comfort from a private marital dynamic into a high-value, socially recognized asset class that men were culturally obligated to finance.

3. The Abolitionist Proxy: Harriet Beecher Stowe [1811-1896]

Catharine Beecher's sister.

Catharine Beecher’s sister was Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852).

• The Blueprint: While celebrated as an anti-slavery text, Uncle Tom’s Cabin subtly operated as a massive vehicle for the innate moral superiority of the female gender and white maternal dominance. Stowe argued that the economic system of slavery was a uniquely "masculine," market-driven, materialist evil.
• The Value Proposition: To counter it, she didn't just argue for black liberation; she positioned the Christian home and the maternal white woman as the ultimate, supreme moral authority capable of purifying the nation. She used the horrific reality of slavery as a proxy to argue that men’s public systems (politics, commerce, law) were inherently corrupt, and that society could only be saved if it submitted to the moral sensibilities of women. Fun fact: this moral repositioning was essential to women nominating themselves as more appropriate leaders of colonial projects, and extended to other colonial projects/conflicts such as that in South Africa, with concentration camps in the Boer war.

Positioning yourself with minority groups who are actually oppressed, is a tactic that feminists do today with gay people, black people etc, as a means to siphon some sort of political legitimacy. They are thrown out when inconvenient (i.e. tokens are spent).

4. The Father of Temperance : Lyman Beecher [1775-1863]

Lyman Beecher (father to Catharine, Harriet, and Henry Ward Beecher) was universally considered one of the primary "Fathers of the Temperance Movement" in America.

Lyman Beecher is the literal bridge to frontier colonization. He authored a massively influential text called A Plea for the West (1835). In it, he argued that the American West (the frontier being carved out of native lands) was a spiritual battlefield.

This colonisation project, is tied to the moral panic narratives and divorce laws that were afforded to women. By making marriage more appealing to women, more 'families' could be borne, as a means to 'civilise' the land.

5. Mary Hanchett Hunt [1830–1906]: The Institutional Brainwasher

If Catharine Beecher wrote the software, Mary Hanchett Hunt was the one who hard-coded it into the brains of every child in the United States.

• The Role: She was the Superintendent of the Scientific Temperance Instruction department of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU).
• The Threat Narrative: Hunt recognized that adults could resist pamphlets, so she targeted the school system. She successfully lobbied state legislatures to make temperance education mandatory in every public school.
• The Propaganda: She forced publishers to rewrite biology textbooks to include absolute fictions (sound familiar?). Her textbooks taught children that a single drop of alcohol would permanently burn a hole in their stomachs, cause their blood to turn to water, and inevitably transform their fathers into violent, slavering maniacs who would murder them in their sleep. She raised two entire generations of Americans to view masculine social behavior as a literal biological threat to national survival

6. Frances Willard [1839–1898]: The Totalitarian Strategist

Frances Willard was the long-time president of the WCTU and arguably the most powerful political organizer in American history. She explicitly tied the threat narrative directly to state dominance.

• The "Do Everything" Policy: Willard took the WCTU from a simple anti-alcohol club and transformed it into a multi-tiered political cartel. Her motto was "Do Everything." She argued that to protect the home from the predatory male, women needed to control everything: prison reform, education, labor laws, and the police.
• Willard was the master of using the "Home Protection" argument to expand state police powers. She told politicians that if the state did not grant women the vote and the power to police the community, the frontier would collapse into savage anarchy. She successfully weaponized the illusion of female vulnerability to secure massive funding for state surveillance, prison houses for "deviant" men, and the total bureaucratic framework that modern family courts still use to monitor male behavior.

For eg, they created the Department of Social Purity. This department if you dig a little deeper, was involved in placing WCTU agents inside local police departments, courts, and municipal boards.

Frances Willard specifically, engaged in reforming the police system that we know of in America today. Specifically, the Invention of the Police Matron and the Sex-Segregated Reformatory.

Before this person, the American penal system was physically unsegregated. Men and women arrested for public crimes (vagrancy, drunkenness, theft) were thrown into the same local jails and precinct lock-ups, all staffed exclusively by male guards.

Frances pushed for 2 things

1. Police Matrons (female prison guards) - The WCTU launched a massive, state-by-state legislative blitz demanding that municipal police departments hire Police Matrons : "virtuous, middle-class women" who would hold exclusive custody over any arrested women or juveniles.

This was the first time in history that the state's coercive law enforcement apparatus was legally split by gender. It institutionalized a permanent bureaucratic foothold for women reformers directly inside police precincts, allowing them to oversee arrests and dictate municipal moral policy

2. The Separate Women's Reformatory System - Examples of this are the Massachusetts Reformatory Prison for Women at Framingham (1877) or the WCTU-backed local homes for "fallen women" established across the West

By convincing the state to build separate, specialized reformatories to rehabilitate women, the standard, harsh, punitive state prison system was left as an apparatus designated almost exclusively for the punishment and forced labor of men. The state hard-coded a system where criminalized women received therapeutic, maternal rehabilitation, while criminalized men received raw carceral punishment.

While female prisons are not necessarily the same to this, it is paramount to understand that the separation of prisons was part and parcel of the broader feminist narrative that was present during and building before the official beginning of the temperance movement.

The primary concern for police matrons for eg, came about from feminist concerns regarding protecting female inmates from abuse by male guards, and rehabilitative (vs. purely punitive) treatment for women.

7. Timothy Shay Arthur [1809-1885] - the male feminist ally/writer

T.S. Arthur was an explicit ally of the early feminist movement. 

Was a highly successful, self-taught male writer who realized that selling the narrative of female moral superiority to bourgeois women was the most lucrative literary formula in 19th-century America.

failed out of traditional schooling early.

Couldn't work the mills due to bad eyesight

In the 1830s, he broke into the booming market of domestic magazines, becoming one of the most prolific contributors to Godey's Lady’s Book

Launched his own carbon-copy publication, Arthur's Home Magazine

Explicitly targeted middle-class women, writing over 150 books and selling over a million copies

Vastly more commercially successful in his lifetime than other public figures

Created visual horror shows of broken domestic sanctuaries. He portrayed working-class men as naturally destructive beasts and wives as helpless, angelic martyrs.

8. L.M. Sargent (Lucius Manlius Sargent): The Wealthy OG "Trauma-Porn" Pioneer [1786–1867]

Wealthy, elite New England aristocrat who used his fortune to bankroll early temperance propaganda.

Wrote Temperance Tales (1835–1843).

Featured graphic, highly exaggerated accounts of men transforming into demonic beasts the moment they took a drink, abandoning their pristine, angelic wives to freeze to death in winter storms. He proved that before you can pass laws to strip men of their contractual rights, you must first spend a decade conditioning the public to view them as domestic monsters.

9. Mary A. Livermore [1820–1905]: The Political Bridge

Mary Livermore  is a critical player because she bridges the gap between the Beecher sisters, the WCTU, and the Suffrage movement.

• She wrote a massive bestseller titled Thirty Years Too Late (1847) and later edited the Agitator, a radical suffrage and temperance newspaper.
• The Narrative: Livermore didn’t just write fiction; she explicitly argued that the traditional marriage contract was an engine of male tyranny fueled by alcohol. She used her platform to mass-produce the threat narrative that women were trapped in a state of perpetual physical danger, arguing that the state had a moral obligation to step inside the home, monitor the husband, and grant the wife unilateral control over the family's assets.
• Wrote about book called A Woman of the Century (1893) — a massive biographical encyclopedia of American women, co-edited with Frances Willard

The Political Executioners: Turning Moral Panic Into Civil Law

Once the software of "female moral superiority" was deeply embedded in the cultural psyche, a new faction of players emerged to hard-code it into the legal system. Their weapon of choice was the first massive, organized anti-male moral panic in American history: The Temperance Movement.

1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton [1815-1902]

While mainstream history celebrates Stanton exclusively for the Seneca Falls Convention, her most material, devastating work occurred in the trenches of early divorce law reform and the Temperance crusade.

• The Tactic: Stanton and her networks did not lead their campaigns with abstract arguments about personal autonomy. Instead, they mass-produced highly sensationalized, moralistic pamphlets pathologizing the male population as "drunken monsters" destroying the fragile, holy sanctuary of the domestic home.
• The Theft of Contract: They used this acute moral panic to aggressively lobby state legislatures to rewrite the civil code. Under the guise of protecting "vulnerable women and children," they successfully engineered the earliest versions of fault-free legal separation and lifetime maintenance.

They replaced relatively objective legal standards (like actual physical violence) with subjective, un-falsifiable metrics of "mental cruelty" (a precedent famously detonated by the high-society Butler v. Butler case - 1849). They created a pipeline where a woman could use the state's coercive power to exit a union with the assets, while keeping the man legally bound to fund her delicate lifestyle under penalty of imprisonment.

2. Joel Prentiss Bishop [1814-1901]

"foremost law writer of the age" in 19th-century America

In 1852, he published Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce, the single most influential legal treatise on the subject in American history. Bishop argued that law was not just a cold set of rules, but a reflection of "God-given moral sense."

As we know from an earlier post, Prentiss Bishop here is responsible for the 1872 Civil code, which invented the concept of 'extreme cruelty', playing a much larger role in family courts then no fault divorce law arguably did. The liberal application of this characterisation to extract more from men in courts, is exactly the same way that courts are now framing 'psychological abuse' in marriages, against men in marriages TODAY. Which really brings home the point that the issues that we as men are facing have not changed over the centuries.

3. Neal Dow [1804-1897]

The 'Napoleon' of the temperance movement.

"Father of Prohibition"

Mayor of Portland, Maine

Dow authored the "Maine Law" of 1851, the first total statutory prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. The law had a devastating mechanism: any three voters could apply for a search warrant to have the state seize a man's property based on mere suspicion.

The Portland Rum Riot (1855): When working-class Irish immigrants—who saw the Maine Law as a thinly veiled class and cultural attack on their lives—discovered Dow was secretly storing $1,600 worth of alcohol in the city vaults, they surrounded the building. Dow didn't de-escalate; he called out the state militia and ordered them to fire into the crowd of protesters, killing a working-class sailor named John Robbins and wounding seven others.

4. Susan B. Anthony [1820-1906]

Worked hand-in-hand with Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the early 1850s as a fierce Temperance mobilizer.

• The Legislative Target: Anthony was the boots-on-the-ground organizer who aggressively lobbied for the expansion of the Married Women’s Property Acts (specifically the New York acts of 1848 and 1860). - Coincidentally, a year before the Butler v Butler case in 1849 which sparked talk about 'expanding the grounds for divorce' via 'extreme cruelty'
• The Catch: While modern feminists frame these acts as simple financial independence for women, Anthony and Stanton explicitly marketed them to the public using the Temperance threat narrative. They told legislatures that these laws were necessary to protect "fragile wives" from having their assets seized by "drunken, abusive husbands."
• The Reality: By using the extreme archetype of the drunken abuser as a proxy, they successfully rewrote the baseline civil code to allow a wife to separate her assets from the marriage while the husband remained legally responsible for all household debts, maintenance, and liabilities.

5. Carrie Moore "Carry A. Nation" [1846–1911]

A terrorist

You cannot write a field guide to anti-male moral panics without naming the 6-foot-tall, hatchet-wielding manifestation of pure moral absolutism: Carry A. Nation .

• The Tactic: Carry Nation did not care about the slow, legislative process. Operating under what she called "Hatchetations," she would march into bars and saloons dressed in severe black-and-white clothing, singing hymns while violently demolishing the bar fixtures, mirrors, and stock with a massive hatchet and pockets full of rocks.
• The Weaponization of Chivalry: Her strategy relied entirely on a massive gender double standard. Men were bound by the strict codes of Victorian chivalry, meaning male patrons and bartenders were socially paralyzed and could not physically strike an older woman without causing a public riot. She leveraged this protection to inflict thousands of dollars in property damage, paying off her subsequent jail fines by selling miniature souvenir hatchets to her massive network of bourgeois female supporters.
• The Media Engine: She funded her militant group, the Home Defender’s Army, by publishing radical newsletters like The Smasher’s Mail and The Hatchet, explicitly framing her property destruction as a holy crusade to protect the "delicate home" from the ungodly, masculine marketplace.

Carrie had 2 husbands. The first named, Charles Gloyd, whom she left, because the man was a drunk, who was drinking due to 2 reasons

i. Alcohol was cheap

ii. PTSD from the civil war (1861-1865)

They met right around the END of the civil war in America. They got married in 1867. Wikipedia and other sources frame this disingenuously here

Rather, he was an abusive alcoholic who drank himself to death just 16 months after their marriage, leaving her widowed, pregnant, and in deep financial ruin.

Gloyd got left by Carrie, after which he drank himself to death.

Yet, you know how history paints Gloyd?

"Someone who abused Carrie, via devastating neglect, psychological torment, and abandonment"

If you recall, divorce law entered around framing 'extreme cruelty' as a righteous means for divorce. This is the narrative with which she divorced her 1st husband, and left him to die.

THIS, is a champion of the temperance movement. And you know what supporters of her would say instead? They engage in feminist revisionism of history, and it is deplorable.

Feminist revision of saloons

Prohibition didn't work but the temperance movement was so intertwined with women's rights/suffrage for a reason. Men had complete control over households and family finances and it wasn't uncommon for a man to get paid and immediately go spend most of it at the local bar while the family suffered. Alcohol also helped (and still does) fuel domestic violence. Carrie's first husband was a severe alcoholic who died very young from it. To her seeing bars everywhere was probably like seeing drug dealers on every corner. In her later years she opened one of the first women's shelters for wives and children of alcoholics.

The amount of projection in this statement is laughable. This is how you know history is feminist. Without proper context, feminists would have you believing that the victims are the perpetrators and the perpetrators the victims.

She was literally known for harassing and smashing up saloon stock - the only place where men of this class were able to afford sustenance.

Here is a quick counter to this disgusting misandrist feminist invention.

Firstly, most men in these saloons were single.

They had no wives to abuse.

The bachelor population in urban areas only grew faster after the Civil War. Consequently, single men often greatly outnumbered single women in the cities. This gender imbalance, along with the rising costs of living, resulted in young men putting off marriage longer than previous generations of bachelors. By 1890, the average marrying age for a man was close to our modern marrying age: 26. With so many men putting off marriage, a feedback loop formed that increased the proportion of urban single men even more. In that same year, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 67 percent of all men between the ages of 15 and 34 were bachelors.

AND

The golden age of the bachelor was also the golden age of the saloon. By 1895, American cities had, on average, one saloon for every 317 residents and the primary customer was single men (women, who were not prostitutes, were typically banned outright). For many bachelors living in cities, the saloon wasn’t just a place where they could grab a pint of beer and play cards with friends after work. Saloons also provided other services that bachelors needed, including banking services (like check cashing and credit extension) and mail services.

The most important service saloons offered bachelors was providing food. Back in the late 19th century, many cities required bars and saloons to provide free food to patrons. For just the cost of a pint of beer, a young and hungry bachelor could fill himself with some hearty victuals. For many urban bachelors, saloon food was their only source of sustenance. Immigrant Oscar Ameringer described the kind of free food you could get in an 1880s Cincinnati bar: “By investing five cents in a schooner of beer and holding on to the evidence of purchase, one could eat one’s fill of such delicacies as rye bread, cheese, hams, sausage, pickled and smoked herring, sardines, onions, radishes, and pumpernickel.”

SECONDLY

Almost none of the women leading the temperance crusades or smashing up saloons were married to working-class men, let alone alcoholics. Carry was an exception, never got abused by her 1st husband, and left him to die, justifying the divorce as her escaping his 'psychological abuse'.

The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the street crusaders were comprised almost exclusively of wealthy, white, Protestant, middle-to-upper-class bourgeois wives.

The temperance movement was simply another act of top-down class imperialism. They looked out their windows at the immigrant, working-class populations (largely Irish and German Catholics) who utilized saloons, and they branded their cultural and communal habits as "savage," "unrefined," and a threat to the Protestant social order. Just like how British women viewed Indian men. There is no imagination, wit or creativity in women's bigotry against men. It is the same tired narrative.

Purpose | Putting names to your oppression

The purpose of this post is to hopefully spur some interest in some readers to do the same.

When we talk about how the TeaOnHerApp got banned but not the original app, Nancy Mace is to blame. Who is Nancy Mace? Some conservative politician who has a history of falsely accusing most of her sexual partners of being rapists and child abusers.

When we talk about how Switzerland and Austria maintaining conscription for men only in a referendum, and how women managed to vote in that referendum to determine what we get to do with our own bodies, point to people like Cyrielle Huguenot - head of equality, family and migration issues at the Swiss Trade Union Federation (USS).

There are numerous issues that we have that have instigators that deserve naming.

Contextualising your systemic issues in the form of names, not just organisations, helps discretise and clarify these issues. As I have hopefully illustrated, these people who are oppressing you have families, hobbies, jobs, institutions they report to regularly. If they play chess, it could be considered relevant AFAIK.

r MensRights are a controlled opposition sub. Just see how they remove our petition against a feminist's game on Steam called "Femme Fatality", a game that idealizes murdering men.

https://www.change.org/p/calling-on-visa-to-deny-femme-fatality-payment-processing

While a few good commenters also wanted the feminist game banned are barely got any upvotes, many passive lay-downs objected to the petition and sadly got many upvotes. The lay-downs just raise their dead-end thought terminating clichés and other reasons not to care. Here are my counter-replies.

like "Don't use censorship, let the game come out and flop"

So first: feminists make flop after flop after flop, and they still keep on making them, and they still keep on dominating the games and entertainment industry. If they get away with this, it will just embolden them. They don't care about making money. They just want to spew their hateful message, period.

or "Don't use payment processors as censorship, we're fucking with the fundamentals of our economic system"

So secondly: feminists have already fucked up the economic system with their payment processor cancellations ordered by Collective Shout. So what you want us to do is just take the abuse, let them censor us and ban our games, then let them practice hate speech against us, and then we don't retaliate.

Paradoxically the best chance you've got to end this payment process abuse is to use it against the feminists, and then you can go "look, if you don't use it against us, we won't use it against you." That's your best chance, but you're not even prepared to do that.

or "I care more about free speech than trying to ban some stupid video game. Let them play it. Banning stuff because you're offended is part of the feminist playbook, not ours."

So thirdly: The thread got censored and removed. Why aren't you going to the mods of MensRights and complaining about their censorship, you hypocritical cretins? Clearly none of you care about the censorship against us.

or "When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt!"

So forth: Our enemies aren't making a mistake. Nothing will backfire on them. Notice they've been "making this mistake" of spreading manhate for 60 years now, when Valerie Solanas wrote the SCUM manifesto in the 1960s, and got praised by all the most important feminists of the time, and they're still not facing repercussions yet. Thinking they're making a mistake that will backfire any day now, that's just stupid cope and MGTOW-type passivism.

You guys even have the "misandry bubble", a blog post made in 2011 by a right-wing libertarian, who said misandry is a bubble that would burst by 2014 and everything would self-correct. This clearly hasn't happened has it? It clearly won't happen. Misandry is worse than ever now.

or "Looks like shovelware. Not worth the time"

So fifth: this is just arguing the quality of the game, which is beside the point you muppet. So if this misandrist game was a high-quality polished AAA game, would it be different then? What point are you even making?

There was a low-quality shovel ware game on Stream greenlight in 2015, where you had to kill gays and transpeople, and that got swiftly removed by Valve. That got taken seriously. Are we not allowed to take misandry from shovelware seriously?

"I got into mens rights through gamer gate. I was in game design school at the time. I don't like the idea to shut down games because of "what is represents". I didn't like it back when feminists tried to do it and I don't like it now..."

Yeah okay. So you're just a loser then, and GamerGate is a failed movement that achieved nothing.

"We don't even know what the message of this game is, only the premise,"

The message is obvious from the store page, it's about killing men.

"Killing men is VERY common in videogames. And in other media like films as well."

Well you realize there's levels to this, right? We're talking about censoring a game that is hate propaganda targeted against men, not just any violent action game where men die.

"It would be better to wait for the demo to come out, collect clear instances of blatant hate speech, and then present them."

Okay, so you wait for the hate crime to happen, which is fail. You pre-emptively tackle the hate crime instead.

Also the problem with this sort of hate speech is it's hidden behind sarcasm and irony, so the hateful message gets through while shielded with plausible deniability.

"I literally could not care less. I don't have to be a whiny snowflake to believe in men's rights. If people want to make dumb games let them. You literally sound just like the feminists."

Anyone who pulls "you're just like the feminists" end up behaving like feminists themselves, the argument is pure projection. He's ironically acting like a whiny snowflake against our petition to censor a feminist hate propaganda game. Enough said here.

"There needs to be some pushback, a change dot org petition is not the way though. Better pester Valve directly..."

Are you dense? You use the petition to galvanize people AND pester Valve. It's not an either/or case here. You're so weird, shooting down every little tactic. This is why men's rights gets nowhere.

"Just forget about it, there's a billion trash Steam games that receive no attention and this will be one of them if nobody panics. Also not gonna lie but there are a bunch of low quality games about just killing women, have been for years."

This is just a lie. The idea that there's a flood of games about killing women is completely made up.

"Let some traumatised hoe make her revenge fantasy game. It's not going to radicalise anyone and anyone who buys and plays it already hates men anyway."

Their hatred shouldn't be validated on the market you nitwit, and you're a delusional misandrist yourself.

These are not "hoes who have been traumatised", women don't get traumatised into hatred, no men damaged these women. "Who damaged these women" is such a misandrist trope. You're an unthinking muppet if you assume it's real. Feminist manhaters don't need to be damaged or hurt by men, they are just narcissistic bullies.

Also I guess we should give up on anti-racist laws by your logic then, since "anyone who attends a Nazi rally already hates brown immigrants anyway." The point of such laws isn't to change the minds of Nazis so they're no longer racist, they're to suppress them and deny them freedom to do harm to other. We are applying the same principle here against feminsts.

I'm done explaining myself here. You have dumb and hopeless libertarians and GamerGaters running the men's rights space. Not only do they not want to take action, they want to cockblock others who talk about action as well.

They don't want to run any economic or censorship costs on feminists, which not only would be deserved on them, it would be true honest activism. They just block any desire for real activism for the sake of their worthless and abstract free market, free speech, artistic freedom absolutist principles, which have not protected men's rights at all and have delivered nothing.

Their poisonous mindset holds men's rights back and is why feminist censorship and hate of men is allowed to unchecked and get worse every year.

And to top it all off, their space censors us, so they're hypocrites.

A notable PFC member decided to silence the opposing comments on her post. This shows that they do not seek debate, they rather seek absolute power ,censorship and a platform to propagate their hateful views

https://www.change.org/p/calling-on-visa-to-deny-femme-fatality-payment-processing?recruiter=1418606259&recruited_by_id=93903d90-6277-11f1-b4b5-d9fa04845499&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=starter_onboarding_share_personal&utm_medium=copylink&share_id=9qkbD6KtLz

Here is the video link covering this misandrist article about this misandrist male indoctrination camp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdJsBWhBGk

Feminist have infiltrated and taken over the psychology field and use it to attack the self worth of men under the guise of false empathy. It's evil disguised as good.

The main concern of the camp is to attack the ''manosphere'' as evil so that men under their ''care'' don't look at voices that oppose their hateful narratives.

They want men to blame themselves for the abuse they suffer from others. They want these men not to gain control over their lives and situations but to submit to the abuse. to take it and continue on.

The current feminist smear job on the New Stellar Blade game is not a recent trend, but a long term one. There was a fake controversy over another recent game called Pragmata, because that game featured a girl droid you protect and the game was basically a dad simulator. (And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that feminists are into father alienation and are also attacking fictional father/daughter relationships.)

There’s a long term feminist attack on men and their fantasy lives. They’re attacking men’s sexuality, and also attacking men outside of their sexuality. Men are not even allowed to fantasise about father/daughter affection now. The manhaters are such control freaks.

There is a long term pattern of attacks on male fandoms. If feminists can’t infiltrate them from within and trash them, like they did with Star Wars and Doctor Who, they will rage out and incite violence on them, like what feminists did against a game called Sense: A Cyberpunk Ghost Story. (See images 2, 3 and 4)

Also feminists love pedo-smearing men for their natural sexuality. One of the screencaps I have included in this post shows feminists shaming a man and calling him a sex offender over a picture of two adult women wrestling. That picture has zero links to paedophilia in any sense of the word, it is just a random non-sequitur smear. (See image 5)

Feminists have been going after stuff men enjoy for years now. Here I will drop a few links as examples:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/20/australia-bans-import-of-hentai-and-other-adult-anime-products-from-japan/

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/01/top_hat_studios_issues_statement_regarding_demands_to_censor_sense_-_a_cyberpunk_ghost_story

(Also notice how Australian Customs bans hentai and anime figurines by classifying them as "illegal porn" next to child porn and bestiality. This is another example of the feminist state smearing a genre of male sexual fantasy products with the tangent of real sexual crimes.) (See images 6 and 7)

This old subreddit was keeping track of feminist censorship as well:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminist_Censorship/

Men need their own safe spaces where they can appreciate the female form without any judgement or stigma. Men do not deserve to be disparaged, stigmatised, dehumanised, hassled, stalked or bullied just because of their natural attraction to adult women. This is why the subreddit r/people_drawing_women was created, as this is a space for us men, we have a right to it. We have a right to be ourselves without being abused. If we do not put up strong boundaries then we will have all our stuff taken away from us.

PS: The last screencap shows that artists are scared to draw sexy women, this proves the chilling effect works on men. (See image 8)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminist_Censorship/comments/uatzzd/this_male_artist_admits_he_is_scared_of_drawing/