IMO, removing this is a severe error.
The in-group preference studies have shown that, to a certain extent, women stick together. We MRAs like the palatable fiction that only, say, 10% of women are feminists and a misandrist problem. The MGTOWs, on the other hand, differ from us principally by believing, say, 98% of women are feminists and a misandrist problem. But what if the number is middling - say, 50%? That would account at once for the MGTOW impression that AWALT, and the MRA impression that NAWALT, that many women are reachable and intend to be decent.
A further problem is reverse Grundyism (hat tip to Charles Dickens) - the tendency of humans to be decent to family but brutal to strangers. As an example, Judith Grossman wrote a famous WSJ op-ed about the massive campus due process problem. She helped found a female pro-due-process group (such as those testifying before DeVos to obtain rescission of the Dear Colleague letter). However, she was a devout feminist until the problem struck her own son. It may well be that 50% or 90% of women adhere to a "female mafia" or "female cartel or simply "sisterhood" until a major anti-male problem strikes their family.
Finally, OP's post may be crudely or bluntly expressed simply because English may not be OP's native language. We don't want to exclude non-native-speakers.
The female in-group preference, though only recently documented, has been the root of misandry for centuries. Now, with majority female electorate and Harvard Law professors admitting we have "feminist governance," the problem is even more acute. If we cannot discuss it, then MR becomes useless.
Finally, women complain generally and interminably about men, whether informally, or formally as "toxic masculinity" or "patriarchy". Mutatis mutandis, men should occasionally be able to complain about women generally, whether about "toxic femininity" or about the feminine in-group preference (aka "sisterhood").
If you put the post back up, I can respond to OP and commenters with a toned-down version raising the problem of female in-group preference without sounding misogynist.
Alternately, I can compose a post from scratch straightforwardly redacting this one, but I don't want to waste an hour carefully composing a good post only to have it killed on the grounds of ostensible misogyny or link to this post.