"Classic" Terminology That Needs to Die
I am talking about the all-too-popular neologism mangina. That slangy goody has been around for several years, and I think it would be a wise idea to make it fade away or at least banish it from all but unpublic conversation in the offline world. It is high time for the MRA sector to grow an elite cadre of organic intellectuals who are willing to discourse in a more advanced lexicon! Don't you agree?
Please read the following. It will take you all of two minutes:
[Note: As of Feb. 2011, the originally-posted link is found to be dead.]
I have little to add, other than remark that the word mangina has popped up on the radar screen of none other than Jessica Valenti — who is both the publisher of Feministing.com, and a feminist birdbrain extraordinaire! And I mean that almost literally: Jessica's manner of expression puts me very much in mind of a twittering sparrow or a chattering rodent, and packs a comparable volume of substance. As for Jessi herself, she radiates all the spirituality and depth of soul you'd expect of any decent street puddle—and my assessment is subject to revision pending further wisdom from Mizzz Valenti. But I'm not holding my breath.
Anyhow, I once had a couple of hours to kill in a public library, and Jessica's book Full Frontal Feminism came to hand, so I read the thing pretty near cover-to-cover. (It's featherweight stuff meant for featherweight people, which is why I got through it so fast.)
And wouldn't you know it, the word mangina appeared! But Jessica Valenti had ZERO idea what the word really means. For although the word is vastly more political than sexual, the political nuance was lost upon her; she decreed that it meant "sissy" or some such, which is at best a remote approximation of what it means! But then Jessica has a masters degree in women's studies, and as our linked author informs us: "Once those who are not intellectually elite get ahold of it, its meaning will be skewed".
I would seriously recommend that we adopt, in place of mangina, the word COLLABORATIONIST. There is no way in hell to miss the political nuance in a word like that! Really now, if we intend to be taken seriously, then we must use serious words. And collaborationist is a deadly serious word indeed, a word that offers no semantic grappling points to our enemies. For the meaning of such terminology cannot, willfully or otherwise, be wrongly imputed; it is a word that means business, a word that comes down with ominous reverberation like a fist upon a tabletop, a word that makes morons gulp and sit up straight!
Toss mangina in the dustbin. I'm serious. We need to lose that word!
Please read the following. It will take you all of two minutes:
[Note: As of Feb. 2011, the originally-posted link is found to be dead.]
I have little to add, other than remark that the word mangina has popped up on the radar screen of none other than Jessica Valenti — who is both the publisher of Feministing.com, and a feminist birdbrain extraordinaire! And I mean that almost literally: Jessica's manner of expression puts me very much in mind of a twittering sparrow or a chattering rodent, and packs a comparable volume of substance. As for Jessi herself, she radiates all the spirituality and depth of soul you'd expect of any decent street puddle—and my assessment is subject to revision pending further wisdom from Mizzz Valenti. But I'm not holding my breath.
Anyhow, I once had a couple of hours to kill in a public library, and Jessica's book Full Frontal Feminism came to hand, so I read the thing pretty near cover-to-cover. (It's featherweight stuff meant for featherweight people, which is why I got through it so fast.)
And wouldn't you know it, the word mangina appeared! But Jessica Valenti had ZERO idea what the word really means. For although the word is vastly more political than sexual, the political nuance was lost upon her; she decreed that it meant "sissy" or some such, which is at best a remote approximation of what it means! But then Jessica has a masters degree in women's studies, and as our linked author informs us: "Once those who are not intellectually elite get ahold of it, its meaning will be skewed".
I would seriously recommend that we adopt, in place of mangina, the word COLLABORATIONIST. There is no way in hell to miss the political nuance in a word like that! Really now, if we intend to be taken seriously, then we must use serious words. And collaborationist is a deadly serious word indeed, a word that offers no semantic grappling points to our enemies. For the meaning of such terminology cannot, willfully or otherwise, be wrongly imputed; it is a word that means business, a word that comes down with ominous reverberation like a fist upon a tabletop, a word that makes morons gulp and sit up straight!
Toss mangina in the dustbin. I'm serious. We need to lose that word!
posted by Fidelbogen at 11:17 PM
18 Comments:
Fidelbogen i never liked the "mangina " word either. We need something shorter Collaborationist is definitely more accurate. I like the WW2 sound to it. Look at the way feminazi caught on the feminists hate that one.
Maybe start a camapaign for a better word a few other suggestions:
femi-lackey,femi- boy,femi -wus
femisider,
I looked up "Collaborationist", only definition meant to side with the enemy, good.
However, a very similar word "Collaborator" just meanst to cooperate... not as strong. If people had pocket dictionaries and didn't go on words they already know to be the base word of another...
Anyway, a shorter term would be nicer for non-academic, but certainly the official term needs to have a director word in it, like "feminist collaborationist" or something, I'm thinking. How strong would it be for us just to call feminists "supremacists" rather than "FEMALE supremacists", the mainstream would think we're calling them racist against Blacks (most common thought, I think), look at the record and think we're nuts. Even though they are as much an enemy to Blacks as to anyone.
Anon,
The problem with those suggestions (except the last one) is that they suffer from the same issue as 'mangina', i.e. they seem to describe (or could easily skewed to mean) a man who is weak sexually (whatever THAT means!) when the issue here is political.
Collaborationist is a great word for this reason, although I do sympathise with your view that a shorter word would probably serve us better.
Here is a link to what I had to say about "mangina".
http://www.rip-factor.com/formen/mensrights/mangina.html
It is a term that can only be used against men - and it is used to describe men who are against men - a bit of a paradox?
Also:
sell-out
traitor
conformist
I always hated the term "mangina" too.
brrrr!!! A master's degree in womens studies? I can only imagine what kind of crap she brainwashed herself with. What a joke of an education! Someone saying they have a master's in womens studies is worse in my book than if they had said they never went to college at all. It's just an admission that they took years of B.S., costing lots of money and received a piece of paper for it saying they are educated.
If public high school was anything to go by with its gender studies and womens studies entrenched in the Eng. Lit. classes, you know that womens studies at any university or college is...really bad - an education in untruths.
And yes, please, let's not use the word - I mean, there is crass, and than there is CRASS.
Collaborator is fine.
Although I like using mangina in front of feminists, they get all bent out of shape that the combination of the man and the female sexual organ is derogatory because the female sex organ is "holy" don't I know.
They try and reshape it as the guy being a "manpenis" and I just laugh at them.
trent13, I agree that women's studies is not a real education. It's in fact the only course I can think of which is openly ideological / politicised in one particular direction ...
Talleyrand, I would consider being called a 'manpenis' a compliment of the highest degree! I guess it shows how uncomfortable feminists feel about their sexuality if references to vaginas upset them so.
@Anon: Yup, I like the WW2 reference contained in 'collaborationist' - in fact, that's the whole idea! ;)
@Amstrat: For reasons you have stated, 'collaborationist' is stronger (read: more deadly!) than 'collaborator', although collaborator would work. But in practice, these terms would get swapped around and everybody would know what they meant.
@sccrow: Hey; it sounds like you didn't click on that first link in the post. . . . ;) (Suggest you try it!)
Oh, and I wouldn't quite say I hate that word: I just don't particularly like it. For political reasons, there are better choices.
@Trent: Well now. . . regarding that crass word. . .heh. . .I reckon that when MRAs are gathered in the backs of dark, smoky taverns, hoisting pints of Hefweisen or Guinness Stout, the M word might perchance bounce back and forth occasionally. . .;)
@Talleyrand: Hey, it goes without saying that feminists are fair game for that kind of mischief (as you have described).
LOL Holy? Well, yeah, I guess in a certain sense I'll agree with that one - but it's not exclusive to females. Considering its true use, procreation - to create with God, one could consider that the organs are endowed with special powers. All the more reason not to denigrate it with a word that makes no sense and has connotations which deride it.
@Fidelbogen
AH GEEZ!
Not a day goes by in my life when I do not feel somewhat stupid!
I am utterly surprised that anybody is even visiting the "pro-men" section on my site though...
There are so many to choose from these days!
@sccrow:
Sir: I note with pleasure that you share my way of thinking on a very important point.
You have stated (on your website) that we need to practice message disipline by focussing narrowly on feminism as an issue and letting other issues go to the wayside.
I would concur. This, to me, is a backbone of counter-feminist policy.
"You have stated (on your website) that we need to practice message disipline by focussing narrowly on feminism as an issue and letting other issues go to the wayside."
My take on this issue is that we need a multi-pronged approach, because feminism was a multi-pronged strategy.
MRA's should indeed focus most of their power on eliminating feminism, because this removes the validation for anti-male practices and sentiments, no N.O.W. and man-haters are just sexists, with no credentials as Women's Liberation advocates or some such bogus title to lend credence to their hatred.
FRA's should focus on removing the legal barriers to men interacting with females via marriage or legal partnerships, effectively disarming their "striking arm",as it were, the arm of their movement that holds the weapon of the state, used to bludgeon unsuspecting men and pickpocket us to fund the "advocacy" or "propaganda arms" of their movements.
Meanwhile, PUA's should focus on bringing the unpalatable logical conclusion of raunch feminism directly to women on the ground. Effectively reducing your average woman to a sex toy, since her credentials and status will never cause men to admire her, and the hottest women will CONTINUE to be the ones getting the male attention, causing women to realize that aggressively competing with men in the workplace has no PRACTICAL payoff and only results in more work on the woman's part than the traditional female role.
This approach would divide their resources to defend the most crucial and vulnerable arm of their movement, the legal arm, meanwhile MRA's could combat the propaganda arm with our own facts while they use their money to battle it out, and lose, in the courts promoting an anti-male,anti-father, anti-family agenda. In essence, spending up their resources battling against the very reasonable request for fathers to be able to interact with their children and to possess parental rights, something NO FEMINIST WOMAN EVER WANTS TO SEE HAPPEN.
The common thread that seems to tie these disparate wings of our faction together is the belief that marriage is a raw deal for men, all of us posing different explanations and perspectives on the reason for this.
Every group that ties into rights for men needs to agitate against marriage to american women, or on american soil, to block the transfer of wealth to our enemies.
The ball is rolling on this thing, we have impetus, what we need is to target our opponents effectively and strategically.
I can't say I agree with Anon's conclusion on American marriage being the enemy or the raw deal - wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the enemy is relations with women period? But, unfortunately, many men would not be willing to sacrifice their physical desires for "the greater cause" of rooting out feminism.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with marriage, American or otherwise. It would be the same thing, given the problems with courts as mentioned above, to say that the raw deal is for men to have children - solution: should a man have his pregnant counterpart just have an abortion for fear of the kids being used against him in an unforseeable future? No, of course not.
There is a fundamental need to propagate the human race and the appropriate environment for that is the stable family, thus marriage, til death - no divorce - and if either party ends up with a shitty spouse, well, jeeze maybe that will make people give a heck of a lot more thought as to who they are marrying and whether or not, before even marriage is proposed or an exclusive relationship established, both parties have the same beliefs and ideals.
If you target marriage as the means by which feminists are bringing men down, you play into their game. They want the destruction of patriarchal marriage, so in the end, you give them what they want. It would be far better for men to be extremely discretionary in who they involve themselves, and if they truly are afraid of whoever they marry eventually turning into a medusa on him, not to get married at all, if for no other reason that the children of that marriage are victims of the spouses malcontent.
Hopefully I am explaining my thoughts on this sufficiently, but I know myself to be ruefully bad at getting what is in my head out in print.
"If you target marriage as the means by which feminists are bringing men down, you play into their game. They want the destruction of patriarchal marriage, so in the end, you give them what they want."
If you mean "targeting" marriage as an institution in itself, I don't think anybody is proposing such a thing. I think that what Anon. is saying is that marriage has pragmatically BECOME a minefield full of rattlesnakes (or at least a bad gamble) for men specifically.
So. . there are plenty of practical reasons to think of this "marriage strike" as a political leverage tool.
Besides, I'm not sure that feminists WANT to "destroy" marriage so much as CONTROL MEN. (Which includes exploiting them by such methods as divorce piracy - which requires marriage in the first place.) And if men in growing numbers are escaping feminist control by escaping marriage, then the feminists will straightway start "blaming" them for it, and beating the drum for marriage again.
(I've heard a feminist or three ranting against the marriage strike. Feminist opinion, at least on the surface, is NOT monolithic - even though feminism itself organically unitary at its core!)
It is hard to predict EXACTLY how the future might roll, because there are so many variables and outliers to be considered.
But the feminists have shown plenty of times that they are willing to modify their basic dogmas if things aren't going the way they planned or expected.
"It would be far better for men to be extremely discretionary in who they involve themselves, and if they truly are afraid of whoever they marry eventually turning into a medusa on him, not to get married at all. . "
Which is what men are in point of fact DOING. . in my opinion.
F, I agree - it has become a big tool which they use - and effectively, if men started taking it back, they would find some other tool to use or try to claim it for themselves again, but I guess my point was that it is laying the ax to the branches, not at the ideological root of the problem.
I really believe that the only way there is going to be a turn around is for society to organically change its mindset - and that since marriage is only a means to control men (to feminists), it would be somewhat futile to focus one's energies on that one point, simply because it is the common thread.
The American form of marriage with the assumed divorce somewhere down the line, the division of assets, alimony, visiting rights, etc..., is just one major arm of the feminist tree. It's a biggie in their political leverage tool repertoire (to pirate you phrase), but it still is only a tool.
And when I said don't get married at all, I meant don't have relations with women period unless they are known to be non-feminists - not just don't get married.
If however, marriage as an institution of itself, American or not, was not the target, than, at the very least I understand where he is coming from and why he would think that, even if I don't agree as to how change should be implemented.
I know that one has to start somewhere in the practical area of reform, and I can't say enough how much I think American marriage needs to be reformed, but I guess the question is, is the best way to change it by attacking the system itself or to change the system by having a family and raising your children to have a proper idea of it?
One may scoff at the idea, but considering the damage done to society by feminism (even in such a short amount of time in the late 60's and 70's) change is not going to happen over night, nor will it have any lasting effect if it is superimposed or bullied upon the system. I really don't see reform even in the amount of time that the damage was effected. It's kind of like heartbreak - easy to fall in love, a lot harder to get over it when it falls apart.
Ugh. Well, I'm not very satisfied with how I put everything above, but it will have to do as I have duties to attend to. Interesting topic though.
"And when I said don't get married at all, I meant don't have relations with women period unless they are known to be non-feminists - not just don't get married.
".
Yup. Again, that is what some men are doing - although this scenario lies at the far end of the spectrum per avoidance strategies.
The link in this post is broken Fidel
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home