Feminism Must Make the World a Sandwich

Feminism must make the world a sandwich.

The Non-Feminist Way of Knowledge

The dictionary definition of feminism, as a quest for so-called "equality", is so amorphous and problematic as to be virtually useless. Thus, we reject the oft-heard 'appeal to dictionary' as an intellectual cop-out or evasion.

We have concluded that feminism can only be understood as an existing set of manifestations in the world, and not as an abstract idea printed on a book page, or as the same issuing from the mouth of a self-identified feminist individual. This means, in practice, that we must  parse feminism in terms of its earthly consequences if we would arrive at a satisfactory definition. No other method will suffice.

So we, as outsiders to feminism, have made bold to tackle feminism phenomenologically, from the outside-in.

Now, there are many ways to parse feminism in terms of its earthly consequences. But foundationally to all else, we must understand feminism as the project to increase the power of women. And from this super-project, as we may call it, feminism breaks down into a theoretically unlimited number of sub-projects.

But let us never sacrifice our critical awareness within the microcosm of sub-projects. The Ariadne's thread that will conduct us through that maze and always show the way out of it,  is our realization that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. Feminism is sometimes more than this, but never anything less. Hold that thought.

The Notorious 'M' Word: Mangina!

The Mill of the Manosphere has recently churned up, from its its deep, dark bowels, the provocative web graphic which you see to the right.

I understand this to be a cartoon likeness of David Futrelle, and would note that he is depicted sans shirt. Well I'm bound to say it makes quite the contrast to my own long, lean, split-rail physique!

At any rate, the word "mangina" is one that I almost never use, and when I do, I nearly always couch it in hypothetical or rhetorical terms. I avoid this word because, frankly, it is piss-poor rhetorical discipline to fling it around too freely. It makes you sound like a potty-mouthed little kid in a schoolyard.

I have similar scruples, though not as strong, in connection with "feminazi". (Others are welcome to this word, but I find it stylistically weak to say it ad nauseam.)

All right. I like our illustration because it captures (in a more erudite way) what "mangina" actually means in the lexicon of the community. This infamous word is clearly designed as an insult, however, it carries a political sense before all else. Broadly, it signifies TRAITOR. More precisely, it signifies one who, by some combination of self-loathing and servility toward women, betrays men or maleness generally.

Note well that "mangina" does NOT signify effeminacy. It is does not mean the male in question is a wimp, sissy, mama's boy, or anything of that nature -- although some manginas as individuals might additionally be those things.

So yes, mangina is chiefly a political word. Therefore I should add that the male in question will be politically to the leftward, and furthermore, an intellectual supporter of feminism.

"Mangina" is not to be confused with "white knight", although the venn diagrams do overlap. What these terms signify in common is gynocentrism. But whereas the mangina is very much a "lefty", generally of the statist tribe known as "progressive", the white knight will be either centrist or leaning to the right.

U.S. Vice-president Joseph Biden, a center-left Democrat and female violence victim, is an intermediary type who straddles the fence between white knight and mangina. But Pasadena City College professor Hugo Schwyzer, despite professing a form of Christianity which he styles "Anabaptist-Episcopalian", falls within the mangina category by any other marker. President Barack Obama may be safely classed as a mangina also, but Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah (a VAWA sponsor) is beyond doubt a white knight, as is (it would seem) presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. David Futrelle, needless to say, is a full-blooded mangina in cahoots with all but the most extreme forms of radical feminism.

Again, the mangina and the white knight have gynocentrism (or "woman first-ism") in common, but the mangina goes the further step of being gyno-normative.The white knight is a traditionalist "manly man" with a mission to protect the ladies, and an animus toward what he understands as feminism. The mangina, by contrast, feels guilty about his maleness -- hence the gynonormativity and overall lack of self-respect. Both white knight and mangina harbor similar ideas about male disposability, but the mangina cravenly hopes that males other than himself (e.g. "MRAs") will be disposed of, and he will favor proxy violence (by the state) to achieve this.

I hope that I have clarified some points here. As I stated in the beginning, I hardly ever use the word "mangina", and I would advise one and all to whittle down their use of this word as well. I believe it will be more  politically efficient to adopt such a policy. In place of  mangina, I would recommend the term collaborationist, in honor of the Vichy cohort of World War Two.

Only Men should go to Prison

An interesting article has appeared in the online BBC News today. Snippet follows:

Women's prisons should close, says justice taskforce
The report said community sentences instead of prison would help reduce reoffending among women. Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women's Justice Taskforce.

You know, it's odd. Rather than make me angry, this makes me fold my arms and feel validated. As if we didn't have enough evidence already that men are third-class citizens, the pile keeps growing. Now it seems, in one country at least, that men are the only ones worthy of being chucked into the slammer.

Of course, this is nothing new. Baroness Corston, waaay back in 2007, was preaching the same sermon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm

I say this makes me feel validated. I mean that when I contemplate such things, I am less inclined to feel sad about any aches and pains that women might suffer in this life. Nor am I burdened by any sense of responsibility to DO something about it. Such "burden", if it ever truly existed, gets progressively lighter as stories like this come down the pike.

It's nothing personal. The average woman isn't responsible for this state of affairs - it's just the way things are right now. But oh, that patriarchal male privilege. Gotta love it! Why, it even gives women their very own justice taskforce, presumably "manned" by women unless somebody informs me otherwise.

Time for a stroll down memory lane. Do you remember this old favorite?


Now, this meme is NOT the product any radical feminist womyn's art collective. In fact, it was created by a schmuck named Todd Goldman, who featured this and similarly themed illustrations on a line of products such as clothing (marketed to teen-aged girls), calendars (sold in places like Walmart) and cute little purse books (merchandised to the female market in respectable bookstores).

Such is the message being drummed into the heads of . . oh. . .high school girls, for example. And in three or four years, they will head off to college for their first Women's Studies class. So, think of this as a head-start program! ;)

Todd Goldman is a mainstream graphic designer who happens to be male and knows how to make a buck. And he is savvy enough to tap into the mainstream demographic represented by Sharon Osbourne and crew, and by their female audience members who laughed hysterically about a man getting his penis cut off. Well, at least nobody threw any rocks at the poor guy -- so I guess Todd Goldman has clean hands. . . . right?

But anyhow, Sharon Osbourne, her panelists, and her audience members, are not radical feminist womyn by a long chalk . . . are they?  So at least they are not recommending male genocide, which is good to know. Likewise,  I know perfectly well that moderate mainstream feminists would never condone such things. And how do I know this? Because I have chatted with enough of them to hear what they typically say. And yes, that is what they typically say.

Now, I would grant that your average "radfem" of the Agent Orange variety would take no exception to throwing rocks at boys, or for that matter, males of any age at all. But your average mainstream feminist, who is a humane and civilized soul, would quickly reassure us along the following lines:

1. Don't take it literally!
2. Lighten up! It's only a t-shirt!
3. It has nothing to do with feminism!
4. Oh quit whining!

And while a radical feminist man-hater might declare that men have the same designation as annoying rodents, a cutesy "sex columnist" like Anka Radakovich would draw the line well south of that. She would only compare men to dogs -- which sounds way better than calling them rodents, don't you think so? Oh. . and Anka is quick to assure us that even though men may be dogs, "we love them anyway."  Just like the good old family pooch, I reckon. Well hey, that's a comfort!

http://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/advice/men-dogs-love

But seriously, do you sense the pattern to all of this? Men are annoying rodents. Men are dogs. Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at boys. Don't send women to prison. Women are the primary victims of war.  Do you spot the anti-male attitude arc which runs through our entire culture like a gaudy red line?

I sure as hell do.

All right. Here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

http://agentorangefiles.com

Hey, on the Todd Goldman picture, do you notice how the flying rocks resemble sperm, and the boy's head looks like an ovum? Interesting. . .yes?