Manginas Must Cross Over the Rubicon to Help Men Rights
Dateline: US Elections
News Item From: Glenn Sacks
From: The Honor Network
Mangina Definitions (from Urban Dictionary):
1) Derisive term for a man’s feminine side – especially when he’s picky, touchy or emotional about something seemingly minor.
2) Pussy whipped male. Named due to the taking on of feminine tendencies rather than masculine ones. Caused by extreme need to seek approval from females to the point of eradicating his own self and becoming a servant eunuch. Is a man, but may as well have a vagina.
3) A male lackey of the feminist hate movement (usually called a ‘male feminist’), who views women as superior to men and always bows down to and agrees with women in an attempt to curry favor. Abused man who never gets angry at women even when screwed over in the divorce court, has his life and reputation ruin and still identifies with women pain over men’s pain and suffering. Obsessed with the mating ritual and never turns off appealing to women, and transfer this mating to established authority. Always works with in the system, but never outside of it for that is risky.
4) A man-slave. Most to many men that are married these days are Manginas, and so are a slightly less number of single men.
5) A guy that acts too much like a girl in a relationship. Very clingy and codependent. Cries a lot and expects the girl to have no other life but the one with him.
6) Created by placing the penis in between the legs of a male. Gives the effect of a vagina, hence the name Mangina.
7) Rationalizes all fears into acceptable behavior, just like a woman.
Election 2006 Reflects Weakness of Our Movement by Glenn Sacks
The recent election glaringly reflected the weakness of our movement–our issues simply weren’t a significant part of the dialogue on any level. No, opposing same sex marriage and immigrants doesn’t speak to our issues, though some of my readers think it does. Our issues are, centrally, our family law system’s failure to protect children’s right to a relationship with both parents after a divorce or separation. They also include: anti-male domestic violence laws and policies, including our courts’ rubber stamping of restraining orders; reform of our nightmarish child support system, particularly enforcement-related abuses; the denigration of fatherhood and the decline of the two-parent family; and numerous others. If anybody could find these issues on the radar screen in this election, you’ve got much sharper vision than I do.
Very true we weren’t on the radar in the election, and as Glenn is a moderate pushing for moderate moves in the men’s movement he should explain to us why this is so? He attempts to below:
As many of you know, the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative was defeated 57-43. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children, which sponsored the Initiative, issued a statement in which ACFC Executive Director Mike McCormick makes several worthy points. Mitchell Sanderson of the North Dakota Coalition for Families and Children worked extremely hard for the Initiative, as did McCormick and many others.
From the beginning I have had some doubts and disagreements over this Initiative, centrally the decision to include child support reform. Several of you who read the two newspaper columns I co-authored on the issue, North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Helps Women, Too (Grand Forks Herald, 9/24/06) and North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce (Grand Forks Herald, 7/18/06), have noted that I did not mention the NDSPI’s child support provisions. One said “you write as if the child support reform in the NDSPI doesn’t exist.” Guilty as charged, probably because I wished it didn’t exist. The central issue is protecting children’s right to have a relationship with both parents after divorce or separation, so that’s what I focused on. Also, others such as ACFC president Stephen Baskerville wrote columns on the child support issue–see Stephen’s co-authored column How HHS Bullies North Dakota Citizens (Human Events, 8/17/06).
The child support provision muddied the issue and gave our opponents something to attack us with. Our opponents took this hole and ran a truck through it. The approach taken by Fathers & Families in Massachusetts in 2004 was better–their ballot question kept the issue narrowed to shared parenting, and they won a resounding victory.
As one can see the incriminations have rightly started with what went wrong for US MRA in the last elections, yet I fear again it will be those who are the more short-sighted pragmatists who will again move leadership in the never ending moderate obsession in making the men’s rights movement nice to women, girls, the establishment and Mangina men. Which is an effeminate recipe for appeasement yet again. This is a common right of passage in the last 100 years on many political fronts.
Men make up the minority of the voting public to begin with, so how can we swing women (who are fear based) to our just cause without starting down some mystic cult route to appeal to their cosmic obsessions. The vast majority of women won’t agree to us taking anything from them for they have been designed to be the resource gathers by nature. Those obsessed with appealing to the never-ending fears of our opponents miss the boat completely?
The fact that we are wanting funds back from our paycheck means those, in the above for mentioned, will go hysterical before giving back money to men, especially now with the baby boomers retirement and all the wild spending that has gone on for the later 55 sum years.
The underling mistake that continues to be ignored is why would women, lawyers and bureaucrats willing reform things without digging their high heels in as deep as they go, thereby throwing our money (that they have taken in countless ways) back at us with every indirect thing in there arsenal?
None! If we were to get all the men on board including the Maginas, we would still be out of legislation and power for women make up the majority. The fact that so many men are on the other side of this conflict for pragmatic reasons, and or, emotional reasons means that the ideas of straightforward politics is doomed before we start. As is moving through the courts was and is. To again say to MRAs, “Please scrape together your last few pennies and pence, for we must once again send your cash over the top in another wave of legal actions, despite all the waves that have sent over the top and mowed down to date. This is typical pencil pushing unimaginative inside the box thinking that goes along nicely with the generals in the WWI.
Oh ya! What would you do? Well the first thing I would do is not broadcast my plan to the public…
Again the basic faulty reasoning behind tactics to date are set on the fact that men can’t really organize or support a political campaign, for after they pay child support, lawyers, taxes and living expenses they don’t have much money left, let alone time, to give funds7 time to MROs. Why do think this has Medusa system has gone on so long and so deep?
The ACFC has other Christians in stable homes paying support for other Christian men in broken homes, mixed with those men from broken homes that do have excess funds. To get justice done we need those screwed by this system into a position to fight back together, for they have the most at stake and the most justified anger. Part of our disunity lies in these facts or, “Do I give my last cash for my own moves or those of an organization that seems uninterested in my opinions because I’m too angry and direct.”
Christians in non-broken homes tend to be aloof to male suffering and simply tell other men, “If you become a proper Christian your problems would be better.” For the vast majority this is true, yet in the church the divorce rate is only slightly better, and we need more complete solutions that don’t ask men to forfeit their minds to get justice and a little more support. In fact when Christians do this they are using a weakened man to reprogram him, and this isn’t honorable (this is the breaking down and rebuilding that goes on in the military and cults). This is what these camp outing are about 9 times out of 10, though usually they are run by humanists wanting to use peer-pressure to reprogram men in their image. This is why they are found on the west coast and New England.
Sterling in the US and Canada has profited by this for years, yet has not been seen in the fight yet, and maybe never will, for they have a very profitable little operation going on. Men don’t need reprogramming they need to be provided the choices and allowed to choose which group has their act together and wants their input. Then men are willing to shut up and let someone lead, until such a time as they fail too much or not honor the input in proper due course.
When others, that are outside the ACFC, haven’t been seen in attempting to bridge the divide, with the vast majority of organizations out there, these groups are bound to not cooperate with the self-described leaders of the moment in the US. Who is to blame that? Yes, there are stubborn ego centered men out there, but you are supposedly doing God’s work and should not fear such men and be willing to win them over by your intrepid manner.
These other organizations, and their men, are likely & rightly to fear that this may be their only chance to get any real reforms (for both access and support). They are naturally going to be typically male in aggressiveness. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, yet it seems to be to those who distain dealing and hammering out issues with other real men. They don’t wish to deal with angry men and their direct unvarnished views, especially when there is an establishment to kiss up to for national attention and table scrap reforms (the likes of which we have yet to see materialize). By worshipping the powers that be, and hoping to get in good with the establishment, you believe the system will be changed by you, instead of it changing you. This blind hope, which the Greeks considered a sin, is of the women’s type that believes they have mystical powers and will end up on top for their powers of persuasion, when they simply become followers of the fashionable norm in the end. Only from uniting the outside men, and having those on the inside come to see the fact that their ways will not work without these men on the outside, will we able to get real movement from the establishment . The inside traders will never get us to the Promised Land. We have nothing they need for they take it already and therefore we have only their historical fear of men gathering to work with. Everything else is simply window dressing.
The groundwork must be done first in bridging the divides. In fact one of the negatives that might have arisen if men would have won this initiative in North Dakota would have been the idea that groups like the ACFC need not make more serious attempts in bridging the gaps with non-Christians! This they have been able to believe for they are the biggest and most successful organization in the men’s rights world. Will they take this bloody nose in North Dakota and start digging trenches alongside men, or simply fly off into the clouds yet again to be closer to God and farther from men?
Maybe this is because inside the ACFC there are problems too (with all trying to speak in relation with God no doubt), and this is why it cannot make attempts at bridging outward for it is too busy bridging inwardly. I’m just guessing here, because they properly keep such issues in house, as they should.
Many may not trust the Christians’ side of the movement, with quite a few examples of reasons to have such an attitude. Yet, inside Christian circles they have a long history of Manginas within their ranks too, as well as many Christians with one-sided chivalry dogmas towards Medusa women. They are thus quite keen on men to continue to turn the other cheek indefinitely and pay up all support, regardless of access and the amount of time it will take for things to filter down from initiatives and laws (say roughly 50 years?) that may bring us balance, but at what price is the question no one wishes to speak of.
Where have all the eye-for-an-eye to proven enemies types gone in your religion? Yes I’ve heard the rhetoric that this isn’t what your religion is about. If I talked to a knight of Saint Morris he would say you don’t know what his religion is about either in reply. This aloofness can go on forever, and you can remain on your cloud of religious superiority or come to terms with us that value the bible teachings and to do want them distorted for effeminate fashion. Giving little protest (violence not necessary) for a nun shot in the back as she is helping poor people to receive nothing but an Andy Warhol 5 minutes of attention seems amazing. Knights of old would roll over in their graves at your brand of Christianity. Some of them were defenders of the weak as well as some fanatics. The assault on white males has turned male Christians away from manly saints to that of Mangina only saints. I believe all of them are great and it is for you to answer why the fighting ones are in hell? Fail to do so is to remain on the deconstructionist cloud with all the other defeatists of the past wars who wanted someone else to do the fighting of the Nazis and Medusas, as they marched into Paris.
The better Christian balance of the past warned us of playing with the traditions for fashion trends. This includes never fighting. I would prefer hands down the traditions in Christianity over the social experiments done in the name of effeminate love and caring today. Yet when I say this to Christians they prefer those who believe in their God and sin a lot and repent a lot, or join the church as they are on death’s bed. As an agnostic I wonder if God likes those who are on the inside doing damage over those on the outside doing much less? I can see God and members of the faith liking those on the inside doing very little sinning to none, but for the life on me why are Christians so warm to those who reform the bibles words for fashion from the inside and pass on cooperation with traditionalists who prefer their code as it is? If the west falls this will be looked on as the crucial point where men failed to find common ground. And it will be you the cloud-like ones they should blame and not the heathen!
Glenn Sacks is right that we need a structure and system to support all reforms, even if they are accepted. Yet he is wrong in blaming radicals. It is the moderates who have failed, for since the Myth of Male Power they have been in the driver’s seat in many ways. The increase in radicalization is in direct response to the failure of these moderates.
Will moderates & Manginas leave us when radicals move into leadership? For if they leave they will have slowed down our action with their failed methods (maybe not by design, but by a lack of vision) only to walk out when we have our turn, and then use their passion to bad mouth us to the hungry media, who will love to finally give us some coverage to their liking. This I see coming for I’m very big on the long time and history. So for those of you in the future that do this dishonor is all yours.
Some of the Manginas’ endless calls for moderation, on our side, seems to say you have no right to be ready to explode. I would never be so presumptuous, for I’m not God and do not know what all other men have been through.
The Manginas’ worship at the feet of the indirect Goddess of peace, and believe it trumps any fighting back on the part of Christianity principles on the one hand, and also on the part of those who prize humanistic peace before men’s justice. How interesting it must be to believe you are above us in your cloud-like principles and we so low in our devilish angry white male anger. It must be very clear on that high perch sparring with other deconstructionists who ignore the classics for fashionable French thought. Nothing would be more pleasing to me than to have you prove me wrong- for men would win. Yet as radical forces gather and decades pass one must see that you would prefer us to lose over admit your shelter cloud-like vision in no more than that of a Mangina with more blind ambition.
To clap, smile or cry when women use their sexual & feme fatal skills for all they are worth as you ride the propaganda machine that calls this as women’s empowered is unbecoming. To allowing emotional verbal skills (that women know like the back of their hands) to be the currency of our victimhood obsessed culture and thereby leave all the cards held by the cowardly sex in play is to allow those who would bring down all, to save there feelings, a free hand.
In return all men’s directness is taboo. Direct justice, direct debates, direct duels, direct science and direct logic are all said to be uncaring and are attacked with the biased PC media. Only Mangina who lost out early in life to bullies, instead of winning on their own by standing up can see this as good.
Our male in the English speaking west kin killed Nazis and do not half to prove to you moderates, Manginas, women and the establishment (who have been historical afraid of the only force capable of limiting their power) that we are not one of them. If anything since you believe in peace at any cost it is you who should prove to us how the Nazis could have been stopped by endless calls of peace alone. It is you who are closer to Nazism in that you allow it to continue to gather strength in new forms inside and outside the state, as you undermine the force capable of dealing with it at every turn. You are setting us on a course to be absorbed by one of its many forms like the European French did (who your generations seems to admire way too much). If not for our angry white men the French would be gone as a relic of history.
All the Blacks in the Southern US couldn’t have put together enough soldiers to equal all our western armies. Africa was in no position to stop the Nazis. While the blacks would still be in slavery if the peace at any cost Copperheads of the US (matching you ideas very well) won power and or the Christian John Brown call for violence was never followed. It was white middle class angry men doing the vast majority of the dirty work then, as it is today.
Yet back to the focus of this article. Patience- when one has no access, no funds and no good name to speak of in the public sphere is unlikely to be in anything but in short supply. Shame on any of those not in the same predicament, who seem to find endless ways to understand women, lawyers and the establishment’s bureaucracy and not angry MRAs. Shame on them in their endless failures (to date), to then blame it on radical men, as the establishment does with glee whenever it can. If you believe men and women are the same then why not treat women with the same tough calls for moderation? Why is the death from indirect war not the same as those of direct? How many suicides, bankruptcies and men in jail will it take before you admit that the effeminate state is attacking males indirectly out of group instinct and will not rest until it has deballed itself and thus fall like the endless Chinese kingdoms headed by some bureaucrats in the past. Fashion & well perfumed, as they are today, they talk of subtle and endless diplomacy talk in the same cloud-like way then too no doubt. The fact that they intentionally deballing themselves to be in good with those in power made them more obvious in their effeminacy, while today’s brand gets to be labeled metrosexual and in touch with his feelings today by the huge effeminate media system.
It is obvious we are facing the same thing again today, though with different fashions and songs. The same Medusa-like grabs for power go on unchallenged now for there are so many that have embraced these practices inside and outside the church. Yet to dismiss this is to embrace your effeminacy more warmly than your religion and or principles, as you will bring the states of the west down from the inside. This is why the word of your god must be changed and you prefer cafeteria Christianity. Though I’m sure those who like to write books will blame some outside males for the fall, yet you and I will know who was to blame.