>
There’s something inherently ridiculous about being lambasted for using “shaming tactics” — by someone who has just called you a “mangina.”
A few posts back, as you may recall, I took on an odd little rant on The Spearhead which seemed to suggest that Tea Party nutbag Christine O’Donnell’s 14-year-old comments about the evils of masturbation offered proof of sorts that an evil “pussy cartel” was trying to keep American men from taking matters into their own hands, so to speak. The biggest threat to this diabolical female conspiracy, the author wrote, was “men realizing that their hand will do more for them than a woman will.”
The problem, of course, is that this is completely ridiculous. I myself have had sex on a number of occasions over the years — I mean, with other people — and I have to say that my hand, despite its obvious convenience and considerable dexterity, really cannot compete with, you know, an actual naked lady.
And so I suggested that any man who thought so little of women might have a hard time getting a date. This evidently sent the author of the piece, the man behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, into such a tailspin of shame that he wrote not one but two blog posts about me. In the first, after calling me a mangina, he insisted that he did in fact have a girlfriend. In a comment, I told him I felt sorry for her. And I do. What kind of woman would want to date a man who prefers the company of Susie Palmer and her five friends? So he wrote yet another post, this one spelling out in detail the evil forms of “shaming language” I had used.
Men’s Rights Activists are obsessed with so-called “shaming language.” Or at least they have been since a document called The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics started making its way around the manosphere; it’s been linked to or posted on virtually every MRA blog or forum at least once.
The Catalogue is basically a list of allegedly unfair debating tactics used by those who think that MRAs are full of shit:
The list spells out 16 different types of “shaming tactics,” from the “Charge of Irascibility” (“You’re bitter!”), to the “Charge of Fanaticism” and the “Charge of Misogyny.”
And it’s true. People do charge MRAs with all of these things. And a lot of the time, they’re guilty as charged. Some MRAs are bitter. Some MRAs are fanatics. Some MRAs are misogynists.
My most grievous crime? I had used the “Threat of Withheld Affection … The Pink Whip,” in which “the target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.” I’ll have to plead guilty on that one, since that’s exactly what I did.
In his second blog post, Pro-Male/Anti-Fem added two more counts to the charges against me: that I had accused him of “Preying On Weak/Damaged/Insecure Women” and “Non-Specific ‘Shameful Behavior.'” I’ll plead guilty on the first count, Your Honor, but innocent on the second: I was pretty specific about what I saw as shameful — his idiotic ideas about the “pussy cartel” and the whole hand-better-than-woman nonsense.
The funny thing about the Catalogue is how deadly seriously so many MRAs take it, and how angry they get whenever one of their opponents, tired of fighting a battle of wits against half-wits, pulls one of the “shaming tactics” out of her or his bag in an effort to bring the fruitless discussion to a close.
The irony, of course (and please forgive me if I shout), is that MRAs USE SHAMING TACTICS THEMSELVES ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Just look at the comments on the post of mine that started this whole kerfuffle, posted, presumably, by MRAs who followed the link from Pro-Male/Anti-Fem’s first post. The bravely anonymous first poster starts off the insult parade by saying “just because you’ve let them cut YOUR dick off doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy ours.” (This is a classic example of what the Catalogue calls the “Charge of Invirility.”) After a few more insult-laden comments, we come to this, from another brave Mr. Anonymous:
But my favorite? This one:
a dickless wonder’s blog, right here. You’re such a girl, with the nonsensical shaming language.
Yep, the Charge of Invirility again. But even better, and I’m afraid I’m going to have to shout again: HE USES SHAMING LANGUAGE AGAINST ME IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE IN WHICH HE COMPLAINS ABOUT SHAMING LANGUAGE.
Sadly, our anonymous friend is hardly the first MRA to do exactly this. Take a look at this fine fellow over at (irony alert!) Antimisandry.com:
Can anyone really be this un-self-aware?
In all my travels around the angry-manosphere — Charge of Irascibility FTW! — I have run across exactly one intelligent response to the Catalogue from an actual MRA: an essay on The Spearhead by the mysterious Zed, a sort of MRM elder statesman. Rather than simply lament the use of shaming language by the evil fems, Zed urges men to respond in kind, and not just with the standard anti-woman cliches.
The solution? MRA’s need to “start honing our rhetoric of ridicule so we can sting our opponents as deeply as they are trying to sting us.”
I second his emotion. “Dickless wonder?” “Mangina?” “Cunt?” You can do better than that. The “Little Ms. David” guy shows some promise, but he lacks finesse. Study the masters of insult: Oscar Wilde. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Andrea Dworkin.
And quit whining about “shaming language” like a bunch of damn babies.
That’s The Charge of Hypersensitivity, by the way.
>I understand your point about the irony of using shaming language to criticize shaming language. However, in general, I think criticizing shaming language is perfectly fine.Feminist complain about slut-shaming all the time because they are held to a standard of sexual purity that they don't like.MRAs complain about shaming because it involves being held to a standard of masculinity that they reject.-Jut
>I agree:There's something inherently ridiculous about being lambasted for using "shaming tactics" — by someone who has just called you a "mangina."A reason I don't call myself an MRA – even though I detest feminism and what have you.MRA's seem to engage in male-hatred more than feminists do."mangina" is shaming language.I'd reckon that the other term they use "chivalrist" is also shaming language.
>Mangina does not mean gay or feminine. It means that you cater to women seeking their praise and that you don't respect yourself as a male. Its feminists who use shaming tactics, myths, and PC to prevent political discussion in their so called efforts for equality.Why are feminists getting in the way when people try to resolve the BOY crisis, why do they accuse men of being lazy and not doing their fair share of work when that is not true, why do they continue to purport abuse and domestic violence as a male only thing, why are men shamed for being at the top and shamed for being at the bottom (its as if when they succeed they privileged a-holes and when they fail they are bad by nature…).
>it sounds like you cant get laid except by your rapist mother/sister. don't take out you beta/mangina sexual frustration out on men, you cowardly little slave.
>As David's brother, the utter disconnect between the kinds of things some commenters are calling him and who I know him to be pretty much obliterates any credibility those commenters might otherwise have had.
>Uh, Joe you're not exactly an unbiased source as his brother.
>And the anonymous people calling me a "cunt" and a "mangina" and a "cowardly little slave" ARE unbiased?
>Given what has been said in this thread about, for instance, my mother and sister, my credibility on my family remains well in the lead even after taking the "bias" hit.I'm not that biased, anyway. He is my *older* brother, after all.
>What, don't you get it yet, David?Okay, I am taking pity on you. You're running around in circles on this blog like a pathetic blind lab rat squealing for attention, so I will extend a small mercy.Come closer, let me whisper in your ear.At this very moment you are being introduced to an ugly little secret that kills fascists: namely, that the whole point of shaming language is not to take any sort of moral high ground or discuss logically. It's there to hurt. And it can be used to strike back by the exact same token against whoever used it first, and without mercy.You are very, very privileged, David. You should be soooo grateful, because at least you get to know this. Many other smelly Dworkinwhale-mammothcorpse-licking-Men's Auxiliary-of-SCUM will not be so lucky. Traitors of their own sex (yes, not "gender") like you will find themselves buried under a whole new steaming vocabulary of shaming language, the richness and creativity of which are as yet unfathomed.And this will happen just a few minutes before they — and you with them — are dragged out of their cells and put up against the wall.(I'm speaking metaphorically, of course. The Revolution will totally be televised.)Now please put your gimp mask back on, your brother Joe is coming with his big 12 inch strap-on. I'm sorry. Not sorry for you, sorry for him.
>C- Try harder, Marco.
>Sure, I knew you'd want harder.
>@David Futrelle:I appreciate your feedback on my blog (men-factor.blogspot.com). I absolutely loved it!Please feel free to comment on my other writings!To remind you, here is what you commented on:http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/06/partially-revised-catalog-of-male.html
>I followed the link you posted on "Yes Means Yes", and find your blog delightful! Following!
>1.your a misogynist – no I'm not I always carry condoms2.you hate all women – not the ones I'm sleeping with, obviously. or can you prove your a woman.3. you have a small dick – look on the bright side your less likely to choke.4. why can't you man up – cause your not that arousing5. you can't get laid – are you kidding, I even get a receipt that says paid in full.6. no woman would want you – good then she'll be wanting a job.There is no glass ceiling only a glass bra
>David, you're the kind of guy who needs his little brother to come to his aid in a flame war. I think you've already shamed yourself more than any shaming language could.
>David ask yourself this.(And do not bother to post the answer because you WILL only lie.)If you thought you could get all the ass you wanted without doing all this would you?You and I both know the real answer.Now that we have established that we move on to the next question. How does the true answer to the first question affect the validity of the premises you use in your arguments and thus the validity of your arguments themselves?We both know the answer here as well.Having established that I have to wonder.How do you feel about yourself selling people out for pussy? A bit like the CEO of a cigarette company perhaps?
>"And quit whining about "shaming language" like a bunch of damn babies. That's The Charge of Hypersensitivity, by the way."So why are you throwing a hissyfit over MRAs showing a distasteful attitude towards ill-behaved women? Using your logic — that we should all suck it up and not complain about being ridiculed — you and the women you're trying to white knight ought to "suck it up".
>I don't call you a mangina, because the word starts with "man," i.e. —-> invirility. I mean, I am a tranny, and I could still kick your ass, in high heels and a dress. Your obsession with MRA's is a bit disconserting. It's like stalking behaviour. But, as a radical tranny masculinist, I enjoy the baiting you do.
>I am a men's activist and I am well aware of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, which you cited in this blog post. I always thought that it was a valuable thing for men's advocates to identify shaming tactics, not because this knowledge arms them with some sort of rhetorical billy club but rather because it helps them to avoid becoming flustered in a debate. It helps them to stay on whatever logical point they're trying to make.Shame is not meant to encourage logical discussion; rather, it exists for the purpose of self-introspection. For a man, shame can have value if it helps him to determine if his words and deeds are in harmony with his morals. But when someone tries to manipulate you into backing down or getting flustered, then they're not concerned for your inner moral harmony. That's why for any man, having awareness of anti-male shaming tactics can be valuable, because it helps you to sidestep irrelevant and manipulative distractions and instead stay on point.Should men's advocates use shaming tactics? They do have a utility, if mocking the target is the objective. But just how useful can they be to a men's advocate who is trying to make legitimize, justifiable arguments? A man who has a legitimate gripe, yet expresses it by hurling names or insults, lacks the words to effectively express what is on his mind. Which leads me to comment on the overall purpose of this very blog entitled "man boobz." Is not the entire blog an attempt to fluster men who otherwise have legitimate points to make about the injustices that they have noticed or experienced? If such injustices exist, then how will they be addressed if the entire movement that wants to right them is delegitimized, having its entire essence unjustly equated with that of its radicals and cranks? You, the owner of this blog, might tell yourself that you're merely trying to purge this minority of cranks (through mockery) from an otherwise legitimate cause. Or you may actually believe that men's advocates have absolutely no legitimate points whatsoever, a premise that I reject. Needless to say, derision of a just movement and/or blindness to its just aims are not exactly valuable assets to men nor to mankind.
>Wow, you certainly have attracted some (ahem) *charming* trolls. Regardless, I quite enjoyed this take down. Your commentors really are making your point for you; it's almost cute how they still think their hackneyed insults have power when the whole point of the post was how ridiculous the language and the insecurities behind it is.Stay irreverent.
There is a difference between a legitimate position which may or not incorporate shaming tactics and an argument that is based entirely upon them. The fundamental point, which you missed entirely, is that shaming tactics are used in the absence of a cogent argument, they circumvent the process of propositional reasoning. To miss this is to miss the point entirely. An insulting term such as “mangina” is not necessarily a shaming tactic because it is derogatory, by that defenition any and all insults would be, by defenition, shaming tactics. There is an objective defenition of what “mangina” means and even though I am not a fan of the term as it is somewhat crude, it is used as a descriptive term which can be supported with empirical evidence. In other words the person in question is most likely displaying said behaviour and the term is based on an observation. Shaming tactics, however, have no basis in objective reality and are entirely projections, the actual behaviour of the male being shamed has no bearing on the accusation levelled. This discrepancy is the fundamental distinction you have failed to address just as you have failed to address the fact that shaming tactics are real and the perceived hypocrisy of a few individuals does not change this. That’s the point, evading propositional reasoning. I’m looking forward to some shaming tactics of an adolescent and infantile nature, please hold nothing back, I know you have nothing else to fall back on.
Is it a “shaming tactic” to point out that you’ve just left a comment on a totally dead thread from 2010? If it is a shaming tactic, what color is it?
Also, please supply the “objective definition” of the word that the MRM made up: mangina, as well as any citations you have proving that it is “objective.” Please hold nothing back. Thanks in advance.
Keevo: “Pompous twit” has an “objective definition” as well, and can be supported with empirical evidence as well — for example, your comment above.
Keevo – right off the bat, claiming that there exists feminist “shaming tactics” just confirms that MRAs/the MRM is comprised entirely of paranoid, conspiracy theorists.
MRAs are obsessed with shaming tactics for the same reasons that the overwhelming majority of MRAs remain anonymous – on some level, they are embarrassed.
I believe now, as I have believed since I first chanced upon the MRM, that for most MRAs, the MRM and the “war” with (what they claim is) feminism is like a bizarre quasi real-life version of World of Warcraft.
Does WOW have Drow? If so I want to be a Drow, since I assume they’ll have cool outfits.
Keevo, you have no idea what ‘shaming’ actually means. You can take an actual verifiable fact and shame someone for it. There is often evidence to support that they did whatever it is you’re shaming them for. Where it gets dodgey is the bit where you imply/say there is something morally/ethically wrong with the thing they did. If there is no evidence that the thing they did is actually immoral, then it’s a shaming tactic. When the thing is actually immoral, then it’s no longer a tactic.
@Keevo: Shame on you!
You claim that it’s possible to present empirical evidence to support the objective definition of “mangina.”
And then you blow it totally off–not a single shred of empirical evidence, and no objective definition.
Well? Put up, or shut up!
(I just love how the regulars here see a comment on an old post and come right on over to snicker (or even see a totally unfamiliar titles in the TOP POSTS and…come right over to snicker)).
Zombie MRAs are usually worth a snicker.
ithiliana: It’s one of the wonders of the “recent posts” list. I wish it were longer, since a busy thread can let a “last worder” slip one in.
Meller keeps trying.
Oh dear. More childish than I expected, pretentious too, no surprise there. Just like schoolyard bullies. A mangina is a colloquiallism for a man who effectively betrays other men to curry favour with women (at least that is their intention anyway). Michael Moore, Hugo Schwyzer (I’m not sure if that’s the correct spelling of his name) and most leftist or “progressive” males fit tihis description perfectly, along with innumerable others, try the “Good Men Project” for example. “Stupid White Men” is a perfect example, plenty of men male bash regardless of their political orientation. Calling me a pompous twit is exactly the kind of presonalising I expected, it’s an admission of not having an argument. I’ll admit my observation was a little wordy so I’ll simplify it. Just because shaming tactics are basically insults does not mean that insults are automatically shaming tactics, that’s a classic logical fallacy. You’re confusing shaming tactics with generic insults. At “Man Woman Myth” someone was told he was not welcome because he used shaming tactics, will you take this FACT into account? Of course not. I know exactly what shaming means, it is a tactic intended to play on insecurity to generate feelings of inadequacy and by defenition has no basis in reality as it is a mind game and inherently manipulative. Like calling us zombies, that’s what I call lacking self awareness. One day you will all grow up. Eventually. Until the keep calling me names, even telling you I know you will do it in advance doesn’t stop you, that’s desperation, bullshit fascinates me and you are all full of it.
I am so glad you are back. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you have a blog?
Actually mangina isn’t a colloquialism, it’s jargon. In order to be a colloquialism it would need to be known and sometimes used by most native English speakers – in reality it’s a term only used by MRAs, and when you use it most English speakers have no idea what you’re talking about. From the relevant Wiki…
CassandraSays, you stop shaming Skeevo right now! You are a shameless hussy-feminist, and a tea drinker to boot!
Keevo: Which is it… a word with an “objective” definition, or a colloquialism?
Give us a link to the dude who was told to pack it in because of the shaming tactics.
Compare this post;l with quotations and links, to the vague preces you are tossing out.
No one here has actually called you names. There has been characterisation (pompous twit), which you have gone out of your way to live up to, but no one has (no matter how great the temptation) called you a douchecanoe, or a waste of carbon, or a lackluster lily-livered herring-breathed garlic eater.
Pecunium, you too, stop shaming Scurvy, you mangina! You cape-loving feminists are so MEAN.
The only reason I drink tea is to shame those who prefer coffee. Because I’m a feminist, and we’re just bitchy that way.
I knew you would eventually admit it, Ms. Says. I bet the CIA funded your tea drinking initially, and now VAWA and Title IX take money from mens’ homeless shelters so that you can have your expensive teas. Don’t try to deny it.
Peevo, please come back to explain why “pompous twit” is totally verboten but “mangina” is totes okay. My feeble lady-brain isn’t up to the task.
cloudiah: It’s an accuracy issue. Women accusing random men of being a pompous twit is meant to demean them, and implies they are affected, and effete: it’s an effort to make them feel shame by “unmanning” them.
Mangina isn’t like that at all. It accurately describes a man who has forsaken his rightful place in the world, and abnegated his responsibilities to his fellow men. He has, for the sake of avoiding the shaming language of women given up his masculinity.
Determining if someone is a mangina seems to involve mind-reading, since I doubt any of the manginas Peevo listed have come out and stated that they do what they do to curry favor with women. And this is somehow a legitimate position, or a legitimate descriptor of a person? Make it rain bullshit, dude.
Pe(r)cunium, I am glad you finally admit that “mangina” is an accurate description of the white knights here. (You did admit that, right?)
reginaldgriswold, back to the reeducation camps with you! “Dude” is the absolute WORST of the shaming words! 😛 Also, you think it is okay to listen to manginas? Manginae? What is the etymology of this word so that I can know how to make it plural????
I thought creep was the worst! Forgive me my dude sins!
Steelepole, my lord and master, has informed me that dude is the new worst. Creep is so 2011.
Pompous twit is, of course, and I digress, and heretofore, and WTF is up with MRAs and their bad writing, the worstest, which is even worse than the worst.
I miss Steele.
Clearly dude is a worster word than creep. Vile, in fact.
(Maybe he has a new imaginary girlfriend?)
So, Skeevo, you think men’s interests are all the same, and that they are automatically opposed to women’s interests, to the point where “currying favour” (let me guess – liking women and seeing us as actual human beings) with women means “betraying” men? And just what is this betrayal, pray? Not keeping women down? Not wanting to be part of your non-movement which is all about abuse apologetics and ownership of other humans? Funny, it’s always women MRAs accuse of having a hive mind, and yet here you are suggesting that’s exactly what men have – or should have, since those who disagree with you are traitors of some sort.
Pfffffffffffffffft
I ploughed through Keevo’s verbiage and extracted this nugget:
That’s not true at all. Creep shaming has an overwhelming basis in reality. So does virgin shaming and small-penis shaming.
In all cases they draw on something unquestionably present in reality (a demonstrable physical or behavioral trait) and attach shame to it with reference to something that’s also present in reality (widespread social attitudes regarding creepy behavior, the undesirability of being a virgin, and penis size).
They might well be manipulative mind games, but to say that “by definition” (whose? citation please) they have “no basis in reality” is clearly nonsense.
All this talk of currying has made me hungry for Indian food.
Which reminds me:
Keevo, when MRAs call me fat is this shaming language?
What about when they depict me as an enormously fat, self-flagellating “mangina”
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JLj0ADNGP-w/T9_e4fiYKXI/AAAAAAAAAik/RfdVDrKxX7o/s1600/mangina.jpg
I’m pretty sure “mangina” there isn’t being used as a neutral descriptive term.
Also, I’m pretty sure it’s not a real word that means anything to anyone outside the MRM. (And insofar as it does, it means something totally different than what you guys say it means.)
Is there a word for men who curry favour with women without betraying men?
Is there a word for men who curry chicken and deliver it to my apartment at 2:30 in the morning? Or, even better, a phone number?
I could curry you some chicken, but you’d have to come to California to collect it.
@ Magpie
No. Being nice to women is a betrayal of men. Also, many of the men who believe this seem to be divorced. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though.