Why? Because the term is misogynistic, assuming that the worst insult you can deliver a man is to associate him with a woman’s vagina?
Oh no. His problem is that, while mangina “is appropriately insulting, it lacks explanatory power.”
Apparently, instead of using one word, JtO would prefer to use lots and lots of words. Some of them over and over. In his post, he launches into a sarcastic attack against “manginas” and “white knights.”
This slave, this coward, this supplicant seeking approval – he is the good man, and to prove it he will scourge every other man; every other man, who is not, like him, demonstrating that he is one of the good men; on his knees, or already busy attacking other men who don’t yet know they should live in a state of ongoing apology for existing. …
A man, surrendering reason, morality, surrendering the right to an identity as a human being, in favor of the consensus identity afforded to him by the group, based on his utility, his conformance, or his affectations of supplication to the preferred members of the group, such as women.
And that’s just the opener. He marches onward, blasting “manginas” as
snivelling, apologetic supplicants for approval … amoral, violent enforcers of group think and conformism
He pauses in his attacks on “manginas” for a moment to take on feminists, declaring them “immature, violent, prejudiced [and] bigoted,” and even possibly
demonstrate[ing] other signs of mental illness, particularly, a constellation of qualities associated with high conflict personality disorders … paranoia, hatred, and ultimately, violence.
Then back to “manginas,” whom he describes as
enforcers of a public ethic of atavistic group think; us-versus-them along lines of trivial disagreement, social ostracism, fear driven conformism and authoritarian compliance; of hatred, and of violent enforcement of social norms which are fundamentally toxic and dysfunctional. …
As you may have noticed, he’s starting to repeat himself, a bit like a stuck record. Over the course of his relatively short post, he uses “coward” and its variations four times; “apologetic” and variations six times; “conformity” and variants five times; “supplicant” and variations three times; “on his knees” and variants three times; “enforcers of group think” twice. There are probably other repeated terms. But let’s continue on:
And all of this is enabled by the cowardice of those males who the group will define as good men. The compliant, the apologetic, and the heroes enforcing the whim of overgrown toddlers with princess complexes.
Whoops! He’s gone back to complaining about feminists again. And in case you didn’t get the bit about “toddlers” the first time, he repeats it, bashing feminists again as
grown up toddlers who discount your humanity and the humanity of all men in favor of utility and conformance.
Glad to see you’ve decided to move on from childish namecalling, JtO.