A Mangina is a self-depreciating man who subconsciously hates himself and blindly believes women are superior to him. He has been raised to think masculinity is inherently wrong – perhaps even a genetic/evolutionary/social flaw – and must be corrected by embracing his “feminine side” to the point of losing the very qualities that make him male. He believes women are beautiful, innocent angels and men are filthy animals who need to be controlled.
Manginas see women as the ultimate being and place them on a pedestal, focusing only on sex or the satisfaction of women all the while not giving a damn about his fellow man. Chivalry and being illogical are two traits of being a mangina.
Manginas support women’s issues which are against his fellow men. Someone who espouses feminism but is really being suckered into a form of chivalry in which women’s interests take precedence over men’s. Unaware that they are merely “useful idiots”, doing what women want in the vain/hope of getting laid. When his usefulness is over she tosses him out with the rest of the rubbish.
Manginas are betrayers and enemies of men
Abhinandan Sekhri is a 25% owner of NewsLaundry, a self-proclaimed guardian of justice and independence:
We respect independence, we value justice and we consider transparency an important and achievable goal for credibility. We will question established ways and models that get too comfortable and cozy becoming inert. Inertia is death.
Another illustrious 25% owner is Madhu Trehan, who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and fully capitalized on it:
Trehan … founded and started the news magazine India Today, with her father V.V.Purie, owner of Thomson Press
Here is a photograph of her:
I don’t even!
Well, coming back to Abhinandan Sekhri, who calls himself:
TV producer, TV critic, satirist, compulsive consumer of media, print-TV-online – Impatient.
We would be wrong to expect a rational, level-headed discourse from these hipster bozos. After all, they are jokers in the guise of journalists, trying to make money from their media productions. But this recent video interview made us sit up and take notice of just how pathetic Sekhri is:
The interview is with one of the lawyers representing the convicted rapists and their helpers in the so-called Nirbhaya rape incident. The lawyer’s name is Manohar Lal Sharma. While due to the nature of the crime, no lawyer wanted to represent the accused during their trial, he did. Many people speculate that he did it for the publicity, but obviously it was not the kind of publicity that anyone would want. While one of the accused was a juvenile, another committed suicide in prison and the rest of the accused were sentenced to death.
M L Sharma was condemned by one and all, his Wikipedia page is full of jeering nuggets, and he doesn’t seem to be the typical liberal, by a long shot.
However, if he has some simple-minded or even twisted views about man-woman relationships, it is one thing to disagree with him and to discuss the merits of his statements, it is another to attempt to poke fun at him while doing what seems to be a serious interview. M L Sharma seems to understand that he is being interviewed to get some provocative soundbite to malign him, but to his credit, he is participating sincerely in the discussion and trying to engage in a rational discourse. A rational discourse might include invalid arguments, but they have to be invalidated rationally, not through rolling one’s eyes and smirking at the cameraman.
Sekhri’s moustache and get-up is oh-so-hip, and so is his attitude. All irony and no substance.
Sekhri proves himself to be a white-knighting mangina, who instead of understanding where Sharma is coming from and engaging with him, is not only disingenuous (in the interview, he claims to be a virgin who doesn’t know about penile erections), but also a jerk. He seems to be in a wink-wink co-conspiracy with the cameraman and his purported audience to make fun of M L Sharma, who has been a priori judged to be a conservative fool but who, in our opinion, seems to be making at least some valid points.
The lawyer made some interesting observations:
- That the defendants didn’t get good counsels because they weren’t rich and influential.
- That the natural instincts can only be somewhat addressed by society and not all crimes can be prevented.
- That women are physically weaker than men and need to be protected.
- That there is an epidemic of false rape accusations.
- That in an unsafe environment, it is imperative one take measures to protect oneself.
- That the media is complicit in eroticizing the social environment through provocative images and advertisements.
- That there is a recent trend of divorces being de-stigmatized and becoming a way for unscrupulous women to get monthly or one-time alimony from their husbands.
Now observe the mangina Sekhri’s responses in the video at 7:58, at 8:50, at 9:15, at 12:35, at 17:35 and at 22:20 for just a few instances in which he makes a fool of himself and proves himself to be an abysmal failure as an interviewer. He refuses to answer simple questions, tries to be over-smart and continuously tries to misrepresent the interviewee and the traditional ways of marriage and of protecting one’s honor.
A YouTube commentator says:
This was such a great opportunity to get an insight on this lawyer’s thought process. However, it turned out to be mockery. We may disagree with the lawyer’s worldview, but he is right on many things, Jethmalani would have jumped on this case had these been rich kids.
He implies that it’s an unsafe world and men and women should take accountability for their safety. Don’t be surprised if you get robbed or raped if you are at the wrong place at the wrong time. He is right! Have you been to New Delhi railway station at night. I am a guy and I feel unsafe. I can’t imagine how threatened women feel.
If you watched the documentary, the cop who finds the naked bodies asks the 30 or so people gathered around to help him, but no one comes forward. This is the reality of the civil society we live in. We need to question ourselves that we don’t look the other way when we see injustice or crime. Until we take the responsibility to make the place we live in safe for all of us, Rapes like this will continue to happen and lawyers like these will have their own theories of “woman’s consent on rape” and things like that.
This lawyer chose to defend some monsters (as is guaranteed by our constitution) and he lost the case. The law and justice prevailed. If you are going to crucify him for his opinions then don’t forget to question the 30 odd people who ogled at the dying woman and her friend and refused to help.
At least the lawyer has the courage to air his opinions (however outlandish and archaic they may seem). He belongs to a different time (or dimension) The interviewer on the other hand acted like a sophomoric smart-ass, who had already made up his mind that he will give inane replies to lawyers counter point.
What a waste of a great opportunity.
Indeed! And it is because this kind of prejudiced interviews and messages are peddled to impressionable people that they confuse hipness with correctness, conservatism with foolishness and feminism with progress.
M L Sharma might be old-fashioned, but Abhinandan Sekhri, shame on you for not only abdicating your reason, but also your manhood and an understanding of the culture that you are a part of.
You deserve to be the licking boy of a dominatrix. Hint hint.