Excerpts of Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto go over well on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit

The cover page of Breivik's manifesto

So somebody, and I honestly don’t know who, tried a little experiment last night on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit: claiming to be a “long time lurker and closet-convert to the MRM [with] some thoughts to share that I’ve been working on for a long time,” the (ostensibly male) prankster cut-and-pasted the excerpts of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik’s manifesto that I highlighted in my last post and presented them to the Men’s Rightsers as if they were his own writings.  The prankster also pretended to be posting on a throwaway account because his “GF has a reddit account and I’m not ready to open that bag of worms yet.” (All of the excerpts in question were from posts from far-right blogger Fjordman that Breivik had incorporated into his “manifesto.”)

So how did Breivik/Fjordman’s views (not identified as such) go over on r/MensRights? Pretty well, it turns out, with the post receiving (when last I checked) about twice as many upvotes as downvotes from the locals. “Nice post man.,” wrote darkamir in a comment.  To FascistOrigami, meanwhile,

The beautiful thing about this post (beyond the fact that it hits all the major issues): every feminist on reddit whose bf is also on reddit will be wondering if the OP is her guy.

The biggest bone of contention? That the (fictional) OP felt he had to hide his views from his (fictional) girlfriend.  “If you have a girlfriend who you have to hide things from, she should not be your girlfriend,” wrote one commenter. Others worried that the OP might be in an abusive relationship if “he” felt he couldn’t speak his mind. Tomek77, in perhaps the most ironic comment of the bunch, warned the OP that he might get a violent reaction if he revealed his views to his “GF.”

Just a piece of advice: I would be very careful about sharing your thoughts with your gf (if you care about your relationship).

For some reason that still escapes my understanding, many women go absolutely bat-shit crazy when they are faced with the reality of gender relations in the west.

To this day, I remember one of my ex-gf literally entering crazy-mode, screaming, yelling and physically shaking after I mentioned that it doesn’t make sense for men to get married under the current law. I swear, I was expecting to see foam coming from her mouth at any moment – and we have only been dating for a week!!

Even in more casual social settings, I have seen many women react very violently and irrationally when men’s issues were mentioned in the conversation. So proceed with caution..

Several hours after the original post, one of the regulars figured out what was going on. And posted a link to my post here on Breivik. Needless to say, my ideas got a much harsher reception than Breivik/Fjordman’s did, though judging from the comments very few of the regulars actually bothered to read my post before arriving at their conclusions about it.

About these ads

Posted on July 25, 2011, in antifeminism, misogyny, MRA, reactionary bullshit, reddit, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 163 Comments.

  1. To expand on that: You may very well be a decent MRA. We have found, to date, no self-identified MRA with a platform that wasn’t problematic in some way, re: the challenge. This doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and we’d be glad to hear that some do. Holly has even offered to blog about any MRA that meets the challenge, as a way of getting traffic to a good part of the movement.

    But we have found that they are, at best, extremely rare.

    And not sure where the scotsman comment is aimed. I’m just not parsing that. If we said you weren’t an MRA then scotsmanning would come in.

    And that’s totally a real word >.>

  2. My views on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not in line with McVeigh’s. I know why the bombs were dropped and I agree with them. I do not like that it killed thousands of innocent children who had nothing to do with the decision to go to war like the Japanese did.

    Regardless, the disagreement or not with his statements of any kind-maybe he said he likes warm freshly baked muffins once, it does not mean I cannot look at the other stuff he said and see how it is similar to other types of rhetoric that are like this Breivik’s manifesto and the MRM.

  3. Although i’d like to think of myself as a egalitarian, i’m probably more of an MRA.

    Okay, I can see two ways to read this, and I’m curious, which (if either) is closest to your meaning. Are you saying that you believe in gender equality, but realistically are more interested in the ways you see men as disadvantaged, or do you mean that ideally you’d like to be egalitarian, but you know when it comes down to it you’re always going to preference the rights of men?

  4. There does seem to be an odd disconnect in these discussions. We have us, saying:

    “Direct, hateful parts of his manifesto are accepted and/or echoed by the MRAs”.

    MRAs are saying “I can find a non-offensive thing some offensive person said once, and you may agree with it! So you’re wrong!”

    Not the same thing, people. Not the same thing at all.

    I mean, if they were to find parts of the SCUM manifesto that advocate killing men or destroying their rights as people and we agreed, then sure, they’d have a point. But that’s not what they’re doing.

  5. @Holly — I find McVeigh’s comments to be pretty hateful. Perhaps the reason you do not is because you agree with them. But that ignores my point: that you agree with McVeigh’s position does not make McVeigh a feminist or mean that feminism influenced his actions. You and he incidentally share similar views. That is it. The same applies to men’s rights activists.

    @Nobby — They are the same thing. You are comparing two separate people’s incidentally similar arguments and claiming that because one man committed a violent act anyone who shares those views contributed to, caused, or is responsible for that man’s actions. When presented with counter examples of this, the feminist response is to claim that it does not count in any other circumstance except where it applies to men’s groups. That is absurd.

  6. Maybe you mean that hating women is not something that is solely the purview of the MRM Toysoldier.

    Hating and blaming women does have an incredibly long history after all.

  7. It’s sort of weird that you conflate McVeigh expressing his problems with the US’s policy toward WMD’s with a man in Norway saying that women ought to have access to birth control eliminated, access to jobs and higher education eliminated, and be turned into baby machines to fix the declining population of Europe. They are definitely not the same thing.

    It’s ok for me, or McVeigh, to disagree with some of the United States’ foreign policy- it’s not really targeting any group and denying them rights to bodily autonomy. Plus, it’s covered under the First Amendment- I can criticize the government. That’s not to say I agree with everything he said. but for the sake of argument.

    What’s not ok is that this guy was like “Yeah, Women suck! Women ruined our continent! Let’s take away their rights!”, and the guys on reddit were like “Yeah! Right on!”. That is, until they realized who it came from, and that they’d been pranked, not to mention that they’d been agreeing with a mass murderer.

    While you might think your methods were similar (and they only sort of are, kind of), what we’re really more concerned with here is content. Like Nobby said- it’s only apples to apples if you get us to agree with hateful, violent rhetoric about restricting someone’s rights. As yet, no troll has gotten us to do that, in spite of many valiant efforts. Ask Mark or Ion or NWO or AWS if they’re around.

  8. They are not incidentally similar. Again, we’re comparing hateful parts, parts that say that women should lose rights and should be reduced to breeding stock, with similar views in the MRM. These are not incidental, these are views often espoused by the MRM, along with violent rhetoric. Again, if you want to bring up vile and hateful writing against men, saying that they should be be kept out of schools and the government should work to reduce their rights as much as possible in order to increase their breeding ability, and we agreed, you would have an analogy. But saying Hitler said ‘water is wet’ is not an analogy.

    And I have yet to see a redditer say “I’m an MRM and I don’t agree with him, his views on women are wrong”. Which we have all said about, say, the SCUM Manifesto.

  9. LinXtioW: The not a true scotsman works the other way. You say no MRA would do such a horrible thing, and when it’s pointed out that one did, he stops being an MRA.

    What we are looking at is different. We are looking for MRAs who say such things. Absent knowing what you agree with, or what you don’t, we can’t say if you are reasonable. But we will take you at your word that you are an MRA.

    Whether they will, is an open question.

    I think Hiroshima was justifed, Nagasaki was questionable and Dresden a War Crime. I also don’t think that any of that justifies bombing innocent people. That McVeigh’s arguments have some validity doesn’t make what he does with them legitimate.

    Which isn’t the parallel anyone here is drawing. What is the actual conclusion McVeigh is trying to persuade others of? Does it follow from the premises? Is it moral?

    More to the point… I don’t care if McVeigh made the argument, so long as it’s a good argument. The folks at Reddit do. Finding out that Brievik made it they are suddenly all a-twitter saying, “of course we don’t agree with what he did, just with his basic premises”.

    Well those premises include the idea that violence is the only way to solve the problem. Since a lot of other MRAs have said the same thing (go back and look at the dialogue after Thomas Ball killed himself. There were MRAs saying if that wasn’t enough then killing judges and cops was in order).

    Look at the Mellers, who say that women need to be wiped out.

    The violence Brievik performed is something members of the MRA community have advocated.

    That you think we have said he was an MRA is either blindness, or dishonesty. What has been said is his views track with MRA views. There are MRAs who share his rhetoric.

    When presented with evidence of that you say the parallels aren’t real.

    Here’s some analysis, from a non-”feminist” source.

    On the Oslo Terrorist’s Ideology

  10. To be fair, the excerpts posted to Reddit did NOT include the stuff about reducing women to breeding stock. But they were blatantly misogynistic and Islamophobic.

  11. People, don’t you know? If you can use the same words to describe two different situations, it must mean they are the same thing! Didn’t you get the memo? Context and content don’t matter any more! Wheeee!

    “But that ignores my point: that you agree with McVeigh’s position does not make McVeigh a feminist or mean that feminism influenced his actions. You and he incidentally share similar views. That is it. The same applies to men’s rights activists.”

    You know, we’ve said the exact same thing of Brievick multiple times. That he shares similar views to the MRM does not make him an MRA. But McVeigh’s position was not a feminist one. Brievick’s (at least a portion of it) was an MRA one. They don’t just incidentally share similar views, they share similar views that are sadly far too common amongst MRAs, namely violence or oppression towards women.

  12. David, I apologize for the hyperbole. I know that the term breeding stock wasn’t really used and that kind of misrepresentation isn’t really helpful to these kinds of discussions.

    What can I say?

    I happen to belong one of the invisible groups of women in the U.S., and no one cares if we don’t reproduce. Some people would probably prefer it. And, yeah, this current expansion of anti-Islam and virulent xenophobia, not only scares me, but seems to have an awful lot of “White women need to have more babies” subtext that disgusts me.

    But I did address what I felt was insinuated and generally, I prefer to stick with what’s stated explicitly.

  13. Ah, I’m sorry David. Okay, replace breeding stock with “equalizing the sexes has led to a crippling feminisation of Western society”

    or “Equalizing the sexes has led to crippling masciulization of western society”

  14. “but seems to have an awful lot of “White women need to have more babies” subtext that disgusts me.”

    Oh, if only it was only subtext.

  15. Iris Vander Pluym

    As a white woman of European descent, I’m positively thrilled that I piss off the Breiviks of the world by not breeding. I’m a way from menopause, but let’s just say there is a near-zero chance of a pregnancy in my future (unless I am raped, in which case any pregnancy would be ended swiftly).

    Of course pissing off these women-as-breeding-stock advocates is just an incidental benefit of my choice not to spawn, which I made for other reasons. But that choice is precisely why I am and will always remain an unrelenting advocate for feminism.

  16. Nobinayamu, I think “breeding stock” is an absolutely accurate way to describe how Breivik thinks of women. He states pretty clearly that he thinks white women need to start popping out babies to fight against the supposed Islamic menace.

    My point was just that the things I quoted from him on that issue weren’t included in the excerpts that were posted to Reddit.

  17. David, I get it. And, again, you’re right. I’m mixing up the posts.

  18. @Nobby: kirby him/herself said the mentioned/linked to feminists at the beginning werent “real” feminists, but radicals, and that radicaly dont reflect the opinion of the majority. Considering the most ignorant people are often the most vocal, especially on the internet (anonymous ignorance is bliss) i would afford those reddit users the benefit of being idiots.

    @Sharculese: What i mean is i personally feel that feminism has gotten its biggest boulders up the hill and isn’t “fun” anymore. “Fun” as in full of controversy and reasons for dispute, which normally fosters critical thinking and engages the mind. I’m done with the religion debate (as in i’ve seen all sides and made up my mind) and felt i should engage the next big discussion topic on teh internetz. And since in my experience its hard to get sane people to disagree about giving women equal rights, mens rights is more my thing since the topics it deals with are more ambigious, less black and white.
    Until i started reading manboobz and other blogs from all sides of the spectrum i didn’t even know about PUAs and alpha and beta existed or that ppl actually have a problem with women having equal rights.

    @Pam: I think the 10% would probably be the things mentioned on Wikipedia and the topics of Warren Farrells books.

    @Blogpost: I feel its worth mentioning that there are only 25 comments on reddit. Also, two (stupid) posters were cited. One could just as well have cited the following two, painting a much more pleasant picture of MRAs:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iytoo/throwaway_account_long_time_lurker_and/c27syw8
    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iytoo/throwaway_account_long_time_lurker_and/c27uyew

    Especially the second one seems very reasonable and respectable compared to those cited in the blog post.

  19. @LinXioW I’ll admit Kirby’s wording in the first post wasn’t great, since he said “radical feminists” and “feminists”, implying different groups. However, I think that he will agree with me if I clarify: radical feminists are feminists, however they do not define the movement, and are widely criticized when expressing, say, misandrist opinions. Again, you’d be hard pressed to find many feminists at all, much less well-liked ones, that would say the SCUM Manifesto is great. However, serious opposition to misogynie is rare in MRA spaces that we’ve seen. I still don’t see anyone beyond your one post saying that it’s not not good, or denouncing the other posters who say it is.

    As far as reddit, keep in mind that the first quote at least has some serious upvotes, nearly three times as many as your first one (which only really says ‘I can’t read this’), and your second one only has 2 right now, as opposed to 16. It is good to see some positive opinion, but even David doesn’t deny that this reddit isn’t completely full of idiots.

    As far as your choice of men’s rights vs women’s rights, that sounds legitimate to me. Some may argue a few points in there but for me it comes down to personal choice, and working with the topics you find most interesting is hardly a bad thing.

  20. *misogyny. Too used to an edit button…

  21. “Even in more casual social settings, I have seen many women react very violently and irrationally when men’s issues were mentioned in the conversation. So proceed with caution..”

    What is it with MRAs and the usage of the word “irrational” to describe women?

    Also, if you’ve only been dating someone for a week, they’re not your girlfriend/boyfriend. Unless, of course, you’ve both decided to go steady immediately. Oh, but wait…I thought MRAs didn’t like the prospect of being changed to an irrational, emotional, PMSing beast. It seems that MRAs don’t know what the hell they want.

  22. *”Chained,” not “changed. Ugh. Damn lack of edit button!

  23. “Since some of you think I am being abused..its more like I don’t care to have this discussion with my GF because its not a serious relationship and I’m getting what I want (sex) and so is she. I’m not going to be with this girl in 5 years, so really, who cares what she thinks of my political/moral beliefs.”

    So…he considers her his girlfriend, yet also claims it’s not a “serious” relationship and that they’re both only it in for sex? I thought the word for that was “friends with benefits” or “fuck buddies.” If he’s so sure that he’s not going to be with her in 5 years, why the hell is he so afraid to reveal his silly little MRA alignment? Perhaps he knows most self-respecting women won’t put up with MRA bullshit, and he still wants to keep the woman around for sex? Yeah, that sounds about right,

  24. Psst, Arielle, that last thing you quoted was from the poe, so not exactly a real MRA opinion >><

  25. *>.<

    damn lack of edit button, indeed.

  26. What is it with MRAs and the usage of the word “irrational” to describe women?

    These guys believe that women are irrational because women don’t want them.

    ——————————————–

    “Since some of you think I am being abused..its more like I don’t care to have this discussion with my GF because its not a serious relationship and I’m getting what I want (sex) and so is she. I’m not going to be with this girl in 5 years, so really, who cares what she thinks of my political/moral beliefs.”
    So…he considers her his girlfriend, yet also claims it’s not a “serious” relationship and that they’re both only it in for sex? I thought the word for that was “friends with benefits” or “fuck buddies.” If he’s so sure that he’s not going to be with her in 5 years, why the hell is he so afraid to reveal his silly little MRA alignment? Perhaps he knows most self-respecting women won’t put up with MRA bullshit, and he still wants to keep the woman around for sex? Yeah, that sounds about right,

    Psst, Arielle, that last thing you quoted was from the poe, so not exactly a real MRA opinion

    All MRAs brag about having these types of relationships with women, relationships were they only have sex with a dumb woman (and many claims to live in a harem) but I’m highly skeptical of that, they are constantly confusing girlfriends, friends with benefits and one-night-stands. I think they have imaginary girlfriends. So the poe was making a good MRA imitation.

  27. Eh, it is still not from a real MRA. May just be me, but tearing down the opinions of a poe seems a little silly. You can say it reflects MRAs (and I wouldn’t disagree), but it’s still disingenuous to say it was an MRA that said it. There’s more then enough real such quotes to go by.

  28. I didn’t say it was an an actual MRA that said it, I said the poe was making a good MRA imitation (read Roissy and they all say they live in a harem). He probably said it to increase its credibility. If the poe had said that he was an jobless angry 40 years old virgin that weight 450 pounds and lives with his mother, they probably would not have believed him.

  29. You ignore the exception in place of making a gross generalization so you can resort to guilt by association. Just because one person who did a deplorable thing expressed similar views as another group does not mean that his views came from that group or that the group bears any responsibility for his actions.

    Oh my freaking god it’s you again, here to tell us that intellectual influence is just coincidence if the person on the receiving end does something unwholesome, and any attempt to argue other wise is fallacious.

    You are comparing two separate people’s incidentally similar arguments and claiming that because one man committed a violent act anyone who shares those views contributed to, caused, or is responsible for that man’s actions.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?_r=1
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/24/norway-massacre-anders-breivik-s-deadly-attack-fueled-by-hatred-of-women.html
    Incidental my ass.

  30. LinXitoW, actually, I couldn’t have quoted either of those comments, as they had not yet been posted when I wrote my post.

    But, yeah, there are some people in r/mr who are not misogynsits, and some who actually speak out against misogyny. In this particular case, just a couple, with some gentle criticism.

  31. I agree that ppl are agreeing w/ hateful (or at least hateful to most of the ppl here xD ) comments not just inoffensive comments that just happen to be said by a mass murderer but I wonder if the well is alrdy poisoned b/c he IS a mass murderer :\ Like would this be a post if it was just MRAs agreeing w/ regular hateful stuff from an extreme MRA? Is his stuff MORE extreme, or is it just cuz he happened to be a killer? :\ I guess my question is (and I dun have an answer to this cuz I haven’t rly thought much of it cuz it’s sad and upsetting and I am just busy being sad and upset lately about it :( ) is his being a killer merely incidental to his MRA (and xenophobic, white-power, racist, etc which seems sometimes to also conflate w/ some extreme MRAs that I’ve seen) beliefs, or are they tied together, and can’t be compartmentalized? Cuz it seems like there are those that think it’s “agreeing w/ a killer” and others who think it’s “agreeing w/ a guy who happened to be a killer” :\

  32. I just wonder if it’s fair to point at MRAs who agreed w/ extreme MRA rhetoric, which we see them agree w/ normally neways… and say “look they’re agreeing w/ a killer”, b/c are those beliefs (even if only in part) tied to him being a mass murderer, or is he being a mass murderer incidental to it? :\ Or is his rhetoric even WORSE and they still agree? B/c presumably these MRAs have agreed w/ this kind of rhetoric in the past… :\

  33. I think the sticking point is that this guy used the racist and misogynist arguments that resemble things said in the MRM to justify mass murder. It doesn’t appear as though these beliefs are incidental to his murders, but instrumental to them. I’m not saying he was reading MRA sites or anything like that, but the logical extension of violent rhetoric and dehumanising people is, well, violence. Not that everyone who shares that logic will be violent, but that this is an endpoint which makes sense in the scheme of things. And is therefore problematic…does that make sense?

  34. @Ami:

    The way I see it, violent rhetoric is harmful, and killers are the reason why. In essence, its a “See, look what saying people should be gunned down can do!” It is, to put it bluntly, to show that you were right to be worried about it all along.

    Its messy and complicated… Obviously there are crazy people out there, people who could take what appear to be innocuous statements and transmute them into violence. But sometimes that transmutation doesn’t need to occur. The idea that people are gonna die/need to die if x and y and z don’t change doesn’t need a leap of logic to go to people will die since x and y and z don’t change. And there are people out there in the world willing to do it.

    I’m not in the position of saying “See, you agree with a killer! That makes you bad!” I’ve said before, even killers are people, and they probably have perfectly innocuous beliefs that I share, beliefs that a reasonable person couldn’t connect to slaughter. That isn’t what we are talking about here. We are talking about beliefs that even a reasonable person could easily connect to violence, and the only reason it hasn’t on a larger scale is because (thankfully) there are very few people willing to actually go through with it.

    Long story short, we aren’t blaming the MRM because they “agree with a killer,” we are arguing that the MRM’s violent rhetoric is bad/wrong/etc, and as evidence note that it might have been part of the reason a killer killed. Really, (at least for me), the opinion towards that rhetoric hasn’t changed since this guy murdered people, it is simply another piece of data (not to mention a tradgedy.. I haven’t really said that yet…) reinforcing the idea that violent rhetoric is wrong.

  35. @Nobby: The parts that the men on reddit agreed with said nothing about women losing their rights or being reduced to breeding stock, nor are those views remotely similar to the men’s rights movement. Again, it is a logical fallacy to claim that just because two groups share similar views they are somehow connected.

    @kirbywarp: McVeigh’s position is a feminist one. Feminists make the same arguments about the United State’s hypocritical position on terrorism, bombing, and international conflicts. You cannot weasel out of that just because it is an inconvenient truth. Feminists have a lot in common with a lot of despicable people, from McVeigh to NAMBLA to Rush Limbaugh. That does not mean that their incidentally similar views are in any way linked or caused by one another.

    @Lyn: The logic makes sense, but it is also is not limited to any one group. The same thing applies to feminism. However, that does not mean that just because many women who commit violence against boys and men tend to express views startling similar to feminist views about men that feminists caused said violence or influenced it or that feminists need to check their rhetoric. Coincidentally, I find most feminist rhetoric hateful, violent and dehumanizing.

  36. @Toysoldier is that inherent to feminism tho? o_O I know there are feminists who claim that feminism inherently means being a socialist, or being anti-US-military or etc… there’s also queer ppl who claim that being a queer-activist inherently means being anti-Israel also…(it’s a big stir right now in Toronto over funding of Pride) :\ But I know many Libertarian feminists and other feminists who agree about feminism (gender, oppression, marginalization, stereotypes, etc etc) but not w/ socialist feminists, or communist feminists (I also know those!) and other such things… it’s interesting that some ppl view feminism as being inherently linked to those beliefs tho :] I also know some who think feminism is inherently transphobic also, while others don’t, and are trans feminists (like me! and the ppl at QT, etc) :3 I think that it’s interesting to say that McVeigh is a feminist b/c he held non-gender related views… does that make Allen Andrade a result of feminists b/c of the anti-trans feminists? o: How popular does a belief have to be running through a movement that is, in theory, unrelated to that belief, for it to be part of it (like anti-imperialism, or socialism)… cuz there seem to be a lot of MRAs who are also white-power types (or anti-immigration types) but I dun think it’s fair to say that nebody who commits race crimes, is motivated by MRA philosophies, or that the minutemen are… xD

  37. @Toysoldier You know what, I’m sorry. You’re right, they were not the sections I thought they were.

    However, the fact that we’re comparing hateful rhetoric stays the same. To whit:

    “Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship ”
    “Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation.”
    “equalising the sexes has led to a crippling feminisation of Western society”
    “the pursuit of equality is being used to destroy our society and undermine – and therefore be in conflict with – Mother nature.”

    To paint your enemy as the cause of the destruction of society is hateful, and this is the kind of stuff David finds all the time. We are still, I repeat, not comparing ‘incidentals’, but direct ideological similarities. It still is not the same to say that Hitler said ‘water is wet’, which would be incidental. If we were comparing, i don’t know, Breivik’s preferences for carrots, it would be incidental. But we are comparing what he saw as the cause of destruction of society. Big F-ing difference.

  38. I find it interesting that when the MRM refers to feminism, they almost always refer to radical feminism (at least what I have seen, which is by no means a representative sample because most of what I have seen of the MRM has come from this blog. I’ve not the stomach to slog through those portions of the internet myself). Almost all references to feminism have been to second wavers like Dworkin (which, really, what self identified feminist even agrees with her anymore, save twisty faster and her ilk), or modern radfems that many feminists in the circles I frequent go through many pains to refute and argue against. I’ve yet to see MRAs quote feminists like Clarisse Thorn, or Ozy, or Holly, or Figleaf, and act like what they are saying is The Most Ridiculous And Misandrist Shit Ever. They all look for the worst shit they can find. Which, in and of itself, is natural. We here at manboobz do that too. But the worst they can find is from Thirty fucking years ago, while here it’s like, from yesterday.

    Toysoldier; If you identify as MRA but dislike a lot of the more hateful rhetoric of the movement, you may very well find something very valuable at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz. It’s not a snarkfest like this blog is meant to be (which I don;t knock at all! I love snarkfests!!) and it has a lot of different opinions flying around in (mostly) respectful debate. We’d love to see you over there.

  39. Even Twisty Faster doesn’t say “i hate men”, she says “men hate you” (with examples), and doesn’t seem to take herself nearly as seriously as the MRA guys.

  40. Truth. Most of her talk of “Revolution” and “Sudden Death Island” seem to be largely tongue-in-cheek. And it’s hard to imagine someone who uses the word “dude” in so many new and creative ways takes herself entirely seriously. Her commentariat, however…..

    Anyway, Twisty remains someone I respect who holds many views i wholeheartedly disagree with. Maybe it’s just because she sometimes says something I like, or because Harriet J has obvious affection for her and Harriet J is pretty much the reason i’m feminist…..

    Anyway, I digress. To anyone who lists Twisty as a representation of What Feminists think, I shall direct them posthaste to Holly’s (now discontinued) blog segment “Twisty Faster is Fucking Insane (TFIFI)”

  41. @Shora (you forgot me! xD but nobody quotes me as a feminist xD ) Also, TS is a frequent commenter on NSWATM so I think he alrdy knows of the blog :3

  42. I really enjoy Twisty’s use of language. I haven’t read her commenters in quite a while.

  43. @Ami: Sorry, I didn’t mean to forget you! :( And apparently I haven’t been nearly active enough of NSWATM if i didn’t pick up on that. (Which is really sad, as I’m supposed to be a contributor/mod :/)

    @Magpie: Twisty is a fucking brilliant writer. I sometimes read her shit just to giggle at her zany creative turns of phrase. But I can’t help but think that she would view me personally as subverting her Revolution (feminine, BDSM sub, bellydancer, among other things)

  44. Oh and don’t forget horses! She has and loves horses, which is surely the quickest way to my heart.

  45. I probably agree with Twisty more than you do, Shora. She really does love and take care of her horses and dogs, doesn’t she. I reckon that counts for something :)

  46. I don’t know if she’d see you as subverting the Revolution – she seems to see feminine people as getting-by-as-best-they-can. BDSM would probably get you a good argument, though! Bellydancing looks like great fun. I’ve only seen it once, and the dancers were as old as me and had similar figures and twirled and twinkled in the lamplight – brilliant.

  47. I miss having horses. I miss being able to really ride.
    :(

  48. I have a workmate who needs someone to horse-sit when she goes away later this year – to the spanish riding school – in Spain. (U jelly?) ;)

  49. @Magpie: I’m not feminine to get by the best I can though; I’m feminine because I actually enjoy and get something out of it (although I do tend to ignore the trappings of femininity that i find inconvenient or annoying like regular shaving or makeup.) I’m waiting for the next time she trots out BDSM to light her blog on fire and cackle in the flames a la Shosanna from Inglourious Basterds so I can have my turn wrestling in the mud pit.

    And Bellydancing is indeed TONS of fun.

    @Precunium: I know exactly how you feel. My last horse colicked real bad and had to be put down right before i left for college, and I haven’t been able to really ride in at least three years. It breaks my heart…. One day, thought, I will have money and start up again :)

  50. Shona, I’m so sorry about your horse :(
    I remember one of the belly dancers (they only do it for fun) was wearing a long-sleeved top that covered her tummy, with sequins around the bust and shoulders. Her costume fitted in well with the other short tops, though. The skirts are so long that even twirling they didn’t show their legs. Her hair was uncovered, but maybe a sparkly headpiece over a scarf would work. What do you reckon? Have you ever come across ‘modest’ bellydancers?

  51. Magpie

    I’ve only been bellydancing for less than a year, but my troupe stresses that no one should do anything they’re not comfortable with. So, some of the girls will wear tops that cover their bellies, and long leggings underneath their skirts. We’re pretty much just an amateur college troupe though.

    I know that in certain countries of the Middle East it’s illegal to show your stomach when belly dancing, so a lot of outfits in those areas (Like Egypt, I think?) wear one piece dresses with windows and flesh-colored fabric that cover the stomach.

    Really, though, from what I’ve seen in person and on youtube videos, styles vary wildly from style to person to troupe.

  52. This is why I love manboobz so much. Along with the mocking of misogynists, you get discussions of horses and belly dancing.

  53. Next: bellydancing horses!

    It’s a popular hobby, so each troupe grows their own style, I suppose.

    Sorry for mis-spelling your name, btw.

  54. (cue image of a horse with a giant hip scarf around its middle kicking at the fabric of a long skirt with a cross expression on its face. Cue laughter)

    And no probs on the misspelling thing ;)

  55. Shora: You have my sympathy. When my former fiancée and I broke up I no longer lived with horses. But the real problem is my Rieter’s. It makes it really hard on my joints to ride regularly.

    Which is bad for one’s practice. :(

    When I manage to convince my partners we need to move back t Calif, maybe I can manage to have a horse.

    So I make do with a motorcycle. It’s fun, but it’s not the same. I had this vague sense of Leus, though he looks better in this oneRunning easy. The Icelandic in front is Rudi.

  56. @Ami Angelwings: The complaint was not about what was inherent to men’s groups, just that what Breivik wrote is similar to some men’s group writings. One can argue that an opposition to feminism is inherent to the men’s movement, but that does not make them misogynists, nor is being antifeminist an issue. People can disagree with a particular movement or ideology.

    @Nobby: “To paint your enemy as the cause of the destruction of society is hateful.” Do you mean like how feminists paint men as the cause of the destruction of society? As for ideological similarities, there are none between Breivik and men’s groups. They reach the same conclusion, but came to it from clearly different paths. Breivik links feminism to Marxism’s encroachment on his country, while men’s groups link feminism to misandry and a desire to oppress men. That is why I used the McVeigh example. Feminists and McVeigh share the same conclusion, but they reached it in two different ways.

    @Shora: I am not a MRA or a feminist. I already post on NSWATM, but thanks for the heads up. Regarding how men’s groups refer to feminism, they actually do cite current examples. Usually they cite a policy or law or program rather than a specific person. The reason why men’s groups fall back on older comments is because few feminists actually disagree with them. If you read current feminist literature you still find that the misandry from the “second wave” is alive and well, just veiled.

  57. Well, I’m glad I’m not the only one here who enjoys Twisty Faster’s writings from time to time. There’s a lot I disagree with her on, but I don’t go to her blog to disagree. Rather I go to get a different perspective on things and to giggle. :D Plus, she doesn’t exclude trans people. And horses and dogs. Got to love the horses and dogs. :)

  58. @Toysoldier Your dancing is getting tiresome. One last time: find me a link to any feminist that says that men are the downfall of civilization that we would agree with. And try to fine me one within the last, oh, decade that’s still relevant and well-liked. And don’t try a cop-out of ‘patriarchy is harmful’, because that neither says that all men (or only men) are doing it, neither does it say ‘downfall of civilization’.

    Again, Breivik was saying there is a direct link between feminism and the destruction of the west, which we see all the time spouted by MRAs. The closest any respected feminist comes is saying that patriarchy is harmful to us as ethical people, not ‘downfall of civilization’ worthy.

  59. Hey: we can all play Toysoldier’s game. See he says the reason they have to go so far back is that the ideas of the second wave feminsts we keep saying we disagree with are widely held.

    Well… we have examples from the recent past (in the wake of Thomas Ball’s suicide, or Sodoni’s murders, or even to go back to a time when Andrea Dworking was still alive, the Massacre at the École Polytechnique, by Lepine), when MRAs were saying violence was understandable and justified.

    So if he gets to say we all, secretly, believe that the radicals he, and his, keep pointing at is valid as shaping, and being shared by modern feminists, why is it so bad to show where the Modern MRA is in consonance with Breivik, since they have said things like this will probably have to be done before the Feminist Oppression can be ended?

    Oh, right, it makes his side look bad.

  60. Feminists and McVeigh share the same conclusion

    Um, nope. The passage you quoted from McVeigh articulates a pacifist or probably more likely an isolationist/anti-interventionist position. It has nothing to do with feminism. Feminists can also be anti-interventionist or pacifist, and most probably are, but they don’t have to be.

    Let’s go with anti-feminist bugaboo Hillary Clinton because she’s the most obvious example. She’s been instrumental in getting the U.S. involved in Libya. It’s very unlikely she agrees with the sentiment McVeigh expressed. Does that make her a bad feminist? Of course not. The two have nothing to do with each other.

  61. I don’t see how the man is in any way wrong simply because he did the massacre.

    The massacre does not taint everything he says, morons.

  62. @Nobby: Your equivocating is getting tiresome.  Finding examples of feminists blaming all men for society’s (and their) problems is not hard, and I have yet to see more than a few feminists argue against any of it. If you would, find me a link to any men’s rights activist who says that “women should lose rights and should be reduced to breeding stock” that anyone in the men’s movement agrees with. And try to find one that is relevant and well-liked. And do not try a cop-out of “feminism is harmful” because that neither says that women should lose their rights, nor does it advocate for violence against women.

    Feminists are trying to link men’s groups to Breivik’s beliefs and actions, but there is no connection. Just because they share a dislike of feminism does not mean men’s groups bear any responsibility for Breivik’s views. Indeed, by feminists’ own admission Breivik was not associated with the men’s movement. In short, feminists admit the similar views are incidental, yet continue to scapegoat men’s groups for Breivik’s actions.

    @Sharculese: My point is that just because feminists and McVeigh share similar views does not mean they are in any way connected. The problem is that feminists refuse to apply the same logic to men’s groups. They desperately want to conflate men’s groups with Breivik because feminists oppose every aspect of the men’s movement. It is honestly quite hypocritical, childish, and pathetic.

  63. Toysoldier: You do realize that saying “There is a patriarchy, and we would like to dismantle patriarchal notions, or even the patriarchal structure itself” is different from blaming “all men” for society’s problems? Even blaming the patriarchy for society’s problems is not the same as blaming men for society’s problems. Don’t worry — lots of people make this mistake, but patriarchy =/ men. I didn’t see anything in the links you posted that actually says what you say it does.

    And I do actually think it’s fair to link commenters and bloggers within the MRM who advocate or call for or threaten violent revolution to further their goals to Breivik, a person who did more than make threats, and shared some of the same misogynistic beliefs as the MRM. That doesn’t mean that I link Breivik to the MRM as a whole; I saw some MRA bloggers and commenters state that they did not support a violent revolution, at the time of Thomas Ball’s self-immolation. But I saw some who were clearly itching for more violence, and those are the ones I would say are similar to Breivik.

  64. Wow, so after I just explained that patriarchy was not saying ‘all men’, you immediately give me examples of people attacking patriarchy. Reading comprehension much?

    The first is something we’re already having an argument about elsewhere, that in the naming of privilege. But either way, blaming high rates of murder on “intersecting kyriarchal hierarchy phenomenon” is, despite the big words, not saying “men”. Also, please show how using the fact that men are the ones with higher rates of violent crime is blaming all men, or even Men’s Righters, or where it says anything of the downfall of civilization. It doesn’t even get close to blaming all men:

    To whit: “So, the men are having all the fun, the men are making all the money, and some of those same men are doing the beating and killing and dying.”

    The second is, again, explanation of the terms and not blaming all men:

    “Perhaps the darkest facet of patriarchy is that even many of the men caught up in its highly ranked structures, though perhaps unthinking beneficiaries of male privilege feel constrained and even powerless.

    It even suggests to “Rally men along with women to challenge patriarchal practices”, which hardly sounds like all men are evil.

    The third is Jill’s blog that, once again, fails to pin the blame on all men. Also, ‘well liked’ is laughable in Twisty’s case. Have you seen the battles in the comments, or al l the feminists (Such as Holly) calling twisty out specifically? She even has a tag! “Twisty Faster Is Fucking Insane”!

    And the last? An article about “The craziest posts at feministing”? Sorry, I’m not taking the time to go through an article of “They said crazy things!” If it’s so easy, do it yourself.

    And since you asked so nicely, lets start with the comments, since you used one youself:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/26/mirth-in-the-mutilation-of-men/#comment-102319

    “David Quinn is definitely a thinker. If he is right, things are gonna get “rock’n roll”. Prepare.”

    25 upvotes, zero downvotes.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/26/mirth-in-the-mutilation-of-men/#comment-102333

    “In effect they are attempting to eliminate those males (directly through physical violence or indirectly by means of the social / legal system) who are less than the primal ideal, leaving them to run wild for selection by what would be the optimum female mating strategy: a world comprised of nothing but dominant alpha males.”

    27:0. It says ‘Well loved’ right there!

    And that’s just from one post!

    Spearhead on women in school: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/05/is-school-really-that-important/

    “As for female success in school, this is a monumental waste of effort. STEM subjects, more important to innovation and economic progress, are still dominated by bright males. Young women major in psych, English lit. and other soft subjects and then end up in some corporate HR department, which wouldn’t even exist without legislation demanding adherence to federal equality laws. While obtaining their degrees, they drink themselves silly and ruin themselves for potential husbands by sleeping with any “hot” guys they can get their hands on. They also ruin humanities programs by eliminating any remaining traces of masculinity, turning classes on Shakespeare and the like into feminist gripe sessions.”

    Spearhead on marriage: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/08/marriage-no-longer-exists/

    “So in essence, the mother (in the typical case) can break the contract with no reason and be rewarded for it. The father (in the typical case) can uphold the contract and be punished for it. Thus, marriage is not a contract. Marriage is nothing.”

    And fidelity: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/04/careerism-and-fidelity/

    “A man without authority over his wife cannot be said to be a full husband, but rather something between that and a child (is it any wonder that American women are so fond of referring to husbands as “childlike?”). Today, a husband has negative legal authority over a wife, so he starts out at a disadvantage as soon as he signs the marriage certificate.
    ..
    However, for some it is possible to restore some authority, but only by merging the office of husband with that of employer; in short, one must hire one’s wife in order to establish something approaching the natural definition of marriage.”

    Roissy on fidelity: http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/is-female-careerism-a-form-of-infidelity/

    “Unlike women, men are evolutionarily programmed to be resource providers for women. It is not a betrayal of a man’s innate purpose in life to ambitiously pursue achievement and accolades. In fact, just the opposite; it’s an affirmation of that ancient purpose. A man turning his back on raising his status is akin to a woman letting herself get fat and slovenly.

    The women for whom career success is their comfort and their purpose are some sort of weird, monstrous amalgam of man and woman, halfway between both worlds, their sexual polarity askew.”

    All examples of how giving women rights, rights to schooling, equal share in marriage, and a right to a career, are damaging. Just from two sites, which are both rather popular.

  65. My real response is in moderation, lots of links. But, also:

    ECONOMIC STAGNATION!!!!!!!!!!

    (no, she doesn’t self-describe as an MRA. But how could i resist?)

  66. Toysoldier: MRAs have said ‘action’ is needed. They have said (and I’ve not seen anyone condemning the idea) that violent action may be needed.

    Brievik said the same things.

    And he did them. He called on others to do the same.

    I see a parallel, not a conflation.

  67. Some posts were in moderation; they’re up now.

  68. Again, you ignore that he/Fjordman also say positive things about feminism! I already quoted them here, see page 352 of his manifesto.

    Even blaming the patriarchy for society’s problems is not the same as blaming men for society’s problems.

    http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/men-2/

    Sophistry: the final frontier…

  69. If Bee wonders why Breivik shot Norwegian kids when he wants to fight non-whites taking over his country… well then she doesn’t know much about Germanic peoples and their culture.

    Though he identifies himself with Christianity, Breivik exemplifies much more the ancient Germanic/Norse culture.

    He sees the members of the Labour Party as traitors to his people and his country, who can’t be offered any mercy. They aren’t his fellow countrymen anymore, they are only traitors on whom he swore to take revenge.

    Now, of course in many other cultures, a warrior would value his honor, his principle not to slaughter defenseless people, more higher than his vengeance (though Muslim terrorist also target defenseless people, they mostly avoid to slaughter them directly).

    Not so in Germanic/Norse culture. Revenge is more important and justifies every dishonorable act.

    Take Wayland the Smith, how he took revenge on king Nidung: He couldn’t harm the king, because he had his legs crippled by him, but when the king’s two sons visited him secretly, he kills them, makes goblets out of their skulls and sends them as present to Nidung; he then also rapes the king’s daughter.

    So, in a sense Breivik is like Weyland the Smith. He can’t take revenge on the people he would see as the real, main traitors, he’s powerless to do that, so instead with a trickery worthy of Loki he sneaks (disguised as their protector!) into a peaceful camp to kill kids who neither can’t fight back nor can escape him.

    There’s absolutely no honor left in this act, it’s only terribly efficient, devastating revenge on the people he sees as traitors.

  70. Though he identifies himself with Christianity, Breivik exemplifies much more the ancient Germanic/Norse culture.

    He sees the members of the Labour Party as traitors to his people and his country, who can’t be offered any mercy. They aren’t his fellow countrymen anymore, they are only traitors on whom he swore to take revenge.

    Now, of course in many other cultures, a warrior would value his honor, his principle not to slaughter defenseless people, more higher than his vengeance (though Muslim terrorist also target defenseless people, they mostly avoid to slaughter them directly).

    Not so in Germanic/Norse culture. Revenge is more important and justifies every dishonorable act.

    Take Wayland the Smith, how he took revenge on king Nidung: He couldn’t harm the king, because he had his legs crippled by him, but when the king’s two sons visited him secretly, he kills them, makes goblets out of their skulls and sends them as present to Nidung; he then also rapes the king’s daughter.

    So, in a sense Breivik is like Weyland the Smith.

    Ugh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,847 other followers

%d bloggers like this: