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.
@Sharculese
“okay, so this is just some weapons grade balonium. of course women aren’t equally responsible for patriarchy. very rarely are the victims of oppression equally responsible with the aggressors. but you won’t find an feminist who “blame[s] men and only men for society’s problems.” ignoring that society has problems beyond patriarchy, there are tons of feminists who call out women who advance patriarchy. since i know she’s like an evil villain for you people, here’s amanda marcotte from fucking wednesday of this fucking week calling out anti-feminist women”
Well since we live in a State run patriarchy and women have lobbied for and pushed thru every law that has enabled this patriarchy to exist, how are women not 100% culpible for the State run Patriarchy that exists? Virtually every law exists due to women demanding protection, security, education, employment, welfare, ect.
If one group of women lobby for not being conscipted into battle and another group says but women want the, “right” to serve in the armed forces, yet they want a different standard because they can’t handle the rigors of training. So those women that join are given the jobs far from the battlefield with the fast track to promotion. In the end both groups get want they want and the men die.
If one group of women want men to earn the money while they stay home as the primary caretaker, while another group of women want quotas in high paying employment, while still another group wants welfare for being a single mother and another group wants equal numbers in any given field so they ask Big Daddy to force companies to create jobs that are superflous, and still another group wants child care costs to be passed on to the company so their not bored and can work part time. Once again they all get what the want and can pick and choose which way best to use men while remaining innocent.
These are the laws that women exclusively have enacted in every social, economic and political realm of modern day society. Women on the right, left and center are all standing in one tent debating on the best way to divy up mens time, resources and actions. So you see, it doesn’t really matter what your precious Amanda Marcotte says. Seriously, why should I care what filth dribbles from her communist mouth?
“There is no false equivalence. Feminists do not hold women equally culpable or responsible for “the patriarchy”. That supports my argument that feminist blame men and only men for society’s problems.”
Yes, because “not equally culpable” means “all men”. And despite those links I showed quite clearly saying that all men are not responsible, are even quite damaged by it, and can be valuable allies. Oh, but to you, this is “ironic”, so it doesn’t count.
This will fall on deaf ears, I’m sure, but patriarchy means “a system of rules and traditions and privileges which favor white cis males”. It is not an organization of all men putting down all women, and if you think that, after linking to a thorough description of what it is that says otherwise, then I see no point to this conversation, as you obviously don’t care to understand it.
But, let me get the rest of your argument straight, just for the hell of it. First, despite the fact that your links involve a comment to start, you don’t think comments are valid. Despite that your comment doesn’t even say anything about men (Hell, it doesn’t even say patriarchy!), and both of mine are violent or threaten the dissolution of society unless women lose rights. And I purposely left out Nolan’s comments, despite them all having positive scores on spearhead, but good god, man!
And, despite the fact that all of my links show quite clearly that the spearhead bloggers (quite often brought up as one of the most popular MRA websites) think that women should lose rights, either because they’re wasteful or are destroying marriage or ‘nature’, that doesn’t count as them arguing for losing rights. But you can argue that feminists want to destroy men, despite none of your links actually showing that. Because, again, to you “not equally culpable” means “all men”.
And take a goddamn look in the mirror, ToySoldier. You blame us for trying to look at the motivations of a mass murderer, while your only post on the subject is a vehicle to attack feminists.
@Futrelle: All you have to do is look through my archives to see pretty much all the biggest names in online feminism saying some pretty vile shit. That people have negative views does not prove an entire movement supports those views. You need to show how people in the movement respond to those views. The mistake you and other feminists made is that you did not say that only some of the extremists in the men’s movement agree with Breivik’s call to violence. You said “the men’s right movement” and “men’s rights activists”, implying most or all of them.
@Nobby: The links did not say that all men were not responsible. The links suggested that men can help get rid of “the patriarchy”. Also, your definition of “patriarchy” does not match any feminist definition I know of. Regarding the comment, it came from tigtog, who wrote the initial post, which she was defending. Her second, third, and fifth paragraphs mention men, and she used “patriarchy” and “kyriarchy” interchangeably.
As for the comments you listed, none were violent or threatened the dissolution society. None called for women to lose their rights or advocated for violence against them. They simply do not support the argument that the entire men’s movement hates women and advocates hurting them. Nolan’s upvoted comments do not support that argument either. Even if most readers on Spearhead support his remarks, that does not prove most men’s activists support his remarks.
Ironically, you insulted my reading comprehension before. I never stated that feminists want to destroy men, and in my blog post I linked to five articles about Breivik’s actual motivations and wrote about those motivations. Yes, I chastised feminists for hijacking this tragedy because the victims and their families deserve better. They are the victims, not feminists, and you ought to respect that and show them the decency and empathy they deserve, not try to make this all about you.
From your own link:
“The reality of male dominance is clearly seen in the fact that positions of authority are generally held by men or even reserved for men only. In our secular, democratic society, male dominance is no longer official policy, women are enfranchised to vote, own property and otherwise participate fully in business ventures and the work-for-pay world. But still in virtually any venue, or by viewing any amount of media, it is quickly and abundantly clear that it’s still “a man’s world”, where the majority of the positions of authority, in every institution, are held by men.
In many parts of the world positions of political and economic authority, by official policy (backed up by the coercive authority of the state), can only be held by men. Vestiges of this complete and unmitigated patriarchy can be found even in American society in some religious denominations, including Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and most sects within Islam that I am aware of.
Johnson says that, “Patriarchal societies are male-identified in that the core cultural ideas about what is good, desirable, preferable or normal are associated with how we think about men and masculinity”. He cites the ubiquitous example in our language of the use of the word “man” and male pronouns to encompass both men and women.”
No where is it “blaming all men”. No where. It is a system of “male dominance”, where “male-identified in that the core cultural ideas about what is good, desirable, preferable or normal are associated with how we think about men and masculinity”, which is what i said above, despite you saying “you’ve never seen a feminist use it”. That has nothing to do with ‘blaming all men’. The fact that you can’t see this, from your own damn link, makes me sure this conversation is not worth continuing.
And yes, I insulted your reading because I explained all this in my first post, and you ignored it. Why I am surprised that you continued to ignore it I have no idea.
And the article you linked was written by tekanji, not tigtog, so it’s not the author. And “mentioning men” does not mean “blaming all men”. Do I get to say you’re blaming all women every time you mention women? Because then men’s writers would come over even worse then they do now, and that would be pretty damn hard. You yourself have used the word “men” before! You’re blaming all men!
And did you just ctrl+F for ‘men’? Seriously? “As for the example of men being more likely to be murdered than women” yep, sounds like lots of ‘blaming all men’ there. or “male-on-male violence is found is in incarceration” yup, lots of blaming all men in that one. If i didn’t know better, i would think that she was talking about specific instances in relation to a post she’s responding to! But that can’t be right. And the last paragraph, which I already quoted, says “some of those same men are doing the beating and killing and dying”. Some! Not all! The fact that tigtog used the word ‘men’ has nothing to do blaming all men. READ, why don’t you.
And tictog did write an arcticle on patriarchy, which you did not link, which states, yet again, “Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy. ”
Emphasis in original.
See how it says, quite explicitly, that not all men are in on it? Read your own damn links next time.
Toysoldier, dude, please try not to grossly misrepresent what I’ve said.
At no point did I say or even imply that the most or even many within the MRA actually agree with his call to violence. Peter Nolan said some foul things, and got some upvotes, but so far I haven’t seen anyone else do that.
If there is a specific thing I’ve written that you think says otherwise, show it to me.
There are plenty of people who make statements to the effect that “if you don;t listen to us there will be violence” and seem to sort of relish the idea, but that’s not the same thing. It’s despicable, but it;s not quite the same thing.
I said that many of his misogynistic views — his misogynistic views, not hos calls to violence — are held by many MRAs, the evidence being that I’ve seen numerous people in the MRA who share those views, from big name MRAs to anonymous commenters. Again, see the archives.
Another quote from Breivik’s manifesto:
“All free Europeans have a right and a duty to become “Justiciar Knights” for the order/tribunal with the purpose of:
· Oppose all hate-ideologies; communism (anti-individualistic), cultural Marxism/multiculturalism (anti-European), Islam (anti-kafr) and national socialism (anti-Jewish).”
So what’s missing there?
Feminism (anti-men) 😉 😀
@Nobby: It is clear that we have a different reading of feminist comments. However, the portion you quoted still holds all men collectively responsible for “the patriarchy”, as does tigtog’s comments. At no point do either authors state that only some men are responsible. They both posit that men, implying men in general, possess all the power and bear sole responsibility. Saying that not every man is a “Patriarch” does not mean that tigtog does not believe every man has power. However, you are correct that post was written by tekanji, although tigtog was defending the initial post.
@Futrelle: No, you did not explicitly state that most or all men’s activists agree with Breivik’s call to violence. However, you did link them to the views he expressed in his manifesto concerning feminism without noting which views men’s activists agreed with or which men’s activists agreed with them. You used blanket terms, like in this comment: “[…] I absolutely DO think that his brand of antifeminism (similar in many ways to what I see regularly on MRA/MGTOW/’alternative right’ sites) was part of the toxic mess of an ideology that motivated Breivik to kill.” That is a pretty obvious connection you made between men’s activists, Breivik, and Breivik’s violent actions. Yes, some men’s activists hold misogynistic views just like some feminists hold misandrous views (present company included). That does not prove there is any connection between Breivik and men’s groups, which is feminists’ claim. More so, I do not think disliking and critiquing feminism is misogynistic.
Toysoldier: As I said, there will never be a, “popular” blogger, by your standards, because (for all that they are problematic because of what they say, and what they want to achieve), MRA bloggers are fringe.
So the question isn’t, “what MRA blogger is known to all the world” but what is the standing of various bloggers in the community.
And if up/down voting multiple times were so easy, the trendlines woudn’t be consistent. Spearhead, by way of example, uses cookies (as does reddit,and disqus, and the Atlantic, and every other voting forum I can think of). No cookies, no votes.
To revote requires a that one clear one’s cookies.
I note that you have not offered up the “popular” MRAs, who have actively said Brievik was absolutely not in accord with them. What I see is a whole lot of people saying, “yeah, he quoted a lot of stuff from us, but if you look at how much other stuff he quoted he was really against Muslims/liberals/atheists more than he was against women.
While ignoring the ways in which he says that feminism is the seed-crystal which allowed all the rest to grow.
Was he nothing but a misogynist anti-feminist? No. Was it a trivial aspect of his nature? No.
As to your last comment, again you seem to ignore the entire quotation you cite; leaving out critical aspects of definitional meaning.
[…] I absolutely DO think that his brand of antifeminism (similar in many ways to what I see regularly on MRA/MGTOW/’alternative right’ sites) was part of the toxic mess of an ideology that motivated Breivik to kill.” [emphasis added]
His, a possessive pronoun.
Similar, meaning in the same manner, like.
So Dave didn’t say, “Following the beliefs of the MRA.” He didn’t even say, “In agreement with Peter Nolan.” He said these were Breivik’s beliefs.
And he didn’t say they were exactly the same as anyone. He said they were like things he sees regularly. You, however, do accept that. You want to make it something Dave has said the “popular” (into which you’ve built a “no true scotsman” defense) bloggers say.
That it’s something one can being said in lots of places in the MRM isn’t good enough. You seem to be asking for us to point to some Grover Norquist style pledge massive numbers of MRA’s have signed on to. Which is inane. Because it’s not what Dave has claimed happened, or is happening in the MRM.
@Pecunium: A blogger, by definition, blogs. Commenting is not blogging. It is obvious that I meant popular bloggers among men’s groups. And you do realize people can clear their cookies or simply visit the site after several hours and revote, right?
Feminists claimed men’s activists in general share Breivik’s views, so feminists must show that. So far no feminist has. Playing semantics with the word ‘similar’ does not change that. When people compare a group’s views to a violent person’s views, they want people to reach a specific conclusion: that said group is violent, will become violent, or triggered the person’s violence. This is so obvious that Hugo Schwyzer, who could care less about men’s activists, wrote a caveat to unsuccessfully weasel his way out of the conclusion.
If feminists meant some men’s activists, they should have stated that. But they stated men’s activists, implying most or all the group, and made no distinction between what views men’s activists agree with. If they agree that feminism causes social problems for men, that does not make them misogynists, and it certainly does not mean they have violent rhetoric.
How is this not a guilt by association fallacy attempt?
If I copied Hitler’s views on smoking and pasted them to an anti smoking page they’d probably be met with warm reception if I didn’t say the source. Those that suddenly discredit anti-smoking?
*Does that suddenly
Hi Father Time. If you go back in time, you can see that your concerns have already been addressed. Specifically, we have noted that every awful, dangerous person with awful, dangerous ideas has probably held a few very moderate ideas such as the color of the sky and the adorableness of kittens.
The thing about Brevik and the MRM isn’t just that they both held a few of the same ideas in common, but that some of the ideas they held in common were fairly repugnant, and that their ideas about the need to commit violence as a way to start a widespread revolution (also repugnant) were similar.
So … not the same thing as the anti-smoking lobby. Sorry!
Every single comment I have ever posted to this site has been censored in the past , but I will post anyway.
What I am reading here are variations of the fallacy of attributing properties of the parts to the whole, eg elephants are made of molecules, ergo elephants are really small.
ie, Brevik & Ball hold bad views and they are MRM ergo MRM hold bad views. With a dash of disingenuous ‘off course we don’t mean all MRM’, which is the ‘no smoke without fire’ tactic whilst holding smoke machine in your hand. This is despite Brevik has no MRM connections and Ball was a man driven mad and just about to commit suicide. Solanas off course was just a satirist.
People can deconstruct, twist words and use all the rhetoric they want but their meaning and intent is ultimately known. This site purports to holds others to account yet seems immune from introspection. I’ll be quite honest and say what I am reading here is revolting and worse than that you accuse others of.