Categories
antifeminism misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit reddit violence against men/women

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

163 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pam
Pam
9 years ago

“no, not you dearie, you’re different… be a love and make me a sandwich.”

Ya gotta work on that vocab a little….. it’s “sammich”.

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

I just realised, in all the time I’ve been posting here, I’ve never been called a Mangina. I feel a little hurt, quite frankly.

zombie rotten mcdonald

spearhafoc, you’re a Mangina.

…wait, does that make me an MRA?

filetofswedishfish
9 years ago

Pecunium- I noted earlier that they weren’t embarrassed/upset that they unwittingly liked what ended up being the rhetoric of a serial killer outside the context of shooting dozens of people. They were embarrassed it was a prank and they got *caught*, and now they look like they agree with him. Because they do.

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

spearhafoc, you’re a Mangina.

I should clarify: I’ve never been called a Mangina by anyone who wasn’t a feminist and/or fellow Mangina. Jesting doesn’t count.

I apparently don’t inspire rage in these people. That scares me. What am I doing wrong?

filetofswedishfish
9 years ago

But Spearhafoc! You *have* been called a grammar Nazi. You’re responsible for many instances of Godwinning in these threads!

Johnny Pez
9 years ago

You’re from Soviet Canuckistan, so being a feminist is the least of your problems.

zombie rotten mcdonald

You’re from Soviet Canuckistan

yeah, even the whackaloons in the MRA movement can’t get irate at Canadianoids. Unless they use emoticons, of course.

Toysoldier
9 years ago

The point isn’t that Breivik was an MRA (I certainly hope we’re not exporting something so embarrassing), but that a crazy murderers inspirations and thought process are so in line with MRA reasoning that they can’t distinguish the two.

That is a poor argument. Let me demonstrate. I am sure that you would agree with this statement:

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other “regional conflicts” that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of “weapons of mass destruction.”

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones — Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants — mostly women and children — in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of “mass destruction” — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Go ahead and look up who wrote it. Are you appalled that your views are so in line with that person’s that you cannot distinguish the two?

What you and so many feminists engaged in is a sweeping generalization. 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. It is very easy to take a comment out of context and find that people agree with it. If the feminist had posted the manifesto in context and some men’s rights activists agreed with it, that would have proved the point. The deception only shows how low feminists will and must go to discredit men’s groups.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Toysoldier – The difference is that these quotes are in themselves hateful.

I agree with Timothy McVeigh–in this regard. Because the quotes you’ve pulled are unobjectionable.

The quotes the MRAs are agreeing with are not nearly so innocuous.

Sharculese
9 years ago

lol. can you give me a better example than an ex-post facto justification by a convicted mass murderer trying to rehabilitate his image? or should we just go ahead and crown you the new king of bad-faith arguments?

Sharculese
9 years ago

The whole point of that passage is to sound reasonable. He’s trying to make what he did sound like something a reasonable person would do, given the circumstances. He’s selling you on a product called Timothy McVeigh. The Breivik Manifesto… not so much. Apples and oranges.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Yeah, Timothy McVeigh. I remember this from college.

Tell you what, despite the fact that pages and pages of this thread have discussed in great detail the difference between Breivak’s murders and manifesto, and what dovetails with some of the rhetoric intrinsic to the MRM…

Despite the fact that so many posters have made it perfectly clear that they aren’t generalizing this man’s act of terrorism to the entirety of the MRM…

How about you acknowledge that he was anti-feminism, and a misogynist, and that what he did was horrifying and utterly without justification?

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Yeah, this isn’t the same thing as quoting Hitler saying “water is wet” and then going “haw haw, you just agreed with Hitler.

This is MRAs agreeing with specifically misogynistic portions of Breivik’s manifesto.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Toysoldier:

You know, I don’t think I do agree with that statement. Just because a nation fights a war doesn’t mean they are in the same boat as someone who takes part in the genocide of his own people, etc.

Eh, doesn’t matter though.

Like Holly said, the statements are innocuous. Most of the serial killers in the world also thought the sky was blue. Charles Manson liked art. They are all people, unfortunately, which makes them suceptable to having a lot of opinions about everything. What I and others don’t is a love/desire for a violent rampage, for all of our enemies to be wiped out. The MRAs talk about violence all the damn time. And it is this violence that is carried out by violent men. Sure, suicide bombers, serial murderers, and crazed gunmen may believe that water is wet, but they also believe that killing innocent people will terrorize people into believing them (or they just want death). That is something we do not share.

filetofswedishfish
9 years ago

There is a distinct difference between someone agreeing with the Unabomber trying to sound reasonable, and a bunch of people agreeing with rhetoric that is hateful and suggesting taking away women’s rights to bump up the fertility rate of the “right” kind of people, or saying that The West is crumbling due to feminists thinking men and women are equal.

LinXitoW
LinXitoW
9 years ago

Although i’d like to think of myself as a egalitarian, i’m probably more of an MRA. Yet, i think 90% of what the more “extreme” MRAs spew is utter BS. The other 10% is where i feel my “duty” as MRA lies.
So what am I? An exception? Not a real MRA? Not a true scotsman?

Heres the link for anyone that didnt get the hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

Probably an exception. Do you have a blog? Because the manboobz challenge is still unanswered.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

LinXitoW – “Egalitarian” may be the word. Or “masculist”–it’s been used by MRAs but it’s go a better track record.

Have you checked out http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/ ? It’s a non-MRA-like blog about men’s issues, and although it’s definitely having various growing pains (there can be a bit of a tug-of-war between feminists and “that kind” of MRAs in the comments) it’s a good place to talk about men’s rights without getting into Men’s Rights. If you know what I mean.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

What is some of the spew that you think is utter BS, and what is the 10% where you feel your “duty” as MRA lies?

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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 >.>

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

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.

Sharculese
9 years ago

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?

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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.

Toysoldier
9 years ago

@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.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

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.

filetofswedishfish
9 years ago

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.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

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.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

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.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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”

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

“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.

Iris Vander Pluym
Iris Vander Pluym
9 years ago

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.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

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

LinXitoW
LinXitoW
9 years ago

@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.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

@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.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

*misogyny. Too used to an edit button…

Arielle
Arielle
9 years ago

“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.

Arielle
Arielle
9 years ago

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

Arielle
Arielle
9 years ago

“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,

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

*>.<

damn lack of edit button, indeed.

no more mr nice guy
9 years ago

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.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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.

no more mr nice guy
9 years ago

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.

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

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.