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.
@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.
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. 😀 Plus, she doesn’t exclude trans people. And horses and dogs. Got to love the horses and dogs. 🙂
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Some posts were in moderation; they’re up now.
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…
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.
Ugh.
Thanks, Marc. I grew up with Swedes and date a proud Finn, but I’ve learned more about traditional cookie recipes and how to say “Balls” than about cultural revenge fantasies.
A couple things, though. From what I’ve heard about Breivik, he kind of latched on to a hodgepodge of different cultural/historical ideologies in his search for revolution, including Knights Templar and the English Defence League. And killing one’s enemies’ children to hurt one’s enemies is hardly a plan that’s specific to one people; it’s something that lots of different people and cultures have tried.
But I do agree that he did it to strike a blow against his liberal countrymen and, likely, to terrorize them as well. I just don’t see how this path of action makes him a genius.
Rad, a new website to read. Thank you!
@Bee: Blaming “male privilege”, “male power”, “male oppression of women”, “rape culture”, and “male domination” has nothing to do with blaming all men? Very well. If you can show me an example from the links I posted in which any feminists held women equally responsible for “patriarchy” and acknowledged female privilege, power, and domination, and female oppression of men I will retract my statement.
That you can find some people within a movement itching for more violence is hardly proof that the entire movement supports violence, and even less proof that the movement inspired a terrorist. As I noted above, there is plenty feminists have in common with despicable people, from terrorists to child rapists. That does not mean there is any connection between the two.
@Nobby: Insulting me does disprove my point, and neither does equivocating. At no point does any feminist from those links absolve all or most men of responsibility for the problems of the society. At best they claim that some men are ironically hurt by “patriarchy”. In short, they hold men collectively responsible for all of society’s problems, and openly mock men’s victimization as deserved.
As for your links, I did not ask for “examples of how giving women rights, rights to schooling, equal share in marriage, and a right to a career, are damaging” (and several of the comments do not even come close to that argument). I asked for a link to any men’s rights activist who says that “women should lose rights and should be reduced to breeding stock.” Show me a link where a popular men’s rights blogger says women should lose their rights, be killed, or be oppressed because that was the feminist claim. If you cannot support that argument, then just admit that Breivik and the men’s movement are in no way connected.
toysoldier: False equivalence. There is a fair bit of writing about how women helped support the patriarchy. That doesn’t mean they are equally culpable.
But you’ve pre-loaded a “no true scotsman”. You ask for a “popular” Men’s Rights Blogger says it. Anyone presented will be denied “popularity”.
Peter Nolan, David K Melller, you will say they have no “popularity.” The tone, and tenor, of large chunks of the MRA support the argument.
But David K. Meller has argued women shouldn’t even be kept for breeding stock. In his ideal world women will be replaced with artificial wombs, and killed off; saving only a few as sex slaves.
It’s extreme, but he has people who share his underlying thesis. Peter Nolan says that this was a good thing, because killing women is justified in war, and only men are fit to be in charge.
And the steady stream of people (like Chuckadee, and NWO, and EWME, and factfinder) who come here to argue that very point gives the lie to the idea the MRA doesn’t have that strain.
The heavy upvoting of comments to that effect on places like the Spearhead, and the reddit MRA forum, as well as the attacks on people who actually disagree shows it’s not just that the views are supported, but that to hold the idea that that shit like that is fucked up will get you dogpiled, or banned.
So no, I am not going to play your game, hunting the internet for someone you will accept as, “popular” when I can just go back to the MRA sites, and judge the popular opinions.
But you’ve pre-loaded a “no true scotsman”.
I’m a misogynist feminist, and now please don’t use this “no true scotsman fallacy” on me! I’m a true feminist, I think that women are people, too (I just think they’re materialistic, manipulative, irrational, impulsive and sociopathically self-centered people…).
@Pecunium: 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.
I asked for a popular men’s rights blogger because that would demonstrate how much people may agree with his views. We can look at the comments and see how people responded and that they responded to. A random comment by some unknown person does not prove that, and neither do upvoted comments since people can vote multiple times and vote for their own comments, while others do not vote at all.
Of course some people in a movement hold negative views. But one needs to prove that the movement as a whole supports those views. In this case, feminists made a specific claim about men’s groups advocating violence against women. Feminists need to show that it is not just a handful of random posters making those comments, but popular figures in the men’s movement. It seems like feminists cannot do that.
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.
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:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/the_different_types_of_not_a_feminist_women
Toysolider, when you say “negative views” are you referring to, say, MRAs who are misogynist or specifically to views like Breivik’s?
Because if it’s the first, all you have to do is look through my archives to see pretty much all the biggest names in the MRA online saying some pretty vile shit.
If it’s the second, well, I’m not claiming that everyone in the MRA agrees with Breivik. Some people agree with some of his views.
Breivik never had a girlfriend, danced at a gay pride event seven years ago and underwent plastic surgery in the U.S. to improve his chances of landing a girlfriend.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/07/26/2011-07-26_psycho_behind_norway_massacre_was_bullied_never_loved_by_ladies_friend_of_anders.html
Even if he was not an MRA that’s the typical stuff that MRAs do.
Is it? o_O