Earlier today I wrote about some Men’s Rights Redditors who endorsed the views of Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik – without knowing that the views they were endorsing were his. But others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik’s manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.
On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik’s “lucidity,” and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal society:
[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers. …
He’s not being sarcastic here. He continues:
That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren’t going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they’re all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …
Here’s an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.
(Bolded text in original.) That final reference to “ethnic self-hatred” seems to be Bardamu’s euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.
Then he adds this repulsive final thought on Breivik’s victims:
[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.
Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik’s manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.
Chuck complains that Hugo Schwyzer and I are “try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs” in our recent posts showing the similarities between Breivik’s ideas and those of many MRAs. Never mind that neither Hugo nor I referred to Breivik as an MRA. I described him as an antifeminist, which is an undeniable fact, whose views are “strikingly similar to many MRAs.” (Emphasis added.) Hugo stated explicitly that he didn’t blame the MRM directly for Breivik’s actions, noting that “[m]ost MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic.”
Evidently Chuck feels that to even mention the MRM in conjunction with Breivik is some sort of egregious smear, especially since the shooter spent “only” 23 pages of his manifesto writing explicitly about feminism.
Weirdly, after trying to draw a sharp line between Breivik and the MRM, Chuck goes on to apparently endorse Breivik’s (and Fjordman’s) notions about the ways in which feminism “greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.” The rest of Chuck’s post elaborates on, and seems to fully endorse, Breivik’s/Fjordman’s argument that feminism’s “emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society” and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders.
I’ve asked Chuck to clarify if this is indeed what he means to convey in his post. If so, I can only say: If you’re trying to draw a distinction between your ideas and the ideas of a murderous terrorist, you don’t really advance your case by agreeing with the central thrust of these ideas pretty much wholeheartedly.
I think this is one of those cases where you can disassociate somebody for what they’ve done EVEN if you think they have good points -_- Like I do w/ all sorts of rad fems… like ppl who have been racist in the past or have been problematic about race… or are hatefully trasnphobic… even if they have “good points” I can’t associate myself w/ what they done, and I refuse to quote from them or say “okay I know she’s done this in the past but…” but also it’s my own personal breaking point (some things are breaking points, others aren’t, and other ppl can judge me on that also xD but I dun feel obligated to disassociate myself from ppl just b/c for other ppl it’s a breaking point, tho I will always listen to arguments… or if I care about the person or etc… )
but if somebody was a MURDERER, and I KNOW they are… yeah.. to me that’s a breaking point >_< If racism and transphobia can be a breaking point, actually killing ppl would absolutely be : And as I said, there are many ppl who have the same "good ideas" to me that don't have that baggage or baggage I can't take… so i will quote them instead or read them instead :]
You mean he doesn’t?!
@David Futrelle
I’ll respond to your post Dave, even though you’ve already silenced my voice for reasons unknown. Unless of course daring to be harsh with Holly was breaking the rules, even though I’m slandered, ridiculed and called every name in the book ad naseum by the gang.
Just in very recent times we’ve had a man in Australia hanging from a bridge to protest feminist jurisprudence. We had a man immolate himself in the northeast to protest feminist jurisprudence, we’ve had a guy in England atop some parliment building protesting feminist jurisprudence. There have been protests in front of Guv buildings, multiple online campaigns to sign shared parenting bills, ect, of which I’ve signed them all. And what has happened? Nothing.
Well this guy went on a shooting spree. So will feminist jurisprudence enact more laws for the safety of women? Or will they dissolve the existing laws that caused the problem in the first place? What do you think the State would like? I’m guessing they would like to tax you and offer more security forces to back up more laws.
What possible reason could there be for anything other than shared parenting if both parents want access to parenthood? A child is the product/in the custody of both parents. To forcibly deny a father his right to parethood is a horrifying infringement on a mans rights. Primary caretaker, secondary caretaker, third string, fourth string means nothing. Does the name primary caretaker override a mans right to parenthood? How many tens of millions of men have been/are being cheated of the parenthood they want? And for what? Not carrying the name of primary caretaker?
Restraining orders are just more of the same feminist jurisprudence. You know as well as I that a restarining order is just phone call away in many cases. Don’t act ignorant of the fact that this does happen. Say 1 in a 1000 women abuse this power. Well thats 1.8 million a year for the present population of men. Enough years go by with this policy and you have a rolling number of tens of millions of men. To have a man forcibly kept from his home without a trial is an infringement on his rights.
This event was completely predictable, I told you when I first started posting here that things are going to get much, much worse, and I’m a bottom feeder. Everything that has happened in my second paragraph has happened since I started posting here about 6 months ago. Theres only two outcomes possible to this little social experiment. 1) Start dismantling these laws one by one and return to the freedom our forefathers fought and died for. 2) Continue enacting more laws, which means more taxes and more security forces, followed ultimately by revolution.
You can print this post or not Dave, the choice is yours of course. Are the only voices permitted are those that agree?
“I think ppl should refer to David as “Dark Lord Futrelle” from now on xD”
As long as everyone refers to me as Queen Beetch, I’m cool.
Is this subject bringing out ALL the MRAs with poor comprehension, or just making them so mad they can’t read straight or … hmm. I feel like there should be a way to say, Hey, here is a guy who hates feminism and social progress and killed 92 people — presumably in the hope of starting violent revolution? — and there is also this group of other people over here who hate feminism, and feminists, and social progress and talk openly about violent revolution … let’s talk about this. And not have people completely misunderstand the point to be saying that the two are exactly the same, or whatever.
@Bee:
Problem is I haven’t seen many MRAs actually distance themselves from this guy, saying “Whoa, hey, when I talked about rising up with guns blazing, I didn’t ACTUALLY mean to do that.” No, its just more “Oh yeah? Feminism sucks ass! You ought to be ashamed of linking advocating violence with actual violence!”
It’s hard to make the point that they are not the same thing, when it turns out they’ll probably make him a martyr for their cause at some point… -__-
RE: vile people having good points. I guess it depends. For me, I’ll take what I can get from the devil’s advocate (I mean they might as well be good for something), but I want nothing to do with the devil, so to speak, unless the devil makes a point completely unrelated to hir devilish doings. For example, I disagree with a lot of what’s said on some radfem blogs. And on posts I do agree with, I sometimes find myself off-put by the tone of the argument. Thus, when I happen to come across a point I like in a radfem blog, I do use it, but if there happened to be a radfem who actually killed someone, I would want nothing to do with whatever ze had written that was related to the killing. “Well, ze did make some good points, though” wouldn’t even come into it.
They are anti-contraception for the same reason they are anti-choice, and anti-support. It keeps women in their place. If sex = high risk of babies, and babies = poverty without a man, then they are in control of women.
It’s dressed up as a way to level the playing field (so the women can’t cheat on their partners) but it’s really about women losing liberty.
@Pecunium that reminds me a lot of “rape as punishment” : Like that a lot of ppl who victim blame, (like the letters in the wake of the first Toronto Slutwalk, or the ppl calling in on the radio : ) often sound like they LIKE the idea of rapists being out there, b/c it means they have a threat (that they can also claim disassociation w/) to coerce ppl (in this case women)’s behaviour : “If you do this, this is your consequence” Like a woman calling she saw a girl walking in short-shorts and a bunch of guys (“brown-skinned men” it was also racist) staring at her and then talking amongst themselves about doing bad things to her, and how she just smirked that this woman will pay the price for wearing that, and it’s not empowering and etc etc… but the main part is… her reaction is “hah you’re gonna learn your lesson” not going up to the woman and saying “those guys just talked about assaulting you, watch out”… she didn’t even mention how horrible that would be, or that she wanted to… b/c that would be ruining the punishment : It was “hah, she’ll learn her lesson and then she won’t dress the way I disapprove of” :
In the same way the attitudes you describe (I dunno if they belong to MRAs or not tho… I dun think I’ve read a lot about MRAs and contraception, except prolly DKM) are v much like that.. and in the same way they can claim it’s not them trying to punish women it’s just “consequences”, even tho they actively want a culture or laws that allow these “consequences”.. b/c they dun rly want them gone, cuz as you said, it allows something to control other ppl w/ :
*calling in was saying she saw
Kirby: “Problem is I haven’t seen many MRAs actually distance themselves from this guy …”
EXACTLY! I feel like if someone pointed out that a philosophical position that I held, or a group that I belonged to, repeatedly applauded people who killed people, and called for violence in coded and not-so-coded terms, I would probably, at a minimum, say that THOSE ACTIONS do not at all speak to my beliefs, I don’t want to see people die, I don’t hate innocent people (or men, women, Muslims, Christians, or whatever group of people has been chosen as the “enemy”), etc.
It seems like that’s too hard for MRAs to do. It boggles the mind.
@Bee Yus! You are def to be referred to as Queen Beetch now :3
Okay, I’m wondering if ppl’s thoughts are that MRAs NEED to stand up and denounce this guy (or it’s tacit support) or that it’s just wrong that MRAs are saying “this guy had some good ideas!” I was thinking cuz like Muslims gets this ALL the time. Every time something happens w/ an Islamic extremist ppl are like “WHERE ARE ALL THE MODERATE MUSLIMS DENOUNCING THIS!? WHY AREN’T THE NEWSPAPERS FLOODED” and I always felt that was rly unfair… cuz it’s assuming that they think the same unless they specifically say (in a medium we’re aware of) that they don’t. Of course if certain ppl have said the same, that might be different. :
But obviously, in this particular post, we have ppl who are endorsing, at least some of his manifesto, so that’s different, that’s not presuming “tacit consent” of any MRA who keeps quiet, it’s MRAs actively giving some consent to his words.
But what onus is there for MRAs or other groups (are there moderate white power groups?) to speak out and is it different than the onus that is often placed on Muslims, or African Americans, or individuals of other groups to disassociate w/ radicals, if they themselves have never said nething similar? :
Also, obv it’s different if the onus is being placed on a person who shares an ethnicity or skin colour (like African Americans as I said) but what about religion vs political ideology, does that make a different about the onus being placed? 😐 Like, you can say “you choose your political ideology” but religion seems to be something that is treated differently in our society, at least currently…
Just to float this out there, how do most of you feel about the prospects of unchecked Islamic immigration into Western Europe? I mean, it is only a matter of time before Muslims become the majority in Western countries.
Cuz I dun think moderate MRAs need to denounce the guy… tho if you’ve said the same things, maybe you should? :
I dunno if nebody here is saying moderate MRAs should denounce the guy either… in this post for sure, I know it’s reacting to ppl actively endorsing points he’s made even tho they know what he did : Kirby’s comment just got me thinking about it… cuz I know that I find it problematic when ppl say that moderate Islam needs to denounce every single terror attack loudly (even if these ppl have never said or thought nething close to the beliefs of the killers) or they’re complicit, or must tacitly endorse it : I think denouncing it def raises your esteem, but should not denouncing it lower it? o:
Ami: I kind of feel like … okay, two things.
First, I feel a tad odd saying that they HAVE to denounce it, or saying (as I did above) that MRAs should say outright that they don’t hate all women, or that they condemn violent acts, etc., if they want me to take them seriously. It reminds me a lot of the tactic you see on feminist sites, where the commenter accuses the feminists of hating men, and the feminist site turns into this place where feminists must constantly state that they do not hate men because that’s what the conversation has become …
Second, even so, I think I still feel the way I expressed above because MRAs so frequently speak about hating women and really never say anything that makes me think otherwise. And they do say violent things on their blogs, with barely any disagreement. They don’t HAVE to denounce women-haters or rabble-rousers, but if they want to make me think that they don’t hate women, they have to do SOMETHING that indicates that they don’t hate women.
I’m still of the assumption that most MRAs do not advocate violent uprising. I’ve certainly read enough MRAs stating as much. But while they don’t HAVE to denounce the ones who do condone violence, for my satisfaction, I have to admit that I do find it a bit odd that they never do.
Bee wrote:
“I feel like if someone pointed out that a philosophical position that I held, or a group that I belonged to, repeatedly applauded people who killed people, and called for violence in coded and not-so-coded terms, I would probably, at a minimum, say that THOSE ACTIONS do not at all speak to my beliefs”
Then you should head to the anti-Islamic blogs and ask them this question. I only interject myself here to speak the MRA part because Futrelle focused on me in his post, but as a person who sympathizes with MRAs on some matters, I see no reason to defend anything that I believe that Breivik also believes. I’m an atheist too; I don’t denounce atheism because of all of the bad things that atheists have done through history.
But people like Larry Auster and Ross Douthat at the New York Times have (as I have) denounced the attack. But when I say that the attacks are horrible and should be denounced I’m saying that from my heart – not from my MRA-sympathizing brain.
Ami:
since most here think i’m a dick anyway, might as go all the way to the hilt. would you at least think about writing comments using proper english and grammar? this isn’t twitter or text. your style which helps you write faster slows down everyone who is trying to read it.
MRAs are so mealy mouthed, yet so brazen at the same time. They’re throwing up decoy arguments to derail from the point Dave has raised, so they can continue to nourish their horrible little neurosis about power being taken from them, and their need to blame someone.
But they all keep saying how they understand Breivik’s actions. They’re saying they can see why he did this.
I can’t. I do not understand. I can understand why a person kills themselves, in despair: but murdering people? Murdering people to make others fear you? I cannot conceive of it.
But the MRAs? They sympathise. They have no empathy for the women who have escaped from murderously abusive husbands and want police protection: but they sure as hell understand what makes a man go and kill people because he is pissed off about something.
The fact is they love it when these evil events occur. They feel vindicated and powerful. Everyone knows to be afraid, there has been payback. They talk about how gratifying it is to see the violence they predicted befalling random strangers.
When a MRA shows up on a post about how much they approve of random killing sprees and starts shouting “Valerie Solanas!” don’t go there. Save it for when Dave makes a post about how there has only been one feminist ever who tried to shoot anyone, and she was suffering from a mental illness at the time: but somehow MRAs have the idea that she is the gold standard of feminism, whereas George Sodini was totally not One of Them. The point we want to nail them to is they approve of killing people to make their point.
I would like to repeat my plea for more mockery, less trying to argue rationally with them. I know that there are many good people who visit here who cannot believe The MRAs are really so perversely ignorant, and think may they could be enlightened: but really,they won’t be. They come here to defend their ideas. Because their ideas are so spectacularly indefensible, we see Yohami being able to go on for three pages how he isn’t an MRA in three different posts. My scroll wheel is complaining of RSI.
Like you’re lying about it and/or using loaded words to incite a knee-jerk emotional response from us. .
Muslims make up about 1 % of the population of Norway, and a lot of those are refugees from the war in Iraq which, last time I checked, we started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
And just to float this out there, have you stopped beating your wife?
Yanno, Chuck, I’ll give you that you don’t have to denounce this guy just because there’s some intersection in your beliefs, but — for the record — the last paragraph of your comment makes me much more open to what precedes it.
Also: I love Ami’s style! *hugs Ami*
XD
It doesn’t make you a dick, it makes you normal xD Also you have something in common w/ some feminists too! 😀 (there was a huge row and cry about me back when I showed up in comic book fangirldom xD ) Also vegetarians hate me! xD
This is how I write tho, and who I am :3 I’m sry if you have trouble reading it : You dun have to read things I write :] I tend to win ppl over tho! (not NWO, he thinks I’m VILE xD ) but others! :3
If you knew my history you’d understand why writing the way I do and being myself even if it means ppl dun read me, or read my blog, is so important to me : Not that you have to respect it or care XD But just that this is how I write xD
Ty for asking so politely tho :3 You’re actually NOT a dick XD you’re one of the NICEST ppl yet who have asked me to talk differently 😀
G.L. Piggy,
“Ami:
since most here think i’m a dick anyway, might as go all the way to the hilt. would you at least think about writing comments using proper english and grammar? this isn’t twitter or text. your style which helps you write faster slows down everyone who is trying to read it.”
Speak for yourself. kthxbai
@Bee, Queen of the Beetches: Ty my Queen! 😀 *curtsies*
Ty Alex! 😀 *hug*