A couple excellent pieces on Anders Breivik and misogyny.
First: The other day I posted a link to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Breivik and the sexual politics of far-right thought. It turned out that the article was a draft that got published prematurely.
Now the final version of the post is officially up at Sociological Images: A tale of two terrorists redux. Kimmel argues that what we know about Breivik thus far
indicate[s] that … it will be impossible to fully understand this horrific act without understanding how gender operates as a rhetorical and political device for domestic terrorists.
These members of the far right consider themselves Christian Crusaders for Aryan Manhood, vowing its rescue from a feminizing welfare state. Theirs is the militarized manhood of the heroic John Rambo – a manhood that celebrates their God-sanctioned right to band together in armed militias if anyone, or any governmental agency, tries to take it away from them. If the state and capital emasculate them, and if the masculinity of the “others” is problematic, then only “real” white men can rescue the American Eden or the bucolic Norwegian countryside from a feminized, multicultural, androgynous immigrant-inspired melting pot.
Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon offers some thoughts on Misogyny and Terrorism:
[T]here’s definitely a strong link between misogyny and violence that can’t be denied. Misogynists are far likelier to be violent people than non-misogynists, which is why rape and wife-beating are such common crimes. (Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury for women 15-44.) All bigotry provokes violence at its ends, of course. This isn’t the Oppression Olympics. But misogyny and violence go hand in hand so often because misogynists really buy deeply into the idea that women are weak and men are “strong”, by which they mean aggressive. A steady drumbeat of misogynist thought couldn’t be better designed to reach the unhinged and cause them to lash out violently, all while imagining themselves to be big, tough men who claim they were forced—with “why did you make me do this?” being the battle cry of wife beaters—into violence.
Discuss.
@molly ren- is that what a baby hippo looks like? because- awwwwwww
I just didn’t want to see anyone waste their time in a “rational debate” that will culminate in you throwing a hissy fit, then subsequently deleting your blog entry and its attendant comments.
You seem to have confused me for a cowardly feminist who blocks off any comments she does not agree with. You know, 90% of all feminist sites and most feminist youtube videos (because commentary is dangerous).
But no, I don’t use feminist techniques because I am not a cowardly liar like you, honey. Good luck trying to “mock” anything which is not radically feminist into submission, that seems to have worked well so far. An encyclopedic knowledge of human nature, right there.
Christ, I feel like a cat farmer in here.
Re: male rape in prison or out, male and female victims need to unite.
Settle, Petal ..
factfinder, if a single thing of your last whinescreed was true, you would have responded to at least one thing where everyone above you called you out for being a dumb dishonest crybaby who was only interested in bullying the terms of debate onto grounds you found comfortable with.
but you didnt, because as everyone predicted/already knew, youre a dishonest whinelord.
nobody cares about your handwaving. sorry.
Speaking about crybabies…
I shake my head in wonderment and disbelief every time I see references to women being denied “rights” for millennia being trotted routinely by people who clearly don’t understand human nature. They don’t seem to understand that primary nurturers that are provided for occupy a position of privilege, not oppression. The same crap gets churned out without any semblence of taking in the wider picture. As primary nurturers women set the terms upon which their charges grow up to carry forth their memes. What is it about this simple fact of reality that people don’t seem to get?
But what the hell, if feminists want to disempower women and make them look like ridiculous, helpless imbeciles… I object to this triviliazation of women, but what can one do?
The provided-for, like royalty, occupy positions of privilege, while their providers occupy the position of servant. “Oh but women are denied the right to work, that’s why they need to be provided for.” This classic response, predictably trotted out with the women-are-oppressed mantra, really does fail to understand human nature. Bonbon-sucking, soap-watching, child-abusing welfare moms don’t work because they don’t have to and they don’t want to. It’s that simple. The system (culture) gives lounging tubs of lard most everything that they desire… but all these freebies do come at a price in the end. People who are babied from birth into adulthood grow into babies in adult bodies, while those who have no choice but to learn to fend for themselves learn nasty, brutish survival skills.
There is a simple law of the universe, and works like this. Men and women deserve one another. Neither occupies the moral high ground and anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot. Gender supremacists, irrespective of whether they are male-supremacists or feminists, both have it wrong.
Feminists, it’s not always about you. Hitler’s agenda was never to oppress women. Neither was Stalin’s, nor Idi Amin’s, nor any other major figure in history. The Founding Fathers did not have the oppression of women designed into their blueprint for the US Constitution, and neither did the Magna Carta. There are many reasons for history’s events, and it’s not always about the oppression of women. But how do you explain this to babies in adult bodies who never get to understand that it’s not always about them?
“Bonbon-sucking, soap-watching, child-abusing welfare moms don’t work because they don’t have to and they don’t want to.”
What *is* it with these guys and bonbons?
There is a simple law of the universe, and works like this. Men and women deserve one another. Neither occupies the moral high ground and anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot.
It’s good to have “universal” “laws” that define themselves by “if you disagree, you’re an idiot” XD
What’s wrong w/ being a cat farmer? 😀
You’re really not making a good case for women who have chosen cats over men, chuckeedee. Why on earth would we want to hang out with someone as nasty as ourselves? Cats can be smelly little moochers, but at least they’re cute and double as bed warmers.
You know what I love–love meaning complete hatred is when men(or women) was on about how oppression is just “logical” oh no it doesn’t matter how it hurts people or causes suffering…it is only logical that certain people are oppressed…you better suck it up its human nature..well fuck you mister logical…people have a right to not be opressed and a right to be upset about it…they aren’t being whiny just because it doesn’t affect you doesn’t mean other people aren’t affected.
It’s good to have “universal” “laws” that define themselves by “if you disagree, you’re an idiot” XD
Newton originally wanted to frame his laws of motion like this. Edmond Halley talked him out of it.
That’s not my intention. I’d rather suggest that men should let women stay with their cats 🙂
Flufffinder, if you are going to steal my words, use them in context.
Jeez.
In Chuckadee’s world women are on top because they don’t have any options. The get to stay home and wash the clothes, the dishes and the floor; prepare the food, change the diapers.
If they don’t want to, but are forced to anyway, it’s all good… because men provide for them, and that makes them the powerful ones.
Never mind that the law treats them as children, denies most of them property, allows their husbands to rape them; and beat them if they are disobedient, publicly shames them if they are “scolds” and holds them responsible for their husbands debt.
That is as nothing, because the are,”cared for” which makes them the all-powerful.
The men, the one’s who were the only one’s allowed to vote, or make laws, or be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.,they were the oppressed ones, because they had to support the women; whim the were able to walk away from without penalty.
Must have sucked to be one of those men, what will all the female oppression.
Must be nice to live the now where women have to support themselves and men are finally free.
@Pecunium:
I wonder actually. To Chuckadee, are babies basically Gods?
Objects at rest tend to remain at rest…. you asshole.
Don’t forget Gallileio when he presented his idea to the pope (forgot who exactly it was…)
“But sir, there is no God in your model!”
“I had no need of such a hypothesis, you salacious, megalomaniacal, pompous bastard of a whore.”
Terrible isn’t it? Women are denied the right to be conscripted into wars and to die in them. Women are denied the right to work in mines and to die premature deaths on account of exposure to toxins and soul-destroying environments. Women were denied the right to offer up their lifeboat seats so that at least some men could survive the sinking of the Titanic. Women are forced to work in air-conditioned offices that they win by way of affirmative action, while men must resort to less popular jobs that simply do not attract the AA-prioritized women. Women are forced to pursue arts and women’s-studies degrees at universities, while men luxuriate in engineering, surgery and other hard-science degrees that so unfairly deny access to women. Women are forced to use appliances, in between watching their soaps or swanning around shopping malls, that their providers provide to them in whole-day jobs that they had to compete for against women indulging in the affirmative action gravy train. Shocking. It is indeed so terrible for women. My heart goes out to them all. Poor babies 🙁
@chuckedee would you say children have privilege over adults? o:
chuckeedee, are you thinking of a particular person?
@chuckeedee:
Anyone who is subject to soaps for their enterntainment need more than your heart… They need a dang rescue and aid mission… Those things are absolutely terrible. “My heart goes out to them all” indeed.
Never mind that the law treats them as children, denies most of them property, allows their husbands to rape them; and beat them if they are disobedient, publicly shames them if they are “scolds” and holds them responsible for their husbands debt.
And she misses the point entirely like a stupid bitch. Did you know, little dear, that a man would be held responsible for the crimes his wife committed? Oh, she forgot to mention that. Feminists aren’t all that bright, so I can understand how she overlooked it.
@Kirbywarp So his dream life is to stay at home and watch soap operas…? xD
Women didn’t die in wars? But wasn’t one of the points of Nolan that women and children are legitimate targets (and they aren’t trained to fight, so all they can do is die… swell).
Woman worked in the fields, and on the coal tailings, and in the mills, and the bottling plants (look up the Idris Strike).
Men are forced to drive race cars, and play sports, and be politicians, and CEOS and movie producers and celbrity chefs.
And those men were, and are, forced to take higher wages for the same work.
Poor babies. They suffered so.