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.
@FactFinder:
“Did you know, little dear, that a man would be held responsible for the crimes his wife committed?”
When exactly was this, FF? Cause I seem to recall Pecunium refuting this very idea a while ago.
… is the FactFinder having trouble finding his facts?
factfinder, don’t be such a twat. I’m a guy. It’s a really easy fact to find.
Just hanging out
Do you know that the little tit-bit about women being responsible for a man’s crimes is false.
“The wife is not indictable for offences committed by the command of, or in company of her husband, unless the crime is in malum in se* or where the wide may be presumed to be the principle agent. If, however, she commit any indictable offence without the presence or coercion of her husband she alone is responsible
(Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four books. p 417)
That too is a fact which should have been easy for you to find.
*evil in itself
Kirby: I didn’t need to ladt time. Darksidecat beat me to it.
This time I got to do it.
I realize I’m late to the party but I’d like to point out a couple things to our new trolls.
1) The French Revolution did not occur because of feminism. Women participated in it and were lauded for their efforts. However as the Revolution progressed, the leaders (all male) systematically denied women any rights politically or socially. In fact women in France were much worse off under the Republic and Napoleon then they where beforehand.
2) While someone claimed that women as “nurturers” controlled the upbringing of their children etc. this is not true. Until the 1800s children were viewed primarily as subhuman and not especially valuable except as workers, heirs, or marriage items. Most mothers of the upper or middle classes did not directly raise their children. Instead they were given over to wet nurses, governesses, nannies, and tutors.
3) As for the French Revolution being good or bad, let’s just say that without it modern Western politics would not exist. So while it was bloody and terribly organized, it did have a positive purpose in history.
In short tolls, LEARN YOUR HISTORY BEFORE YOU SPEAK!
Women coal miners, by Van Gogh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32357038@N08/3269192525
Magpie, come on, you can’t even see their faces. Those could be dudes in dresses.
NWOSlave:
I see what you did there.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/honey-badger
Calling you as a Poe.
David, if they are dudes in dresses, that makes them manginas, so they count as women anyway 🙂
I give up! Oh please, please stop these tales of carnage of female goodness and innocence! I cannot move my hand fast enough to wipe away all the tears streaming down my face! I’m so sorry for having doubted you all! How can I ever make it up to you all! The rawness of your wounds tugs at my heart! I wish I could embrace you all and offer you warmth and succour for the horror of what you’ve been through! I now feel your terrible pain and loss, but as a mere male I realize that I am not worthy to even gaze upon you, let alone hug you all! I am not even worthy of visiting this site! I AM JUST SOOOOOO SORRY… Please forgive me, I hope among hopes that I return in my next life as a woman to make up for all the horrors that my manhood is responsible for! I can’t take it any more! Farewell cruel world! Please, please Dear Goddess make me return as a woman! Make my next thousand lives as a woman, so that I can learn but a fraction of what my poor dear, dear sisters have been through! I am ready for this penitence! Au revoir! A dieu! World so cruel (to women) yet so wonderful (to men)!
Wow, Chuckeedee, I think you missed the point. The point wasn’t ‘bow down to women’ but ‘some of the supporting facts for your argument aren’t in fact supported by history.’
And wow comrade, I think you missed my point, that selective referencing and credentialism about a past so far removed from us in history that it is impossible to establish its truths and its wider contexts contributes nothing, nada zilch to the debate. You might as well be referencing Walt Disney’s original Mickey Mouse cartoons to prove your point.
Shorter Chuckee… Factses, we don’ need no stinkin’ factses..
Chuckeedee 223 years is not really that long at all. Globally countries and cultures are still feeling the effects of things that happened 200, 300, and even 500 years before. For example certain African countries are still attempting to recover culturally, politically, and economically from European colonialism. Colonialism occurred within our 223 year spectrum.
Also as comrade svilova pointed out, you completely missed my point. I don’t as a feminist want your pity or want you groveling at my feet. What I want is an acknowledgement of “shit happens” and an agreement to work to make equality a reality now. Of course I won’t hold my breath in your case or in the case of any other MRA.
And by “shit happens” what I mean is an acknowledgement of “this shit actually happened.”
We don’t even understand our own contemporary cultures. What business is it of ours to pass judgement on cultures all those years ago?
I’m not an mra.
What do you mean by we “don’t understand our own contemporary cultures?” I would point out that through psychology, sociology, and anthropology we have a pretty good grasp on why people do what they do.
Judging historical events isn’t so different from judging the events and actions of people now. I (and anyone else) can look at documents and events and pass judgement based on our own opinions. Also since I’m a historian, I’d say that discussing history and looking at it critically is my business.
Excuse me for mislabeling you. But based on your comments on this thread, I still won’t hold my breath in your case.
1) Psychology… which version? Freud? Behavioural? Skinner? What context, what set of principles is it that binds them together? Is the brain a computer? How does cognitive science relate to all of this? And philosophy, the phenomenologists and the idealists? Etc;
2) Sociology… what version? Memetics? What’s the nature of desire? How and why do people make the choices they do? How does psychology interface with sociology?
3) History, Anthropology… All framed within the context of white academics peering through the eyes of Trobriand Islanders, Egyptians, Kalahari bushmen, etc. Failure to see WITH the eyes of these folk. For all intents and purposes, people from other cultures are just Anglos with funny pots, pans and artefacts, dark skin, peculiar vocalizations and strange customs;
Margaret Mead and others seemed to have a basic grasp that “something” was afoot with the nature of culture, but really, they failed to grasp it in the end. Sometimes I was impressed with their initial efforts (e.g., addressing the subjectivity/objectivity problem) but ultimately they failed to establish the momentum required to penetrate beyond a superficial level.
Bottom line? No, we definitely, categorically, do not understand culture. The evidence for this is in feminism itself, and feminism’s failure to understand why men and women desire different things and so establish different priorities and different lifestyle choices.
“Bottom line? No, we definitely, categorically, do not understand culture. The evidence for this is in feminism itself, and feminism’s failure to understand why men and women desire different things and so establish different priorities and different lifestyle choices.”
That paragraph is so full of fail.
@Every feminist who resides here
All of you bitching about Peter Nolan getting up votes for his comment. Yet still no one answers my questions from my previous post on this thread about the man with the garbage disposable johnson. You see children, the uproarious laughter by the feminist hosts and the audience of women was the unanimous upvotes. Or was no one hurt? Well, no women anyway. I guess thats all that matters.
And here we have the wonderful Amanda literally cursing out Christians. Tell ya what oh fair minded feminists, replace her screed about the Christian faith with the Jewish faith. Would you be screaming for Jewish blood? Toss that puppy out on the MSM. Wanna place bets on if she’d get fired?
C’mon Dave, I dare ya to put my previous post up for evaluation by “da crew.” I really would like to hear what possibly excuses the gang gives. Or does progressive mean progress for the feminists to the detriment of all men?
Shorter chuckadee: No one can ever understand psychology or culture except me! I know exactly what every man, every woman, and every other desires in all situations! Because I am special like that!
As for men wearing dresses to coal mines, as a matter of fact I do have it on good authority that a lot of…’doings’ went on up there.
http://www.theonion.com/video/joad-cressbeckler-homosexuality-a-necessity-on-col,20844/
Well I’ll be damned. I never thought of that. I would never have expected Joanna what’s-her-name with qualifications in… [?] and experience in… [?] to declare my interpretation a fail. Who’da thunk? I’m so upset. My weekend is ruined! I won’t be able to sleep tonight 🙁
Yeah cos even after centuries of psychology and anthropology, no one has a clue about what makes us human. Sheesh.