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.
Also, using cattle as a metaphor for women is more revealing than you think.
My own opinions about the negatives of affirmative action type policies/legislation aside, dismantling affirmative action probably will not guarantee that competition will be on equal terms, as it certainly wasn’t prior to affirmative action. Nepotism, for example, was a long-standing practice, as was favouring hiring men over women due to the centuries old (and still ongoing) male-head-of-household-and-breadwinner paradigm.
John Stuart Mill (another in the MRA’s list of Manginas) had some interesting thoughts about that back in 1869:
“One thing we may be certain of — that what is contrary to women’s nature to do, they never will be made to do by simply giving their nature free play. The anxiety of mankind to interfere in behalf of nature, for fear lest nature should not succeed in effecting its purpose, is an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing…
The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts — from the whole of the present constitution of society — one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else — if any other means of living or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them — there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject) “It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless they are compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them.” The merits of the case would then be clearly defined.”
@cynickal:
Ah, the old “I used to be a Democrat” argument. Strangely when the friends of these “former feminists” are ever found, they never substantiate that the “former feminists” were every feminists.
And I always have to hear this old “Only because you took some freshman courses in X you don’t …” argument (the last time from sharculese).
X was already Philosophy, Math, Physics, Chemistry and Biology until now.
And when I complain about that, I just hear something like “Maybe because it’s true!”.
So…. maybe because it’s true!
Is it so difficult to imagine that people don’t people start to dislike feminism when they start to know it better?
When even people who think MRAs are nutjobs don’t like feminism, maybe there’s really something wrong with it?
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/the-rite-of-faghood-and-fagly-feminists/
@Snowy:
A picture, your opinion of it, and what seems to be the beginning of some kind of sexual fantasy scenario. What does this have to do with anything again?
I’m sorry, that was just an example that society doesn’t care that much about if males are “objectified”, too… Don’t you think one could make this procedure a bit less embarrassing especially if you keep in mind that this is not voluntary? 😀
Uh, no, the gender pay gap is a proven thing. You must be thinking of something else.
Is it proven that women get paid less than men for the SAME work and when they have the same professional experience? I never saw a proof for that, do you have a link?
Chuckeedee “Maybe. But with a change in politics, with your affirmative action freebies removed and the AA gravy-train derailed, you’ll be fleeing back to the kitchen quicker than your SO can say ‘make me a samich bitch!’”
I always find this kind of statement so interesting. Apparently the only reason women go to school, get jobs, and are successful in life is because of AA? First off, affirmative action doesn’t have quotas. But, let’s just pretend that these magical quotas do exist and all women everywhere only get into school and get jobs because someone somewhere (your elected officials, actually, who tend to be mostly men…but that is not really the point) decided that women were a necessary addition to classrooms and workplaces throughout the country and to ensure that women were added, they decided to require a specific number of women be enrolled or hired. And so was born the dreaded “quota” MRAs complain about.
So, women are accepted into school only because of these quotas, but what MRAs know is that women can’t really hack the competition with men. But wait, then how is it possible that there are sometimes female valedictorians? And why isn’t it that the top 50% of the class is always composed of the male students while the bottom is always composed of the female students? I mean, the law can force schools to admit women, but once a woman is in, she still survives on her merit alone. You may be thinking, “Well, women take easier classes,” or “The schools give women better grades.” Again, I wholeheartedly disagree, but let’s pretend that in some circumstances this is actually true. This still doesn’t account for programs where all students take the same courses and are graded blindly; for instance, in law school. In the first year of law school all students take the same course schedule. At the end of the semester, students have one final exam per course that comprises their complete grade in that course (usually, though there are exceptions). Generally, students are forbidden from putting any identifying information on their exam and are instead given a test number. Their professors grade the exams without ever knowing which test belongs to which student. And in this scenario where women are in direct competition with men, with no help from any government program, women are still managing to be at the top of their class, some graduating with the highest honors. Obviously, not all women make it into the top of their class, but neither do all men. Interestingly enough, it tends to be about ½ and ½.
And then you get into the actual work place. Maybe affirmative action got me my job (although I tend to believe what got me my job was my GPA in undergrad, graduating in the top 15% in my law school, and doing good work in the 3 month internship I had with my law firm, but who knows), but affirmative action cannot help me win cases or write legal documents. And yet somehow, I do manage to win cases and write winning briefs…maybe it’s a fluke? Or maybe, men and women are more comparable than men like to believe?
The same holds for most every profession – no hospital would keep a female doctor because of AA if that doctor was killing her patients. And yet, every time I go to the hospital or a doctor’s office, I see a female doctor. No one would use an accountant who was incompetent, but female accountants certainly exist.
The point is that your assumption that women just cannot hack it without laws providing them with an advantage is erroneous even if we assume that the laws you rely on actually do exist. Your point is even more unpersuasive to those of us who know that the quotas you point to in order to prove your point simply don’t exist.
In a former life? These are reincarnated feminists? Who did their past lives regressions?
I see the real Marc is starting to come out. He’s not so neutral as he pretends.
@Ami: “In favor of” means “more than” or “more often.” It is pretty easy to prove. For example, if you got to Feministe, Feministing, and Shakesville and type in church, Vatican, and Catholic into the search bar, virtually all the posts are about the Catholic Church’s position on women and gay people, not the sex abuse scandal. Shakesville fared a little better under “Catholic”, although the posts avoid mentioning the male victims.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/06/fuck-all-yall-we-aint-paying-shit.html
In its continuing effort to alienate every last person with a shred of decency from its congregant ranks, the Catholic Church is contesting a jury verdict awarding $5 million to a former altar boy sexually abused by a priest on the basis that the verdict “exposes the citizens of Illinois to gross violations of their religious liberty.”
First result, first sentence of the post, mentioning a male victim and his fight for justice.
Shakesville.
feminist blogs focus on feminist issues? tell me ,more about your stunning expose.
Toysoldier – I understand your justified anger at the horrible things that have happened to entirely too many children by priests in the Catholic church. However, I would just say that there are many horrible things that happen in this world and it is impossible for one activist organization to fight them all. Is it so surprising that feminists as a group focus more on the misogyny that still exists within the Catholic church? There are many different groups of people who choose to fight various injustices they see in the world. Each group chooses their pet issue and focuses their energy on that issue. That doesn’t mean that they don’t see or care about the various other injustices or wrongs that exist, but you can’t really expect one group to take on everything. Also, just because you see feminists posting on a feminist website about issues that effect women does not necessarily mean that those feminists aren’t also on other sites (or better yet, out in the real world) fighting against various other wrongs. Coming to a forum dedicated to one issue and then arguing that those people aren’t talking about this other equally important issue is somewhat counterproductive, don’t you think?
My question is, what is the MRM doing to fight the Catholic Church on this issue? They do not seem to post on it at all.
For people who are supposedly fighting for the rights of men and boys, this should have come up at some point.
Ah, I see Toysoldier is doing a variation on the “women should take care of everyone’s problems before their own” argument… otherwise known as the “Mommy!” gambit.
I do not like bon bons!
Now , if you’re talking caramels…….we can talk!
@Pecunium: “I see the real Marc is starting to come out. He’s not so neutral as he pretends.”
As if there was any doubt in the first place. 😀 MRA’s definitely go to great lengths to distort other people’s views like he has.
Chastising women in general and feminists in particular for seemingly NOT doing anything about the issue.
Sorry for the double post, but this needs to be promoted.
@Rachel: “Coming to a forum dedicated to one issue and then arguing that those people aren’t talking about this other equally important issue is somewhat counterproductive, don’t you think?”
Right. If you’re so concerned about those issues that feminists are supposedly ignoring, why not tackle them yourself? Men’s Right’s issues are tackled even by NSWATM, a blog made by a feminist and having contributions from many men on various issues: https://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/
Screaming at other people does little to help your cause, Toysoldier.
You don’t need explicit quotas. Implied quotas are fine, and are quite effective. For example, I worked in an office, and I was on their EEO board (curiosity got the better of me, and I needed a bit of entertainment), where if a man and woman were rated equally for a job, the policy was to give it to the woman. Now I ask you… in a culture of gyno-worship, can we really be satisfied as to the objectivity with which the equal standing between a man and a woman was arrived at? But I digress.
Statistics comparing men’s and women’s participation, promulgated around offices, are the carrot and the stick placing pressures on selection procedures to favor women. No explicit quotas required. Comments by politicians castigating male-dominated boardrooms for being boys-clubs place pressures for implied quotas… though we should add that boardrooms, as the engine-room for decision-making, will be most resistent to implied quotas. Still, they have an effect, as an arbitrary googling reveals. Apart from which, I’m not sure that explicit quotas have been ruled out – though it’s been some time since I last lurked on EEO committees. Surely it depends on what country we are talking about. Google the terms “equality” and “boardroom” (I won’t post the links as some sites have problems with their spam filters). The independent.co.uk site for The Independent, for example. You will find some European countries that have actually introduced quotas even in boardrooms, with some Scandinavian country proudly boasting a surge to 44% participation by women on account of them.
Or what about the trend to lowering standards in male-dominated environments, like for firemen, police and the military, to enable women’s participation? That may not be the setting of explicit quotas, but everyone knows what’s expected of their job selection panels.
Or what about implied pressures, implied methods of education? Girl-friendly participatory assessments in nurturing environments as opposed to all that nasty, brutish competitive stuff with exams that used to “favor” boys? Does it reflect poorly on the intelligence of boys that they find all that participatory, nurturing stuff boring and dull as dishwater? The indoctrination starts at school, along with the incentives and disencentives skewing gender-based participation, and the ear-bashing directed at boys castigating their entry into manhood for all those millennia of oppression of women. Who needs quotas? You just need a gynocentric culture obsessed with gyno-worship.
“You just need a gynocentric culture obsessed with gyno-worship.”
I know! I can’t walk three feet in DC without running into one of those little vagina temples! And those fat goddess tourist trinkets are *everywhere*!
chuck, so how was it that the evil feminist conspiracy that runs the world allowed a raging misogynist like you on an EEO board?
I know! I can’t walk three feet in DC without running into one of those little vagina temples! And those fat goddess tourist trinkets are *everywhere*!
chuck, so how was it that the evil feminist conspiracy that runs the world allowed a raging misogynist like you on an EEO board?
Snark and specious reasoning. I see nothing changes around here. So you need “vagina temples” and “fat goddess trinkets” to prove there’s a gynocentric culture? Do you see a lot of “penis temples” and “man-power trinkets” then, which by your reasoning would need to exist if we lived in a patriarchal culture instead?
David, how is it that the evil patriarchy that runs the world is still allowing a man-hating mangina to have a blog? Life’s full of mysteries, ain’t it.
Marc said:
And you gave this link as evidence:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/the-rite-of-faghood-and-fagly-feminists/
Here’s what she says about feminism and MRAs:
So you think this bizarre mixture of illogical thinking and homophobia should convince us that there’s something wrong with … feminism?
Are you sure you’re not just a troll?
“Do you see a lot of “penis temples” and “man-power trinkets” then, which by your reasoning would need to exist if we lived in a patriarchal culture instead?”
I live in DC, remember?
There was a time, in the 1990s, when one’s thoughts were being crystallized. It was a time when one focused on observing, and as the picture emerged, it became clear that they had to keep their thoughts to themselves. So no mystery David, it’s just a question of learning how the world works, and survival. Anti-feminism is not programed into one’s genes from birth, but evolves with observation and learning.
And as a side-note, anti-feminism is no more related to misogyny than feminism is related to women. If you understand this distinction, then you will understand that feminism is chivalry, and just another manifestation of a centuries-old “patriarchal” institution.
“And as a side-note, anti-feminism is no more related to misogyny than feminism is related to women. If you understand this distinction, then you will understand that feminism is chivalry, and just another manifestation of a centuries-old “patriarchal” institution.”
Uh, what?