Both David Futrelle and Hugo Schwyzer have written pieces lumping MRAs in with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik – who killed 76 people (figure revised downward) in a rampage seemingly stemming from his anti-Jihadist ideology.
Futrelle doesn’t say much other than to point out a few passages where Breivik suggested that the West should focus on increasing the birthrate of Western women by curtailing womens’ foray into the workforce and academics.
But at The Good Men Project Schwyzer has a piece the title of which does all of the heavy lifting: “Anders Breivik: Anti-feminist MRA?” The point is made just by asking the question, we don’t need to read any further to understand that Breivik killed all of these people because he was anti-feminist and maybe even an MRA. Somehow, though, Schwyzer fails to mention Breivik’s anti-Islam stance. Schwyzer wrote:
It is telling that Breivik targeted a Labor Party youth camp filled with young activists who were deeply committed to the very things he despised. The Norwegian Labor Party has long stood for greater rights for women; the Party’s “Women Can Do It” Project became a template for encouraging women’s empowerment across Europe. That empowerment, as far as Breivik was concerned, came at the price of the collapse of manhood and Western Civilization.
The mass murder of so many young people (of both sexes) may well have been his way of cutting down not only the best and the brightest of the future Norwegian progressive elite, but of killing off those who were personally and ideologically committed to the idea that men and women are radically equal.
Not once in his piece does Schywzer mention that Breivik was anti-Islam and anti-Jihadist. The killer spent all of 23 pages of his manifesto addressing feminism (out of over 1500 in pdf form – just over 1%). And in fact, one of his subsections on feminism that Breivik cribbed from a blogger called ‘Fjordman’ was titled “How the Feminists’ “War on Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.” Breivik was mostly concerned with feminism because it greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.
The thrust of the argument put forth by Fjordman there is that feminism’s emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society. The inability to protect one’s own property, family, girlfriends, wives, and children is nothing if not frustrating. Men in Western society are faced with having to both be defensive against this invasion while remaining in line with the edicts of society by waiting for police to help them out. Any verbal expression of their frustration at having to occupy this tenuous balance is met with PC marginalization and calls of bigotry.
Fjordman makes another point that feminists (and liberals whose plank consists of a lot of feminism ideology) don’t account for the cultural differences of Muslim immigrants. In short, allowing Muslims to immigrate into Norway or any other Western country increases the per capita crime rate, the per capita violence against women rate, all of that. By tying in with the anti-establishmentarian position (i.e. the anti-white male, anti-Christian position), feminists have cuddled up next to any group that falls outside that norm. They have cuddled up to a religion that, on average, advocates less-than equal treatment of women. Just for the sake of change, radical feminists would cut off their nose to spite their face. They would slough off the patriarchy brought on by Christianity in favor of that brought on my Islam.
Feminism’s work has also gone a long way to dismantle the nuclear family, and, progressivism in general, by creating a pervasive welfare state, has undone the fabric of the tight-knit community. Social cohesion hangs, literally, by frayed threads. Social cohesion and order is not organic, it is fabricated and forced. But the same pervasive state does not impact Muslim families when they reach Western lands. Because they are of a protected class, Muslim families and communities can prosper intact and develop organic bonds which strengthen them. Westerners have advanced so far that they are now forced to handicap themselves by playing by a different set of rules.
There’s one more point to be made on this front. Most of the MRAs that I’ve encountered online who advocate violence against women are ones who would lie opposite Breivik’s position. Pro-violence MRAs often favor Islamic-style regimes because they hold women in their proper place.
I speculate by saying this: Breivik wouldn’t have acted at all – written a manifesto and then killed so many people – if radical feminism existed in his country without the increasing Muslim presence. Schwyzer’s and Futrelle’s arguments are weak attempts to stoke the flames of the gender war – trying to lump a group that is critical of feminism in with a sick individual who killed innocent people.