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.
Like this:
Like Loading...
nothing mantits and Shyster say surprises me.
They are manginas. Simple as that.
Marc Lepine vs the noble suffragettes,
how about a man brought up in a fatherless household turned psycho?
http://angrydad.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway-manifesto.html
Not just those two:
Norway Massacre: Anders Breivik’s deadly attack fueled by hatred of women
He is an interesting case study for the MRM though. His parents divorced early, and both remarried people he didn’t respect.
The same information could be presented with the headline, “Divorce breeds terrorism”.
I wanted to throw Goldberg in there too, but I wanted to churn this one out quickly. She’s also on Bloggingheads today discussing it.
Imagine the leaps and bounds by which the obscure MRA movement would have grown had the shooter worn a t-shirt stating “Fuck Feminism” All publicity is good publicity, if the killer had associated himself with MRA in more obvious terms it would greatly contribute to the public consciousness about mens civil rights in the long term. Sure feminists and the media would demonize MRA for weeks, but then things would settle down and the number of new people exposed to very logically-argued and well-documented MRA grievances on the internet would grow exponentially. Men (but not women) can only argue emotionally against cold hard facts for so long before they abandon feminism and embrace the anti-male reality of Western societies.
Ross Douthat of the NYTimes had a good article about the shooter and how if at all he relates to the wider right/conservative movement, check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
I especially liked the setup with the Gore/Unabomber quiz
But of course they are. Because ALL MRA’s are “privileged” white Christian males, right?
And in my area, 47 of 49 schools flunked their aptitude test. Look in the mirror fembots, because you along with others on the leftist side are the reason why. And you should actually be proud because these schools aren’t failing because of race or sex so you’re getting what you want. And equal but dumbed down society that won’t be productive.
60% of our state budget goes to education BTW. And they can spend 100% of it and the results will never change. Because a society ingrained with victimhood is one that in the end will be victims of their own agenda.
*embrace should be ‘acknowledge’
Women don’t connect the dots. Theirs is not a complex, supra-visual map of the entire social order.
What does concern them is when their sons start to fail en masse.
This is happening.
Lots of women I know are desperately concerned for their sons. Some teachers are now openly favoring girls. One teacher told a female co-worker that her son would have to wait for special help because…
The girls needed help, too. And then she said:
Men have traditionally gotten more attention, so it’s FAIR that her son not get attention. To atone for the sins of other men, She actually told my co-worker this.
My co-worker had a fit, went straight to the principal. Absolutely nothing happened.
The teacher was 26 and a summa cum laude graduate of an education school.
Major in college?
Women’s studies.
Futrelle and Schwyzer are contemptible piles of puke.
News at 11.
“Men have traditionally gotten more attention, so it’s FAIR that her son not get attention.”
Sometimes two wrongs DO make a right, eh?
Everyone always tries to pin the latest mass-shooting on their political opponents. Feminists are saying this guy was motivated by misogyny rather than Islamophobia, and Andrew Sullivan seems to think he is a “Christianist”, which is a favorite term of his…even though Breivik admits he’s not very religious.
Pingback: Manosphere blogs: Hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas! « man boobz
Chuck: I wrote about your post here:
http://manboobz.com/2011/07/25/manosphere-blogs-hey-that-breivik-guy-has-some-good-ideas/
Let me know if I have accurately summarized your views.
K(yle) thinks this is just more proof that what we need is authoritarian state that steals people’s money and gives it to the rightful owners:
K(yle) and his friends.
Boy that didn’t take long!
White guy that doesn’t like feminism? Terrorist.
Muslim? Don’t judge a group by a few bad apples bigot.
Pingback: The Impetus for Evil « Hidden Leaves
This guy is just a smarter version of McViegh. He picked is targets better than McViegh did (Attacking the ruling classes children instead of random low level workers) but the outcome will be the same.
There’s no point in killing unless you’re ready to rule and killing children is only something you do if you want to return to barbarism.
The Norwegian Labor Party is importing all of the country’s “diversity”. That “diversity” is committing every reported rape in Oslo as of last year’s crime statistics. How is that for pro-woman policies.
Posted over at Manboobz, doubt it will get past moderation:
Ferdinand calls Breivik a “lunatic”, a “madman”, a “sick individual”, his act “horrifying” and that “he should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” Yeah, sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. So is this the new liberal meme? If you defend any opinions that appear similar to those shared by Breivik, then you are defending his actions and you must be a terrorist sympathizer. This makes zero sense.
There are strict Muslims who are not violent, would you apply to same criteria to them? No, you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t judge Islam for a few bad apples. Guilt by association only applies to white guys and nobody else.
“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. ”
Not true. Feminists risk their lives in places like Afghanistan.