Re the Norwegian deaths.

Well done sakura, you take that often trenchant criticism you get in an admirable fashion and I will take a leaf out of your book, thanks to the advice of eldritch.

I feel so much better now. I think that's all that was needed. Thanks!

All knowing super feminist? Oh, hardly. I muddle along, like most women on here.

And I don't generally agree with sakura either, but I either (i) leave it; or (ii) try to engage politely without calling her names. It doesn't always work-I was on the smear test thread profoundly disagreeing with her, actually. If I remember correctly I said her posts were bonkers, which wasn't very nice of me.

However, I admire sakura's ability to take the often trenchant critcism she gets, even if I don't admire the content of her posts. If I may (gently) say so, you could take a leaf out of her book on that score.

Personally I think there are more important things than etiquette when there are looney tunes posters on the loose. But I will stop complaining.

Yes but eldritch the difference between us is you are an all knowing super feminist while I am just the ordinary mistake making kind of feminist.

eh?
Love it when people have to announce they are leaving a thread and you're all wrong. If I don't like a thread anymore I just sidle off to a new one, quietly.

Hmm well I can see that the feminism section is filled with views with absolutely zero evidence. An awful lot don't have the best of intentions either. I'm out, enjoy the rant :)

OMFG, look at this article I've just found:

NOrwegian Attacker Blamed Women

"As she analyzed the 1,500-page manifesto and videos produced by Anders Breivik, the man who has confessed to Friday's attacks in Norway, journalist and GOOD associate editor Nona Willis Aronowitz spotted something really odd: Anders Breivik had it out for her mom.

Her late mother, the feminist activist, writer and icon Ellen Willis, was singled out, she writes:

Breivik mentions her in the same breath as Simone de Beauvoir (go Mama!) and blames them for the "skyrocketing divorce rates" and "plummeting birth rates" that created a "cultural and demographic vacuum" in the West. According to Breivik, this vacuum led directly to the Islamic takeover he cited as justification for Friday's bombing and shooting spree.

Ms. Willis Aronowitz gets to the heart of why his critique of feminism is so relevant:

Breivik's spiteful commentary on feminism isn't too different from the hate mail that appears in my own inbox on a regular basis. As some have noted already, Breivik's rhetoric echoes a fairly common conservative argument about feminism?that selfish Western women aren't producing enough children to keep up with Muslim world, and therefore opening up their nations to the possibility of Islamic extremism.

The rest of her post is really worth a read, as are the analyses of Anders Breivik's writings done by two investigative journalists: Religion Dispatches senior editor Sarah Posner and "C Street" author and frequent TRMS guest Jeff Sharlet. Scroll back to what they wrote on Sunday, and read it all the way through. Also, check out Ms. Posner's excellent blogging on the topic here."
.

to me having a warped, extreme political philosophy is a usually symptom of more fundamental problems, so the misandry, general misanthropy and inferiority come first.
Too true!

I agree with that argument-to me having a warped, extreme political philosophy is a usually symptom of more fundamental problems, so the misogyny, general misanthropy and inferiority come first.

Breivik has developed a lot of emotional and psychological issues, clearly, and the manifesto, isolation, and violence are his way of expressing those.

On another note, I do wish that the media would resist the temptation to keep publishing his awful, self-aggrandising photos, especially the one where he is brandishing a gun. Just because Breivik cloaks himself in the style and posture of macho heroes does not mean we have to take him at his own estimation. Strong, brave and manly in any positive sense is exactly what he is not. We know from the Raoul Moat case that there are plenty of fools out there who find that appealing. They should find the geekiest, most inadequate-loooking picture of him and just use that one.

I know what you mean, swallowed, about the blog piece I linked to not expressly dealing with the gender issue. However, to me, fascism as a political ideology has always been synonymous with a particularly poisonous type of misogyny anyway. It almost goes without saying that someone who ascribes to it has deep-seated weird and hateful attitudes to women, but I completely acknowledge the need to draw out and examine that aspect explicitly.

Yes, that too SaF. That's the whole point of men's insane march to prevent women from having abortions. It has fuck all to do with life and everything to do with controlling reproduction.

What the hell is wrong with men? I really would like the answer to this question

I mean, they'll create more males than females. A bit like what's going on around the world now with female foeticide in cultures that prefer boys.

I mean, if men finally get their wish, and have power over life creation, the world will be fucked because they will create little armies for themselves and possible let the odd female through as fuck toys and to do the shit work.

Well, unless they finally succeed in usurping women by creating artificial wombs, that is. And the relentless march to usurp women continues.
We must remember, that men will create males once they have power over reproduction. Lots and lots of them. We'll be fucked.

when I keep talking about misogyny being the root cause of these men's crimes, I mean exactly that.

If you read the work of misogynists, you often find (Just like this Norwegian one) they are obsessed with technology that will one day allow men to create life without women.
Dig a little deeper and you find that they despise women precisely because of their reproductive capabilities. Many compare the impotency of men to the possibility of life creation inside a woman's body. Most of them are too arrogant (or stupid) to hide this in their writing, which makes it very easy for feminist women to see what makes them tick.

Many of them move to the next logical conclusion (for these men that is). If they cannot have power over life in the form of creation (and they can't) then they will have the next best thing (to them). They will have power over life in the form of the destruction of life.

BUt they are deluded. WOmen have power over life. Men can only ever have power over death.

yeah, not buying that anymore either are we SaF.

Men's studies = world history? Don't think so.

The author of that guardian article actually reaches a different conclusion to me. She concludes that his misogyny was but one part of his motivations, whereas I am obviously concluding that it was the root core. I have reached this conclusion after reading a lot of feminist works recently, especially by Mary Daly.

THen again, the author knows very well what will happen to her if she writes what I am writing. She will lose her job for banging on about women too much. LIke Bidisha did recently.