Re the Norwegian deaths.

3 female mass murderers? Goodness, a real epidemic.

For someone who claims not to have an opinion you first of all seemed to have a lot of questions and now you seem to be offering a lot of opinions now that people have responded.

"I'm not trying to be inflammatory here"
Are you on the wind up? Because it certainly seems that way archie? I think you are being deliberately inflammatory.

I haven't seen this pointed out here yet, so I thought I'd post it: Breivik actually has a good deal on women and on the subject of feminism in his manifesto, so his ideas need not be speculated about insofar as they are there for everyone to read.

I have copy-pasted an excerpt in below. It's the bit where he basically argues in favour of women being reduced to incubators on legs. He admits that this is a problem in terms of women's rights but thinks that a higher birth rate is the end that justifies means such as banning abortions, restricting access to contraception and discouraging women from pursuing FT careers outside of the home. Vile stuff!

I do NOT recommend you read the whole thing unless you're unusually thick skinned. It's the kind of stuff that tends to make most marginally normal people froth at the mouth with rage. According to this guy, there are three major evils: Islam, "cultural" Marxism and Feminism.

Excerpt:

"^1. Limit the distribution of birth-control pills (contraceptive pills): Discourage the use of and prevent liberal distribution of contraceptive pills or equivalent prevention methods. The goal should be to make it considerably more difficult to obtain. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points but would degrade women's rights.

1. Reform sex education: Reform the current sex education in our school institutions. This may involve limiting it or at least delaying sex education to a later age and discourage casual sex. Sex should only be encouraged within the boundaries of marriage. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points.

1. Making abortion illegal: A re-introduction of the ban on abortion should result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,1-0,2 points but would strip women of basic rights.

1. Women and education: Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.

Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor's degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education - bachelor, master and PhD.^"

As I googled for the man who raped the four year old the search term listed, literally, countless hits.
I came accross one saying a 68 year old man, who had raped an 8 year old and her 4 year old sister, saying the 4 year old had led him on.

In all of that feces, I never came across even one incident of a woman raping a four year old.

Because that evil is the preserve of men.

Another day, another male mass murderer. THe day after the Norgwegian massacre, a man in Texas massacred six people in a roller rink.

And the beat goes on..

This is the nadir of male supremacy. Cowardly men blasting women and children off the face of the planet. And if you count the victims of these garden-variety mass murderers, you find they are overwhelmingly female. THAT part is "overlooked" in the media.

Found this quote by a woman online:

"No suprise he is a misogynist. The same misogynistic bullshit spouted by right, left and mainstream men. They don?t disagree with his misogyny, so mostly it will be glossed over, and they won?t admit that it is fundamental to his behaviour. Instead we get all the handwringing about what special mystery or insight is needed into this ?lone-wolf one of a kind how can we possibly understand him he is not like us good men at all?.

Plenty of female mass murderers!??! These delusional anti-feminists have to grasp at straws don't they.

I think the person who wrote that is just a bit confused by all the covering up of male crimes that goes on, and the way that men's crimes usually go unpunished, coupled with and the way that women who don't toe the patriarchal party line are considered MONSTERS...by society.

A woman not changing her baby's nappies often enough?A man Massacring 92 teenagers? Same difference innit.

I think that person is confusing ACTUAL atrocities commited by men, and made up inadequacies of women.

When women commit crimes such as murder it is almost ALWAYs in retaliation to awful abuse, vengeance for a rape or murder of a loved one of of themeselves, or in reaction to appalling emotional circumstances (such as emotionally, physically and financial abuse) or because they are used as "token torturers" by the patriarchy.

Look at this article:

A man who raped a 4 year old girl walks free.

Patriarchal courts are designed to protect men, both rapists and murderers. OUtside a patriarchy women would not allow these men to do this. They would punish the man for his crime. INside a patriarchy men's right to rape children is PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS. The entire point of the court system is to a) convince women they weren't raped or b) protect rapists with man-made laws, such as 6 months in prison for raping babies.

Patriarchal media, culture and society is designed to encourage male mass murderers by pretending these men are anomalies and aberrations, when really they are the natural manifestations of patriarchal supremacy.

There are certainly not "plenty" of female mass murderers.

"Plenty of female mass murderers, I believe"

Don't be silly. Compared to male mass murderers, there's a dearth of them.

Of course there are a few. But they are dwarfed by the number of males who commit multiple murders.

It's disturbing that the (male) media are really never interested in examining the root of the terrible violence in our culture, isn't it? They just don't want to confront it, because if they do, they might have to work towards changing it.

OP, you said "I don't have an opinion. I don't know him" and I think that is what SGM may have meant ... because if you feel that not knowing him = you can't form an opinion, presumably the same applies to us. We don't know him either.

Not meaning to nitpick, but this does make it a tad unreasonable for you to be sarcastic to SGM.

Well, I'm a mixed-race partly Scandinavian partly Indian feminist. Who works. I am the epitome of evil, clearly.

Except I haven't shot anyone, obviously.

And see how she is remembered all these centuries later. This man's name will be forgotten far sooner, in most circles. So many men do this, to greater or lesser extents.

Elisabeth Bathory, StewieGriffinsMom.

I think he is a nasty, vicious twat! He may have what he thinks of as good rational reasons for his actions but I suspect they will be the usual mix of aggression and fear that inadequate men display. Sadly this inadequate male was also organised enough to do something about it.

Men often seem to blame women for things being wrong. I guess that makes us the perfect scapegoat. Plus ca change

Interesting quotation, sakura It also shows that this is not a recent product of the Internet age (which some commentators say it is).

I guarantee the oedipus freudian blaming of women, especially mothers, will be out in full force in the patriarchal media, if it's not already. In fact, I think the Daily Fail has already referred to him as a "mummy's boy"

So there we have it.

The Rules of Patriarchy:

Men must not be held accountable for their behaviour under any circumstances.

Men must be protected from adequate punishment for their crimes.

(The maximum sentence for any crime in Norway is 21 years-- FUck that I say, let the mothers of the teenagers have their way with him. They should strip him naked in the city centre, laugh at his genitals and throw rotten tomatoes at him.
The next man will think twice.)

If this had been a woman, she would already have been proclaimed a monster. THere would have been no umming and aahing over her "political motivations"

But the system has been designed to protect these men. It has been designed to protect rapists and murderers.
IN a non-patriarchal society, women would kill their daughters' rapists, but in patriarchies men who rape are protected at all costs.

Found this excellent quote online:

"Let?s call it what it is. White male supremacy. But this dude is hardly an aberration, despite the media?s attempts to pass him off as a lone, crazed individual, as they always do. The Inquisition was not an aberration. The Crusades were not an aberration. The Nazis were not an aberration. Bosnia was not an aberration. The witch hunts were not an aberration. The Montreal Massacre was not an aberration. The Amish School shooting was not an aberration. The Luby?s Cafeteria massacre was not aberration. The KKK is not an aberration. The Roman, British and Spanish Empires were not aberrations. And neither are the wars in the Middle East. Cripes, how many aberrations do we need before we get that it?s not an aberration? And that white and other male supremacists come a dime a dozen? And how methodical and systematic their extermination is, whether it be by political, economic, religious or military means, or like this dude, just plain old guerrilla warfare? I mean, there?s a woman beaten every 9 seconds, raped every minute, and murdered every 15 minutes in the U.S. Is that an aberration too? Cripes, if it were any other group of people, we?d call it a holocaust. At what point does the media and we, as a society ask, ?What is wrong with men?!? instead of pretending like it?s some sort of aberration?"

People very rarely look at the gendered angle of crimes like these. Yet mass killers nearly always seem to have a special loathing of women.

You might be interested in Boris Johnson's column in today's Telegraph. Titled "There is nothing to study in the mind of Norway's mass killer", it also includes this (insubstantially evidenced) passage:

"Yesterday the television reporters found an acquaintance of his from Norway, a fellow called Ulav Andersson, who said that he had known Breivik pretty well. He was surprised by all the Knights of Templar stuff, because he had never really been religious, and he wasn?t aware that he had been interested in politics.
?He didn?t seem opinionated at all,? he said. He just became chippy and irritable, said Ulav Andersson, when some girl he had a crush on jilted him in favour of a man of Pakistani origin.
It wasn?t about immigration, or Eurabia, or the hadith, or the Eurocrats? plot against the people. It wasn?t really about ideology or religion. It was all about him, and his feeling of inadequacy in relation to the female sex. The same point can be made (and has been made) about so many of the young Muslim terrorists".

Actually, I think labelling him as a "nutter" kind of lets him off the hook. Although his ideas sound really far out and his actions deplorable, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to date at least that he is or was suffering from mental illness. It actually sounds like everything was meticulously thought out and he genuinely believed he was justified in his actions - just as others who have claimed to be motivated by religious or other ideology have done. That, of course, sounds scarier than saying he's a one-off-nut-job in custody now, so we can sleep easy at night.

I agree with BoF et al that he's a complete and utter nutter and there's nothing to be gained from analyzing his past, except for the access to guns and explosives making expertise