Re the Norwegian deaths.

From what I have read, this guy blamed all sorts of people his own situation and what he believed to be the potential demise of Norway. Those with far right political views and fundamentalist Christian beliefs (not always one in the same,) tend to perceive women as being of lower status but holding the "important" role of perpetuating the "right" values within society and for the next generation and for keeping their menfolk on track in a supporting role. They have little time for any women who do anything outside that model.

Having lived a while in Norway many years ago and knowing how they approach incidents like this (although there hasn't been a slaughter like this the time of Nazi occupation,) the Norwegian people will want to understand what "went wrong" with this man, how he moved so far outside the values that most Norwegians hold dear, whether there are lessons for wider society in this and what can be done both to care for those who suffered from his actions and prevent anything similar happening again.

The approach there to criminal justice is VERY different from that in say Britain or the US. Consider the different responses to the death of Silje Redergard www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers there and James Bulger in the UK.

It's important to recognise that trying to understand something doesn't equate with condoning or even trying to excuse it.

What I find most depressing is the number of user comments following reports of the case along the lines of, "While I don't agree with what he did, I can understand what led him to do it." FFS!

Oh I'm sure we'll get a few daily fail type articles blaming his mother for his behaviour.

There's always the mother angle ....

What do you think archie?

Or, what BoF said more succinctly

I "get" the need to try and understand him, but ... I don't know if it is (a) possible to do so, or (b) a good use of our collective energy to spend much time thinking about this man and poring over his attitudes/beliefs.

I'm not sure it can have any positive outcome because it seems unlikely to me that we can ever gain sufficient insights from studying a person like him, to apply usefully in other contexts. Does that make sense? But because his actions have been so extremely horrific, they've drawn disproportionate attention and energy towards him, away from other things that do warrant it. Which is basically what he wanted - for everyone to pay attention to him and spend ages analysing him. Thinking about that makes me uncomfortable about focusing on him in any way.

In short: I'm not trying to squash your thread at all, but personally I don't want to give my time or my thoughts to his statements, even on this topic, and can't see a clear reason for trying to override that instinct.

Sorry, I guess this seems like an unhelpful reply; not meant to be. Am almost posting for myself really, b/c it helps me to organize my thoughts in response to your op :)
Will toddle off now.

I'm not really interested in spending any time in that guy's murky brain, looking to extrapolate generalities from his nuttiness. It's very likely that many of the boys who were killed while trying to shape their country's future for the better had mothers who were also feminists, and there were far more of them.

I imagine that there will be details of his family life in the papers soon enough, with attempts to analyse the whys and wherefores of what turns someone into a society-hating extremist willing to perpetrate violence.

It fits with the hyper-macho image of many extremist groups though to mistrust and exclude women and their influence.