Re the Norwegian deaths.

[archieleach]

Breivik is critical of the influence of women in his life saying: 'I do not approve of the super-liberal, matriarchal upbringing though as it completely lacked discipline and has contributed to feminise me to a certain degree.'
Both his mother and stepmother are described as feminists.

I wonder what connection he made in his mind?
What could have happened in his family?

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.

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?.

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.^"

I don't think the victims are /would have been particularly interested in the gender of their killer. Just as the victims of child abuse aren't particularly interested that most perpetrators are women. Those are just statistics, the victims don't feel any better or worse for knowing that.
I agree that almost all media almost all the time, never really analyse the whys and wherefores. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here but aren't most people in the media women nowadays? Does anyone have any stats? It is just my impression. And extrapolating from your point "male media" does this mean that even if there were 50:50 male female it would still be male dominated? Would it have to be 60:40 or some other proportion to be female dominated? And what would we have to look forward to if/when that is/would be the case?

HerBeX Mon 25-Jul-11 20:34:19
"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.

Sakura - would you regard yourself as a balanced, cogent person? It is women who always get the lighter sentences compared to men. Have you looked at the stats?
What is your point about nappies exactly?
So when women rape and murder and kill, they almost always have a valid reason and men don't. Wow how warped a view you have of the world

sakura Tue 26-Jul-11 02:42:11
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

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.

3 female mass murderers? Goodness, a real epidemic.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat Tue 26-Jul-11 09:41:37
"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".

Do you attack everyone for no reason? I didn't have an opinion, just curious what other's opinions might be and after a response I offer an opinion. Is that bad? is that not normal?

You said,
"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 said this: "I'm not trying to be inflammatory here but aren't most people in the media women nowadays? Does anyone have any stats? It is just my impression."

I know you have to tread on eggshells here or else you are viciously attacked so here I am trying to tread on eggshells and yet even with a pretty innocuous question, I am being deliberately inflammatory?

I remember a thread on here where a prostitute was giving her honest opinion about something or other and she was ripped to shreds. I find it very sad that a supposed "vulnerable victim" of male something or other is turned on and soundly beaten by those who profess to support such people. It really is not nice and disgustingly hypocritical.

My flabber is well and truly gasted. Don't worry I won't come back.

Good. Bye!

Is this another man one that is trying to discredit MN feminism? Posting to get a rise, waiting for the 'man-bashing' to appear?

Don't let the door... and all that.

Crikey Archie, you seem to have a lot of stats at your fingertips, you lucky thing. Can you link to the ones about women getting shorter sentences for comparable crimes?

The media is not run by "mostly women", have you seen the DG of the BBC recently, or the board of ITV, or the editors of (all?) national newspapers?

Going back to the OP, I think it's quite likely that what Breivik means is that the female members of his family tried to bring him up to be a caring and empathetic person, and that he considers these 'feminine' qualities to have been a hinderance to seeing out his duty to his cause by cold-bloodedly murdering innocent people.

sakura I think you have some unresolved issues.

You say that mothers should 'kill their daughters' rapists' in a non-patriarchal society, which of course would be extremely civilised and much better for society. Also, Breivik is not a rapist.

I don't think lobbing tomatoes at a mass murderers genitals is the most effective form of punishment but of course, you have all the answers when it comes to criminal justice. After all, what most men really want is to rape and murder women, that is why the system protects men with the Golden Rules:

"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."

Of course!

I'm sure Breivik won't be let off lightly by the patriarchy-is that what you are saying will happen? I wouldn't trust his view on any matter and it's pretty unsurprising that he is sexist, considering his other beliefs. What he has done is horrifying and I just don't agree that men are generally similar to him.

Jolene@sakura I think you have some unresolved issues'
Good, strong, intelligent, well-made argument.

I think you should think about what 'patriarchy' means, how it functions and how it impacts men and women in society - especially before you lob in one of the 'feminist - you are the problem, your attitude is the problem' type of statement.

From what I've seen online, it's getting harder and harder to dupe women into believing that men who kill are anomalies.
It's simple: they have been trained from birth to kill and many carry out their script. Some don't, and as I said to BitofFun on the other thread, it is worth asking why not ALL men go on to fulfill the murderous destiny proscribed to them. TUrn on the TV tonight and there's a 100% chance you'll come across a man committing an act of violence. THis imprints onto the brains of boys, who of course turn into men.
If ANYONE gave a shit about protecting women and children from these men they would be thinking of making serious laws against what can be shown in the media.
INstead we have twats confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom to live in a safe society"

Here are some excellent quotes I've found by what seems to be a growing number of women who refuse to put their heads in the sand:

"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?

-------
And another

"His manifesto has been described as ?rambling and incoherent?. No it isn?t. It?s measured and controlled. He is not some ?lone wolf? but the physical embodiment of a group who are, white male supremacists, the ultimate in the patriarchy."

The Daily Fail (UK paper I?m not linking to) has the headline ?Mummy?s boy? to describe Breivik. Ah yes! Let?s find an ?oedipal? link somewhere and blame the women for this. It?s deflection. Breivik hated the so called ?feminisation? of men in Europe. His hatred for women is glaringly evident in his manifesto but this really shouldn?t be a surprise. It certainly isn?t to me.

------

"They (well at least his lawyer) is trying to write off ?this norwegian guy? as insane etc.

Hell no, he is functionaling perfectly under patriarchy. But patriarchy just want to distance themselves from the footsoldiers. Tuff shit, we see through that.

If this footsoldier wasn?t doing what he is supposed to, with more to follow, why the inane fascination with his ?motivations?. Who really gives a shit with his ?motivations?, shoot him dead, after some public humiliation. I don?t give a fuck what his ?motivations? are at all.

The meeja, the cops, everyone, should just stop fawning over his every syllable. Which boils down to ?poor privileged little rich white boy, can?t get girlfriend-stroke-doormat, takes it out on others claiming it to be some highbrow political motive. Don?t give a damn.

Oh, and I will take the meeja out the back to be shot after norwegian guy. Teh meeja are just encouraging the next crop of entitled dudes to wreck havoc."

Oh and to the person who said I had unresolved issues.

ON the other "In the News" thread somebody said I had "issues with men"

THis was my reaction:

Bahahaha! No SHIT sherlock. I do indeed have "issues with men", Especially men who massacre 92 innocent teenagers.

FFS is there any hope for women if a woman can be accused by another woman of having "issues with men" when she expresses horror at what men are doing.

Issues with men.
Fucking hell.

DO you NOT have issues with what men are doing to the world? THe rape of 4 year olds? THe daily murder of women and children? The mass-killings

Who is the sane one here? THe person who tries to pretend none of this is happening, or the person who has "issues" with it.

Why are you looking at this through the visor of misogyny though, rather than racism, Sakura? As you have said, this is specifically the act of a white male. He explicitly connects his actions to a political ideology, but you are dismissing this as the key factor, and are instead using this tragic event as a prop to hang your own world view onto- inappropriately and tastelessly, in my view.

We all know that men are more culturally conditioned to violence than women, and there are biological arguments that testosterone is associated with aggression. To extrapolate from this awful event that the root of it is a hatred of women is nevertheless fallacious and illogical, and frankly, I find it just as irritating as the wanker MRA on here who is trying to hang his agenda onto spurious news stories. In fact, your posts are worse, because they are co-opting actual deaths which are recent and painful. To exploit them to further a particular hobby horse is crass and insensitive, in my opinion.

what I'm also beginning to notice a lot is how skewed women's sense of justice is because they're so used to seeing rapists walk free and wife-murderers getting 4 years in prison, or mass murderers getting "the maximum penalty of 21 years in jail plus psychological evaluation"

It can really get to women who start to mistrust their own internal compass that tells them the difference between right and wrong.

Some women have said to me that if I condone the execution of this Norwegian guy I'm "just as bad as him" for condoning murder.

At what point did women start believing that retribution for a heinous crime is THE SAME THING as waking up one morning and deciding to massacre a load of young kids, or deciding to rape a four year old (countless examples of that on google, remember) or deciding to kill your wife (two a week in the uK alone, remember)

At what point did calling an END to the violence by no longer pandering to these men or pandering to the patriarchal courts and media become the SAME THING as committing a mass murder YOURSELF?

In Spain fairly recently a woman murdered the man who raped her 13 year old daughter. Her. 13. year. old. daughter. The fucking rapist-loving police and courts let him out of jail for three days for his birthday or something and he passed the mother on street, sneered at her and said "How's your daughter?" before going into a pub. THe woman followed him a short time later, poured kerosene all over him and lit a match right there in the pub.

She is now been locked up in a psychiatric hospital for "psychological evaluation"

Because, of course, it's not normal at all to want the rapist scum who raped your child, when she was still a child, off the face of the planet.

She's definitely mental

Doesn't she realize the point of jail is to Protect rapists? Silly woman.

You see, to men, any RETRIBUTION on the part of women NOT ALLOWED>

Men must be returned to society, allowed to rape again, to murder again, to be an example to younger men who will follow in their footsteps.

Most rapists only get to jail once they've raped a load of women.

So anyone who tells me I am "just as bad" as that Norwegian guy for saying I don't care about his motivations and think he should be stripped naked in the square and have rotten tomatoes thrown at him needs to DEFINE WHY retribution is JUST AS BAD as the crime itself.

I strongly believe that the current set-up we have, coupled with gratuitous media violence, and culture of masculinity, encourages these men.

But the BIGGEST problem of all is getting women to see that these men are not aberrations. THat massacres are a male "thing"

BitOfFun, "Why are you looking at this through the visor of misogyny though, rather than racism, Sakura"

Because they are always men, always men. (besides the fact this guy didn't target people of another race)

Male violence is part and parcel of a misogynistic culture.

If you want to end male violence, you'll have to end male dominance.

The slavery of women came long long before the slavery of other races and ethnicities.

"I find it just as irritating as the wanker MRA on here who is trying to hang his agenda onto spurious news stories. In fact, your posts are worse, because they are co-opting actual deaths which are recent and painful."

Sorry BoF but I am not following the logic there.

Not wishing to put words into sakura's mouth but I think she is saying that society allows male dominance and violence, that same dominance and violence that has been used to suppress women for centuries. Just because this man chose his cause to be left-wing teenagers, his sense of entitlement and the roots of that comes from a society that has and continues to perpetuate misogyny so basically it is all coming from the same source.

SaF also touched on that with nationalism/patriotism etc. I think it is all tied in.

When I watched this on the news last night they were going for "insanity". Do people really think he is insane? He seemed to have everything very efficiently and coherently worked out to me, manifesto and all. So I for one, Jolene am worried that he will be let off lightly for killing 70 odd people because people will not be able to comprehend that someone who wasn't insane could do something like this.

for me, violence more relates to power than whether you have a vagina or penis.

sometimes it is too much power (DSK), sometimes too little (Breivik escaping into a fantasy world to avoid his own life).

i think the more equality we have between men and women, the more violence will be commited by women.