As we absorb the shock of what happened last week in Oslo and Utoya, we’re also starting to get a clearer picture of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, now in Norwegian police custody. His manifesto, which largely consists of uncited work from a host of other right-wing thinkers, is now available online. 2083: A European Declaration of Independence gives us a picture of a man who is deeply troubled by multi-culturalism, by Islam, by modernity, by feminism, and by what has happened to traditional masculinity.
Breivik’s manifesto features an extended section called “Radical Feminism and Political Correctness,” cribbed uncredited from an American writer named Gerald Atkinson. The section complains “that the ‘man of today’ is expected to be a touchy-feely subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda.” Feminism’s aim, the manifesto continues, is to “emasculate” men, and render them “unwilling to defend traditional beliefs and values.” This rage at women in general, and at progressive feminists in particular, runs through much of the long and unwieldy 1187-page text. It’s a rhetoric familiar to anyone who reads the writing of Men’s Rights Activists.
So are anti-feminists and Men’s Rights Activists directly to blame for the actions of Anders Breivik? Of course not. Most MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic. To suggest otherwise would be an indefensible and tasteless attempt to capitalize on a tragedy. But to pretend that there was no coherent political component to the tragedy would be almost equally indefensible.
There’s no escaping the reality that Breivik has painstakingly sought to ground the rationale for his acts of terror in ideological necessity. Judging by the manifesto he compiled shortly before Friday’s horrific rampage, he saw himself as a white knight standing up not only against liberal values, but against feminism and for an endangered traditional masculinity.
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. 
Those who died at Utoya were not chosen at random. They were killed because of who they were and who they were going to become. Judging by the values of their parents and their party, these martyred young people were radically committed to pluralism, to progress, and to sexual justice. Those were the causes they gathered for on that little island, and those commitments were the reason they died.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As always, we are interested in publishing opposing points of view and particularly in this case when we are taking about such a horrible tragedy. Also, please remember our commenting guidelines, here.
About Hugo Schwyzer
According to the information from Breivik’s hearing, his actions were driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigration positions. His manifesto also focused on “Marxists”, and that is the basis his “antifeminist” position, a position that is specifically against radical feminists. Nowhere in his manifesto does he express a hatred of women or a desire to specifically target or kill women. Nowhere does he ally with any men’s rights group. Schwyzer’s conclusion would be like someone asking whether Mary Kay Letourneau is a feminist because she shares similar views with them regarding sex with boys. It is a stupid, idiotic argument.
Granted, Schwyzer is not a journalist, so he is not bound by any objectivity, intellectual honesty, or basic integrity. Likewise, The Good Men Project Magazine is not a journalistic endeavor. However, it is odd that GMP would allow someone to so grossly misrepresent the facts and use their blog as soapbox to make an ironically bigoted and sexist attack against a group. More ironic is the link to the comments guidelines because Schwyzer violated three of them (“Posting threatening, harassing, defamatory, or libelous material”, “Sweeping generalizations”, and “Ad hominem attacks”) in his article. I doubt GMP would allow anyone expressing open prejudice against any other group to freely post on their site. Even more ironic is that the current the 10 to 10 blog post links to accurate information, so it is not as if any of the editors were unaware of Schwyzer’s gross misrepresentation.
Bitch, please.
Calling this child murderer a “men’s rights activist” does the truth a disservice, and obscures far more important connections between different types of privilege, the absurdities we will believe to justify them, and the atrocities we will commit to defend them. It illustrates the paradox that a defence of unjust privilege ends up destroying holders of that privilege.
Men with concerns about feminism need to take a lesson from this: that objections to feminism do not all arise from a concern for the rights or interests of men. In this case, the anti-feminism Hugo speaks of arises from a desire to oppress other men, not to liberate them. But that means the converse argument, that concerns about feminism arise only from a defence of unjust male privilege, does not make sense either.
Did any of these people criticising this article actually read it?
Firstly the headline is: ‘Anders Breivik, Anti-Feminist MRA?’
Notice the symbol on the end is a question mark (which looks like this ?)
He then concludes that almost all MRA do not condone this mans actions in Norway.
‘So are anti-feminists and Men’s Rights Activists directly to blame for the actions of Anders Breivik? Of course not.’
So there we go! He doesnt generalise MRA as terrorists anymore than someone analyasing the ideology and actions of Osama Bin Laden is generalising or insulting Muslims.
I agree with the conclusion that this Brevik was anti-feminist (amongst other things) and his violence was result of a ultra-conservative reaction against liberal and progressive values. That is probably how Brevik would even view his own actions. This attack wasnt speficially anti-feminist, but it was anti-progressive (which would include feminism).
I disagree. I don’t think that feminism is progressive. It used to be and that’s why I looked at it first. Most feminists today claim that they fight for gender equality because what they actually do like empowering women or fighting for and protecting women’s rights are too easily correctly recognized as sexist. What rights other than the right to be killed do men have, which women don’t? The legal changes that they seek often times advantage women over men.
I don’t think you read the manifesto. It is much deeper/complex/confused than simply anti-Muslim and anti-immigration positions. His rants about Marxists are irrational in places and logical in others, making it all very confusing with underlying complex factors. He calls things “Marxist” that are not “Marxist.”
The article is very good and gives a realistic discussion on a seriously troubled individual.
I don’t believe Breivik is an MRA. He didn’t think that far. From my reading of his manifesto, his focus is on putting women down, not on men standing up for themselves. He may not express hate towards women, but he does not respect them. I feel the manifesto in many places reflects a clear misogynistic attitude. He first shot pretty girls on the island before he shot boys. He does not like or respect women.
The article says that he is “deeply troubled … by what has happened to traditional masculinity.” Yet he seems the “Metro Man” with his attention to his appearance, to the point of putting makeup on before heading out to kill unarmed youth.
He IS deeply troubled. I got the impression that what appealed to him in a patriarchal society is control, not moral and philosophical fine points about relationships between sexes.
So you blame the men’s rights activism for this atrocity. Why not? At least you are consistent.
Everything feminists do these days is based on smear campaigns anyway because feminism no longer has any legitimate substantive arguments to justify the obvious misandry and double standards inherent in this sexist movement.
You sound like Brevik, Jim.
By the way, the very name of this web site is offensive. “The Good Men Project” implies that it takes a project to find good men or help men to be good. That is an assumption shared only by the self-hating men and misandrists that dominate modern feminism.
Maybe you could make an honest living instead of profiting from attacking your own gender?
Jim, switch the word “gender” to “race” and see what it sounds like.
Michael Rowe said:
“Jim, switch the word “gender” to “race” and see what it sounds like.”
My response:
OK let’s try that exercise. Let’s also replace the word “men” with blacks, for consistency:
“By the way, the very name of this web site is offensive. “The Good Blacks Project” implies that it takes a project to find good blacks or help blacks to be good. That is an assumption shared only by the self-hating blacks and racists that dominate modern [name any equivalent movement to the hate-filled agenda of feminism].
Maybe you could make an honest living instead of profiting from attacking your own race?
Good Lorde, you screwed up your own analogy! LMFAO
If you were to use gender and as you’re accusing Hugo of attacking HIS OWN GENDER, then the name would be The Good WHITES Project.
HELLO!
Which in my own totally biased Western white cis privileged opinion would be a GREAT idea, too
Thanks, Hugo.
I’ve yet to see a cogent argument against mens rights, so far all the feminist anti-mens rights arguements have consisted of little but slander and strawmen.
If Breivik were primarily anti-Muslim, he’d have targeted a mosque. He targeted a youth camp filled with non-Muslim young progressive members of a party that is legendary for its role in fighting for feminism. (FIrst party in Europe to call for gender quotas, etc.)
Yes but did he target it specifically because of its ties to feminism?
The logic that he cannot be primarily anti-muslim because he did not target a mosque is ridiculous.
If Iraqi insurgents target other Iraqis does that make them primarily anti-Iraqi? Or is it perhaps possible that groups who are not the best at determining the causes of their own problems are also not the best at determining the appropriate outlets for their anger?
Furthermore, assuming that the Labor Party was targetted for it’s feminism is also silly. It’s fairly obvious that there are many reasons why an anti-Marxist might have it in for a Labor Party. It’s also fairly obvious why someone who is anti-Muslim and against multiculturalism might target the party of Jonas Gahr Støre.
What is not fairly obvious is why a certain professor trying to avoid a “tasteless attempt to capitalize on a tragedy” seems nonetheless determined to do just that.
Schwyzer, from the LA Times (ht tp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-norway-suspect-20110726,0,62256.story):
There are several articles reporting the same thing. The only people claiming this was an attack on feminists and women are bargain bin feminists. Even the guy who did it is not mentioning anything about attacking feminists or women. If anyone knows why this happened, it is the guy who did it, and he says he did it because he does not want more Muslims in Norway.
I honestly do not understand why you are trying to make a horrific act of anti-Muslim terrorism about feminists. Is killing 76 people in an attempt to scare Muslim immigrants not bad enough for you?
On second thought, I think I do understand why you are trying hijack a tragedy. Perhaps you are just trying to see how outrageous you can be.
Two words. Eternal Victimhood.
Hugo, please stop before you’re embarassing yourself further.
The labor party and its youth organization have many muslim members and several of them were injured and killed as well on Utøya.
Your insistense on making this primarily about feminism is just as disgusting and self-serving as your country-man Glenn Beck who compared the labour party youth camp with hitler jugend (who has a summer camp about politics for kids? he asked).
Breivik believes that the ruling party (the major party in a coalition) bears the responsibility for failing to secure Norway’s borders and stop the influx of muslims.
Others: Please do not downvote Mr. Schwyzer’s comments – let the idiocy be visible and rather refute him with a good source comment like that of Jacobtk.
Seriously, there is no point in talking to MRAs – I think they are unable to see anything outside of their own tiny terms of reference. The author pointed out that the murderer had anti-feminist views and that he endorsed widely held MRA beliefs. Nowhere did he say he acted on behalf of MRAs.
MRAs are angry, small and fanatical. They don’t listen to anything outside of their claustraphobic world, caused by “feminists” and “cultural Marxists”.
My offense stems not from the fact that mr. Schwyzer compared a tiny portion (about 1.5%) of Breivik’s manifest with views held by MRA.
What I do object to is that Schwyzer posits this anti-woman view of Breivik’s as Breivik’s main motive for the terrorist attacks and thus is trying shamelessly and callously to appropriate this tragedy for his own pet casue – raealities be damned. When challenged by the fact that almost all of Breivik’s manifest is dedicated to anti-muslim sentiments (to put it mildly) and that mr. Breivik himself have stated that he did this action to protect Europe from being overtaken by Islamists then Hugo had the audacity to say that that isn’t true, that he would in that case have attacked an muslim Mosque andt not a youth camp filled with non-muslim progressive members. Conveniently ignorant/ignoring that there were plenty of muslim youth on that camp since being a muslim does not disqualify one from being a member of a political party in Norway.
This cherry-picking and distortion are shamefull and offensive and a betrayal of all muslim who are directly victims of this attrocity, but also for those who are victims of the general anti-muslim sentiment from which Breivik’s found his cause.
If one’s goal was to curtail the internal drive to allow people from other religions and cultures to enter one’s country, it would actually make sense to target the very people who would one day have a hand in shaping that country’s internal policies. I’m not defending Breivik’s actions, but it seems that he went straight to the multicultural power source on this one.
So, again, it is telling that only 23 pages of Breivik’s manifesto were dedicated to discussing feminism while the large buk of the work focused on Islam.
Hugo, that’s because he thinks they are traitors. During the Nazi occupation of Poland, the partisans blew up Polish restaurants and movie theaters that would serve Nazi soldiers, they killed Polish women who would date Nazi soldiers, assassinated police officers who collaborated and likewise informants who took money to turn over Jews. Similar things are happening today in Iraq, with Iraqi nationalists assassinating Iraqi citizens who cooperate with American forces as well as setting off bombs in marketplaces where recruitment for the Iraqi police takes place.
So yes, clearly, a right-wing paramilitary extremist who thinks that Muslims are waging Jihad against his Christian religion is not going to have a problem slaughtering those who he sees as traitors to his cause. That is exactly what they would do. It’s really odd that you would actually think that it makes more sense to turn thousands of pages of anti-Muslim manifesto on its head and claim that this is really about feminism. If I were Muslim instead of atheist, I’d probably want to slap you right now. I have a lot of Muslim friends, some of them women, and I will be sure to encourage them to read your article and see what they think of your views.
Here’s another thought… since Dominique Strauss-Khan was the leading member of the French Socialist Party, which is supported by feminists, does that mean that make his rape accuser an anti-feminist agitator?
MRAs posts and comments on right-wing and racists blogs/forums, because many of them are racists, and in return posters from racist blog/forums read MRAs blogs/forums, therefore it’s logical that Anders Breivik was aware of their ideas and agreed with them.
Schwyzer–
Even if Breivik’s motive was primarily anti-feminist, that would not per se invalidate all objections to what radical feminists have in fact pushed for and gotten – namely laws which lean so heavily in favor of women that they are manifestly unfair to men.
However opposition to what radical feminism has wrought for men in the West was a tiny 23 page part of his 1500+ page manifesto. It fits in with his general opposition to cultural Marxism, which about all on the right share, though most don’t use that term.
His motivation was restricting or eliminating mass Muslim immigration into Norway, and Europe more generally. His motivation was also opposition to multiculturalism, i.e. the leftist crusade that host countries if they’re (for now) majority white (but not e.g. Japan, China or Korea) are morally obligated to encourage those who wish to and have immigrated, to fully retain the culture of the land they’ve left rather than assimilating to any large degree. Assimilating to a considerable degree (but rarely totally, except sometimes in the case of Germans and Scandinavians) used to be e.g. the American quid pro quo for allowing already fairly similar culture European immigration from countries other than the UK, Ireland and Germany.
That of course is very close to what you’re trying to do. No, you’re not saying all opponents of radical feminism advocate mass murder, but you are saying the ideas are somehow inherently more violence prone than say Marxism. Which is nonsense. A far higher percentage of anarchists and Marxists advocate violence in furtherance of their wished for social revolutions than do anti-feminists. I’ve never seen a MRA advocate murder or violence of any kind, much less mass murder.
This is utterly pig headed and idiotic. His target was the present and future leftist and far leftist political leadership in Norway. The building he bombed was where the Prime Minister and many of the labor party leadership had their offices.
It’s too bad he wasn’t smart enough to realize that he created young martyrs. There is a girl recovering in the hospital right now from a hollow-point bullet wound. Assuming her spirit isn’t crushed (she had the support of her protecting boyfriend) she will become a powerful political force for good in the years to come.
Maybe Breivek didn’t target the people he did specifically for anti-feminist reasons, but it is obvious that he pines for a society where white men have most if not all of the decision-making power, a feminist and “good men” ideal.
And in a broader sense, since most violent acts other than sexual violence are perpetrated by men against men, I think it’s more than prudent to examine Breivek’s thoughts on masculinity and manhood.
I meant to say the OPPOSITE a feminist/good men ideal.
Exactly, Brandon.
This article…written by the same guy who knowingly participated in paternity fraud….
Really?
You’re credit is already ruined, Hugo.
So so far today I’ve seen an article describing Breivik as a “Dominionist” and this one describing him as an “MRA”. It seems to me that everybody even slightly left-of-center out to saddle Breivik with their own particular Breivik. The thing is, I know what specific terms like “Dominionist” and “MRA” actually mean, and Breivik was very much not the former (he specifically rejected theocratic fundamentalism) and really not much of the latter, either, even if he does borrow on some anti-feminist arguments. Breivik was very much part of what can be broadly called the European New Right, and if one looks around at the ideas of the English Defense League, the BNP, Geert Wilders, Alain de Benoist, and that whole milieu, one will see a lot of touchstones with Breivik’s ideas. (Albeit, Breivik’s pro-Israel views would put him quite out of place with the BNP, though not with Wilders.) Americans, unfortunately, will try and frame everything about this in terms of American political battles, as they are prone to do, rather than look at the specifically European context he came out of.
“. It seems to me that everybody even slightly left-of-center out to saddle Breivik with their own particular Breivik.”
Their own particular bete-noir, I meant to say. Although, in a sense, that does amount to “their own particular Breivik”.
Any credibility that the GMP had,
has died with this biased article.
RIP. GMP.
Transparent association fallacy, Hugo. Not surprising though since your arguments are always a weak house of cards and you fall back on garbage like moral relativism.
Are we to say that all feminists are one and the same as Valerie Solanas, the SCUM manifesto author who shot Andy Warhol? Funny thing about that is how feminist of the day actually defended her actions.
Are we to say because Hitler like iced cream that anyone who likes ice cream is a nazi?
No I think not. Why is this man still allowed to create articles on a website that is supposed to be for “good” men after he has proven time and time again that he is not a good man. What kind of good man colludes to cuckold another man?
Wow.
It’s quite telling when Fox news does a better job of covering such a tragic story.
Below is a link to the Guardian – showing both sensitivity and intelligence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/norway-massacres-national-tragedy
While the shooter’s views were most certainly sexist and anti-feminist, it is firstly intellectually dishonest to tie him in with the MRAs (which I am not a fan of). Just because they share the same views does not mean that the actions are endorsed by MRAs, as annoying and misled as MRAs might be.
Secondly, I do wonder what the author’s purpose for writing this might have been, other than creating a bigger divide between the MRAs and feminist communities. Sometimes, silence is golden — and instead of finding viable solutions through legislative means to further gender equality and ending women’s plights, the author’s chosen to part take in the echo chamber, thereby only creating nods and claps of agreement from the far left and vitriolic responses from the far right.
In short, the author, as well as those following his footsteps, need to get off blogs, put down the protest signs, and actually start contributing to changing a culture that, too often, devalues women, and has men in a gender straightjacket.
As a feminist, I don’t need a lecture on how bad women have it, or how men’s ability to be fully-functional human beings is being thawrted. What I am interested in are real and viable solutions, none of which this piece, as well as the many activities of the far-left, provides.
What bothers me is that Hugo is not alone in this “You what Breivik has in common with MRAs” type posts/articles. I’ve similar stuff at Manboobz and at Shakesville. Not surprising but still dissappointing.
Those folks could have put their energy to a hella better use instead of wasting on demonizing MRAs once again (but watch for these same feminists to cry foul the next time MRAs dig at them, which Manboobz is pretty known for). They could have very easily just written posts about his anti-feminism and called him on it without making the “you know they remind me a lot of MRAs” jab.
I normally don’t go for victim blaming but the next time I cross paths with MRAs that are ragging on feminism unfairly I’m just going to remember this post and figure that they brought it on themselves.
Seriously, Hugo? Taking advantage of a tragedy of this magnitude just to get a cheap shot out at your enemies?
I’m a liberal, and a feminist, and stuff you’ve written in the past really spoke to me, but… you’re now just courting controversy for controversy’s sake. In other words, you’re becoming a jerk, and I can’t bring myself to follow your blog any more. Sorry, and goodbye.
The Utoya camp was a kind political indoctrination camp for the children of the ruling party. IOW, he lamed the next generation of the party which has done, in his view, so much damage.
Consider, if he’d kiled a bunch of Muslims, the ruling party would let in more, and continue to demonize those who spoke about Muslim rapes of Norewegian women and the dole. If he cripples the next generation’s numbers, the long term impact is greater. For all you feminists-when-convenient, Norway is where one female professor said Norwegian women are going to have to dress and act differently so as to avoid inflaming Muslim men.
Consider. Norway is not a very large country in terms of population. Sixty, say, young people from the families leading the ruling party is a HUGE hit to a very small subset of the population.
They were there practicing ways to break the Gaza blockade to allow more weapons to the terrorists. It was not a matter of canoeing and first-aid practice and it had a particular, extreme, narrow political view.
He could expect, were he rational and in one sense he was, that these kids would be greased into labor politics, labor journalism, labor law, labor academia. No more.
From the point of view of resistance tactics and strategy, it was an effective hit. Problem is, it was also mass murder. Sometimes we excuse that. Blowing up Quisling’s staff meeting would also have been mass murder. Not a problem for the rest of us. This…. No excuse.
To forestall those who would deliberately obfuscate the issue, there is a difference between pointing out the effectiveness of a tactic and approving of it.
Why wasn’t Chrystal Mangum charged with a crime when she falsely accused several Duke lacrosse players of rape? Could it be because feminists didn’t want to admit that her claim was false. She went on to kill a man. Is his death the responsibility of feminism? How about “Desiree Hall, President of Brevard County (Florida) chapter of the National Organization for Women,” charged with filing a false rape claim? There was no political motivation for that? She was president of the chapter.
http://www.singlemind.net/?m=200603&paged=9
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2005/04/activists_expos.html
Those that want to advance a just political cause should be the loudest in condemning allies that commit criminal acts to advance the same cause. Criminal acts to advance a political cause imply that the cause, it’s leaders, and it’s means and ends are criminal. That is why those that oppose illegal immigration, unjust legal immigration, and feminism should be the most adamant in condemning Breivik and his Machiavellian means and ends.
it seems this article wants to link MRAs to the mass killer and the massacare thereby generatng a negative image for MRAs