A Dose of (Capitalizing on a Tragedy) Stupid

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Feminists hijack the tragedies in Oslo and Utoya to claim they were really attacks on women

No, I am not making that up. Feminists actually are claiming that Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 people not because of his anti-Muslim positions, which he claimed was his motivation, but because of 23 pages of Breivik’s 1500 page (that is not a typo) manifesto criticized radical feminism.

No, I am not making that up. Feminists actually are ignoring 98.5% of Breivik’s manifesto that railed against Muslims and multiculturalism in order to claim that he specifically targeted the Youth Camp because it was associated with the Labor Party, a party that supports feminist policies.

No, I am not making that up. Feminists actually are claiming that Breivik specifically targeted beautiful women.

And I am not making up that feminists are trying to connect men’s rights activists to Breivik’s actions. Some tried with thinly-veiled diatribes while others mirrored Breivik’s inane ramblings in an effort to trash men’s groups.

Nevermind that many news reports show that Breivik was motivated by anti-Islamic and anti-immigration sentiments. Nevermind that at his hearing Breivik tried to, and was prevented from, using the hearing as soapbox to air more of his anti-Muslim views. Nevermind that he also claimed there are two more cells in his organization. Nevermind that Europe has a history of anti-Islamic sentiments.

It takes a particularly disgusting person to use this kind of tragic act of terrorism to attack a rival political group. It was inhuman and perverse when the conservatives did it with 9/11, depraved when liberals did it with Abu Ghraib, and just plain evil for feminists to do it with this tragedy.

Actual people died.

Just because some asshat thinks Muslims are taking over his country.

Some of the people he murdered may have been Muslims. Many of them were boys and men. To hijack this tragedy, claim that it was about killing women and feminists, and turn it into some misandrist screed against men’s groups is outrageous. Those murdered people and their families deserve better than this.

24 thoughts on “A Dose of (Capitalizing on a Tragedy) Stupid

  1. Toysoldier, here is the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the post of mine you link to:

    Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed more than 90 people in attacks on Friday, was motivated by a toxic mélange of far-right ideology largely revolving around his intense hatred of Islam.

    How exactly am I ignoring his hatred of Muslims. I mention it in the FIRST SENTENCE and say that his ideology “largely revolves” around that, not around his antifeminism.

    But it is unquestionable that he was ALSO an antifeminist, and that a lot of his antifeminist and misogynistic views are rather common among MRAs and in the “manosphere.” That’s what my piece pointed out.

  2. I freely admit to detesting Hugo’s ideology and his expression of it but I’m almost feeling some pity for him here. Silly, silly article.

    Then again, something to obscure the noise surrounding his cuckoldry may be useful to him.

  3. Of course, make up some excuse to further your political agenda. What brilliance! All you have to do is cherry pick evidence that supports your claim while ignoring all the other evidence that points to other causes and you’re golden.

    What’s next, politicians blaming school shootings on violent video games? Oh, wait…

  4. David, you did not focus on his anti-Muslim views. You did not acknowledge that much of his rant against feminism stems from his attempt to link feminism to Marxism, which he apparently believes is destroying his country. Instead, you spent the entire post trying to scapegoat men’s rights activists for Breivik’s actions. To this point, you did not even link to similar posts or articles by men’s rights activists to show that their views are the same as Breivik’s. You just made the claim and fell back on guilt by association.

    The problem with this tactic is that it is not only dishonest and scuzzy, but you failed to prove your point. Link to a prominent men’s rights blog that advocates for “significant restrictions in media freedoms and rights [for women that] will result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,2-0,3 points.” That would prove that men’s groups harbor misogynistic views. Thinking that it is wrong to rape boys or that fathers get screwed in family courts or that many women make false allegations or that feminism is a misandrist movement does not.

    The issue about antifeminism ignores a basic point: no one has an obligation to support feminism. You must demonstrate that both Breivik’s and men’s groups’ criticism of feminism are unfounded and wrong. Otherwise you are attempting to connect men’s groups with Breivik. That is a rather evil thing to do, although it is easy to do because plenty of groups share ideas with violent extremists. For example, Islamic terrorists are anti-Christian, and a lot of their anti-Christian views are rather common among feminists and in the “femosphere.” That does not mean there is any connection between feminists and terrorists.

  5. David, you’re beneath contempt, on the same level of Fox News.

    Your headline:

    “Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto reveals him to be a rabid antifeminist with views strikingly similar to many MRAs”

    Oh wow so he killed those people because he was fighting against feminism right?

    Wait, no…he didn’t.

  6. Excellent post TS, but I must arrest you on a minor point. Breivik did in fact especially target the youth camp because it was affiliated with the Labour Party – it was a camp for members of the Labour Party youth – Labour Youth Organization (AUF). It was to in his word discourage future recruitment to the Labour Party as punishment for betraying Norway and Europe and allowing and abetting multiclturalism to flourish in Norway/Europe according to him. The labour party have supported some feminists policies and not some others, but they’re not in any way the most feminist party in Norway. For instance it was the conservative party who introduced quotas for female board members for publicly listed companies. The Socialist Left Party (SV) is considered to be the more of a feminist party in Norway and they’re in fact in government as a member of a coalition with Labour Party and the Center Party.

    Of the names released so far there are 14 women and 16 men. It proves nothing so far, but may indicate that he didn’t specifically target beautiful women. The oldest and one of the first victim according to recent reports was an 51 year old off-duty policeman who volunteered to be a camp-guard (mostly to assure order among the participants) during the camp. 1 victim of those were from Kosovo, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Somalia, 1 from Georgia (the country for you USians) and 1 from Iraq.

    David: You also go on to say:

    And it’s also filled with denunciations of feminism…

    Perhaps it’s just me, but I think filled with strongly implies much more than 1.5%.

    Otherwise I have to say that as a Norwegian I found your and others (like mr. Schwyzer’s) zealousness to appropriate this tragedy to the benefit of your own agenda distasteful. Cherry-picking from his manifest and downplaying what he himself has claimed is the real and direct reasons for the attrocities he inflicted.

    Here the general consensus is that this was an attack on democracy and our open society and no-one has publicly tried to appropriate this tragedy like american feminists have.

    Hugo Schwyzer said in a comment when it was pointed out that Breivik was anti-muslim and targetting multi-culturalism:

    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.

    1. There were plenty of muslim youth on Utøya. Norway is not as homogenic as you americans think.
    2. The Labour Party is not legendary for it’s feminism in Norway. It’s legendary for many reasons, most for it’s political dominance for the major part of the post-war (II) years up to the eighties. I can on some level understand how people from a country where the close encounter with the possibility of a female president drove so many on both sides batshit insane would consider the Labour Party who had a female prime minister in 1981 legendary in feminist policies… Here it is normal and normal is not legendary.

  7. @Toysoldier

    In fairness to David(manboobz) calling him evil is hyperbole. Breivik deserves the title of evil and then some. David is just a shithead* for linking ALL mra’s to that guy. Pathetic yes, evil not so much.

    * No direct insults – TS

  8. Funny how people get all wound up about the motivations of others that cannot be truly known. Let’s see . . . he did something bad, and he spoke/wrote in a non-supportive way regarding feminists . . . ah, I know – he is a misogynist and he killed 70+ males to express his misogyny.

    Feminists now speak in the most pejorative terms about men, using generalizations that would be roundly condemned if ANY other identifiable groups were so vilified. But they forget, or they do not realize, that they do so under the protection of some men and with the forbearance of other men. This is because they have also forgotten what the most dangerous animal on the face of the planet is . . . a fully enraged, adult male human who perceives that he no longer has anything of value to lose.

  9. If feminists really want to argue this way, perhaps we should oblige them.

    1.Former Pres. Bill Clinton was (and as far as I know, still is) pro-choice on abortion.
    2.Feminists are pro-choice; indeed, they frequently regard it as one of the most fundamental feminist issues.
    3. According to Futrelle and Schwyzer, if a person occasionally expresses at least partial agreement with a political movement on an issue that many people in that movement considers important, that is enough to tie the person due to that movement, and by association tie any crimes they commit to it as well.
    4.During his eight years in office, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died of disease, malnutrition, etc. caused at least in part by UN sanctions on Iraq that Clinton supported and, in his position as the commander-in-chief of the American military, helped to enforce.
    5.Therefore, a feminist killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi noncombatants, and those deaths can be laid at the feet of feminism a a whole.

    If you’d prefer something a little more recent, we could also delve into the disapproval of former President George W. Bush and many supporters of his foreign policy for the way women are treated in many Muslim countries and lay all war-related deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan since late 2001 at feminists’ feet, too. I think that would be an incredibly dishonest and sleazy way to argue, but Futrelle and Schwyzer don’t.

  10. I wish I could be surprised that David is using murdered children as a vehicle to promote his agenda. However….Im really not. Thanks David, for being consistent.

  11. David Futrelle what you did was terrible. You cherry picked that man’s thoughts and actions and tried to make feminism out to be the victim and then take a jab at MRAs. I thought you were made of sterner stuff.

  12. My government, confronting a unionised workforce, is is trying to get the trains to run on time. Surely they are akin to Mussolini. When the Democrats blow the budget we must blame the Republicans. Both parties put out pamphlets after all.

    What a ludicrous argument these people are running.

    What I find most offensive is Hugo’s implication that if I express similar beliefs to HIM then I’m just like he is. Yuck!

  13. I have to disagree with Tasha concerning David Futrelle’s exploitation of the horror in Norway. He’s not really “using murdered children to promote his agenda.” David and other pro-maternal child abuse feminist sympathizers* cannot exploit “murdered children” because they will be confronted with the fact that American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. Because of the radfem silence regarding Matriarchal Oppression there has been a 25% increase in maternal child abuse and murder since 1985. This is according to the Center for Disease Control, American Psychiatric Foundation and every other non-feminist group that takes child murder seriously. Obsfucate THAT Mr. Futrelle.

    * no direct insults – TS

  14. TS: Feminists do not speak out against child abuse and often provide legal services for maternal offenders. To me this is tacit approval. Remember, in guyville we have a saying, “evil prevails when good men do nothing.” When is the last time you heard a feminist condemn matriarchal oppression, let alone create laws to punish it? Given the “all men are potential rapists” level of feminist insults I think you’re being a tad sensitive on this one. I would still like to hear Mr. Furtelle’s defense of feminist (and his own) silence and denial regarding matriarchal oppression and murder. Those statistics won’t change until they do. We need to enact a more well defined and succinct version of Caylee’s Law. Just a hunch, but I’ll bet Mr. Furtelle and his feminist cohorts don’t see the need for a new law clearly defining Pathological Malnurturing.

  15. Feminists do not speak out against child abuse and often provide legal services for maternal offenders. To me this is tacit approval.

    I think it is just classic indifference because speaking out against female perpetrated child abuse does not forward any particular feminist position.

    I would still like to hear Mr. Furtelle’s defense of feminist (and his own) silence and denial regarding matriarchal oppression and murder.

    I doubt he will. David’s primary concerns is refuting “manboobz”, not addressing any sort of female violence.

  16. The best way to deal with Futrelle is ignore him. Deal with his lies, distortions and accusations but never name him as the source. His is the business of attention whoredom so deprive him of it. Don’t waste valuable space on things like him. Deal with the media. Deal with the TV companies spitting out anti male hatred. Deal with rogue prosecutors hounding innocent men. Deal with knee jerking police. Deal with the music industry. Deal with our young men. Through all of this, and more, make the public your audience because, in the end, that is who we have to convince in order to grow. Talk to the people about why feminism is a bad idea. MRA’s already know this stuff.

  17. The best way to deal with Futrelle or any feminist is to directly confront them with American women’s despicable rate of child murder and ask them how they plan to stop the growing trend. Ignoring Futrelle and his ilk will only make this festering problem worse. We still haven’t heard from Mr. Futrelle as to how he and the radfems plan to stop the growing incidence of American Maternal Oppression and Murder. You would think they’d be on it like a pubic hair on a Coke, but no Senate Hearings for child murderers. This is the main reason we need a White House Council on Men & Boys.

  18. We see this all the time: ideologues using tragedies to advance a group identity agenda, and mostly, to malign a group they don’t like. Deranged people are deranged people, and to suggest that their violence is the product of a non-violent ideology or movement the deranged person affilates himself with is the wildest of speculation, conjecture, and surmise. It is not the conclusion of a serious person.

    But the uber-left did this with the Tucson shootings — remember all the talk about civility and conservative talk radio?

    In a related context, several years ago, a Pennsylvania man targeted women in a grisly fitness club shooting. A writer on a Pittsburgh Post Gazette blog summed up the reaction: “. . . the reaction from some corners of the web, and at least from several sections of the city, seemed to me tantamount to suggesting that George Sodini’s rampage would have been more palatable, or at least somehow less objectionable, if he’d just stopped to shoot a couple of men too. That notion is as perverse as it is disgusting, as spiritually bankrupt as it is morally reprehensible. It is also, to be fair, something of a rhetorical stretch — but one all-too-easily made when blog post after op-ed piece after candlelight vigil suggests that the most truly scary and heinous part of the tragedy, and so the great lesson we must glean from it, is that only women were victimized.”

    That writer contrasted the reaction to THAT killing with the reaction to a different killing spree — one where there was no such politicized reaction(the victims targeted in the second case were white men and the killer was a black man).


    It was correct to NOT play politics with the second killing; it was wrong to do it for the first killing.

  19. Pingback: Top posts of 2011 | Toy Soldiers

  20. Pingback: A Dose of Stupid v.74 | Toy Soldiers

  21. Pingback: A Dose of Stupid v94 | Toy Soldiers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s