Since the capture of Anders Behring Breivik, the Oslo terrorist and murderer, at least two critical issues have emerged. The first is his sanity, or lack thereof. The second is that Breivik's assaults may have been ideologically motivated. According to Breivik's logic, the murder of 76 people was necessary to challenge the Muslim takeover of the West. It was also an act directed at some of the people who, in his mind, were making the conquest possible: liberals or, more specifically, the Labor Party.
But as important as these issues may be for determining his status as a terrorist, there is another important point to consider about the ruthlessness of his intents and actions. Breivik, like the vast majority of terrorists in the world, was a male.
On the surface of things, this may be a rather obvious and seemingly trite point to make given the horrific nature of his actions. For most analysts, what matters is that he's a fundamentalist Christian, a terrorist, a racist, a murderer and possibly insane.
But in his own mind, Breivik is also a patriot. He is a man committed to the defense of his nation from the external threat of the "Other" -- in this case, the Muslim other. According to Breivik, Norway, and the West more generally, are locked in a struggle with two possible outcomes: a West dominated by Islam or free of its presence.
Sound familiar? It is. Much like bin Laden and his associates, the ideas and visions circulating in Breivik's mind closely resemble the cosmic battle imagined in the minds of al Qaeda fighters: the fear, the external threat, the internal traitors, the violent resistance, the utopian future. Breivik, like bin Laden, is nothing short of the archetypal extremist whose ghastly deeds reveal the malevolence of passion when mixed with fear and hate.
But Breivik, like bin Laden and a long list of others, is a man. And like the many men before him guilty of pitiless crimes against humanity, he acted in a way that begs us to consider the relationship between such violence and his notions of manhood.
Why, in other words, do some men seem to find violence as a reasonable course of action when dealing with a perceived threat?
Part of the answer, we believe, has to do with something much larger than Breivik's sound or unsound mind -- gender. Men like Breivik all imagine their communities as uniquely feminine. This idea is effectively communicated through the language of their struggle. Breivik, for example, claimed to be defending the "honor" of the West and, in his manifesto, regularly refers to the "penetration" of Muslim armies throughout history and the "rape" of Europe.
These men also believe that, in defending some imagined "sacred community," they are also defending manhood. Most of us think of communities as something like the family. We think of the people at the local and national levels as our brothers and sisters of sorts -- people with whom we share duties and obligations. Beyond our borders, however, are the outsiders -- the other families. In this sense Breivik is much like the rest of us: a modern-day tribalist.
Where Breivik and others stop being like us is how they think about the tribe. Breivik believes the west exists as an essentially pure and vulnerable tribe. An important aspect of Breivik's actions lies in the fact that he believes the pure feminine family of the West needs protection by the warrior men of which he is a part.
A quick glance at Breivik's 1,500 page manifesto reveals explicit antipathy for "feminism" and its role in the Islamization of Europe. He refers to the "Knights," who will lead the revolution fighting "bravely" as men defending their civilization. The manifesto is all about a macho world waging war on "feminism" and "Muslims" at one and the same time.
Of course, this is not to say that women have refrained from the glory of human cruelty. But there is something peculiar about the fact that it is mostly men who commit the extreme violence of terrorism. For reasons rarely considered by analysts, men like Breivik seem to feel a great sense of urgency to act violently in the name of their people -- imagined or real -- and defend its honor and purity.
Thinking about Breivik and others like him, we might do well to think more about their manhood as much as their ideologies since, more often than not, the two seem to go hand-in-hand in the play of their madness.
Follow Asma Uddin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/altmuslimah
Norway Terror Accused Breivik on Israel and 'the Jewish Question ...
Breivik's Religion | Unreasonable Faith
Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Norway shooting: long process of identifying Anders Breivik's ...
Norway Shooting Suspect Anders Breivik: Attacks Were Revenge for ...
The value and role of gender is for the individual to decide, not for some "more pious than though art" forum-goer to force upon them. If you find particular traits attractive, then fine, go ahead and find someone who shares a corresponding attraction. But you have no right to dictate your definition of genders and gender roles on others (or to discriminate based upon this definition).
First off, there are female terrorists...there always have been.
Secondly, the reason that they are predominately male is pretty simple. Males are both biologically and culturally programmed to feel responsible for the protection of their families, tribes, and nations. Terrorists don't see themselves as murderers. They (in their misguided way) see themselves as warriors. Warriors who are defending their tribes/communities from a percieved outside threat. Males are going to (more likely) see standing up to that percieved threat as a personal responsibility.
That is how you get terrorist violence.
But that is also how you get invasions of Iraq.
The irony is that---behind the scenes---women are often just as instrumental as men in propogating the mythology of victimhood and threat that motivates terrorists to violence...and glorify its perpetrators.
Or have you forgotten one of bin Laden's wives' determination to "martyr" herself when SEAL team 6 showed up that night in Pakistan.
Since all religions allow one to live half in fantasy...... when said person becomes extreme in their thoughts it allows them to go to any level real or imagined to commit acts beyond the scope of rational human behavior..
Add to that, that more than religion provides a fantasy. Stalin, an atheist, found his fantasy in the sanctity of a "vanguard party", which, although intended to protect the downtrodden masses, somehow convinced him he ought to kill tens of millions of people.
I'm an atheist too, but the point is that anytime someone becomes more overly concerned with the name and the ends instead of the cause and the means, fantasy is likely to rear its head.
Though understandable as firmly rooted in the biological process of bearing and breastfeeding infants, the dominance of the mother's role in raising children is deeply problematical for boys when the inevitable process of separation occurs.
Girls readily identify with their mothers, again rooted in biology, with the onset of menstruation, therefore do not feel nearly as compelled to separate from them as boys do. Catalyzed by the testosterone factor, boys feel powerfully compelled to engage in activities their mothers would never participate in or approve of.
Until very recently, the vast majority of fathers provide only a small fraction of the care giving human children require, which unfortunately contributes to their sons irrational compulsion to engage in activities their mothers would never sanction, the most destructive of which involves taking life-threatening risks and, tragically, killing others.
Defusing this powerful psychological dynamic is one of the most important byproducts of fathers assuming a much greater portion of the primary care responsibilities their children require. Another is making it much more possible for women to assume leadership roles in society.
Can our species adapt rapidly enough to the urgent need of fathers assuming much more responsibility for primary child care? Wider discussion of these issues is long overdue. Kudos for broaching this much neglected topic.
Virtually every single woman, in virtually every single conversation about gender. In my experience.
As for violence: Women are generally less outwardly active, and less prone to dangerous behavior. Jobs with high risk of confrontation or physical injury are much less popular among women. The same applies to hobbies, sports, and virtually everything else. That includes religious fanaticism; you'll find female religious fanatics that adhere to violence, but they're more likely to be on the "support staff", than on the "front line".
In a blow for gender equality, though, more and more Islamic suicide bombers are female. Who would've thought the Islamists would be in the feminist forefront?
I assume the assault weapons carried by women serving in the Israeli military aren't merely fashion accessories.
Well, one of the authors of this piece. And if you're a woman, you; as proven by you even asking this question.
But there is gold in the comparison between bin Laden and Breivik.
Culture is nearest and dearest to both their hearts. Bin Laden saw liberal democracy invading the Islamic heartland--not just carried by soldiers, but by communications and trade. He knew that traditional Islamic societies would disappear if this trend continued--especially Western ideas about women's rights--so he had to turn Muslims against the West.
Breivik clearly has read the tea leaves--birth rate comparisons between native Europeans and Muslim immigrants, for starters--and came to the same conclusion as bin Laden.
1. Most violent acts are done by males becuase males are inherently more violent themselves.
2. Violent men have an apparent unconsious fear of femininity, and therefore are more violent to proove their "manliness".
3. Manliness (as they percieve it) is tied too closely to ideology, and this is perhaps a bad thing.
Here is my take:
1. It's obvious that more violence is commited by men, but so is most charity, and healing. The explains why the overwelming majority of doctors are (and probably will continue to be) male. Most works of art, buildings are built by, and symphonies are created by men also.
More violent acts could be attributed to (and I don't mean to sound sexist) men being more prone to action than women.
2. Im inclined to agree, but I'm not sure this is relative to terrorism.
3. This could be good or bad. I know guys who consider it more manly to help others. Trying your idelism to your sense of masculinity isn't always a bad thing.
The implication of this article is to tie terrorism to the fact that these murderers are males.
...and that there perhaps be less terrorism is they were less "male".
We men are more "action" oriented, this can be good or bad.
It's just a matter of the mindset of the individual...not becuase they are males.
2) This is possible. However, when your idealism includes being "better" than someone else simply because you have a pen!s - that is ALWAYS a bad thing.
3) Anyone who requires that his/her sense of self-worth be based only on the basis of their sexu@l apparatus and their liquid excretory equipment is truly a sad individual, IMHO. Combine this with an overabundance of unused testosterone and I think that tying terrorism to males is entirely perceptive.
Men are also traditionally more likely to be serial murderers than women. This is not to say that a few women might not also be capable - but it is more likely to be a male.
It is not Nature or Nurture...it is Nature AND Nuture.
Biology is not destiny as bigkendallas is trying to argue...but then it cannot be ignored either and swept aside in an argument about culture and social conditioning as you (and feminist political ideology) wish to do.
The reality is that we are shaped by both. Biology is TENDENCY...and culture and social condition give direction to that TENDENCY.
Men are more violent because we are biologically wired that way. Civilization is a RECENT event in human evolution. Prior to that people were needed to hunt, to drive off predators, to protect the tribe from attack...and sometimes attack others to get resources that the tribe needed to survive. Biology allocated that responsibility to males....and gave us the equipment (superior size, speed and strength) to do so.
While civilization may have rendered these traits largely unnecessary, men still have that basic wiring. ALL MEN do. The difference between functional men...and criminals/terrorists is that they are better able to manage that innate tendency, or they only express it in ways that are considered socially acceptable (athletes, hunters, soldiers, etc..)
Men are more likely to develop sexual pathology because our sexuality is more biologically driven....and less psychologically driven as female sexuality appears to be. It was designed to be more easily triggered, to be involutarily triggered...and to be more urgent/assertive when it is triggered.
Lastly, women have their own dysfunctional tendencies, and their own forms of anti-social behavior. They just manifest DIFFERENTLY...and are LESS likely to flare into physical violence. Usually taking the form of psychological and emotional violence, exploitation, and manipulation.
It is still aggression. Just more subtle.