Yes, it appears “antifeminism” (I’ll explain why it’s in quotation marks), especially Eivind Berge, finally caught the attention of various organizations here. These organizations are the Reform – “Resource center for men” , the Department for Children, Equality and Inclusion , and Nordisk Ministerråd .
They had a meeting and produced a report, with the name “How to Work Against Antifeminism and Right Wing Extremism?”
When I first read it, it comes as a bit of a surprise, that “antifeminism” needs to be worked against. After all, it is only a natural reaction a person with a moral compass has, when finding out that feminism is no longer about equal rights and more about things like rape hysteria, denial of nature and science, and wanting something for nothing. But when reading the report itself, I can see they define antifeminism a little funny.
They are saying there has been a lot of hostility against women, equality and feminism in social media, like comment threads and forums. They suggest we call this antifeminism.
No. NO. Anti-woman comments are anti-woman, misogyny if you will. Antifeminism is just a response to an ideology gone too far. One of these is anti living people, and another is anti something without capacity to feel pain. Why the hell are you calling hostility towards women “antifeminism”? Why not just call it “hostility against women”? Is this a dishonest trick, to make us equate any disagreement with feminism as anti-woman?
The rest (hostility to feminism and feminist-defined equality) is totally a part of antifeminism (duh), justifiable and I’m glad to hear there’s more of it.
Later in the report, they talk more about what they think antifeminism is. Antifeminists either think that there are no structural inequality between the sexes, or they were evened out and now favor women. Antifeminists also think that power is a zero sum game: when women get power, men get less of it.
Well, power, by definition, kind of is a zero sum game. We can’t all be king. A presence of an equally powerful person partially negates your power and potential opportunities can be lost much easier. Power, like jobs and other things dependant on limited resources we all share on earth, is not infinite. Perhaps if the writers of the report have a problem with this fact, they should replace “power” with “freedom “ or at least opportunities. These are not zero sum, within the limits of good laws that protect against assault, murder, theft, etc. But feminists, I think, understand the language of power better.
The “experts” are also saying that antifeminists believe the white straight male should have his priviledges, and don’t want women, homosexuals, bisexuals and nationality minorities to steal them. Antifeminism is a wish to create a society where straight men are privileged.
… I’d really like to see where they found such antifeminists, because I don’t think I ever came across one that had a problem with gay people. This issue is outside antifeminism. Same goes for racism. I don’t recognize any of this. If there are people like that, they have nothing to do with me, Eivind Berge, or much of the manosphere. Or perhaps this type of thinking came from the fact that feminism tends to absorb gay and bisexual issues, and sometimes even race? So now, being antifeminist is automatically being a racist homophobe?.. I dunno, but it’s not true.
Well, to fight “antifeminism”, the “experts” are suggesting making it illegal to dish out “antifeminist” harassment to people over the internet; more research on “antifeminism”, helping marginalized men, and widening norms for masculinity. Some of this doesn’t sound so bad, but some is disturbing. What is “antifeminist harassment”? Is it harassment if I say some of these “experts” are like astrologists using new age woo to solve problems of the national economy? Is it harassment to criticize a woman or her work online (some people take it as an antifeminist attack )? And what about their idea of “widening norms of masculinity”? Encouraging men that being mgtow is a good idea?..
They have this to say about internet MRAs (translated):
”It is also a problem when antifeminist movements become influencers/premise providers in social debate. We see a tendency where speakers for simple, essentialist, biological “truths” about women’s and men’s different brains and bodies are given more legitimacy in the social debate. It stretches the border for acceptable attitudes and expressions. Attitude and action are tightly connected, and measures against antifeminism should therefore not have a sharp division between antifeminist actions and attitudes”
Ok, this sounds… alarming, to say the least. Hopefully they just mean “lets prevent antifeminists attitudes from happening through some kind of social engineering, so actions never happen”, and not “Lets jail people for actions and attitudes the same way”. But they expressed desire to punish people for “antifeminist harassment”, so I wouldn’t think it above them.
They also mention Eivind Berge:
“Berge and those who agree with him want to rob women of the right to her own body, and insist that rape laws are a conscious strategy to oppress men”
I have no words for how wrong this is. Either they misunderstood it, or are liars about it. Here, let me help: rape laws AS THEY ARE are indeed oppressive. A law that protects women from rape in general is NECESSARY AND NO ONE DISPUTES IT. However, when rape laws change more and more, including more and more behavior under the name “rape”, we’ll call it out! We’ll also direct attention to cases where men are sentenced without evidence, just based on how credible the accuser is. Because it’s unfair.
Well, in general, it seems like a report full of usual frightening BS. But in some ways, this report makes me a little happy. It gives antifeminists a sense of cohesion. See, guys, they are demonizing you as hard as they can. Probably wouldn’t mind using their new law against antifeminist harassment to silence whoever pisses them off. You’ll work your brain into braindeath, trying to prove you were just expressing your opinions and not harassing, with a law so vague.