In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A different take on accountability

We screwed up.

In several ways.

We screwed up in allowing the interview with Hugo Schwyzer to be published. This was a mistake not because guest bloggers on Feministe aren’t allowed to have differing opinions or even differing values than the rest of the crowd–hell, that’s part of the value of bringing in new voices. But we don’t see Feministe as an appropriate venue for the rehabilitation of a figure with Schwyzer’s history (and, for that matter, present). His professed reformation notwithstanding, his history of abuses, his treatment of women in general, his treatment of women of color in particular, and numerous other deeply serious offenses that he himself attests to have created an environment around him that many women–Feministe bloggers included–find threatening, triggering, and/or flat-out despicable. Of course readers are free to go to Schwyzer and form their own opinions; allowing that environment to be brought to Feministe was a mistake. While we wish Schwyzer all the best in his recovery (which we appreciate as a lifelong process), it’s not our job to affirm it–we don’t endorse him or invite him to find his redemption at our house and at the expense of our readers’ well being, and we apologize that we implied otherwise.

Our other–arguably bigger–mistake was in allowing discussion on the subject to be shut down. Discussion, debate, and criticism aren’t just welcome but encouraged. We have a few basic guidelines we try to stick to, and we vary in our personal moderating preferences, but the idea is to encourage discussion while trying to keep it clean and open, not to stifle it–certainly not to shut it down entirely. We want to sustain a community here, not a soapbox, and that means welcoming thoughts and opinions and arguments–within reason–regardless of our own feelings on any particular matter. We’ve had fails in the recent and not-so-recent past, and we’ve done things right. Please continue to keep us honest, and please take this opportunity to continue discussions that needs to be discussed.


1 thoughts on A different take on accountability

  1. Wow. This is unexpected, but great. The way discussion was so suddenly shut down and the stated reasons for doing so were disturbing, and I’m glad Feministe is addressing that now. Thanks, caperton.

  2. Screw everything about this. I’m sorry that some people in this community can’t find it within themselves to read about someone who is doing good work, though with a troubled past that he’s admitted to and working on, what hope is there for any of us? We can never fail and be accepted back into the community. We can never be redeemed. And we can be silenced when someone doesn’t like what we have to say. That’s bull. I’m re-thinking my readership of feministe. I’ve been reading for several years now (from back when Jill was still in law school) and i don’t always comment but I read. Now? I’m not so sure. Apparently, the community is full of bullies.

  3. I’m sure Hugo Schwyzer is terribly hurt by all this. Perhaps he can find solace in all the money he’s earned by leeching off our movement.

    At any rate, I appreciate this apology. It really did feel like a betrayal to be shut out of this discussion, as if expressing anger re: Schwyzer was terribly inappropriate but real-world abuse of women is A-OK, as long as you indulgently self-flagellate enough about it. …Yeah, I’m still mad. But I’ll give it a few days. Hopefully, everyone can reaffirm whatever trust in Feministe we lost as a result of this debacle.

  4. apricoco, if you read the original thread, much of the criticism has to do with the ways that these “past” mistakes continue to be presented and dealt with today.

  5. Is this “we” in “we screwed up” supposed to connote that Feministe as an entity cosigns this post? Or that all of the authors cosign it?

    Who is the mystery we?

  6. You know, I missed the entire shitstorm. But I still feel like one of the most important conversations missing from feminism today is how to deal with the following:
    1. privileged individuals often do crappy things to non-privileged individuals in our society and blithely continue on unaware that they’ve done anything wrong AND deny/ignore the privilege that allows this
    2. Sometimes these are people we love, trust, or are otherwise in our lives
    3. Practical guides to navigating these issues and conflicts without being utterly absolutist, demonizing people/not allowing for any growth, and at the same time not cozening this sort of behavior or tolerating things that are truly unacceptable

  7. Thanks for this. The publication of the interview didn’t bother me personally, but I didn’t like to see the discussion shut down when the thread didn’t seem any more contentious than usual because it seemed to be privileging Schwyzer way too much, and Thorn’s subsequent post made it sound like you all thought any criticism of him was out of line because he says he’s changed and she likes him.

    And I really didn’t agree with what I felt was the implication in her second post that feminists are somehow to blame for bad behavior toward women because we’re not forgiving enough. We’re still struggling to get violence against women to be seen as something wrong instead of “she asked for it” or “had it coming” or “it was just a misunderstanding” or whatever. That’s the problem–not feminists’ capacity for forgiveness.

  8. I’m glad of the apology.

    I didn’t find posting the original interview to be a problem–feminists have differing opinions about people, fine, that’s the whole point of discussion and debate. I did find the shut-down of comments to be bizarre, especially the citation of the whole “tone” argument. The tone didn’t seem ugly to me at all; it generally seemed to be one of shock on the part of people who didn’t know Schwyzer’s history and anger on their part when they found out, as well as criticisms of his attitude. I’ve seen nastier threads on some of Jill’s foodie posts. There were significantly “uglier” threads going on at the very time that one was shut down. I mean, nobody was attacking each other, and nothing was preventing Schwyzer from showing up and addressing the anger/shock if he wanted to.

    So, long story short, thank you for the apology. Even though I wasn’t spending a lot of time on that thread, it did seem uncharacteristic to shut it down.

  9. Screw everything about this. I’m sorry that some people in this community can’t find it within themselves to read about someone who is doing good work, though with a troubled past that he’s admitted to and working on, what hope is there for any of us? We can never fail and be accepted back into the community. We can never be redeemed. And we can be silenced when someone doesn’t like what we have to say. That’s bull. I’m re-thinking my readership of feministe. I’ve been reading for several years now (from back when Jill was still in law school) and i don’t always comment but I read. Now? I’m not so sure. Apparently, the community is full of bullies.

    I guess i said a lot of this stuff on a related thread, but here goes:

    Part of being an adult is learning that remorse doesn’t remove all of the consequences of bad actions. For many people, some things are unforgivable. That’s hard, but it’s the truth. It isn’t always enough to change; sometimes, trust is destroyed forever.

    This is a normal, natural human reaction to behavior that really was absolutely despicable. It is not just to insist that people who have been hurt forgive–or to impose a normal timeline or criteria set for forgiveness. Nobody has the right to forgiveness, and so no community has the right to make it a standard outcome for abusers in recovery. And this is especially important for feminists, because injuries against women are denied by patriarchy. Forced forgiveness is a way to shame women into accepting the continued presence of their abusers and to suppress their own feelings of rage, fear, and heartbreak. As survivors will tell you, it’s common.

    I don’t think they should have to. I think their experience of abuse deserves respect. I also agree with many of the people here who suspect Hugo, even given his conduct during the past couple of days.

    And when we consider all of this in pragmatic terms–whether it’s a good idea to make some offenses permanent–we also need to consider the temptations of forgiveness. Learning to be good really is a lifelong process, and abusers need to know that there’s no easy way back. If anything, Hugo is a counterexample: he has suffered no consequences: he has his job, his speaking role, and his freedom. Even though he tried to kill a woman. I won’t lose sleep over this wee hiccup. His reputation is still largely intact.

    If you value Hugo as a commentator or identify with him as a screwup, that’s entirely your choice. But it is not appropriate for you to make demands on anyone else.

  10. I am deeply disappointed in Feministe’s reaction to this, although I appreciate the apology.

    The critical comments about Hugo were mild compared to what normally transpires on this site. I have seen far, far incendiary and even abusive things said to women guest bloggers on this site (and frankly, to women in general; I am still upset about the blog post last summer in which women who don’t want children were attacked and basically told to be unnatural) … but the moment a man comes under even mild criticism, for actions that are truly abhorrent, comments are shut down? This is hypocritical and something that never should happen on a feminist blog.

  11. And as long as we have open discussion, I really didn’t like the second post on the issue at all. Basically, it read as if Clarisse wanted to wag her finger at the commentariat for not liking/forgiving Schwyzer, inform us all that discussing his past actions and current attitude isn’t what’s important, explain what we really should be talking about instead (hypothetical situations of “forgiveness” involving imagined offenses committed by close family members are apparently more important than genuine abuses committed by feminist essayists), and then shut down comments pre-emptively so she didn’t have to recognize anybody’s disagreement or deal with any counter-arguments. I actually found that far more offensive than the posting of the original interview. You want to chastise me and tell me I’m doing it wrong? Fine. That’s your right. But if you’re going to dish that out, you’d better be able to take it, because if I don’t think you’re correct, I’ll be serving out myself. Cutting off people’s ability to respond just seemed…immature, let’s say.

  12. I also appreciate this post and apology.

    piny @11 said: Nobody has the right to forgiveness, and so no community has the right to make it a standard outcome for abusers in recovery. And this is especially important for feminists, because injuries against women are denied by patriarchy. Forced forgiveness is a way to shame women into accepting the continued presence of their abusers and to suppress their own feelings of rage, fear, and heartbreak. As survivors will tell you, it’s common.

    OMFG THIS thisthisthis!!! All the way live—-THIS.

    The closing of comments was unconscionable. Remember when (guest-blogger) maia was slammed on during an over 700-comment thread? I do. To allow that but not to allow critique of Clarisse’s post on accountability….! The especially galling comment in that post for me was the “have you thought about these questions in your own life?!” Talk about presumptiveness, as if everyone reading that post leads a plush, sheltered life. I’m the child of an alcoholic, a domestic violence survivor, have experienced and witnessed the destructiveness of addiction and violence numerous other times in my and my family’s life—-you FUCKIN’ A I’ve thought about those questions.

  13. It was my understanding that the discussion was shut down because moderating the comments was becoming too emotionally taxing for Clarisse, not because Feministe: The Site didn’t want to deal. I’m more curious about where this decision leaves your contributors — I’d hate to think they’d be required to moderate a discussion past what their emotional well-being can tolerate.

  14. Discussions about when forgiveness is appropriate are valuable, but they’re not really germane to discussions about whether it’s appropriate to forgive a particular misdeed. It shouldn’t have been abstracted away.

    Also, this ball wasn’t sitting on the line. We weren’t talking about tipping or ATM fees or pacifism. This was a very serious bad thing, a bad thing with several condemnatory details. Yanking the discussion in a philosophical direction makes it seem like the question of attempted murder of your girlfriend evil y/n can only be solved by delving into eternal questions of human morality, which, not really, no.

  15. I fully agree with apricoco. Last I checked, this is a blog about feminism, and some topics in feminism can make people uncomfortable. If you’re going to censor certain people or topics just to keep everyone happy, I will be rethinking my participation in this community.

  16. I just read the interview and I don’t understand why the site is recanting the interview. Hugo has every right to tell his story of recovery and possible sexual addiction. He is being honest about his past behaviors and is making amends the best way he possibly can. If he is lying, he is the only one who will suffer. I’m very sorry for those who are triggered, but if that’s the case, don’t read the interview. This man should not be censored simply because his story can’t be handled.
    Also, if a woman were speaking about sleeping with students while being drunk and high, would there still be a problem? We as Feminists need to stop seeing women as oppressed victims and let men have a voice. Otherwise, we will be practicing reverse sexism, which will do nothing for the feminist movement.

  17. Really Feministe? Really?

    This apology sounds to me like throwing Clarisse (as well as Hugo) under the bus. Was it right for the thread to be closed? Probably not. I found the post she made to address the controversy sounded more like her own hurt feelings than actually addressing the issue.

    BUT

    After reading both articles I have much respect for Hugo. I have even saved a post off his website. I am impressed by a man who is able to look at what he’s done and not only feel remorse and make attempts to atone, but to use his experience to further *our* cause.

    As someone who has been the victim of sexual assault twice in her lifetime I know for a fact that a simple apology would in fact go along way to helping my issues with PTSD. Would it fix them completely? Of course not. But it would go further than therapy alone.

    Not only that, as a woman who was raised by a second wave feminist I have seen how ‘man hating feminism’ can be what holds us back from the advances we try so hard to achieve. We cannot exclude half of the population and men like Hugo (men who are flawed, and have made the mistakes many men make but have learned from them) can only stand to help us become more relatable to that half of the world.

    I wish there were more feminists like Hugo and like Clarisse. People who are not so limited by their beliefs that they see anything outside of their own values as wrong or abhorrent. I feel for those who have felt that Hugo has triggered their own PTSD or emotional issues but healing from trauma involves forcing oneself to see those triggers. (this is proven, often called ‘aversion therapy’. Rape victims are often asked to face their abuser in some way or do or watch things that bring up their own feelings of fear and trauma. Soldiers are told to go to places where there would be lots of loud noises or even play extremely violent video games to desensitize themselves).

    Fear is terrible. But constantly living in fear is subjecting oneself to self imposed victim blaming. Discrediting the work of 2 talented individuals is not away to help victims of abuse or people who might learn from either of them.

    I’m pretty disappointed in Feministe today.

  18. Nonny: The critical comments about Hugo were mild compared to what normally transpires on this site. I have seen far, far incendiary and even abusive things said to women guest bloggers on this site (and frankly, to women in general; I am still upset about the blog post last summer in which women who don’t want children were attacked and basically told to be unnatural) … but the moment a man comes under even mild criticism, for actions that are truly abhorrent, comments are shut down? This is hypocritical and something that never should happen on a feminist blog.

    Yeah, THIS. Closing comments happens rarely here, and personally I’ve only seen it happen when threads have gotten way WAY worse than that one did.

    I really don’t like venturing into the “oversensitive ladies” area, but…I really think Clarisse herself needs to examine her reactions and how she deals with controversy here. Because her handling of the situation – shutting comments down because people dared to be a little bit critical of her best buddy and point out that HEY THIS DUDE TRIED TO KILL A WOMAN, and then that second navel-gazey post with no comments allowed at all – did, in fact, strike me as being not just too sensitive, but too sensitive to the *wrong things*. The sensitivity was not directed at the triggered and pained feelings the posts caused, the hurt, the betrayal some felt, the bullshit…no, it was directed at the poor poor man people were being so mean to.

    Now, if people were sending Clarisse nasty emails, that’s fucked up, although I’d say *critical* emails would be fine and should be expected, so long as they were civil. But maybe Feministe just isn’t the place for her if she thinks she can not only introduce subjects and people that she should have known would be very upsetting and triggering, but that she should be able to do so with only the mildest, meekest of criticism.

    Not my blog, not my rules, of course, but…them’s my two cents.

  19. La Lubu: The especially galling comment in that post for me was the “have you thought about these questions in your own life?!” Talk about presumptiveness, as if everyone reading that post leads a plush, sheltered life. I’m the child of an alcoholic, a domestic violence survivor, have experienced and witnessed the destructiveness of addiction and violence numerous other times in my and my family’s life—-you FUCKIN’ A I’ve thought about those questions.

    Right? I am fortunate not to have had the terrible experiences you have had, but damn right I’ve had to deal with the questions of whether or not to forgive people close to me for Really Bad Things they’ve done to me and other people I love, and what that forgiveness would mean. We’ve all been around the block a few times, and the idea that just because people didn’t come to the conclusion CT would’ve liked them to means that they just haven’t given the matter enough thought is obnoxious and patronizing.

  20. Miriam: If you’re going to censor certain people or topics just to keep everyone happy, I will be rethinking my participation in this community.

    Like…by closing comments because the commenters disagree with the blogger? I agree, that is obnoxious.

  21. Miriam: I fully agree with apricoco. Last I checked, this is a blog about feminism, and some topics in feminism can make people uncomfortable. If you’re going to censor certain people or topics just to keep everyone happy, I will be rethinking my participation in this community.

    Attempted murder does tend to be a little uncomfortable.

  22. Alison: I really think Clarisse herself needs to examine her reactions and how she deals with controversy here.

    I agree. She and I and some other commenters were in a fairly heated but civil argument about the value or lack thereof of sex-positive feminism sometime ago, when she abruptly shut off comments because we were “talking past” each other or something like that. Nobody was flinging insults, nobody was even being particularly snarky; in fact, my memory is that we kept the snark and sarcasm relatively toned down compared to other threads. I really resented that, because people I liked and respected had actually addressed me directly, and I was completely unable to respond to what they had to say. One of the things I like about this blog is that the comments are lightly moderated and that commenters don’t feel the need to pull punches or always agree with each other. I would not enjoy a blog in which comments are shut because of strongly-felt disagreement, or because of potential disagreement with a post.

  23. apricoco and Miriam – I agree that a community like Feministe is made up of strong people, and that censorship in the interest of protecting people from controversy isn’t in anyone’s best interest. As I said above, open discussion is the goal, even if that discussion isn’t entirely pleasant. Bloggers are in a unique position of having a responsibility both to the subject matter and to the community. In this case, a controversial and sensitive subject was presented without acknowledging that controversy and sensitivity, and ultimately the discussion was shut down before any of it could really be examined. Ideally, no topic will be off limits, and no readers will have to be coddled. But some posts would be best left out or amended to acknowledge the kind of discussion that’s likely to arise.

  24. As long as different posters are moderating when to close discussion on different threads, they are going to be doing it at different times. It’s not like there’s a direct comparison between when Maia shuts down a thread and when Clarisse does, as there would be between when Jill closes down two threads.

    I mean, if the blog wants to create a universal policy, that would be cool. I just don’t think it’s fair to imply that Clarisse is being hypocritical for the disparity between her actions and those of someone else entirely.

  25. meeka: if a woman were speaking about sleeping with students while being drunk and high, would there still be a problem?

    Speaking as a teacher, damn skippy I would have exactly the same problem with it. Don’t fuck your students. It’s wrong.

    MaggieHavoc: men who are flawed, and have made the mistakes many men make but have learned from them

    Many men have tried to murder their girlfriends? That’s odd, because I know my life is and has been very unusual–and I’ve gone out of my way to keep it that way–but not one of the men I’ve ever interacted with has mentioned having tried to kill an ex.

    MaggieHavoc: as a woman who was raised by a second wave feminist I have seen how ‘man hating feminism’ can be what holds us back from the advances we try so hard to achieve.

    I wish people would stop blaming second-wave feminism for the mistakes their mommies made. It’s really quite annoying. I was raised by a second-wave feminist as well, and the experience does nothing but engender a great deal of respect in me for the bravery of the women involved in that activism.

    MaggieHavoc: I feel for those who have felt that Hugo has triggered their own PTSD or emotional issues but healing from trauma involves forcing oneself to see those triggers. (this is proven, often called ‘aversion therapy’.

    This blog is nobody’s therapy session, and that technique is not for everybody.

  26. EG: And as long as we have open discussion, I really didn’t like the second post on the issue at all. Basically, it read as if Clarisse wanted to wag her finger at the commentariat for not liking/forgiving Schwyzer, inform us all that discussing his past actions and current attitude isn’t what’s important, explain what we really should be talking about instead (hypothetical situations of “forgiveness” involving imagined offenses committed by close family members are apparently more important than genuine abuses committed by feminist essayists), and then shut down comments pre-emptively so she didn’t have to recognize anybody’s disagreement or deal with any counter-arguments. I actually found that far more offensive than the posting of the original interview. You want to chastise me and tell me I’m doing it wrong? Fine. That’s your right. But if you’re going to dish that out, you’d better be able to take it, because if I don’t think you’re correct, I’ll be serving out myself. Cutting off people’s ability to respond just seemed…immature, let’s say.

    Cosigned.

    I was initially willing to listen to Clarisse’s ideas. But why should I listen to someone who clearly just wants a soapbox?

    I’m with Miriam. This apology is nice, but way too little way too late. Plus, it’s from the wrong person. I’m rethinking my participation as well.

  27. DoublyLinkedLists: Is this “we” in “we screwed up” supposed to connote that Feministe as an entity cosigns this post? Or that all of the authors cosign it?

    Who is the mystery we?

    In a way, that’s part of the question. The discussion in this case has been ongoing among the staff bloggers of Feministe, and as a group we acknowledge our errors in the way this was handled. But this is something that affects the blog as an entity, regardless of who’s doing the writing, and that commitment to respect and open communication is something that needs to be inherent to the blog regardless of who’s doing the writing.

    So to answer your question… yes.

  28. MaggieHavoc: This apology sounds to me like throwing Clarisse (as well as Hugo) under the bus.

    I really, really wanted to avoid sounding like this, and I’m sorry that I wasn’t successful in doing that. Clarisse isn’t the sole guilty party. She definitely made some mistakes in handling it, but the rest of us (read: staff bloggers) did as well. Regardless of the writer of any given post, we all have a responsibility to keep an eye on things and try to keep everything moving smoothly. This can be tough, because we all have jobs and lives, and it’s easy to let things get away from us. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, and in this case, we should have tried harder.

  29. I would not enjoy a blog in which comments are shut because of strongly-felt disagreement, or because of potential disagreement with a post.

    Yeah, fine. That’s a lovely abstraction.

    But the blog moderation *generally* has gotten stricter ever since the incident about hats, etc., when comment threads started being more vitriolic and personally upsetting for the posters than they were willing to deal with.

    Remember when Jill put up that post about how call-out culture was (or often was) a poisonous form of one-upmanship? (This is a simplification of that post, but summarizes what I disliked about it.) I didn’t agree with that post because I think mostly people are being genuine, not just trying to be cliquish mean girls or whatever, when they’re participating in call outs.

    But Jill did have a point–she was exhausted and vitiated. And call-out culture, however genuine, can get to a point where it is dismantling people rather than helping build things up. (Although it’s probably usually doing both; most things do both good and bad simultaneously.)

    Jill re-established a point at which she could be more comfortable with where conversations stop. Clarisse has established a point for herself–different from Jill’s–where she does the same. And frankly, it’s not astonishing that she has to be more hands-on about moderation than Jill (sorry to keep using Jill as an example) does–when you’re writing about your personal sex life, comments can get wildly, wildly cruel very quickly. You have to look out for flags. Maybe Clarisse’s flag-detection system is rigged so that it goes off too early sometimes, when the flags werent’ actually about to start waving, but there will always be errors in one direction or the other.

    Disagree re: the specific thread–hell, disagree about her policy–but implying she needs to “examine herself” as if she doesn’t do so publicly, in astonishing and brave detail on a regular basis, is unfair and unreasonable.

  30. Speaking as a teacher, damn skippy I would have exactly the same problem with it. Don’t fuck your students. It’s wrong.

    A) I agree with this.

    B) I’ve been shocked at how common it is for people to do it *anyway*. Until working as a teacher in college, I really had no idea.

    C) Barring all these people from conversation seems unproductive as many of them have valuable things to say about either their former behavior or other subjects. Also, it contributes to the idea that rapists (or other categories of sexual offenders) are *other*, are the monsters who are *not us*, which is one of the same attitudes that perpetuates rape culture because it requires that people be either “rapist” or “person” and nullifies the co-occurrence of both.

  31. The most amusing aspect of this whole thing is that people believe Hugo that he has changed. He just uses a different strategy to get what he wants since he got busted on the last one. Fun times.

  32. I don’t think there’s a maybe about it: I think she has an allergy to controversy, because this has happened several times. And speaking as someone who no longer blogs here, I completely understand. But if a contentious comments thread is going to bother you so much that you need to clamp down on the discussion every time, then maybe you’re not cut out to blog on contentious issues. Like EG said, it’s disrespectful to dish it out and then cut off the response.

    That having been said, yeah, people definitely have different set points. But it’s not improper to criticize those set points.

  33. Mandolin —

    If your flag-detection system can’t distinguish between ad homs and legitimate criticism, then you probably shouldn’t be moderating a feminist community.

  34. Mandolin: implying she needs to “examine herself” as if she doesn’t do so publicly, in astonishing and brave detail on a regular basis, is unfair and unreasonable.

    Talking about one’s sex life in great detail is not the same thing as examining how and why one shuts down dialogue unilaterally. Are you seriously saying that somebody who is open, explicit, and self-aware in one aspect of her life is therefore open, explicit, and self-aware in all other aspects of her life? The one doesn’t follow the other, and the implication that she needs to “examine herself’ is no more obnoxious than her implication that nobody else has ever thought about issues of apology and forgiveness.

    Mandolin: Clarisse has established a point for herself–different from Jill’s–where she does the same. And frankly, it’s not astonishing that she has to be more hands-on about moderation than Jill (sorry to keep using Jill as an example) does–when you’re writing about your personal sex life, comments can get wildly, wildly cruel very quickly. You have to look out for flags. Maybe Clarisse’s flag-detection system is rigged so that it goes off too early sometimes, when the flags werent’ actually about to start waving, but there will always be errors in one direction or the other.

    If any one of the threads she had shut down involved comments that were personal attacks on her for her sexuality, that would be a fair point. But that has not happened even once. If her system is so sensitive that it can’t tell the difference between strongly-felt disagreement and personal attack, then yes, I think she should re-examine that system. And if she can’t or doesn’t want to deal with strongly-felt disagreement in the comments section, then I echo Alison in saying “But maybe Feministe just isn’t the place for her if she thinks she can not only introduce subjects and people that she should have known would be very upsetting and triggering, but that she should be able to do so with only the mildest, meekest of criticism.”

    Mandolin: Yeah, fine. That’s a lovely abstraction.

    What’s abstract about it? It’s actually quite concrete. I do not bother to read or participate in blogs in which the commentariat tiptoe around each other’s feelings all the time. That’s why I read Feministe, Pandagon, and Angry Black Woman. There is a time and place for phrasing things as kindly as possible, and there is a time and place for telling someone to fuck right off, and there is a time and place for everything in the middle as well. I prefer an atmosphere weighted somewhat to the side of blunt sarcasm.

    Moderation has gotten a touch stricter, it’s true. But there’s a world of difference between a 500+ thread on breastfeeding in which some serious mud is being thrown around and a 60+ thread on Schwyzer in which people are understandably distressed about his attempt to murder his ex-girlfriend, and expecting commenters who are willing to roll with the punches on the first to be OK with shutting down the second is really a bit much.

  35. Is it too much to ask for people to lay off Clarisse? Yeah, she pissed us off, but it’s over now and her holidays are probably already ruined enough. For those of you demanding a personal apology from her, maybe you would do well to try and imagine your own mental state if you’d just been publicly shredded across the blogosphere for a mistake in judgement, on top of a barrage of abusive emails.

    An apology has been offered and the discussion reopened. It’s time to let it go.

  36. I don’t know. I expected a post like this, because that’s what Feministe often does when it (they, someone, whatever) screws up. And people are often appreciative of it, as I have been in the past. Only, I think this last thing was the final straw for some people, especially some women of color. The final, final straw in fact, after all the other final straws and then the attempted re-approaching, only to hit another brick wall. So, while I have long-term, major issues with Schwyzer, both because he gives me the willies and because of his treatment of women of color, I have something else I want to talk about (though it is related.)

    Feministe is, of course, considered one of the major online Feminist sites. I am not much of a reader here anymore (stopped by for the first time in ages the other day and saw the Hugo post) but when I have read I have enjoyed many of the guest posters. I think it is good to bring in different views, interests, topics, so on. As wide a variety as possible is a good thing, and this is a good platform for allowing a divergence of views and all that. I wouldn’t want to limit that.

    However.

    Women of color who wish to be on a major platform anywhere, or invited as guest posters, or sought out for magazine articles, or book writing/reviewing, speaking engagements, so on and so forth, have to have at least a basic understanding of what we’ll call White Feminism (or mainstream Feminism.) They may not have to speak of it, or have to produce this knowledge in their writings or presentations, especially if they are doing their own work or contributing to the already established work of other women or men of color… but the knowledge has to be there. If questioned or if something comes up, they have to know how to navigate any number of issues or ideas associated with mainstream Feminism. If they can’t, oftentimes all the rest of their work is discounted because they are not familiar with “what matters.”

    Yet, in just about any forum dedicated to Feminism of any sort, people with not even, or barely, a modicum of knowledge of anything beyond their own narrow interests are not only welcomed, but feted. As long as they are interesting and knowledgeable in their fields and have a general idea of mainstream Feminism, it’s all good. If they mess up on some thing that is of concern to mainstream Feminists, well it’s their bad, but all the rest is okay. But if they have no knowledge at all of the work of feminists/womanists/radical women of color, then it’s… well, not even an issue. Until it is.

    I don’t know how to fix that. Even a tiny FAQ that people could read before being signed on to a major Feminist site might help. Something that maybe has just a sentence that says, “If you are going to talk about anything in social justice, criminal justice, economic justice, the prison industrial complex, and almost any other field, it’s likely that women of color have already been working on it for decades.”

    Something like that might have prevented the total erasure of the work of WOC done by Clarisse Thorn in her “accountability” post. Or a sentence that said “Women of color are women, too, and their concerns are valid” may have prompted Thorn to include their concerns with Hugo, too, under things that “really matter”. Maybe she might even have decided that instead of “no evidence that Hugo continues problematic behavior”, there might be a little evidence, stated clearly in that thread by both WOC and white women, that problematic behavior does indeed continue. Power relationships, abusive relations do not always follow one set pattern. (I don’t want to pick on Thorn… all this is an ongoing problem on Feminist sites and in the real world.)

    Anyway, tl;dr version: Why is that white women who call themselves feminists are welcome anywhere, to say anything, even when they don’t have even a basic grounding in what really should be the fullness of feminism? When there is little to no penalty (personal or otherwise) for being ignorant of anything outside a narrow view, there is little or no incentive for taking steps to widen that view at all.

    That, my loves, is one of the pillars of privilege and is fast becoming one of the mainstays of professional white Feminism.

  37. I do want to mention that while this discussion really is important and I want to be able to answer every concern that’s presented, I also have a lot of family obligations on this particular day. If comments are stuck in moderation longer than expected, or if a comment goes unaddressed longer than hoped, it’s because I won’t always be able to get to a computer this weekend. It’s not that you’re not just as important to me as my own family, except, well, you kind of aren’t.

  38. But if a contentious comments thread is going to bother you so much that you need to clamp down on the discussion every time, then maybe you’re not cut out to blog on contentious issues.

    Why?

    Why can’t there be multiple ways of having online discussions? Some of them being balls-out what-the-fuck-ever and some more moderated and some, like, hey, if you want to be controversial about this, bring it to a different space? Different ways of blogging, yes? Frankly, I see them all anyway, and see no reason to call one blogging and the others not.

    Feministe can establish itself as whatever kind of space it wants and say that all posters have to work within those boundaries, but (as a reader and sometimes commenter) I was unaware of a policy that says “all bloggers on feministe will moderate in X way”. The impression I’d gotten from the posts about guest bloggers had given me rather the opposite impression, that there was an expectation that the posters would behave differently. Maybe I misunderstood.

  39. Mandolin @ #37: Also, it contributes to the idea that rapists (or other categories of sexual offenders) are *other*, are the monsters who are *not us*, which is one of the same attitudes that perpetuates rape culture because it requires that people be either “rapist” or “person” and nullifies the co-occurrence of both.

    Poor example, as rapists actually are “other”; the typical person simply doesn’t rape.

    Meanwhile, these conversations are typically held in an abstract, deracinated manner, in an imaginary realm where everyone shares equal power. Oh, and that all bad acts are relatively equal. Oh, and that everyone is equally likely to commit said bad acts. And get away with them. Horseshit.

  40. C) Barring all these people from conversation seems unproductive as many of them have valuable things to say about either their former behavior or other subjects. Also, it contributes to the idea that rapists (or other categories of sexual offenders) are *other*, are the monsters who are *not us*, which is one of the same attitudes that perpetuates rape culture because it requires that people be either “rapist” or “person” and nullifies the co-occurrence of both.

    This is not a fair summary either of this whole discussion process or the suggestions made by the people who prioritize survivors over recovering rapists. The internet is infinite, first of all. Hugo has not been silenced. His thoughts on this and all aspects of feminism are readily available. They are currently searchable on Feministe. If anything, he has the larger and less assailable platform.

    Hugo’s is being treated as an authority, a career abuser in recovery. He is profiting as well as contributing. When Feministe gives him interviews, he makes money. He has commodified his abuse, effectively turned his history into expert status. It’s also not clear that he’s actually a good person now. He’s not always a nice respectful guy these days, and he hasn’t reacted to, “Hey, didn’t you try to murder your girlfriend?” with accountability at all.

    Personally, I don’t think he’s said anything that women haven’t already said, less smarmily; I don’t know if he has become an expert on gender relations so much as the most feminist dude in the room, and not bad to look at either.

    So I don’t agree with your balance sheet.

    But I really don’t think that treating abuse as beyond the pale creates denial around abuse. I think the opposite is true. We need to start treating abuse survivors and rape survivors as though they are all around us. We need to understand that pretty much every discussion about intimate violence takes place right in front of a bunch of people who have been mistreated by men just like Hugo. We need to stop “othering” them.

    Traditionally, rapists and abusers and men who hurt women are not demonized and exiled. That almost never happens. Most of the time, known abusers are allowed to go on with their lives as though nothing has happened. Like Hugo, for example: consequence free. That tells me that harsh consequences for abusive men will not teach us that abusive men are not really people, are not really all around us. it tells me that it’s an important part of our collective redemption process: that it will teach us that these problems are real, and important, and that we need to deal with them together.

    If Hugo wants to discuss his own views on the subject, that’s fine, but I don’t ever want to see this space become hostile to survivors–all of them more insightful than he will ever be–in order to keep his contribution safe or his humanity a point of order.

  41. If any one of the threads she had shut down involved comments that were personal attacks on her for her sexuality, that would be a fair point. But that has not happened even once.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s not true. I recall people implying that she was a brazen hussy for talking about her sex life in public where anyone could hear it.

    What’s abstract about it? It’s actually quite concrete. I do not bother to read or participate in blogs in which the commentariat tiptoe around each other’s feelings all the time. That’s why I read Feministe, Pandagon, and Angry Black Woman. There is a time and place for phrasing things as kindly as possible, and there is a time and place for telling someone to fuck right off, and there is a time and place for everything in the middle as well. I prefer an atmosphere weighted somewhat to the side of blunt sarcasm.

    That’s why it’s a lovely abstraction. “Somewhat weighted” is ambiguous. Everyone disagrees on what “somewhat weighted” means. I mean, I could say the same thing–I prefer things “somewhat weighted” toward bluntness, by which I essentially mean Shakesville makes me break out in hives. Everyone says they want bluntness in discussions like this where the problem being discussed is too much moderation. Then when we’re discussing the opposite, everyone says they really want civility and why can’t we all get along?

  42. Kaitlin:
    Itwasmyunderstandingthatthediscussionwasshutdownbecausemoderating
    thecommentswasbecomingtooemotionallytaxingforClarisse,notbecause
    Feministe:TheSitedidn’twanttodeal.I’mmorecuriousaboutwherethisdecision
    leavesyourcontributors—I’dhatetothinkthey’dberequiredtomoderateadiscussion
    pastwhattheiremotionalwell-beingcantolerate.

    This is definitely the impression I got, not that ‘Feministe’ was trying to shut down criticism of a (pretty scummy) male blogger.

  43. Why can’t there be multiple ways of having online discussions? Some of them being balls-out what-the-fuck-ever and some more moderated and some, like, hey, if you want to be controversial about this, bring it to a different space? Different ways of blogging, yes? Frankly, I see them all anyway, and see no reason to call one blogging and the others not.

    Are we going to have the abstract general discussion about discourse, now that we’ve had the abstract general one about forgiveness? Clarisse brought up controversial topics herself, then freaked out and shut down comments when people gave their honest opinion of her honest opinion. If she doesn’t want a bunch of comments, why isn’t she on a protected livejournal?

    But this is why: Because you have started a discussion about an issue that is very important to many people. Those people are your readers, and they have the right to respond to the things you have said. They deserve respect too. You don’t get the first and last word.

    And to take this back out of generalities, the disagreement in question was over the presence of a guy who tried to murder a woman, and who has abused countless women. I think feminism has a specific moral obligation to honor controversy and strong feelings about that issue. If Clarisse has a problem with that, then she should not have accepted the responsibility of the topic.

  44. While I appreciate the presence of this community, I often feel moderation is arbitrary. Some ad hominem attacks just sail right through and they can be quiet cruel, as well as ableist. Then comments get shut down or banned because of some other reason. I would prefer Feminist err on the side of allowing fewer personal attacks, even if it cuts off comments that raise other points. If there’s any way to send some type of auto-notification when a comment is disallowed for this reason, to give people a chance to edit themselves, that would be ideal. Maybe this kind of technology will be available in future if it isn’t now.

  45. Thanks for opening this thread up here. I don’t expect that there will be any peaceful resolution here, but I guess the point is that we need to have this long hard conversation *somewhere*. Not an easy job for the moderators, of course, and I think I have an inkling of what motivates shutting down comments on a thread, but as long as it can happen here, I think it’s of ultimate benefit to the community.

    My initial response to Clarisse’s post was to focus on the importance of being able to forgive and accept people as flawed and problematic without undermining accountability, minimizing their actions, or encouraging further harm. As things progressed, however, I saw that many of the criticisms of Schwyzer were much more contemporary and wide-ranging than I was initially aware of (particularly his treatment of women of colour). My final feelings after listening and reading the fall-out, here and elsewhere, were considerably more mixed, and highlights for me even more just how hard it is to navigate what to do when people in and around our communities do really shitty things. I definitely do not think though (and never have) that forgiveness should be an obligation and that people like me have to always keep that in mind that we don’t pressure people to feel like that’s the case.

  46. That’s why it’s a lovely abstraction. “Somewhat weighted” is ambiguous. Everyone disagrees on what “somewhat weighted” means. I mean, I could say the same thing–I prefer things “somewhat weighted” toward bluntness, by which I essentially mean Shakesville makes me break out in hives. Everyone says they want bluntness in discussions like this where the problem being discussed is too much moderation. Then when we’re discussing the opposite, everyone says they really want civility and why can’t we all get along?

    Yes: people disagree about things a lot. They do.

    This is a derail. And in context, it’s a pretty repellent one. This isn’t about when civility is good or how much civility is too much or how you please ten thousand people at once. It depends, it depends, and you can’t. But that’s irrelevant right now.

    This is about whether women, including many survivors, are allowed to get upset when an abusive man is given a privileged position on a feminist website, and whether it’s appropriate to label that anger abusive and shut it down. That is what just happened. Personally, I have a problem with that.

  47. Are we going to have the abstract general discussion about discourse, now that we’ve had the abstract general one about forgiveness?

    As long as people make generalized assertions, (e.g.: “But if a contentious comments thread is going to bother you so much that you need to clamp down on the discussion every time, then maybe you’re not cut out to blog on contentious issues.”) then yes, it’s reasonable to respond to them with generalized arguments.

    I hate this game. It’s the game in which a specific example is brought up, and then a conclusion is drawn from it, and when someone questions the conclusion, then it’s “excuse me, I was talking about an EXAMPLE.”

    It’s the lovely converse of the game in which someone says “This person did something wrong which is an example of a broader phenomenon” and then the conversation is 90% about that person, and when that person responds, the answer is, “excuse me, we were talking about BROADER PHENOMENON, how self-centered can you get?”

  48. Mandolin: “Somewhat weighted” is ambiguous. Everyone disagrees on what “somewhat weighted” means.

    Exactly. That means we argue about it until we arrive at a mutually agreeable answer. There isn’t some kind of numerically graduated scale, so we’re going to have to use ambiguous words. I don’t see how that makes the argument an abstract one.

    Mandolin: Then when we’re discussing the opposite, everyone says they really want civility and why can’t we all get along?

    I don’t, so I don’t know what to tell you about this. I guess I want civility insofar as calilng someone a pretentious jackass without addressing their argument is pointless and uninteresting, but I have no illusions about why we can’t all get along. We can’t all get along because we have genuine and significant differences about things that are important.

    Mandolin: I recall people implying that she was a brazen hussy for talking about her sex life in public where anyone could hear it.

    But was that in one of the threads she shut down, or in some other thread? Because I can guarantee you that in none of three comment threads she shut down that I am aware of did anybody mention her sex life.

    Mandolin: Why can’t there be multiple ways of having online discussions? Some of them being balls-out what-the-fuck-ever and some more moderated and some, like, hey, if you want to be controversial about this, bring it to a different space?

    Sure, but Feministe has established itself as a certain kind of space, and so it has attracted the kind of people who like that kind of space. So when one of the bloggers suddenly switches it to a wildly different kind of space, unilaterally and with no warning, people are going to be justifiably annoyed and pissed off. I am glad there are multiple gradations of discussion on the internet for people to choose from. But when I deliberately choose one, don’t suddenly, secretly switch it out for Folger’s Crystals and then act aggrieved when people wonder where their espresso is.

    If CT wants to head certain posts with “I do not want to hear anyone criticizing Schwyzer either for his past actions or for how he discusses them in the present day,” then nobody will feel like they’ve had the rug jerked out from under them. That’s pretty much what she did when she pre-emptively closed comments on the second post. I find it condescending (what I have to say is so important that you need to hear it; what you have to say is of no matter), immature, and disrespectful, but at least that would be fair warning. The question becomes, then, do you want Feministe to be a place in which that kind of thing is done.

  49. That’s not a general standard absent context. That’s a specific reference to the several occasions on which Clarisse has done exactly this thing. This is the third time I can remember when she has chosen to blog about a contentious topic, attracted a lot of strongly-worded but really not abusive comments, and then freaked out and shut the thread the fuck down. In fact, I think it happens every time she doesn’t write about kink. So how about this:

    But if a contentious comments thread is going to bother Clarisse so much that Clarisse is going to flip her shit and clamp down on the discussion every time, after a couple of passive-aggressive swipes at the people who have had the temerity to disagree with her, then maybe Clarisse is not cut out to blog on contentious issues. Or at all.

    Better? She isn’t setting herself up as someone who likes to have calm reasoned discussions. She is setting herself up as someone who provokes controversy and then complains when it arrives. And who has a big fat problem with differentiating between complaining and abuse. And who apparently cannot predict this cycle even now. And no, I am not okay with that being simply one personal boundary among many. If she wants rainbows and puppies, she should blog about rainbows and puppies. If she wants people to take her seriously, then she needs to be able to talk about serious things.

  50. piny: If she wants people to take her seriously, then she needs to be able to talk about serious things.

    And even more importantly, listen to what other people have to say about those serious things as well.

  51. My motivations in closing the first thread were exactly as I said they were: I received multiple emails that expressed real shock at how ugly and destructive the conversation had become, from people who said that they would otherwise participate. I have closed previous comment threads for the same reason.

    My motivations in pre-emptively closing the second thread were shaped by the fact that I spent the previous few days receiving personal hate mail that I will not republish here. I understand that this hate mail was not public, and that therefore, I mostly look like I flipped out over nothing.

    I really appreciate the positive feedback I have received from some readers, and I am doing my best to appreciate the negative feedback as well.

  52. As a moderator and blogger, CT has a lot of power. She has the power to create discourse, she has the power of posting an article, she has the power to delete comments, the power to ban commenters, the power to shut down a thread, and her comments are privileged with a different color from other people’s and a “moderator” stamp that makes them notable and important.

    With all that power and control, I feel no sympathy when it is used in such a way that many commenters take issue with it and try to express their anger and frustration. She had all the power and privilege in the situation, and is therefore accountable for her use of it.

  53. I’m sorry that you’ve received abusive emails. But your credibility on this issue is sunk with me. I do believe that you have received some abusive comments and emails, but I don’t believe you can distinguish between abusive responses and angry responses, and I don’t believe you know how to respond respectfully to criticism. You get defensive. And like I said, if you don’t want to do this, then don’t do it. But it’s too much of a habit with you.

  54. I really respect that the leadership here has taken responsibility for mistakes, and really owned it. It’s truly admirable.

    Which isn’t to say that I think (or don’t think) publishing the interview was a mistake. Obviously Hugo is a self-identified feminist of some note (whatever we think of whether that label properly applies to him). MaggieHavoc talks about Hugo speaking for men in a sense. As a man, I shudder at the thought of Hugo speaking for me. But I also can’t talk about coming from a place abusive enough to sleep with your students and attempt a murder-suicide. I don’t doubt that it’s valuable to understand that, if you have someone in your life you want to understand and/or help. A content warning would’ve been called for, at least.

  55. I think that there will always be a need and a place for constructive criticism. However, some people can and do cross the line into destructive criticism territory. That’s when threads become progressively more and more mean-spirited.

    Regarding Hugo Schwyzer, as I may have said before, I really do try to forgive. It’s interesting that this issue has shown up when it did. At Meeting, I’ve had to deal recently with a severely mentally ill person who angrily confronted me. To make a long story short, this person has been confrontational towards me several times before. I’ve been trying to find the balance between justified anger and indignation and the ability to forgive.

  56. I’m not sure what my feelings are at the moment on the closing down of comments – I feel like the bigger issue here is Feministe’s denouncing of Hugo Schwyzer’s views and presence in the feminist blogosphere (particularly this website). If we cannot bear to listen to someone who once disagreed with or acted counter to our beliefs and philosophy, who is there left to listen to and participate in discussion with? We all have a past and if we shut out men who’s views and actions were once reprehensible, we lose particularly valuable contributors to the feminist conversation.

  57. People don’t seem to understand that a general discussion of “reprehensible actions” is not what is important here. To illustrate the problem, two sentences:

    “I thought the way you responded to that student’s criticism was reprehensible”

    “I thought your attempt to murder your girlfriend was reprehensible”

    See the difference?

  58. I do want to make it clear that Feministe isn’t any kind of monolithic hivemind, with any Feministe Corporate to defer to or blame. (How handy would that be.) We’re individuals, we have different standards, and there are things that Jill would let pass that I wouldn’t. One blogger will write a post that makes another one wince. A lot of it depends on who you’re dealing with at the time. The standard is for open discussion–but different bloggers have different definitions of “open discussion.”

  59. Clarisse Thorn: My motivations in pre-emptively closing the second thread were shaped by the fact that I spent the previous few days receiving personal hate mail that I will not republish here. I understand that this hate mail was not public, and that therefore, I mostly look like I flipped out over nothing.

    It’s not that the hate mail isn’t public; it’s that closing a comment thread has nothing to do with receiving hate mail. Even if the hate mail were public, I would not be on board with closing the comment thread. Closing the comment thread does not prevent anybody from sending you email. There were no hateful comments in the comment thread–especially in the one pre-emptively closed–so why shut down commenters? The comments were not the problem.

    Alex: If we cannot bear to listen to someone who once disagreed with or acted counter to our beliefs and philosophy, who is there left to listen to and participate in discussion with?

    Except that not accepting what Schwyzer has done in the past, not believing that he really has changed, and not liking his current writings is not making a blanket statement that anybody who once disagreed with or acted counter to our beliefs and philosophy is worth listening to. It’s a bunch of commenters saying that this particular guy is not someone they find worthy of respect. Given that I was the one defending Christopher Hitchens, all the non-existing gods know that I often advocate weighing the good along with the bad, but that doesn’t mean that anybody else has to come to same conclusion I do with respect to each individual.

  60. Like so many others, I was shocked by the closing of the original thread, and do appreciate this acknowledgement that it shouldn’t have happened. First of all, I agree that the comments were far less vituperative than those in many other threads here, and were directed against someone not even here (Schwyzer) rather than, as is usually the case, against other commenters who would be directly hurt by such comments (which seems worse to me). Furthermore, it seemed to me that people were still in a state of shock after learning a good way into the thread that the man had admitted to the attempted murder of his ex, and were just beginning to process that knowledge and react to it (entirely appropriately, I thought). To cut off the thread then was extremely odd and out of character for Feministe, and the stated reasons seemed relatively trivial: people were engaged in amateur psychoanalysis of Schwyzer? And people were sending emails complaining about the “tone” of the comments? Please. I haven’t been commenting here that long, but if reasons like that were the appropriate criteria, then the vast majority of all the threads here that inspire more than 50 comments should probably be shut down.

    But I’d really rather focus on Schwyzer himself than on what Clarisse did. I’m as deeply troubled as many others by the idea that there’s something wrong with holding against Schwyzer that he tried to murder his ex, now that he’s “confessed,” and that we should all forgive him because he’s turned his life around and redeemed himself (and apparently hasn’t tried to murder anyone else, so far as we know). Not being a Christian, I am generally of the firm belief that nobody even has the right to forgive someone who commits a crime like his other than his victims, no matter how sincere the repentance (which I don’t really buy with respect to Schwyzer in the first place), and that any “atonement” should be directed to the victims, not to anyone else. And he made it quite clear himself that the woman he tried to kill – and her family – have not forgiven him in the least, and I don’t see that he’s done anything to atone to her. So what right does anyone else have to “forgive” him, and what right does anyone have to demand that people do so? None.

    What’s more (and I admit that I have a bias against men who try to murder their exes or anyone else), I simply didn’t get the feeling from Schwyzer’s confession that he truly understood the magnitude of what he had done – face it, he committed a very serious felony that could and should have landed him in prison for many years — or that the confession itself was really anything much more than self-flagellation for the purpose of making him feel good, and eliciting all sorts of plaudits and congratulations for his bravery and his purported redemption. (As I wrote in the original thread, this is pretty much exactly how I interpreted the confession of a trans woman in one of my support groups years ago that prior to her transition she had been a “gay basher” and had attacked and beaten at least one teenage gay kid.) If Schwyzer truly understood what he had done and were truly remorseful, would he have been so careful to consult a lawyer in advance of his confession to make sure he would suffer no real-world consequences for his crime? Would he have tried to make himself look good by mentioning a phone call he supposedly made (in which, even under his own characterization, it isn’t as if he mentioned that he was about to murder someone)? Would he have written it in a way that seems to put the blame on the drugs, etc., rather than on himself? Would he have focused so much on the effect of his attempted murder on himself, as some sort of mechanism leading to his own redemption, rather than thinking about what it must have done to the life of the woman he tried to kill? Would he have used the word “furious” to describe the reaction of that woman’s parents to learning that he had tried to murder their daughter, a word that to me seems incredibly trivializing, and to far understate what the actual reaction of most parents would be to learning that someone had done that to their child? And would he have seemed to be as oddly piqued and surprised as he did that his victim has not forgiven him and did not want to be in contact with him?

    My answer to all those questions is, obviously, no. I simply don’t buy it. And that’s wholly apart from the issue of his teaching young women about feminism (or anything else) given his past history with young women, and making it rather clear that he could still sleep with them if he wanted to. (Look how strong my willpower is!)

  61. Clarisse Thorn:
    MymotivationsinclosingthefirstthreadwereexactlyasIsaidtheywere:Ireceivedmultipleemailsthat
    expressedrealshockathowuglyanddestructivetheconversationhadbecome,frompeoplewhosaid
    thattheywouldotherwiseparticipate.Ihaveclosedpreviouscommentthreadsforthesamereason.

    Mymotivationsinpre-emptivelyclosingthesecondthreadwereshapedbythefactthatIspenttheprevious
    fewdaysreceivingpersonalhatemailthatIwillnotrepublishhere.Iunderstandthatthishatemailwasnot
    public,andthattherefore,ImostlylooklikeIflippedoutovernothing.

    IreallyappreciatethepositivefeedbackIhavereceivedfromsomereaders,andIamdoingmybestto
    appreciatethenegativefeedbackaswell.

    How is allowing no one to discuss your post better than allowing some people to do so? I don’t understand.
    In any case a post about a person like Hugo is bound to create some drama. Hugo strikes me as someone who is fooling people with his charm. I do not believe that he changed, or was given actual consequences for his actions, he merely changed the way he manipulated people since his old method failed.
    Whether or not you believe that, I hope you considered it as a possibility, which would explain some of the hate you got when you tried to push him as an expert on femininity. I would also say that most men do not appreciate your use of Hugo as representative of them. Are you really shocked that you got intense drama when you tried to hold Hugo up as an example?

  62. It’s not that the hate mail isn’t public; it’s that closing a comment thread has nothing to do with receiving hate mail. Even if the hate mail were public, I would not be on board with closing the comment thread.

    Having been on the receiving end of hatemail once or twice, I remember it both feeling really sucky / terrifying to the point of wanting to ignore it. But at least with email I didn’t have to open it if I didn’t want to. Having to moderate a comment thread doesn’t give that choice.

    I don’t know how the coding of the site works or if this’d even be feasible, but is it possible for people other than the OP to moderate their comment threads? Then someone like Clarisse, who might not want to deal with seeing some of the messages posted, could post without having to see the comments (if she doesn’t want to.)

    Just a thought. Sorry if it’s a derail.

  63. I want to second what Caperton said about Feministe not being a hivemind, and about there being lots of blame to go around here. Clarisse and I had a brief email exchange about the comment thread; I told her that it was up to her whether or not to close it. I was busy at work and sick and honestly not really following it, so I kind just said, “Do whatever.” A lot of blame is being heaped on Clarisse, but to make things clear, she isn’t as familiar with the Feministe community as I am. I should have read the thread more carefully and sent her a thoughtful response, rather than putting the responsibility on her. So that was my fault, personally.

    And also, for the record, even if the Hugo interview had been run by me before it went up, I would have said, “Cool, go for it, post away.” Caperton might have had a different response, and Sally might have had a different response. I would have given the go-ahead to post it.

    Everything Caperton says in this post is right. There were a lot of fuck-ups here. I just want to emphasize that Feministe isn’t a monolith, and we don’t review each others’ posts (or guest bloggers’ posts) before they go up, and we have a variety of opinions on what should or shouldn’t happen in this space (including differences of opinion on the original interview). I’m really glad Caperton put up this post. I just want to make it clear that, while this is a blog fuck-up, not every individual who writes for Feministe was involved. I was involved. A lot of these mistakes were mine, or were things that had I been more diligent could have been avoided. I apologize for that, and I should shoulder a lot of the blame that’s being heaped on Clarisse right now.

  64. DonnaL:
    [wall of quoted text deleted – please highlight just the part to which you want to respond, or if it is the whole thing, just leave the link to the post intact and delete the rest ~ moderator]

    This is a really brilliant explanation of why Hugo is a problem. Props.

  65. I have huge admiration for all of the Feministe community, where I’ve been an intermittent commenter since 2005. I will refrain from commenting here again; clearly, it’s evidently impossible for me to be anything other than a deeply divisive presence.

    If someone has an idea for how we move the conversation forward, and if they’d like me to be part of that conversation, I’m amenable (after the holidays, of course). If the best thing is for me to stay out of this discussion because no good can come from it, I’m fine with that as well.

  66. Matt: The most amusing aspect of this whole thing is that people believe Hugo that he has changed. He just uses a different strategy to get what he wants since he got busted on the last one. Fun times.

    Hahaha. I agree and see this as truth.

  67. DonnaL: I am generally of the firm belief that nobody even has the right to forgive someone who commits a crime like his other than his victims, no matter how sincere the repentance (which I don’t really buy with respect to Schwyzer in the first place), and that any “atonement” should be directed to the victims, not to anyone else. And he made it quite clear himself that the woman he tried to kill – and her family – have not forgiven him in the least, and I don’t see that he’s done anything to atone to her. So what right does anyone else have to “forgive” him, and what right does anyone have to demand that people do so? None.

    I agree wholeheartedly with this.

  68. Does someone mind elaborating on the issues with Hugo and women of colour? I skimmed through the comments a bit and saw it mentioned, but don’t really know the background.
    Thanks 🙂

  69. Ashley: But at least with email I didn’t have to open it if I didn’t want to. Having to moderate a comment thread doesn’t give that choice.

    But there weren’t any abusive or hateful comments directed at CT in the comment thread. And she’s never said that there, just that she received hate mail, which I agree, is a horrible thing. But it’s a horrible thing that’s not happening on the comment thread.

    DonnaL: I’m as deeply troubled as many others by the idea that there’s something wrong with holding against Schwyzer that he tried to murder his ex, now that he’s “confessed,” and that we should all forgive him because he’s turned his life around and redeemed himself (and apparently hasn’t tried to murder anyone else, so far as we know). Not being a Christian, I am generally of the firm belief that nobody even has the right to forgive someone who commits a crime like his other than his victims, no matter how sincere the repentance (which I don’t really buy with respect to Schwyzer in the first place), and that any “atonement” should be directed to the victims, not to anyone else.

    Yes. This is a point well-made, in my opinion. The ideas that forgiveness and redemption are things we should be granting, that we have the power to grant, that all they require is confession and repentance, that they are things we have a duty to grant each other–those all seem to me to come out of a system of cultural values deeply invested in Christianity, with its emphasis on redemption and repentance. There is, of course, some good to be said of those ideas, but they are also ideas that should be interrogated, because they can be used as an excuse to celebrate abusers and silencing their victims. There are people whom I feel no need to forgive, both personally and in a political sense. Many people felt no need to forgive Christopher Hitchens. Nobody has a right to forgiveness from anybody, and forgiveness in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue.

    (I’ve always found the whole Christian emphasis on forgiveness really strange, given their other emphasis on ETERNAL TORTURE FOREVER in the pit of hell for sinners; the ancient Egyptians just annihilated you if you were found morally wanting after death, which seems far more merciful to me.)

  70. Ugh…so many issues…

    1) I’m not against pre-emptively closing comments. A few years ago a summer blogger did that in response to some pretty blatant ablism in the comment threads. I think the key is understanding the power dynamics of the places in which these conversations occur.

    2) I get where Clarisse is coming from. Our instinct is to protect the people we care about from feeling hurt. The problem is sometimes the people we care about really hurt someone else and protecting our loved ones comes at the expense of those that were initially harmed.

    3) This question of redemption is a ginormous red herring. Hugo abused women. The abuse was not just casual, but severe and pervasive. He then used his position of relative power to avoid the consequences of his actions.

    In that way, he’s a constant reminder that the abuse of women is not a serious offense and that powerful men who abuse will never be stripped – even temporarily – of their power to reoffend.

    Regardless of whether he is an entirely different man, its hard for me to stomach the idea of this movement being part of how he maintains that power.

  71. Hugo:
    IhavehugeadmirationforalloftheFeministecommunity,whereI’vebeenanintermittent
    commentersince2005.Iwillrefrainfromcommentinghereagain;clearly,it’sevidently
    impossibleformetobeanythingotherthanadeeplydivisivepresence.

    Ifsomeonehasanideaforhowwemovetheconversationforward,andifthey’dlikemetobe
    partofthatconversation,I’mamenable(aftertheholidays,ofcourse).Ifthebestthingisfor
    metostayoutofthisdiscussionbecausenogoodcancomefromit,I’mfinewiththataswell.

    This is a great example of Hugo being disingenuous. This comment was totally unnecessary unless he is a narcissist.

  72. Wow. I am honestly shocked to read this post. How cowardly. Being sensitive to your readers is one thing; coddling us and treating us like fragile little flowers is another entirely. And apologizing for publishing interviews about someone because of their past, about which that person has been fully honest and accountable for? Unreal.

    I miss the 2007 version of this blog. I rarely read it anymore these days due to being extraordinarily busy, but like so many others who’ve commented above me, that readership is likely to drop even lower now. I have no interest in reading and participating in a blog whose staff writers apologize for showing fucking honesty to their readers.

  73. Matt:
    ThisisagreatexampleofHugobeingdisingenuous.Thiscommentwastotally
    unnecessaryunlessheisanarcissist.

    Man I really wish we could do edits.
    I feel that that post is the equivalent of a flounce.
    In flouncing instead of just leaving the person makes a post telling everyone they are leaving.
    In this case instead of just staying out of it he comes in and makes a post saying he is staying out of it. He could achieve the same result of staying out of it without the post.

  74. Kristen J.: 3) This question of redemption is a ginormous red herring. Hugo abused women. The abuse was not just casual, but severe and pervasive. He then used his position of relative power to avoid the consequences of his actions.

    I kind of disagree with this. This is very central to the discussion.

    I think Piny nailed it above

    piny: Part of being an adult is learning that remorse doesn’t remove all of the consequences of bad actions. For many people, some things are unforgivable. […] It is not just to insist that people who have been hurt forgive–or to impose a normal timeline or criteria set for forgiveness.

    It is kind of subjective as to what can be forgiven or considered just in the past. For me the affairs with his students are redeemable. The attempted murder is not.

    But still: This is subjective and open to debate.

  75. EG: (I’ve always found the whole Christian emphasis on forgiveness really strange, given their other emphasis on ETERNAL TORTURE FOREVER in the pit of hell for sinners; the ancient Egyptians just annihilated you if you were found morally wanting after death, which seems far more merciful to me.)

    Ahem…from the Brothers Karamazov which you once insisted that no one reads:

    I do not, finally, want the mother to embrace the tormentor who let his dogs tear her son to pieces! She dare not forgive him! let her forgive him for herself, if she wants to…; but she has no right to forgive the suffering of her child…even if the child himself were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, then where is the harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who could and would have the right to forgive? I don’t want harmony, for love of mankind I don’t want it. I want to remain with unrequited suffering. I’d rather remain with unrequited suffering and my unquenched indignation…they have put too high a price on harmony; we can’t affort to pay so much for admission.

  76. Please continue to keep us honest,

    Um, if you want to be kept honest, try not publishing a post apologizing for publishing a piece about honesty. Christ.

  77. Thank you for this post.

    “But we don’t see Feministe as an appropriate venue for the rehabilitation of a figure with Schwyzer’s history (and, for that matter, present).”

    This is going to sound funny coming from me, since my comments were probably some of the nastiest on the previous thread. But to Clarisse Thorn, Schwyzer is evidently an important figure in feminism, someone worth listening to, and that’s fine. Her job (and all of yours) is to bring us the voices of feminists that you consider important, and, honestly, I don’t want you all second-guessing yourselves, if that limits the variety of voices you bring to our attention.

    With that being said: being able to discuss, openly and without fear, the history and credentials of a person like Schwyzer, is extraordinarily important. We have the right to ask what sort of person he is, what sort of feminism he teaches; we have a right to consider the strong points and the problematic issues with his approach; we have, ultimately, the right to condemn and to judge. That’s why I think your mistake was not, so much, giving Schwyzer a platform – because I learned a great deal about him and his approach from the comments here – as it was shutting off discussion. Multiple commenters have said this above, but I will reiterate: I have no problem with closing off the sort of ugly and nonproductive dialogue that encourages the worst aspects of this community. The comment thread on Schwyzer was neither; it was a critique – albeit intemperate at times – of Schwyzer as a teacher, as a feminist voice, and as a (former?) abuser of women. It felt like the thread was closed to protect Schwyzer from criticism of his words and actions. That should not happen here.

  78. Matt: In this case instead of just staying out of it he comes in and makes a post saying he is staying out of it. He could achieve the same result of staying out of it without the post.

    Agreed. Came across as petulant immature “Okay, if no one likes me I guess I’ll just go away all by myself *sniffle*”. No one was wondering why he hadn’t shown up to join the conversation, and in fact I’m sure very few people wanted him to.

    Seriously, Hugo. Physician, heal thyself, so to speak…

  79. I read Feministe off and on. I was linked to the original post and its subsequent responses by friends.

    Would CT and some commentators been falling over themselves to forgive, defend, and justify Schwyzer’s behavior if he’d been Joe Schmoe instead of a self-styled expert? If it had been, say, Newt Gingrich or Terry Randall who made those revelations about trying to kill his girlfriend?

    If you’re not as hard on your friends and people you admire when they fuck up (especially as monstrously as HS did, and does) as you are on people you don’t, you’ve lost credibility with me. Either the same standards apply to everyone, or you’re just picking and choosing in order to look good to your circle of friends and random strangers on the Internet.

    Another thought. I don’t think CT should blog for awhile on Feministe, or moderate. Every time she posts something that doesn’t get exactly the response she wants, she closes the comments. It seems to me a vacation would do her, and the blog, some good.

  80. Thanks for this post. I really appreciate it, as well as Jill’s comment upthread. This does a lot to relieve some of the concerns I had about the original comments section being closed and the follow-up post.

  81. mad the swine: That’s why I think your mistake was not, so much, giving Schwyzer a platform – because I learned a great deal about him and his approach from the comments here – as it was shutting off discussion.

    I’m more a lurker than a commenter here, but this was my view of the whole thing, too. I am glad you are bringing this all up and discussing it, but for me it was the comment thread shutdown that bugged me. Personally, I had known of Hugo for a while, and like a few of his posts on the male sense of being desirable, but mostly found him smug and a little too fixated on an odd christian anti-sex, anti-pleasure view. I knew he was a former promiscuous skirt-chaser and drinker and had turned his life around, so I figured that’s where it came from. I knew none of the sleeping with students or attempted murder until that thread. For that to come up and then have the thread be shut down kind of shocked me.

    I want to also appreciate all the mods/posters, Clarisse included, for engaging in this thread and discussing their thought processes. It is a weekend of family obligations for many, so thanks for that.

  82. Kristen J.: Ahem…from the Brothers Karamazov which you once insisted that no one reads:

    I do not, finally, want the mother to embrace the tormentor who let his dogs tear her son to pieces! She dare not forgive him! let her forgive him for herself, if she wants to…; but she has no right to forgive the suffering of her child…even if the child himself were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, then where is the harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who could and would have the right to forgive? I don’t want harmony, for love of mankind I don’t want it. I want to remain with unrequited suffering. I’d rather remain with unrequited suffering and my unquenched indignation…they have put too high a price on harmony; we can’t affort to pay so much for admission.

    Kristen, other than trying to play “gotcha” with EG and score some kind of point at her expense, what exactly were you trying to prove by going entirely off-topic to post this?

    You do understand, right, that this is taken from Ivan Karamazov’s discourse about lack of faith, etc., and does not represent Dostoevsky’s own views? You do understand that Dostoevsky’s view of this is embodied in Alyosha’s response to Ivan that the “being who could and would have the right to forgive” is Jesus Christ?

    So why in the world do you think this was an appropriate thing to post in response to two people (myself and EG) who have made very clear that they aren’t Christians and don’t ascribe to Christian views of forgiveness and redemption?

    Finally, I don’t suppose there’s any chance that you understand the irony in that context of choosing to post a quotation from a writer who held and expressed anti-Semitic views far more virulent and repulsive than those of any of the other great 19th-century Russian writers? If you don’t, go read the book “Dostoevsky and the Jews” and then come back and explain yourself.

  83. While I appreciate the openness to listening to readers reactions, at no point in this did I feel that a real fuckup occurred. The rationale for the original post, and the decision to close the comments, struck me as reasonable and thought out. I read Feministe to force me to think and consider ideas and that I am not always immediately comfortable with. The original post provided. While I understand that people were not happy with the closing of the thread, I see why it was done, and don’t fault anyone for it.

    Just my thoughts…

  84. DonnaL:
    Kristen,otherthantryingtoplay“gotcha”withEGandscoresomekindofpointather
    expense,whatexactlywereyoutryingtoprovebygoingentirelyoff-topictopostthis?

    Youdounderstand,right,thatthisistakenfromIvanKaramazov’sdiscourseabout
    lackoffaith,etc.,anddoesnotrepresentDostoevsky’sownviews?Youdounderstand
    thatDostoevsky’sviewofthisisembodiedinAlyosha’sresponsetoIvanthatthe“
    beingwhocouldandwouldhavetherighttoforgive”isJesusChrist?

    Sowhyintheworlddoyouthinkthiswasanappropriatethingtopostinresponsetotwo
    people(myselfandEG)whohavemadeveryclearthattheyaren’tChristiansanddon’t
    ascribetoChristianviewsofforgivenessandredemption?

    Finally,Idon’tsupposethere’sanychancethatyouunderstandtheironyinthatcontext
    ofchoosingtopostaquotationfromawriterwhoheldandexpressedanti-Semiticviews
    farmorevirulentandrepulsivethanthoseofanyoftheothergreat19th-centuryRussian
    writers?Ifyoudon’t,goreadthebook“DostoevskyandtheJews”andthencomeback
    andexplainyourself.

    About the same amount of irony as holding up Hugo as an example of a good male feminist. 🙂

  85. Why are people deciding hugo’s response to his crime is insufficient? (disingenuous, fake) why? I don’t understand. What evidence do you have that his motives are evil? What evidence do you have that his change is pretentious? Do you know him personally? Your judgements of him are absolute and scathing, and I am still searching his writings for evidence. Although, truly, the only ones who can know the truth of hugo’s enlightenment are the women who experience treatment from him in the ordinariness of daily life. Let’s ask his office assistant. His building janitors. His neighbors. There’s a wholelotta scathing judgement going on here, and I dunno who can stand up under the standards. Is there hope for me? I would be condemned for eternity by some of y’all, I fear. I hope there is a just AND merciful God out there to help people who have blown it walk a new path. People like me. I wish there were a just but gentle community of feminists to teach me.

  86. So, I missed the shitstorm, as I was elsewhere. I just want to say one thing. I’m highly highly sceptical of self-proclaimed ‘male feminists’. Maybe that seems nitpicky, but I identify as a womanist ally and a trans ally and a poc ally bc I don’t belong to those groups. The possibility for co-opting the dialogue is just too real. I know not everyone agrees with me, but every single time I hear a dude proclaim himself a feminist, I get wildly uncomfotrable.

    That’s about lived experience, and about how we define our terms. It is my belief that just as I cannot identify as a womanist, b/c I am in fact a white woman; I don’t like the notion of the ‘male feminist’. Even folks who are supposed allies mess up, but at the very least they seem to have some sort of notion of accountability based on NOT claiming inclusion in a group which they are not a part of and may historically have been a part of oppressing.

    SO, slightly semantic, to my way of thinking ‘male feminist’ is an oxymoron. You can be anti-sexist, or a feminist ally. But I think it best we define feminist to mean women who believe in and work for equal rights and opportunities for women. Sorry but that’s just my two bits. I invariably feel condescended to by these folks who make a career of co-opting my struggle, and its not even vaguely ok. I’ve had ‘male feminists’ lecture me about women’s issues and queer women’s issues in a way that made it clear that they were essentially just reapplying privilege to silence me. And that’s absurd.

  87. oh and @ Nanette

    “If you are going to talk about anything in social justice, criminal justice, economic justice, the prison industrial complex, and almost any other field, it’s likely that women of color have already been working on it for decades.”
    YES!!!!!!!!! This comment ftw!

  88. Thank you for this post, Caperton, and thank you and Jill for subsequent comments. I have to call bull on Clarisse’s explanation, however, as hate email is awful, but a personal issue. Publicaly, nothing hateful was said about her, or to her, on the thread itself. On a personal level, feminism to me is also about self-reflection and requires admitting when you fuck up. Feministe as an entity, and Jill and Caperton as individuals, stepped up and did just that. Clarisse came up with more excuses.

    I have to say, the idea expressed by someone above that Hugo is a “particularly important” voice in feminism and so should not be shut out is laughable. Feminist women are particularly important voices in feminism. If they are angry about a feminist issue, like abuse, their voices have to be privileged. Hugo, as DonnaL brilliantly stated above, is not owed our forgiveness and he is not owed this platform to speak. He has his own, on both counts, and so will be fine.

    And since some of us are making declarations about our participation here, let me respond to the “I don’t read here to begin with, but I quit!!1!” with my own: I read every day, I don’t really comment, and I’m not about to quit. So there! 🙂

  89. Umm…because it sums up my objection to the Christian notion of redemption. But far be it for me to have an opinion on redemption since so completely off topic.

  90. Kristen J.: Umm…because it sums up my objection to the Christian notion of redemption. But far be it for me to have an opinion on redemption since so completely off topic.

    I’ll limit myself to saying that you chose a very bad example of that objection, for the reasons I stated — it’s all a set up for Alyosha’s very Christian response. What was off-topic was not the subject of redemption itself, but your raising of some apparent dispute you have with EG concerning her opinions of Dostoevsky.

  91. Just for the record, I’ve always disliked Hugo and had literally no idea of his history until today. I knew him only as a male feminist whose movements in the online feminist community were distasteful to me. I disagree with him and don’t particularly care to engage him or interact with him because of his current actions and approach to my movement, not because of the horrific actions in his past.

    How he recovers as an individual is a question for him to ponder, not me. I’m trying to recover from having done some shit things myself. I don’t expect someone to run around on my behalf criticizing anyone who has a distaste for me based on my own damned actions, though.

    Hugo sets off a lot of red flags not because of what’s in his past (though that’s awful itself). It’s because of how he interacts with us in the present day. I don’t take kindly to being chastised for not liking someone, and then having my motives assumed and mis-ascribed. This whole ep just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I don’t like the assumption that any reason to dislike that happened here must be a bad one.

  92. @Donna L,

    The argument your referencing is not over the content of the Brothers K, but rather people mentioning on their dating profiles that they read it which I thought was funny given that we argued about it and I was quoting it to her. If you don’t like the example because D was a raging anti-semite, well, yeah he was. Still he summed up my objection and I never found Alyosha’s argument compelling.

  93. zuzu: Attemptedmurderdoestendtobealittleuncomfortable.

    is it not relevant that it was an attempted murder/suicide? clearly linked to addiction and mental illness? from which he has since been in recovery and actively working to contribute to positive causes?

    not that addiction and mental illness are excuses per say. but who are we to judge whether and when somebody has “made up for” past transgressions (committed under those conditions) enough to be permitted to like, say interesting things on the internet?

  94. also– and sorry if i missed this, because some of the comment threads are still unavailable— can somebody point me towards stuff Schwyzer has said/written/done that have been racist//otherwise bad towards POC? googling “Hugo Schwyzer racist” brings up nothing interesting. just want to try to see where people are coming from since it seems like current (rather than decade and a half old) things about him are also rubbing people the wrong way…

  95. I am interested in the moral calculus that can make it a good thing–and not a bad thing–for an allegedly reformed predator to not only continue to surround himself with his prey, but to actually enrich himself as a self-professed expert on their role as prey. If Schwyzer truly felt remorse and wished to make amends for the gross harms he has done to women in his past, wouldn’t he leave them the fucke alone, rather than continue to (metaphorically) smack them in the face with his dicke in public and make money off it?

  96. jfrie:

    is it not relevant that it was an attempted murder/suicide?

    Murder/suicide by a man of himself & a female partner is a type of violence intimately connected with domestic violence. Which for many people is linked to alcohol and drugs as well, but that doesn’t make it any less domestic violence. Being surrounded by a community of people who excuse his past behavior because of his current good works is an excellent way for an abuser to keep abusing.

  97. Yeah. you did fuck up, it’s true. I think Feministe needs some new blood—and not to shut down threads like that, which was seriously not okay.

  98. number9: I have to call bull on Clarisse’s explanation, however, as hate email is awful, but a personal issue. Publicaly, nothing hateful was said about her, or to her, on the thread itself. On a personal level, feminism to me is also about self-reflection and requires admitting when you fuck up. Feministe as an entity, and Jill and Caperton as individuals, stepped up and did just that. Clarisse came up with more excuses.

    I don’t think you’re seeing the whole picture. Clarisse is moderator of the thread, i.e. it is her duty to moderate all the comments, so she has to read them all or else she is shirking her duty. So, while I agree that the second piece shouldn’t have been printed with pre-emption of comments, it is a legitimate excuse for ending the comments on the initial post.

  99. Thank you for this:

    That’s about lived experience, and about how we define our terms. It is my belief that just as I cannot identify as a womanist, b/c I am in fact a white woman; I don’t like the notion of the ‘male feminist’. Even folks who are supposed allies mess up, but at the very least they seem to have some sort of notion of accountability based on NOT claiming inclusion in a group which they are not a part of and may historically have been a part of oppressing.

    It expresses the root of why I don’t feel that as a male, it’s appropriate for me (or other males) to appropriate feminism, even if it’s something we try to study and ally ourselves with, it’s something that as males we have to acknowledge. I often see other males call themselves feminists (often writers/scholars/etc), but it bothers me. Not that we should give up on being allies – we should try harder, in fact.

  100. suspect class: Murder/suicidebyamanofhimself&afemalepartnerisatypeofviolenceintimatelyconnectedwithdomesticviolence.Whichformanypeopleislinkedtoalcoholanddrugsaswell,butthatdoesn’tmakeitanylessdomesticviolence.

    truth. but… no information has come to light to suggest that Schwyzer has ever been a batterer, so this situation seems kind of different than a domestic violence scenario that culminates horrifically in a murder/suicide. there are different kinds of partner violence, and it occurs under a diversity of circumstances that are NOT irrelevant.

  101. jfrie: is it not relevant that it was an attempted murder/suicide? clearly linked to addiction and mental illness? from which he has since been in recovery and actively working to contribute to positive causes?

    Not really. Because of the “murder” part. I mean, he’s no different than those guys who go to their ex-wives’ places of employment and kill them, then turn the gun on themselves. Or who take out their kids while they take out themselves.

    Also, I didn’t see much in his recounting of the story that convinced me he really grasped the enormity of what he’d done. He started off by bringing up the tale in response to a question someone had about what one does when one does something awful like leaving the door open when you’re dogsitting and the dog gets out in an area filled with coyotes. Then he sort of nonchalantly mentioned that he’d already started coming down from whatever he was on when he turned the gas on and tried to kill his ex. And wraps up with the fact that he’s upset that her parents were “furious” with him (as if he’d just wrecked her car instead of trying to murder her) and neither she nor her parents have forgiven him.

    I mean, the focus in that story is on him and the forgiveness he feels due because he’s reformed. But no one is *owed* forgiveness, particularly when the perp got off scot-free by asserting his white-boy privilege and getting the sheriff to accept that it was a suicide pact.

    He’s not paid any price for his crime, legally, professionally or socially. He’s in fact gone on to have a brilliant career exploiting his past transgressions. The fact that he tried to murder a woman hasn’t touched him, except in the sense that he really wants this woman’s forgiveness. But it’s not his to demand. It’s hers to give if she wants to, and she’s made it clear she doesn’t want to.

    EG and DonnaL, I’d say that the kind of redemption and public forgiveness Hugo seeks is specifically a Protestant thing; I may have had a somewhat half-assed Catholic upbringing, but the thing we were always told was that what went on in the confessional was between you, the priest and God, and any forgiveness had to come through God, by doing penance. You didn’t try to strong-arm the person you’d harmed into forgiveness.

  102. jfrie: truth. but… no information has come to light to suggest that Schwyzer has ever been a batterer, so this situation seems kind of different than a domestic violence scenario that culminates horrifically in a murder/suicide. there are different kinds of partner violence, and it occurs under a diversity of circumstances that are NOT irrelevant.

    I agree that circumstances surrounding violence are relevant. But regardless of whether this was a battering relationship prior to that evening, trying to kill your girlfriend *is* domestic violence, by any reasonable definition. Which, whatever, if you think that’s something you can get past, that’s your call. But just as the context of that act in the relationship matters, so does the larger social context of domestic violence.

  103. jfrie: not that addiction and mental illness are excuses per say. but who are we to judge whether and when somebody has “made up for” past transgressions (committed under those conditions) enough to be permitted to like, say interesting things on the internet?

    No, addiction is not an excuse. Drunk driving is a crime. If you kill someone when you’re fucked up, that person is still dead. In any event, his description of the crime — for crime it is — demonstrates that he was hardly blackout drunk or hallucinatory. The fact that he can recall clearly how he extinguished the pilot light and turned on the gas in his murder attempt and was aware that she was unconscious and could not escape puts the lie to any attempt to abdicate responsibility on the grounds of addiction.

    Besides, most addicts don’t actually try to kill people. They may commit negligent homicide, but intentional? Not so much.

  104. So when Clarisse shut down the comments,the entire community got laryngitis and has been mute until today’s apology? And this forum is the only space on the Internets where opinions about the interview et al can be expressed? I guess we are delicate violets.

  105. When Feministe gives him interviews, he makes money

    I didn’t know that. How does he make money?

    I think what’s most funny about this entire incident is how Hugo has been a prominent pro-feminist blogger and voice for years: he’s been linked to positively before on Feministe, he’s been recognized as an important feminist voice in previous comment threads, he’s participated in conferences, he’s clearly on friendly terms with a lot of feminist bloggers, and (from search) a post containing nothing but a congratulations to him on the birth of his daughter a few years ago received no controversy.

    And yet he was apparently just flying under the radar this whole time (?) Are we really not examining the voices in this community or movement at even such a basic level? Did Clarisse inadvertently do us all a favor by ‘outing’ him? But on second thought, would *anyone* really fare well under the spotlight? While Hugo was particularly “vulnerable” as a man and because of the things he’s admitted to from his past, I don’t think the basic dynamics would in the end be all that different for practically any of the big names in the feminist blogosphere, or indeed, any feminist person who happens to have blogged for a long time. Mistakes are inevitable, they add up, and while not all are as severe as the ones Hugo committed, they’re all severe *enough*. When the discussion gets rolling, no matter how positively it starts off, once it falls into focusing on that person’s mistakes, it will never get stop. I’ve never tried to kill anyone, but I don’t doubt that a full examination of my life history and compendium of life writings would not survive a Feministe comment thread. A certain degree of masochism is required to survive here, which is ironic because feminism is supposed to be about asserting your rights, which is one of the more anti-masochistic things you can do.

    Perhaps the solution is to stop publishing pieces centered around individuals, especially feminist individuals, unless we’re ready to start a brutal self-criticism session.

  106. Tony_:
    Ididn’tknowthat.Howdoeshemakemoney?

    Ithinkwhat’smostfunnyaboutthisentireincidentishowHugohasbeenaprominent
    pro-feministbloggerandvoiceforyears:he’sbeenlinkedtopositivelybeforeonFeministe,he’s
    beenrecognizedasanimportantfeministvoiceinpreviouscommentthreads,he’sparticipated
    inconferences,he’sclearlyonfriendlytermswithalotoffeministbloggers,and(fromsearch)a
    postcontainingnothingbutacongratulationstohimonthebirthofhisdaughterafewyearsago
    receivednocontroversy.

    Andyethewasapparentlyjustflyingundertheradarthiswholetime(?)Arewereallynotexamining
    thevoicesinthiscommunityormovementatevensuchabasiclevel?DidClarisseinadvertentlydo
    usallafavorby‘outing’him?Butonsecondthought,would*anyone*reallyfarewellunderthespotlight?
    WhileHugowasparticularly“vulnerable”asamanandbecauseofthethingshe’sadmittedtofromhis
    past,Idon’tthinkthebasicdynamicswouldintheendbeallthatdifferentforpracticallyanyofthebig
    namesinthefeministblogosphere,orindeed,anyfeministpersonwhohappenstohavebloggedfor
    alongtime.Mistakesareinevitable,theyaddup,andwhilenotallareassevereastheonesHugo
    committed,they’reallsevere*enough*.Whenthediscussiongetsrolling,nomatterhowpositivelyit
    startsoff,onceitfallsintofocusingonthatperson’smistakes,itwillnevergetstop.I’venevertriedtokill
    anyone,butIdon’tdoubtthatafullexaminationofmylifehistoryandcompendiumoflifewritingswould
    notsurviveaFeministecommentthread.Acertaindegreeofmasochismisrequiredtosurvivehere,
    whichisironicbecausefeminismissupposedtobeaboutassertingyourrights,whichisoneofthemore
    anti-masochisticthingsyoucando.

    Perhapsthesolutionistostoppublishingpiecescenteredaroundindividuals,especiallyfeminist
    individuals,unlesswe’rereadytostartabrutalself-criticismsession.

    Isn’t feminism all about encouraging self criticism?

  107. Isn’t feminism all about encouraging self criticism?

    But is the recent comment more about Hugo self-criticizing as part of feminism, or Hugo getting the fuck out of feminism? It seems like more of the latter.

  108. “I think what’s most funny about this entire incident is how Hugo has been a prominent pro-feminist blogger and voice for years: he’s been linked to positively before on Feministe, he’s been recognized as an important feminist voice in previous comment threads, he’s participated in conferences, he’s clearly on friendly terms with a lot of feminist bloggers, and (from search) a post containing nothing but a congratulations to him on the birth of his daughter a few years ago received no controversy.

    And yet he was apparently just flying under the radar this whole time (?)”

    For what it’s worth, the post where he admitted to trying to murder his girlfriend only came out this year. Learning that sort of secret makes you re-evaluate a person. From this thread, it sounds like a number of people have been uncomfortable with Schwyzer for quite a while, but preferred not to speak up because of the strong support he had among professional feminists.

  109. He makes money because he gets more famous. That can translate into anything from book and other publishing sales to speaking gigs to tenure. He is a professional feminist; any exposure in feminist venues translates to money. It’s not direct, but it’s there. And it is an important thing to consider.

    I think a lot of people just either ignored him or thought he was internet awful. I didn’t read his blog closely enough to know the darker parts of his history. if I had, I would have been furious earlier.

    And this:

    not that addiction and mental illness are excuses per say. but who are we to judge whether and when somebody has “made up for” past transgressions (committed under those conditions) enough to be permitted to like, say interesting things on the internet?

    We are people deciding whom we want to form personal connections with. We are activists deciding whom we want to lead and inspire us. We are, many of us, survivors deciding whom to trust. Who are we? If we don’t have the right to answer these questions, then I don’t think we have the right to call ourselves feminists–or to give that term any meaning on a political or moral level.

  110. But is the recent comment more about Hugo self-criticizing as part of feminism, or Hugo getting the fuck out of feminism? It seems like more of the latter.

    You’re using two definitions of feminism here: feminism as a social entity and feminism as a moral code based on treating women with respect. Keeping your distance from feminist internet circles doesn’t prevent anyone from being good to women.

  111. Tony_: Mistakes are inevitable, they add up, and while not all are as severe as the ones Hugo committed, they’re all severe *enough*. When the discussion gets rolling, no matter how positively it starts off, once it falls into focusing on that person’s mistakes, it will never get stop.

    So you’re actually comparing attempted murder to blogging “mistakes,” in the very same sentence. “Not all are as severe”? But I guess some of them are? The only thing I can say is, speak for yourself.

  112. DonnaL: So you’re actually comparing attempted murder to blogging “mistakes,” in the very same sentence. “Not all are as severe”? But I guess some of them are? The only thing I can say is, speak for yourself.

    Well, speaking for myself, I have certainly done things I regret. However, I don’t try to incorporate these things into a overall mythos/persona, thus reveling in the very acts one is denouncing. It seems Schwyzer wants to have his cake and eat it too.

  113. Charlotte:
    Thanks for the apology, but it kind of bothers me that it wasn’t from Clarisse herself?

    Perhaps Clarisse Thorn doesn’t agree with this post made by Caperton. Maybe she thinks of herself as the aggrieved party.

  114. Nobby Stiles: Clarisse is moderator of the thread, i.e. it is her duty to moderate all the comments, so she has to read them all or else she is shirking her duty. So, while I agree that the second piece shouldn’t have been printed with pre-emption of comments, it is a legitimate excuse for ending the comments on the initial post.

    I disagree. She is the moderator; therefore it is her duty to moderate all the comments. However, my understanding of way moderation works here is that someone’s first comment goes into moderation; the comments of somebody who’s been flagged as a problem go into moderation; comments that I make that have a lot of bits and pieces quoting others seem to go into moderation. If CT was getting a lot first-time commenters making hateful and abusive comments and didn’t want to look at that any longer, there was nothing to prevent her from making a comment saying some version of “There’ve been a lot of abusive first-time commenters here in moderation, and I need to give myself a 48-hour mental health break from reading them, so I won’t be dealing with moderation queue for the next two days. If a comment of yours goes into moderation and takes a while to show up, that’s why.” That way, regular commenters would’ve been able to carry on what was really a rather civil discussion, as far as is shown in the thread, people who showed up to make abusive comments towards her would’ve been stuck in the queue, and she could have taken a breather.

    Tony_: While Hugo was particularly “vulnerable” as a man and because of the things he’s admitted to from his past, I don’t think the basic dynamics would in the end be all that different for practically any of the big names in the feminist blogosphere, or indeed, any feminist person who happens to have blogged for a long time.

    I really have a problem when people make the above argument, the “it’s a matter of degree, not kind” argument. Sure, but you know what? Degree matters. There’s a difference between having a feminist awakening and realizing that catcalling women on the street with your buddies is an asshole, threatening thing to do, even if you knew you would never have hurt those women, and having tried to kill your ex. I can forgive the first quite easily, actually, as men are socialized into patriarchal culture as well, and, as you say, we all make mistakes. But the second is much, much, much worse. Degree matters. It’s the difference between running a fever of 99.4, which is mild and may be uncomfortable, but no danger, and a fever of 106, in which case you’d better get your ass to the hospital, because you’re risking brain damage. Both indicate that you’re ill; the second, however, is a major problem.

    So, sure, I’ve made mistakes, and sure, people I love have made mistakes, both politically and personally. But no, I’m quite certain that nothing I’ve done is anywhere near as bad as trying to kill an ex. And even so, I’m neither surprised nor upset when people I’ve hurt are unhappy with me. On the contrary, I’m always surprised and grateful if they forgive me.

    Matt: Isn’t feminism all about encouraging self criticism?

    What? No. Feminism is a political movement and philosophy advocating the acceptance of women as full, human participants in all spheres of life, with all the rights accruing thereto. It has nothing to do with navel-gazing.

    jfrie: but who are we to judge whether and when somebody has “made up for” past transgressions (committed under those conditions) enough to be permitted to like, say interesting things on the internet?

    Who are we to judge? Who are we not to judge? Who are we to decide “Oh, OK, let’s let bygones be bygones, so you took advantage of several young women under your power and tried to kill an ex, no worries, as long as you’re sorry”? Every action you make is a judgment; refusing to judge is in itself a judgment. I don’t hold with what seems to me to be a very Christian paradigm of “who am I to judge” (Judge not, lest ye be judged; Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone)? Who am I? Well, I don’t believe in any gods. I’m a human being, with as much intelligence, thoughtfulness, and morality as anybody else; I’m as good as anybody else. If other human beings aren’t fit to judge, who is?

  115. And…”permitted to say interesting things on the internet”? Last I looked, jfrie, Feministe is not the entire internet. Nobody is advocating hiring jackbooted thugs to shut down his blog, or whatever.

  116. I dunno, isn’t part of feminism looking at stuff you did and saying, wow this is really harmful to women and I better not do that, and keeping that up checking yourself so you don’t screw up? In the context of responding to Tony, that may have been more clear, or not.

  117. “I have certainly done things I regret. However, I don’t try to incorporate these things into a overall mythos/persona, thus reveling in the very acts one is denouncing.”

    Wha…? Maybe that’s a negative in Schwyzer’s case, but in my field, the health educators I respect most as colleagues (and as friends) are the ones who exercise transparency with regard to their own lives and use their past mistakes as teaching examples of what (not) to do. Granted Schwyzer’s case is different because the issues involved are abuse and survivors of abuse — but to imply that incorporating past mistakes into one’s persona/mythos means “reveling in the very acts one is denouncing” seems inaccurate. I used to spout vile stuff as an abstinence-only advocate (a lifetime ago) — I’m not glib when I draw on that experience to teach issues, and neither is Schwyzer.

  118. On the note about moderating comment threads. Pre-emptively preventing commentary is in my book a fine thing. Maybe it’s my pessimism from having witnessed and been involved in so many social justice blow-ups where every new participant insists their commentary hasn’t been said 18 billion times already, but if Clarrise thinks that the only valuable thing that’s going to further come out of the comments on a particular post is a bunch of people sending her hateful things and questioning her feminist credentials because she made a bad judgment call or a choice they disagreed with, then maybe she has a point? At what point does her responsibility to her own personal well-being get superseded by our perceived right to comment in this space in this post on this issue at this time for however long we please? Especially when these issues, regardless of how we like to say otherwise, rarely end with everyone reaching a greater understanding of each other. I’ve witnessed enough heated discussions at this and other blogs over the same series of topics to know that rarely do people budge. People just talk in circles for about 200 comments getting progressively more heated, make some declarations about how they are totally done with the site for realz this time, leave with hurt feelings and then they save the date for the next big comment thread.

  119. Echo Zen:
    “IhavecertainlydonethingsIregret.However,Idon’ttrytoincorporatethesethingsintoaoverall
    mythos/persona,thusrevelingintheveryactsoneisdenouncing.”

    Wha…?Maybethat’sanegativeinSchwyzer’scase,butinmyfield,thehealtheducatorsIrespect
    mostascolleagues(andasfriends)aretheoneswhoexercisetransparencywithregardtotheir
    ownlivesandusetheirpastmistakesasteachingexamplesofwhat(not)todo.GrantedSchwyzer’s
    caseisdifferentbecausetheissuesinvolvedareabuseandsurvivorsofabuse—buttoimplythat
    incorporatingpastmistakesintoone’spersona/mythosmeans“revelingintheveryactsoneis
    denouncing”seemsinaccurate.Iusedtospoutvilestuffasanabstinence-onlyadvocate(alifetime
    ago)—I’mnotglibwhenIdrawonthatexperiencetoteachissues,andneitherisSchwyzer.

    You may not perceive him as glib, that doesn’t mean he isn’t. Given the way he talks about each different fuck up of his, of which there are many, the overall picture comes up very subtly as: “Haha I could get with the ladies again if I wanted and I never had a single consequence for all the terrible things I did, sucks not to be me huh?”
    Schwizzy also displays all the markers of incredible alpha dude privilege in his style of dress and the way he acts imho. A big part of certain narcissists with a partial focus on their higher intellect is subtly saying hah I got away with it without being so obvious that they don’t get fawned on by their prey or suspicious enough for any sort of inquiry. Schwizzy just focuses a little too much on the mistakes of his past that have high dramatic or egotistical content rather than purely humanizing ones while also using that behavior as part of his strategy to position himself as an expert on a topic where he comes into contact with a lot women.
    You can’t just look at using his past experience in an isolated context.

  120. Cagey: but if Clarrise thinks that the only valuable thing that’s going to further come out of the comments on a particular post is a bunch of people sending her hateful things and questioning her feminist credentials because she made a bad judgment call or a choice they disagreed with, then maybe she has a point?

    But if she doesn’t think that anything we have to say could be worth her reading, to the point that she pre-emptively closes comments, her assumption that a super-long screed about forgiveness in the abstract written by her–in response, it seems, to commenters–is worth our time and attention is disrespectful and condescending. Especially when a post is about accountability, rejecting the notion that she should be held accountable for a bad judgment call by the people whose conversation she shut down is particularly un-self-aware.

    If she doesn’t want to interact, she doesn’t want to interact. But blogging is different from traditional forms of publishing because it’s about the interaction, so if you don’t want to interact, don’t post to begin with. If you do post, and then make it impossible for that interaction to occur, don’t be surprised when you get blowback.

  121. Echo Zen: Wha…? Maybe that’s a negative in Schwyzer’s case, but in my field, the health educators I respect most as colleagues (and as friends) are the ones who exercise transparency with regard to their own lives and use their past mistakes as teaching examples of what (not) to do. Granted Schwyzer’s case is different because the issues involved are abuse and survivors of abuse — but to imply that incorporating past mistakes into one’s persona/mythos means “reveling in the very acts one is denouncing” seems inaccurate.

    Did you read his account of trying to kill himself and his girlfriend? It was very luridly written and it made my skin crawl. It gave off vibes screaming “don’t trust this guy.”

    And to respond to this topic in general,

    I’ve had vague knowledge about Hugo, I knew about the sex with students, I had been upset about a blog post of his that was very alienating to shy introverts and reeked of extrovert privilege, but I didn’t know about the murder-suicide attempt. Now that I do, I wouldn’t go near his work with a 100 foot pole.

    And as the daughter of an abusive alcoholic, just because someone is under the influence when they are violent or abusive, doesn’t make what they do any more forgivable.

  122. zuzu:
    Matt, for the love of oyster crackers, highlight the text you want to respond to, copy and THEN hit “Quote this comment?”

    Sorry, I am used to the quote function just working right.
    >.>
    <.<

  123. Can you imagine a dude who was short and fat had crappy hair getting away with the shit hugo does?

    I have theory and if its wrong or don’t agree its fine but maybe part of the appeal of hugo is because he is male and has such an awful history. If you want to paint masculinity as terrible latching on to hugo as if he is some how normal but he is just admitting how awful men are makes sense.

    If hugos past wasn’t fucking awful he would have nothing to confess so some feminists would always think he is hiding something.

    Thats all i can guess about how he is actually popular because looking at his work i can’t see anything original or insightful at all. Its well written crap though I have to give him that.

    If anyone is insulted i apologise i don’t think all feminists hate men or something like that I am just trying to work out what his appeal is. Purely as a intellectual exercise.

  124. While I’m not the biggest fan of Schwyzer’s, I can see where Clarisse is/was coming from here. It sounds like the fallout from her two posts was incredibly upsetting to her, and I can understand why. It’s been incredibly upsetting (even, bizarrely, bordering on triggering) for me, and I literally have no stake whatsoever in the discussion. Maybe it’s because, as a survivor, I feel like so many people are claiming to speak for me. Maybe it’s just that this community, which I see (probably mistakenly) as a safe space is constantly turning on its own members, even if sometimes people’s reasons for doing so are valid. Maybe I’m just overly sensitive – apparently that’s a totally legit thing to say about someone on Feministe now? But at least I have the option of stepping away from the discussion, even if I stupidly choose not to do so. Clarisse, as moderator, can’t do that unless she closes the comment thread. It’s probably not the best thing to do, but her first responsibility is ultimately to herself and her health. And it’s not like Feministe is the only place to discuss the topic, even if it is a much broader platform.

    I guess what I’m saying is that sure, shutting down comments might not have been a great choice discussion-wise, but I think Clarisse’s reasons were legitimate. If I had been in her position (which I hope will never, ever happen, for the reasons I mentioned above) I would have done the same thing. So I’m projecting a bit, I guess? I just find myself having to take constant, often months-long breaks from reading comments here, for the sake of my (pretty fragile) mental health, and I really wish that wasn’t the case. Sorry if this is off-topic.

    tl;dr blah blah blah feelings whatever

  125. Wow.

    Personally, I thought Clarisse’s post was the best thing I’ve ever read on this website. It was the single most even-handed, thought-provoking article you’ve published. I was moved to share it with several of my friends, who all agreed that it was wonderfully written, and we were each moved to ask ourselves the questions Ms. Thorn asked of us: what is forgivable? What is unforgivable?

    Your real mistake is being ashamed of what Clarisse had to say, in my opinion.

  126. Regarding forgiveness – I too am not a christian, so I don’t take it as a given that forgiveness is automatically a duty, but as a practical matter, it can be useful. These people who do wrong don’t just disappear. They continue to exist, and, indeed, are blameless for doing so.

    So, on some level, the question has to be addressed – how does a person continue to live after doing something horrible?

    Ideally, one would want them to turn themselves around and work to undo the hurt they caused, but that kind of rehabilitation requires some degree of absolution (not necessarily from the victims, but from somebody). And the reason it requires that is because humans are naturally constructed to avoid personal distress, and if taking the high road inevitably results in the ongoing scorn of the virtuous, it would be all too easy to fall back to the low road, where the scum don’t care what you do.

    That’s the tricky part. In order to give someone the space they need to improve as a person, one has to acknowledge that seeking a better path does not automatically grant the patience of a saint, while simultaneously not letting the person off the hook for the harm they did.

    It seems like a lot of work, and I can’t see how it’s a community’s responsibility to do so, except in so far as they might have an interest in salvaging potential allies from the scrap-heap of iniquity. Maybe it’s the sort of thing best confined to a circle of personal friends.

    So, I guess the criteria for evaluating Mr Schwyzer’s rehabilitation would be to examine the concrete acts he’s performed to make amends for his misdeeds. Beyond simply teaching feminism, has he helped women escape or avoid the sort of predatory behavior he used to perform? Has he challenged and confronted his male colleagues about their problematic behaviors in a way that entailed significant risk to his own comfort? Has he dedicated his own resources towards building the support infrastructure necessary to making the world a more egalitarian place?

    If so, then he might be on the road to making up for the abuse of his power as a professor. As far as the attempted murder thing goes, though, I don’t see how anything can make up for that – and to expect forgiveness without some grand gesture of contrition – well, that does strike me as deeply narcissistic.

  127. He skeeves me out big time. Bad vibes. Creepy narcissism. I know I don’t like him or find him convincing, it sounds like he’s been dismissive of WoC in an ongoing way, and reading about the attempted murder/suicide turned my stomach, but Clarisse thinks his contribution to feminism is valuable. Otoh, it sounds like part of the reason she thinks that is that he’s been supportive of her personally, but that’s beside the point. Mostly I don’t think comments should have been shut down. There were a lot of things said that needed to be said given the topic of Schwyzer + forgiveness, and hate mail could and should have been addressed in another way besides closing a civil and unusually informative comment thread.

  128. Personally, I thought Clarisse’s post was the best thing I’ve ever read on this website. It was the single most even-handed, thought-provoking article you’ve published. I was moved to share it with several of my friends, who all agreed that it was wonderfully written, and we were each moved to ask ourselves the questions Ms. Thorn asked of us: what is forgivable? What is unforgivable?

    And did you pass around this post, too? Did you sit with it and its insights for a good long time? Because this is what people are talking about:

    And then it came to me: I needed to do for her and for myself the one thing I was strong enough still to do. I couldn’t save her, I couldn’t save me, but I could bring an end to our pain. My poor fragile ex would never have to wake up again, and we could be at peace in the next life. As drunk and high as I was, the thought came with incredible clarity. I remember it perfectly now.

    I walked into the little kitchen only steps from where my ex lay. I blew out the pilot lights on our gas oven and on the burners, and turned the dials on everything up to maximum. I pulled the oven away from the wall, leaving the gas line intact, positioning it so that the gas was blowing directly at the passed-out young woman on the floor. Then I swallowed one more handful of pills and vodka, lay down beside her, spooned her, and lost consciousness.

    Not only that, either. The whole story came out as a response to a guy who felt terrible about accidentally letting the dog outside at night with coyotes around.

  129. I mean, again, this is a little bit sickening. The question is not, “When do we forgive? What is forgiveness?” The question is, “Should we forgive this? Should we forgive this person? What would constitute redemption on this man’s part?” Justice is specific.

  130. piny: And did you pass around this post, too? Did you sit with it and its insights for a good long time? Because this is what people are talking about:

    And then it came to me: I needed to do for her and for myself the one thing I was strong enough still to do. I couldn’t save her, I couldn’t save me, but I could bring an end to our pain. My poor fragile ex would never have to wake up again, and we could be at peace in the next life. As drunk and high as I was, the thought came with incredible clarity. I remember it perfectly now.

    I walked into the little kitchen only steps from where my ex lay. I blew out the pilot lights on our gas oven and on the burners, and turned the dials on everything up to maximum. I pulled the oven away from the wall, leaving the gas line intact, positioning it so that the gas was blowing directly at the passed-out young woman on the floor. Then I swallowed one more handful of pills and vodka, lay down beside her, spooned her, and lost consciousness.

    Reading something like this is hard, and stomach-turning, and all the things you’ve all said it is. For me, it’s also a horribly identifiable state of mind. Suicidal and severe depressive thoughts coupled with those feelings for someone else? And add alcohol and drugs into the mix? Horrible, and from a stable state of mind unbelievable, but a reality.

    I really don’t understand how pointing out how bad it is to try to kill someone is useful. I’m sure Hugo knows that. The point is, surely, that he was in such a terrible psychological place that he did things he would never, ever do otherwise?

    So reading this in isolation, I can’t label those actions as those of a misogynist, but of a mentally unstable person. Are you saying that combined with other instances in his past, you all find this action indicative of a misogynist and someone who abused women?

  131. “Are you saying that combined with other instances in his past, you all find this action indicative of a misogynist and someone who abused women?”

    that pretty much sums it up, yes, although even on its own that incident is pretty indicative of a strong misogynist streak.

    “mentally unstable” and “misogynist” are not mutually exclusive categories. as many times as i’ve contemplated and occasionally made steps towards suicide, i have never, NEVER, fantasized or made steps toward taking someone else with me. and like another commenter said earlier, this seems to be more of a pattern with men than with women.

    surely you’re not suggesting that before his so-called “feminist awakening” schwizzer was pro-woman in every way, or had no misogynist tendencies…?

    “I really don’t understand how pointing out how bad it is to try to kill someone is useful. I’m sure Hugo knows that.”

    i’m sure he does on some level, perhaps the intellectual. but that’s the problem i, and many other commenters, seem to have with hugo. he just doesn’t seem that remorseful about what he’s done, he’s had to suffer little to no consequences for it and he has not tried to atone for it in anyway. at least, not in any way that he’s mentioned recently.

    i, too, think he should step down from his role as professor and mentor to impressionable young women. the man is just oily.

  132. the wrong question is being asked here. who cares if any of us can forgive him? were any of us the one who was almost murdered?

    transformative justice is not about forgiveness, it’s about how the community decides to construct the space in which it exists. it’s about community control of a space rather than government or corporate control.

    who is allowed to be in community space and under what conditions? who is centered in the space? how is safety enforced? what is safety? how are people who violate the safety of the community held accountable? what is accountability? who are community members we are keeping accountable? how do community members hold themselves accountable to each other?

    transformative justice is something that so many communities of color have actively engaged in as a way to confront and deal with the fact that when victims of abuse come forward (if they do), the community’s natural inclination is to not believe the victim, throw full support behind the abuser, and/or shift the victim into the abuser role (i.e. she tempted him, she was asking for it, etc). as such the community’s natural inclination is to *kick the victim out of community* in the name of preserving the peace (the victim is a trouble maker).

    and then there’s also the way so many people in our communities are dealt with by the prison industrial complex. where victims of abuse are arrested and deported under mandetory arrest laws (that feminists created). where black men who rape white women are given death penalties and white men who rape women of color are high fived.

    transformative justice is a way to create and enact community control over their community such that victims have support and safety. so they can say what they want. rather than being told constantly that if they don’t go to the police, they are letting the abuse happen to others. it’s a way to make sure a man who is really guilty (oh, cuz half the time those black men who rape white women haven’t done it) is not allowed to hurt anybody again. if he changes, that’s great–but whether he does or he doesn’t, he’s not allowed to hurt anybody again. but his humanity is still a given. and the victim knows her needs are centralized and paramount to the community.

    if clarisse (or anybody at feministe, for that matter) had been reading the work women of color have done on transformative justice, this would be a lot less infuriating and a lot more productive conversation, albeit a conversation that has happened much too late.

  133. glove: The point is, surely, that he was in such a terrible psychological place that he did things he would never, ever do otherwise?

    From here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/amroul2006.pdf

    In this study, 94 percent of the offenders were male. Other studies analyzing murder-suicide have found that most perpetrators of murder-suicide are male—more than 90 percent in recent studies of the United States. Another study which only looked at murder-suicides involving couples noted that more than 90 percent were perpetrated by men.

    So yeah, I’m okay with calling this misogyny.

  134. I think how Clarisse handled this is irrelevant. In fact, what Hugo did and whether we’ve forgiven him (or what that should look like) is also irrelevant. I think it’s too generous to Hugo and too unfair to Clarisse.

    I want a conversation about the dynamic we have with career feminists, with feminist “experts”, with the largely white feminists who rise the top of visibility and stay there as our supposed representatives – whether they’re people like Hugo who have exploited women or whether they’re people like Amanda Marcotte who have an extremely checkered history with women of color.

    I want a conversation about why Jessica Valenti is a huge deal and Andrea Smith is not and has been denied tenure in the past.

    I want a conversation about why Hugo Schwyzer is defended by so many white female feminists while and victims of Hugo Schwyzer are not.

    I want a conversation about how exposure-granted feminists like Clarisse have disproportionate power to define who has reformed and who is unforgivable, and to curry the favor or the anger of their readers and direct it at whoever they deem fit.

    I want a conversation about how the comments directed at white male Hugo were “ugly” but the comments directed at woman of color Maia in her post about childfree spaces were okaydokay, no followup or debriefing post needed.

    I want a conversation about white feminists who, when backed into a corner, hand-wring that “we don’t talk enough about X” without mentioning who *is* talking about X and who pioneered it (usually women of color, trans women, disabled women, etc).

    I want a conversation about what it truly means to center victims/survivors of violence and their needs in our movements, and how feminist figurehead worship can capsize that.

    I want a conversation about what it means to take a leadership, expert or teacher role in a movement that represents an oppressed group you don’t belong to. What it says about the hierarchies we allow to continue in our movements.

    I want a conversation about how capitalism, how social hierarchies and how mainstream ideas about labor, achievement, and power funnel into our approval and support of Hugo Schwyzers in our movements.

    And yes, I want to talk about accountability, but I want to talk about accountability needs that have gone unnoticed or ignored long before this particular situation and extend much farther than Hugo’s particular actions.

    I want a conversation about why we end up having these conversations – did Hugo deserve it or not, did Clarisse deserve it or not, analyzing every little angle or nuance of their behavior, their past and what we infer about their intentions – instead these conversations that might show us, once and for all, that this fuckup extends to all of us, is a fuckup inherent in our movement and the way we’ve designed it. Clarisse, Hugo and Feministe are just the players of a script that we’ve all created for them, and that will be repeated with different players next time.

    Until we recognize this as more than just a matter of individual merits or individual failings we’ll never be able to prevent it next time and we’ll again, for the millionth time, pass up an opportunity to address these problems head-on.

    Ironically, I have seen all these conversations bubbling forth regarding this issue amongst radical women of color blogs, but until it’s addressed on a major platform like Feministing, Feministe etc, why would we discover or engage with them? Right?

  135. bfp: bfp 12.25.2011 at 9:51 am

    if clarisse (or anybody at feministe, for that matter) had been reading the work women of color have done on transformative justice, this would be a lot less infuriating and a lot more productive conversation, albeit a conversation that has happened much too late.

    Oh, this. If we had some WOC, trans, queer, and disabled community members come in to lead a reading and discussion series on “The Revolution Starts At Home”, I would be all over that and would totally donate to their honorarium (which is of course the only way I think we could possibly ask to put people in such a potentially godawful position, not the mention honoring the absolutely mind-boggling volume of their work thus far).

  136. What deepika said. Abusers are very often–maybe even typically–people with massive self-esteem and perspective problems. That’s why they’re so dangerous. A lot of them abuse drugs and alcohol. But percocet, alcohol, and depression don’t make you believe that you’re entitled to play Atropos with your girlfriend’s life, or that she deserves to be put down like a sick animal. That is misogyny. It’s part of his attitude towards women, as demonstrated by his tendency to treat women in horrible ways. And like XtinaS pointed out, the “suicide pact” is a pretty common scenario, especially for men with a history of abusing their victim. It’s the conclusion of the abuser’s logic, wherein the woman is merely an extension of the abusive man. If he goes, she goes with him.

    And sure, we should acknowledge his humanity and treat him with compassion. But we should also think of him as a potentially dangerous abuser whose presence is nothing short of heartbreaking to the many abuse survivors here. I can see a conflicting set of responsibilities here, but I know which ones take priority for me. There’s no contest. We’re not sentencing him to Devil’s Island. We’re talking about not letting him hang out on a feminist blog. It’s not even the only feminist blog. For example, he’s probably still welcome at the other feminist blog where Clarisse posts.

    Like bfp said, we aren’t really in a position to forgive. I don’t see this as a matter of forgiveness on that level. It’s more, do we want to create a community where the redemption arcs of abusers are privileged over the well-being of survivors? Do we want to offer aid and comfort to this asshole in particular, given the number of women who have good reason to hate the sight of him? Can we even claim that his presence offers insight, given that admitting him disparages a lot of women with their own hard-won wisdom regarding men like Hugo? It seems wrong to me.

    And it is incredible to me that women who are really angry about having to share space with a guy who tried to murder his girlfriend are being labeled mean and ungenerous and cold-blooded, like there’s something wrong with not being able to tolerate that. Like they really need to sit down and think about what they’re doing.

  137. Oh, this. If we had some WOC, trans, queer, and disabled community members come in to lead a reading and discussion series on “The Revolution Starts At Home”, I would be all over that and would totally donate to their honorarium (which is of course the only way I think we could possibly ask to put people in such a potentially godawful position, not the mention honoring the absolutely mind-boggling volume of their work thus far).

    I would love to read those posts. And I am grateful to you and bfp for commenting here; I have also been grateful for all of the discussion that has been taking place on tumblr etc. It’s not like it started when all of this happened, either.

    But is this the right thing to do? It seems like can’t-be-arsed-anymore is the considered judgment of a whole lot of wise people who find that they get more respect and less heartache in other virtual spaces. I’m not saying that Feministe shouldn’t make every effort, but I can completely understand why the idea might be a non-starter. And the internet is conveniently located. Like other commenters have pointed out, not having all of this stuff cut up into bite-size pieces and served up right here on Feministe isn’t an excuse. It’s a click away.

    Again, I’m not saying it wouldn’t be awesome! But “Let’s get some guest bloggers over here to talk this out right,” is a standard post-yes-we-fucked-up-post strategy, and I don’t know if it really accomplishes much. It seems like it just gives people space to retrench.

  138. piny: I can completely understand why the idea might be a non-starter

    i’ve thought long and hard about how to respond to Saurus’s idea. because it brought up a lot of crap for me.
    suffice it to say. i don’t speak for any author or editor of the revolution starts at home–or any other woman of color who has been engaging in heavy transformative justice work.
    but for me–i was told “i’d better prove it” if i wanted to be a part of the feminist online community. something the person who said this was never told.
    online feminism has made it clear from the beginning what is important and what it will always choose.
    i may engage here and there in online feminist spaces these days–but when i do, it is for strategic reasons, not because i want to be there–and definitely not because i’m considered a part of the community.

  139. Caperton, thank you for this post, and for opening a thread for discussion.

    I’m another who thinks that there is no “we” to the forgiveness conversation. Assuming that what Schwyzer has written about his attempt at murdering his ex is at least mostly true, then I think the survivor is the only one who can decide what forgiveness is, what redemption is, what justice is. Far as I know, she ain’t talkin’, and I don’t blame her for a second — the last time she talked to this guy, by his own description it sounded like she needed help pretty desperately, and he wound up trying to kill them both.

    I really hope that woman got whatever kind of help she needed and is doing well now. The lack of compassion for the survivor on behalf of so many has been beyond sickening to me. Maybe it’s that I have had to endure too much personal experience in this particular department; maybe it’s just that no matter how cynical I get, the lack of consideration, sympathy, and empathy in other people never stops making me want to puke, I don’t know.

    All the conversations saurus mentions @12.25.2011 at 9:59 am are conversations I think could be tremendously, astoundingly helpful at the community level. Can they happen effectively, productively, at this blog, in this community? I don’t know; maybe. It probably depends on who hosts and how she mods. I know these conversations are happening elsewhere, I read them and occasionally participate, but I think they are needed here, too.

    I also think it would helpful to discuss, at this kind/type of community level, what criteria people are presently using to determine whether someone is a predator of women; why they are using those criteria; the extent to which those criteria further privilege the already privileged, thereby “overlooking” and “forgiving” predators in the privileged classes (which is clearly happening systemically, all things Schwyzer aside); the extent to which these criteria further stigmatize the already oppressed, thereby either picking them up as predators when they’re not and/or allowing predators to prey on them with greater impunity or no repercussions whatsoever (which, again, is clearly happening systemically, all things Schwyzer aside).

    And then this last one is probably just my inner science geek having a squee with my inner feminist theory dork, but I think there’s also a fascinating conversation in here somewhere at the community level about the recent neuroscience emerging regarding the “second brain” in the gut. It seems to be lending some scientific basis to gut feelings, or what feminists and womanists have long written about as “women’s intuition”. (Which, just like the Green Machine, I do not think is actually gender/sex specific, just conceptually socially constructed that way.) I was one of the handful of commenters on the original thread who expressed that I had zero information about Schwyzer’s history of sketchy-to-heinous acts, but that merely reading a dozen or so of his essays and comments at other blogs had set my creep-dar off in a major way. I think that, generally, girls and women are socialized and pressured hard to ignore this instinct (I know I had to recalibrate my radar as a 20-something to get it to work right), and I’d love to see more women talking about this in big groups, sharing information about it and experiences with it, helping each other to find ways of honing our instincts about potential predators rather than suppressing them.

  140. Jen in Ohio: And then this last one is probably just my inner science geek having a squee with my inner feminist theory dork, but I think there’s also a fascinating conversation in here somewhere at the community level about the recent neuroscience emerging regarding the “second brain” in the gut.

    Is there something new about the gut-level neurons? Sorry for the derail. I don’t keep up like I used to, but I remember hearing discussion of that in the early 90s, so I’m wondering if there’s something new?

  141. piny:
    But is this the right thing to do? It seems like can’t-be-arsed-anymore is the considered judgment of a whole lot of wise people who find that they get more respect and less heartache in other virtual spaces. I’m not saying that Feministe shouldn’t make every effort, but I can completely understand why the idea might be a non-starter. And the internet is conveniently located. Like other commenters have pointed out, not having all of this stuff cut up into bite-size pieces and served up right here on Feministe isn’t an excuse. It’s a click away.

    I would love to read such posts because I am personally invested in transformative justice, and would love a structured way to engage with The Revolution Starts At Home in a group setting. But I can’t comment on it as to whether it’s the “right” thing to do and I don’t mean to suggest it in a prescriptive way. I’ve seen mainstream online feminist communities be so petty, so savage and so violent that I’m disinclined to feed them and even more disinclined to ask anyone I know to participate in them in an educator role. I know a good chunk of people doing TJ and I certainly wouldn’t send them here.

    Which brings up another conversation we have long resisted: why people like Jessica Valenti, Hugo Schwyzer, Amanda Marcotte etc are so comfortable educating in spaces like this, but for people like bfp (and countless others) it is a minefield fraught with pettiness, violence, ignorance and other BS. Why the people doing the most transformative and world-shifting work are the least inclined to be here, are the ones most likely to be repeatedly and consciously driven away by people here.

    I feel very hopeless about spaces like this one. Maybe because I suspect that, despite occasionally suggesting otherwise, the priorities here are very different than the priorities I see elsewhere.

  142. Glove, I really have no idea how you can read that passage and not see a power dynamic. “I could not save her?” Why the fuck is he in the drivers seat of her life? That statement is 100% about control. I’m SAD and bipolar. I’ve thought about suicide almost every night since last August. I’ve never thought that I was in control of someone else’s life. Those things are not intertwined. If they were, depressives would be responsible for murders right and left.

    And, Mandolin, seriously? You want us to consider your delicate feelings about your intolerance for considering other people’s putatively delicate feelings? Let me get the fucking smelling salts. I’m so sorry that you break out in proverbial hives- those are almost indistinguishable from having literally faced a threat to your life at the hand of a “loved one.” I hope you never have to endure consideration for people different than you again!

  143. I left a civil, but strongly opinionated comment on Clarisse’s post about accountability over on her other blog. After 24 hours+ in moderation, it appears not to have been posted. This adds to my growing suspicion that Clarisse shut down the comments here both times out of fear that not only would we talk about Hugo’s racism and history of attempting murder and abusing his power, but that something more might come out of the woodwork about him.

    I haven’t celebrated Christmas with my extended family (including my very elderly grandmother, my mom, and my dear younger brother) in 5 years. Why? Because the family chose to “forgive and redeem” my abuser. And they also chose to “forgive and redeem” my cousin’s abuser, who tried to kill her in a failed murder-suicide. He’s just a miserable guy with bipolar disorder, they maintain, what kind of a nasty woman wouldn’t forgive him knowing that? Well, me. Because my cousin no longer feels safe being at Christmas, 4th of July, or all those other events where I grew up seeing her and enjoying her company, and I stand in solidarity with her, not to mention protection of myself. And our abusers aren’t even college professors, male feminists, bloggers, or even mildly attractive. These guys ALWAYS get a “second chance.” It’s their victims who are expected to slink away and forfeit our comfort, our families, our safety, and our sanity.

    Fuck that.

  144. piny: percocet, alcohol, and depression don’t make you believe that you’re entitled to play Atropos with your girlfriend’s life, or that she deserves to be put down like a sick animal. That is misogyny.

    Yep. This. And worth noting, I think, that Hugo didn’t acknowledge this incident until many years after he’d reinvented himself as a voice of male feminism. And worth noting as well that he didn’t tell the story through a feminist lens when he did get around to telling it.

  145. PS: Would it be churlish of me to suggest that the theme of saving women from themselves and the society that is trying to break them that recurs so frequently in Hugo’s writing was front and center in both his attempt to murder his ex and in the way that he so tenderly described that scene on his blog?

  146. Branwen: I left a civil, but strongly opinionated comment on Clarisse’s post about accountability over on her other blog. After 24 hours+ in moderation, it appears not to have been posted. This adds to my growing suspicion that Clarisse shut down the comments here both times out of fear that not only would we talk about Hugo’s racism and history of attempting murder and abusing his power, but that something more might come out of the woodwork about him.

    Branwen, if you were commenting at Role/Reboot, then I don’t moderate those comments. The Managing Editor at Role/Reboot moderates those comments. That’s why I directed the commentary from the original thread to Role/Reboot in the first place — because I knew people would probably want to talk about the post, but I didn’t want to moderate the Feministe community’s reactions, based on some of the personally-directed anger and personal threats I’d been getting by email. I would also add that this is a holiday and the Role/Reboot Managing Editor is probably spending time with her family.

    Since people are so upset about closing threads: In the future, if a thread that I am moderating gets to a point where I no longer feel comfortable moderating it, then I will leave a note stating that I am no longer moderating the thread, and I will delete the comments as they reach my email inbox.

    On transformative justice: I acknowledge that I have much less experience on the topic than others. I am sorry that my post came off as slighting people who have done a lot of transformative justice work, and I will do my best to educate myself more in that arena, as it is something that is important. It also happens to be relevant to my life, as I’ve been tapped for accountability myself.

    Finally, re Caperton’s original post above: For the sake of clarity, I will say that I was not consulted about this post and I had no input on its composition.

  147. Branwen: These guys ALWAYS get a “second chance.” It’s their victims who are expected to slink away and forfeit our comfort, our families, our safety, and our sanity.

    This.

  148. So anyway, there’s no statute of limitations on attempted murder in California. Schwyzer should be in in prison for his crime.

    Out of all the talk on this thread about what Feministe should or shouldn’t have done there doesn’t appear to be much mention that Schwyzer is a criminal who got away with his violent crime against a woman.

    Someone call the police.

  149. Is there something new about the gut-level neurons? Sorry for the derail. I don’t keep up like I used to, but I remember hearing discussion of that in the early 90s, so I’m wondering if there’s something new?

    LC, I’m not in any related discipline either professionally or academically, just a theory dork, so grain of salt etc. (Any pro/feminist/womanist neuroscientists around who want to kick in on the cutting edge of this research? Love to hear from you because imo most science reporting is craptastic and I don’t get the stuff behind the paywalls anymore.) I don’t think there are any grand new conclusions or anything, just continually increasing data resulting from a lot of experiments designed to figure out wtf all the stuff they found in the 90s actually means. Lots of experimenting going on with serotonin in particular. I know it’s a biggie for lots of folks due to its involvement in depression, depression meds, IBS*, etc., but I’m always curious about the other neurotransmitters for my own personal health reasons. As far as I know, everyone is still speculating about how the entire system works.

    Fwiw, from my cozy little armchair, I rather strongly suspect there’s a whole ‘nother layer of material underneath/inside the neurotransmitters that we presently know about, sort-of like how when “they cracked the atom open and then all that other crap came spilling out” — to paraphrase that great sage, Phoebe Buffet — and that we won’t better our understanding of either brain significantly until we can get a little smaller-deeper into the body.

    Have you run across mirror neurons yet? Very cool shit! Perhaps even the seat of empathy, but we have to keep learning. Link to a quickie intro-level TED talk by neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran about those.
    ____________
    *Including this link for people who don’t know anything about this but want a good jumping off point for search terms and the like. I think there are some bad assumptions in the piece, but it’s a decent enough intro to the topic.

  150. As an addition to my previous comment at #155, I just wanted to note that although I had no input on Caperton’s post, I’m glad that it was written for the sake of the community. Previous to its composition I had suggested that someone else moderate a Feministe thread on this topic.

  151. Thanks Clarisse. I, for one, think that if you don’t stand up and make the space safe for abusers, who will? What kind of a world would it be if people had to face consequences for their actions?

  152. delphyne: So anyway, there’s no statute of limitations on attempted murder in California. Schwyzer should be in in prison for his crime.

    Out of all the talk on this thread about what Feministe should or shouldn’t have done there doesn’t appear to be much mention that Schwyzer is a criminal who got away with his violent crime against a woman.

    Someone call the police.

    He’ll get thrown in a mental health ward for a couple days, then released.

    That’s how they treat rich white folks.

  153. Jen in Ohio: LC, I’m not in any related discipline either professionally or academically, just a theory dork, so grain of salt etc. (Any pro/feminist/womanist neuroscientists around who want to kick in on the cutting edge of this research? Love to hear from you because imo most science reporting is craptastic and I don’t get the stuff behind the paywalls anymore.) I don’t think there are any grand new conclusions or anything, just continually increasing data resulting from a lot of experiments designed to figure out wtf all the stuff they found in the 90s actually means. Lots of experimenting going on with serotonin in particular. I know it’s a biggie for lots of folks due to its involvement in depression, depression meds, IBS*, etc., but I’m always curious about the other neurotransmitters for my own personal health reasons. As far as I know, everyone is still speculating about how the entire system works.

    I’m an epidemiologist

    IMO, serotonin’s overrated. They focus on it because it’s easy to make me-too drugs that are covered by patent protection.

    /Derail.

  154. recent neuroscience emerging regarding the “second brain” in the gut

    There is a relatively independent nervous system that controls peristalsis and other functions of the gut called the “enteric nervous system”. It does communicate with the central and peripheral nervous systems, but it has nothing to do with what is meant by “having a gut feeling”.

  155. Can we also talk about how Schwyzer has been able to maintain a high profile in feminism for years, in part aided and abetted by lib fems whose work he promoted.

    Some of us have always known or guessed what sort of man he was – the fact he’s on his fourth wife, his predatory sexual behaviour against his students, his attempts to stick christianity on to feminism, his anti-abortion stance – all massive reasons as to why he should never had any kind of position or status in feminism.

    Despite all these things, which were *public* knowledge some feminists were prepared to give him a platform and work with him time and again. I really hope there’s some self-examination going on here.

  156. i don’t know what hate mail she received, but the fact is, a platform was given to a racist misogynist and when it was pointed out, on non-abusive terms, that this man also attempted to murder his partner, the comment thread was shut down.

    that says everything that needs to be said about who Clarisse considers herself accountable to AND the type of feminism that feministe promotes, this “apology” non withstanding.

    seriously, there were so many red flags before feministe got to this point it’s laughable. if, as several folks have pointed out, ANYONE at feministe spent some serious time reading folks who were NOT Hugo, Marcotte, Valenti etc, maybe this wouldn’t have happened.

  157. Are Marcotte, Schwyzer and Valenti considered the pillars of mainstream U.S. feminism or something?! That’s the only reason I can think of for why their names keep cropping up!

  158. delphyne: Despite all these things, which were *public* knowledge some feminists were prepared to give him a platform and work with him time and again. I really hope there’s some self-examination going on here.

    You’re far more optimistic than me. I’m really not seeing any sign of change to come. I just read Clarisse Thorn’s latest entry on her blog:
    http://clarissasblog.com/2011/12/25/who-has-the-right-to-forgive/
    and it’s as if she either hasn’t read the criticism, or has a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the discourse. Here’s a quote from that post: “However, the treatment he has been subjected to recently on Feministe is nothing short of disgraceful.”

  159. Trees said:
    “You’re far more optimistic than me. I’m really not seeing any sign of change to come. I just read Clarisse Thorn’s latest entry on her blog:
    http://clarissasblog.com/2011/12/25/who-has-the-right-to-forgive/
    and it’s as if she either hasn’t read the criticism, or has a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the discourse. Here’s a quote from that post: “However, the treatment he has been subjected to recently on Feministe is nothing short of disgraceful.”

    That’s Clarissa’s blog, not Clarisse Thorn’s.

  160. trees: Here’s a quote from that post: “However, the treatment he has been subjected to recently on Feministe is nothing short of disgraceful.”

    Oh, for the fucking love of God. Clarisse, if you consider this treatment to be “disgraceful”, then you have a very odd idea of what constitutes “grace” itself, IMO.

    I preface this by saying I know it’s probably inappropriate but at this point I couldn’t give a shit – I’m impressed at Clarisse’s ability to blog while her mouth is clamped around his dick. Because SERIOUSLY.

  161. @Alison

    I screwed that up; as Lisa A and Kristen J pointed out, that’s from Clarissa’s blog, not Clarisse Thorn. Sorry for the confusion!

  162. The other commenters beat me to it — that’s Clarissa’s blog, not Clarisse’s. And Clarissa has had harsh words for Schwyzer in the past, so obviously her criticisms are irrespective of how much she (dis)likes Hugo.

  163. Eh, okay. I’ve still gotten quite an impression of adoration for Hugo from Clarisse, and now an added one for whoever this other woman is.

    This whole thing is just monumentally annoying, depressing, revolting, aggravating…and a million other bad things.

  164. “Are Marcotte, Schwyzer and Valenti considered the pillars of mainstream U.S. feminism”

    They’re the ones getting publishing gigs, and in Hugo’s case being paid to teach “feminism” (his version) to students.

  165. On her most recent post, clarisse has suggested that this episode is an ‘internet scandal
    usually an ‘internet scandal’ involves an argument between two bloggers. This is about a man who has admitted to the *attempted murder* of a vulnerable woman and compared thr act to feeling guilty about putting a dog in danger. once againg: *attempted murderer*. This is not a disagreement about cosm

  166. With Valenti and Feministing, I always felt as a kid that she was preoccupied (for lack of a better word) with highlighting WOC and trans issues and figures, which I thought was unusual because she’s neither a WOC nor trans herself. Does she have a secret history I don’t know about of discounting WOC voices, or is the main criticism that she’s writing about the same issues that WOC are writing about too, but getting more attention for it?

  167. [Oops, pressed ‘submit’ too soon on previous comment]

    I think that the fact that a man who admits to attempting to murder a woman is welcomed and coddled in liberal feminist circles should bring up some very important questions that liberal feminists need to answer. Why is Hugo seen as a voice of authority in anyway shape or form? Because of his academic creds? Because he has said things that sound nice? Because he is not averse to trashing the ‘bad’ feminists he disagrees with? Because he supports the sex industry? Why? Serious questions here.

    I might also venture to ask if there is indeed something that liberal feminists should be asking themselves about their ideology if *this* sort of a man is to be allowed a voice – and encouraged. Why has he chosen liberal feminism? What’s in it for him?

    This isn’t just some case of a silly internet disagreement about the price of eggs or the colour of socks. This isn’t even an important disagreement about feminist policy, aims or objectives. THIS IS ABOUT A MAN WHO HAS ATTEMPTED TO MURDER A WOMAN and who is nonetheless adored and invited to speak at women in the name of feminism. If this doesn’t raise alarm bells, and cause us to do some serious soul-searching and rethinking, what for the love of cream crackers ever will?!

  168. I give forgiveness–and the forgiveness movement–the stink eye because its shuts down, silences, and shames survivors. Oh, of course proponents claim they don’t think people shouldn’t be held accountable, but it seems the very mention of the pain that the perps caused is a terrible offense. Worse than the original crime. Well, fuck forgiveness.

    I had generally liked, and even agreed with, male feminists in the past, but I’ve grown skeptical. I’ve seen way too much coddling of virulent MRA types, a ridiculous amount of racism, and a lot of that mealy-mouthed pap coming from them. And having dealt with that sort of shit from supposedly progressive dudes in the past (and Nice Guys! Such Nice Guys!) it’s fucking demoralizing to see a community rally around someone who’s been such a shit. It’s demoralizing and infuriating to see survivors and activists be treated to a finger-wagging lecture about forgiveness and proper decorum and How Could You Be Mean To Him He’s Totally Sorry About This.

    I wonder about his ex girlfriend. I wonder how she feels seeing him get this cred, seeing him get these gigs to speak for me and women like me. I wonder how she feels seeing other women rush to his defense. I wonder how she feels knowing that at the end of the day, there are feminist who’d rally around him and continue to belittle and erase her.

    If you want to be an ally, be a fucking ally, don’t make money off of other people’s oppression. I give the stink-eye to professional “allies” who capitalize on their power that white and/or male supremacy affords them, who get speaking gigs and writing gigs and call themselves experts on something they do not experience. These allies are the first one to snap at you when you criticize them, when you point out that they’re relying on women and people of color to do the grunt work while they reap the benefits.

    You want to be an ally? Be a great anti-racist, anti-misogynist, pro-feminist, pro-LGBT, pro-disability awareness and rights advocate at work, in whatever your job is. Bring that to your friends and family and colleagues and fellow congregants or fellow activists. I’d much rather these allies brought this to the forefront within their general activism than make their living off of it. I’d much rather they actually gave a shit rather than use this “expertise” (barf) as a bludgeoning stick against other groups they feel threatened by.

    But no marginalized group is a job opportunity, for fuck’s sake.

  169. Brett K: Seriously? This is an acceptable thing to say now?

    Standards have been going down as of late. Evidently fellatio is now considered an acceptable metaphor for attacking someone on a feminist blog.

  170. I noted that I knew it was not appropriate and probably I just shouldn’t have said it. I don’t say it to mean “women who perform fellatio are horrible people” or whatnot…I meant it more as like…she’s so busy fawning all over him or whatever. I don’t know. I try to be a good person in regard to public statements, but once in a while, I don’t feel like people have earned that from me. I’m incredibly disgusted with this whole situation and I’m angry about how some people have been spoken about/to in regard to their reactions and feelings, and I had a moment of human weakness and let the nastiness I was feeling out. Sometimes it gets exhausting moderating our own anger in regard to the feelings of someone who doesn’t appear to give two shits about the feelings of others. But I suppose in those times I should vent privately to friends or something.

  171. Your anger is understandable, and perhaps justifiable. But I couldn’t let a comment like that go without strong rebuke. Luckily you at least acknowledge your mistakes.

  172. Indeed, it was a mistake, and I am sorry for being offensive. No good lowering myself to the level of those with whom I’m angry, and I should know that.

  173. EG: Nobody is advocating hiring jackbooted thugs to shut down his blog, or whatever.

    I’ve got the phone numbers of some people, you know, if we ever decided we needed to take care of business. I mean, I wouldn’t ever want to do anything. Anything illegal. Clearly an overreaction.

    All I’m saying: I have phone numbers.

  174. Alison: I try to be a good person in regard to public statements

    You failed. 50 lashes. Then a handwritten letter of apology to every woman who has ever given a blow job.

  175. Really? You’ve got phone numbers? Are we now saying it’s okay to threaten Schwyzer with harm?

    You know he has a daughter, right? Do feminists care about his family?

  176. Talk about mote in your own eyes. I’m sure I can’t be the only Feministe reader who holds differing views and readings of Schwyzer’s actions both as relates to his sexual history and the murder/suicide attempt, but who has been holding their tongue scared of the resulting pile-on. I’m glad that Clarisse shut down the blog if she felt unable to moderate it. That is her setting her boundaries. And in what Feminist world is that anything other than admirable for a woman, hmm?

    I don’t agree that a professor having consensual sex with an adult student of proximate age is an abuser or predator. I’ve read posts on the blog outlining HS’ behaviour and I don’t just disagree, I violently disagree. Sleazebag sure, abuser, not on your nelly. In terms of the murder/suicide attempt, my cousin while under the influence of drugs and in an extremely disturbed state of mind, tried to kill herself and her disabled son. Luckily, she failed. She had no history of abuse and no-one I have ever met has called her violent, an abuser or likewise and luckily she has made a full recovery.

    So, I’m really really interested to know, given that no-one here has done a professional psychiatric or psychological assessment of this man, how you can just all *tell* that he is a violent, narcissistic misogynistic predator just waiting to slip up into more violence. Would you say the same about my cousin? It just beggars belief that people here would far rather Hugo Schwyzer not make the impact he has so far through his work, because he is a man and has a negative history. It’s because he has had an irresponsible, stupid, addictive past that he is able to talk about it. And I would far rather hear about someone who has been able to tackle it than someone who has (allegedly) never done a thing wrong in their lives.

    So many people here are quick to call trigger warnings, talk about PTSD, talk about abuse and so forth. All the while ignoring the fact that the language style here is often bullying and used in a blunt manner to intimidate those who don’t have your wit, your quickness or even your in-speak. Don’t know the right lingo. Call-out and pile-on. Someone disagrees with the group-mind. Call-out and pile-on. Or use slut-shaming comments to personal attack another woman.

    Feminism as practiced in this space seems to have succumbed to the usual Leftist trap of ideological purity of language and behaviour (and I say this as a Leftist). Holier than thou, more progressive than thou, so accepting of everything. Except from dissent away from the group shibboleths. Seriously Feministe oh so most outspoken commentariat, some people disagree with you. And perhaps, just perhaps, you are sometimes wrong.

  177. Kayla: Really? You’ve got phone numbers? Are we now saying it’s okay to threaten Schwyzer with harm?

    No, I would never, ever, ever advocate violence, because that would be wrong. Why would I threaten an outstanding pillar of the community like Mr. Schwyzer?

  178. LotusBen: You failed. 50 lashes. Then a handwritten letter of apology to every woman who has ever given a blow job.

    Okay, maybe I’m overreacting, but can we please not dismiss my reaction to this? We’re talking about someone on a feminist blog using a sex act as an insult, towards a woman who has been frequently targeted for her sexuality, no less.

    Alison, thank you for your apology. I understand being angry, though I do object slightly to your characterization of this comment as “lowering myself to the level of those who I am angry” – presumably meaning Clarisse, when as far as I can tell she hasn’t been shaming anyone for their sexuality. Whatever you think Clarisse is guilty of, it’s not this.

    Sorry. This whole situation is just really upsetting. I know I should take a step back from the discussion but I can’t seem to stop dwelling on some of the things that have been said.

  179. If our goal is to be holier-than-thou, the standard of ‘not trying to kill your ex-girlfriend’ is a fairly low bar to clear. Even my dumbass racist father can clear it. So uh, what’s the problem?

  180. Schwyzer has actually written publicly about being diagnosed with narcissism and his efforts to overcome it. Maybe I’m just partial to transparency, but I sure prefer honesty over a gendered male feminist pretending he doesn’t have problems (anymore). And yes, I understand people think he’s exploiting transparency for fame and fortune. Frankly that’s something for psych specialists to figure out — I can only judge him based on his present work, while forgiveness is something only Schwyzer’s ex-partner can parcel out.

  181. Sheelzebub: If you want to be an ally, be a fucking ally, don’t make money off of other people’s oppression. I give the stink-eye to professional “allies” who capitalize on their power that white and/or male supremacy affords them, who get speaking gigs and writing gigs and call themselves experts on something they do not experience. These allies are the first one to snap at you when you criticize them, when you point out that they’re relying on women and people of color to do the grunt work while they reap the benefits.

    You want to be an ally? Be a great anti-racist, anti-misogynist, pro-feminist, pro-LGBT, pro-disability awareness and rights advocate at work, in whatever your job is. Bring that to your friends and family and colleagues and fellow congregants or fellow activists. I’d much rather these allies brought this to the forefront within their general activism than make their living off of it. I’d much rather they actually gave a shit rather than use this “expertise” (barf) as a bludgeoning stick against other groups they feel threatened by.

    But no marginalized group is a job opportunity, for fuck’s sake.

    Yes to this whole damn comment, but especially this. Why are we so eager to fawn over these irritating white guys?

    Come to think of it…what the fuck could Schwyzer even do that was too extreme for you to apologize for him anymore? ‘Oh come on, he might have mowed down those women with a machine gun and urinated on their as-yet still living bodies, BUT HE APOLOGIZED DAMMIT, AND IT WAS LIKE A REALLY LONG TIME AGO, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON PERFECTION BEFORE HE’S ALLOWED TO MAKE MONEY OFF HIS SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS AND BOOK DEALS!!? Are you perfect!? I bet you left the milk out this morning and called someone a fag in high school once, HYPOCRITE.’

    Sniffle…so brave of him to write a lurid blog post about his various crimes against women. Would that we were all so courageous.

  182. LotusBen: You failed. 50 lashes. Then a hand written letter of apology to every woman who has ever given a blowjob.

    Her hand would doubtlessly get tired after a while. Can’t she just photocopy it? Think of the savings in human resources.

  183. Echo Zen, some of us have dealt with guys like him. Guys who use the exact same language, the exact same MO and get all of the coddling and sympathy from our communities.

    It’s tiring as all hell for those of us who’ve gotten the shit end of their treatement.

  184. Echo Zen: With Valenti and Feministing, I always felt as a kid that she was preoccupied (for lack of a better word) with highlighting WOC and trans issues and figures, which I thought was unusual because she’s neither a WOC nor trans herself.

    During the period of time when I used to read Feministing, when Jessica Valenti was there, I seem to recall that there were one or more regular bloggers who were WOC, although I could be wrong. Trans issues? Are you serious? The blog that was the subject of a very widespread boycott by trans women? The blog that had a laudatory post on the occasion of Mary Daly’s death with NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about her notorious trans-hatred, and (unlike Shakesville) didn’t bother amending the post in any way after people pointed that out? That was when I stopped reading Feministing entirely.

  185. Echo Zen: Schwyzer has actually written publicly about being diagnosed with narcissism and his efforts to overcome it. Maybe I’m just partial to transparency, but I sure prefer honesty over a gendered male feminist pretending he doesn’t have problems (anymore). And yes, I understand people think he’s exploiting transparency for fame and fortune. Frankly that’s something for psych specialists to figure out — I can only judge him based on his present work, while forgiveness is something only Schwyzer’s ex-partner can parcel out.

    Well yes, I’m a fan of transparency. But for fuck’s sake, it’s not like I would forgive George W. Bush for all his horrendous decisions as long as he eventually came clean about them 20 or so years later. I prefer someone who is honest and, you know, also didn’t commit attempted murder.

  186. LotusBen: No, I would never, ever, ever advocate violence, because that would be wrong. Why would I threaten an outstanding pillar of the community like Mr. Schwyzer?

    Stop it, Ben. Please.

  187. Brett K: Okay, maybe I’m overreacting, but can we please not dismiss my reaction to this?

    I wasn’t dismissing your reaction. Your reaction seems reasonable to me. Humor is my defense mechanism when I’m in emotionally uncomfortable situations, like here. I suppose I believe everyone is way too angry and/or apologetic about this entire Schwyzer/Clarisse/comment shutdown/etc. fiasco, and I’d like to see people relax. Although when you tell people to relax when they’re pissed that normally just makes them more pissed, so I wasn’t gonna say that although. . .oops, I sorta did just say it in a roundabout way. So I hope people don’t hate me for that.

    Basically, I just think it’s really shitty to try to kill your girlfriend. Like really, really shitty. And that’s sorta what started all this. So, for me personally, it’s hard to get upset at Clarisse or Jill or people who are angry at Clarisse or people who are angry at Jill or anyone else because I just start thinking about how some people attempt murder, and how that’s way worse.

  188. Up to now, discussion has remained fairly clean (if impassioned, which is to be expected). Sex shaming, speculations about the activities of dicks and mouths not germane to the debate at hand, implied threats of violence, and armchair psychiatric diagnoses detract from that clean discussion and aren’t acceptable. I try to keep moderation to a minimum, but those are fairly solid limits for me.

  189. Have I wondered through the rabbit hole here?

    For all those who wondered how bad being mean on the internet is, now you know; it’s worse then trying to murder your ex girlfriend. That’s us mean girls told.

    Look, Clarisse has a pattern of taking her ball and going home if the comment section doesn’t agree with her post. She’s done it before and judging by her comments here, she’ll do it again.

    Problem is that violence against women isn’t someone’s ball and discussing/preventing is a key part of feminism, whatever you prefix your feminism with. Shutting down a discussion about this because of “tone” is not bloody on. Ever.

    I appreciate the apology, but IMHO, the apology should come from Clarisse directly.

  190. Sorry for the double post but, with the talk of allies and what an ally means:

    Men in feminist spaces, please resist making it all about you. Far too many comment threads here lately are getting derailed by lolz having dudes. In feministland, you won’t, nor should you be, the star of the show.

  191. DonnaL: Trans issues? Are you serious? The blog that was the subject of a very widespread boycott by trans women? The blog that had a laudatory post on the occasion of Mary Daly’s death with NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about her notorious trans-hatred, and (unlike Shakesville) didn’t bother amending the post in any way after people pointed that out? That was when I stopped reading Feministing entirely.

    For real.

  192. Caperton: Up to now, discussion has remained fairly clean (if impassioned, which is to be expected). Sex shaming, speculations about the activities of dicks and mouths not germane to the debate at hand, implied threats of violence, and armchair psychiatric diagnoses detract from that clean discussion and aren’t acceptable. I try to keep moderation to a minimum, but those are fairly solid limits for me.

    Thank you.

    LotusBen: I wasn’t dismissing your reaction. Your reaction seems reasonable to me. Humor is my defense mechanism when I’m in emotionally uncomfortable situations, like here. I suppose I believe everyone is way too angry and/or apologetic about this entire Schwyzer/Clarisse/comment shutdown/etc. fiasco, and I’d like to see people relax. Although when you tell people to relax when they’re pissed that normally just makes them more pissed, so I wasn’t gonna say that although. . .oops, I sorta did just say it in a roundabout way. So I hope people don’t hate me for that.

    Basically, I just think it’s really shitty to try to kill your girlfriend. Like really, really shitty. And that’s sorta what started all this. So, for me personally, it’s hard to get upset at Clarisse or Jill or people who are angry at Clarisse or people who are angry at Jill or anyone else because I just start thinking about how some people attempt murder, and how that’s way worse.

    I understand where you’re coming from. While I have fairly mixed feelings about Hugo, largely due to my own experiences with addiction, abuse, and mental illness (which I will not discuss here because oversharing) I can understand and accept people’s anger towards him. Yeah, you can say pretty much whatever you like about someone who tried to kill his girlfriend (though I personally can’t accept threats of violence against anyone). Clarisse never did any of that, though, so attacking her and using anger at Hugo to justify that is just… no. Especially when those attacks seem to revolve around her right to set her own boundaries, or when they turn into slut-shaming.

    Also, humour is usually my reflex in uncomfortable situations too. This conversation just seems to have triggered my humourless crazy lady reflex for some reason.

  193. This is going to be the last thing I say about this. I am one of those women who got fucked over by a progressive guy–someone that the community rushed to soothe and protect. Clarisse, if you’re reading this, know this: your anger at us over seeing this same dyanmic with Hugo is a goddamn punch to the gut.

    Where the fuck is the compassion for the women (you know, women, the people who should be centered on a feminist blog) who have been used and exploited and abused by men who are forgiven and given all sorts of aid and comfort? THIS is why you got blowback.

    Caperton, I do appreciate the apology, really. But I find the chorus of people here insisting on forgiveness and how unfair we’re being, well. . .let’s just say it sounds all too familiar. And yes, I’m repeating myself but. . .it’s a punch to the gut.

  194. Brett K: Honestly, this whole thread is a punch to the gut, from every angle. Neither side is coming across very well at this point.

    Can you not equate badly stated rhetoric with out and out abuse, please? Because seriously? This is part of the fucking problem. I’m sorry we’re not polite enough for you but some of us have actually had to deal with abusers in our movements, only to see them protected and to have us exhorted to forgive them (and the community exhorted to forgive them, leaving US out in the cold). And I’m seeing it with some folks here.

    Cut that shit out.

  195. I don’t think he’s perfect. But like Clarisse, I’ve met Hugo. I don’t think anyone else in this thread has talked to him. I felt safe in his presence. I am a victim of rape too. My experience of him as safe and nurturing counts as much as anyone else who has been abused. I don’t condone what he did. But he does real good now.

  196. Brett K: Honestly, this whole thread is a punch to the gut, from every angle. Neither side is coming across very well at this point.

    Oh bullshit, total fucking, bullshit. False equivalency is such an awful silencing tactic.

  197. LotusBen: Humor is my defense mechanism when I’m in emotionally uncomfortable situations, like here. I suppose I believe everyone is way too angry and/or apologetic about this entire Schwyzer/Clarisse/comment shutdown/etc. fiasco, and I’d like to see people relax. Although when you tell people to relax when they’re pissed that normally just makes them more pissed, so I wasn’t gonna say that although. . .oops, I sorta did just say it in a roundabout way. So I hope people don’t hate me for that.

    For the record, that particular coping response tends to translate very, very, very poorly to charged Internet conversations between people who are mainly strangers and acquaintances with limited contextual cues available. I found your comments really frustrating because they seemed disrespectful and dismissive of the seriousness of what’s being discussed in this thread, and was prepared to say as much before you explained. I doubt I was the only one who interpreted them this way. Basically, that’s a legitimate reaction on your part, but you will probably find it more effective and productive in the long run to *remove* yourself (temporarily) from the emotionally uncomfortable thread rather than attempt a humourous defusing of tensions which is more likely to provoke negative backlash from people who are unfamiliar with your style and uninterested in “relaxing” about the issue at hand. (Personally, I don’t think this is a relaxed conversation, nor should it be.) That’s my take at least.

    Sorry for the bit of a derail. I don’t have anything else to contribute to the thread – I’m firmly in sit down, shut up, and listen mode here.

  198. Here’s the thing, this is a guy who tried to kill someone and they made everyone she knew think she was suicidal so he wouldn’t get in trouble. This is a guy who got away with doing it, this is a guy who now profits off these sort of events that happened in his life. He has not faced any sort of consequence or anything for his actions, no jail time, no anything, fuck this guy. It’s easy to be sorry when it costs you fuck nothing.

  199. Brett K: Honestly, this whole thread is a punch to the gut, from every angle. Neither side is coming across very well at this point.

    Yes, women’s anger is so unbecoming. Would you like it better if I wasn’t such a potty mouth?

  200. Sheelzebub: Echo Zen, some of us have dealt with guys like him. Guys who use the exact same language, the exact same MO and get all of the coddling and sympathy from our communities.

    It’s tiring as all hell for those of us who’ve gotten the shit end of their treatement.

    This is pretty much my take on the situation as well.
    I have felt alienated from his work since the first time I leaned his name and started reading his writing a few years ago. In particular, as a WOC I have always been put off by his handling of issues relating to my communities. And I will never forget his White Knight defense of Amanda Marcotte, against what he characterized as jealous WOC haters making a kerfuffle on the publication of her It’s a Jungle Out There.

  201. Tossing people into jail and considering the problem fixed doesn’t fit into any model of transformative or restorative justice that I’m familiar with. If Hugo gets sent to jail, he’ll be subject to more violence, including rape, and will be released after a few months/years with a few chronic diseases and a completely destroyed sense of self. This is not a response that I want feminism to be part of.

  202. Jadey, I agree. Thanks for the feedback. I probably should be in sit down, shut up, and listen mode as well.

  203. Rodeo: Tossing people into jail and considering the problem fixed doesn’t fit into any model of transformative or restorative justice that I’m familiar with. If Hugo gets sent to jail, he’ll be subject to more violence, including rape, and will be released after a few months/years with a few chronic diseases and a completely destroyed sense of self. This is not a response that I want feminism to be part of.

    But has anyone advocated jail? I don’t think anyone even mentioned it. We just don’t think he should be making money off of our oppression. Justice is not being served in any capacity if a stain like Schwyzer can breeze through life unscathed by this crime against his ex.

    Interesting sidenote…I was just recently reading about a Quebec school board employee who was fired for having appeared in pornography. Guess what gender this employee was, I’ll wait. Nice to know that attempted murder isn’t enough to destroy your career, but excessive sluttiness apparently is. Don’t you just love patriarchy?

  204. Rodeo: Tossing people into jail and considering the problem fixed doesn’t fit into any model of transformative or restorative justice that I’m familiar with. If Hugo gets sent to jail, he’ll be subject to more violence, including rape, and will be released after a few months/years with a few chronic diseases and a completely destroyed sense of self. This is not a response that I want feminism to be part of.

    I’m sorry I’m all about restorative justice but somethings deserve jail time and attempted murder is damn well one of them.

    And I never said that was that, I just said this dude tried to fucking kill someone and then made everyone she knew think she was crazy/suicidal. This is cruel and revolting and yet nothing happened to him over it, nothing. We can talk about transformative/restorative justice and what to do, but there wasn’t even any justice in this case.

    I reiterate that jail is absolutely a legit option in bloody attempted murder cases.

  205. Kayla: I don’t think he’s perfect. But like Clarisse, I’ve met Hugo. I don’t think anyone else in this thread has talked to him. I felt safe in his presence. I am a victim of rape too. My experience of him as safe and nurturing counts as much as anyone else who has been abused. I don’t condone what he did. But he does real good now.

    You’re not the only one, Kayla. Regardless how I personally feel toward him (which is impossible to do in a paragraph), he has without question been a positive influence on the students I work with — in some cases he changed their lives (for the better — yeah, this is where you cue the sarcastic comments about sexual predators). It’s not impossible to support someone’s current work without rebuking one’s past deeds.

  206. Echo Zen:
    Schwyzer has actually written publicly about being diagnosed with narcissism and his efforts to overcome it. Maybe I’m just partial to transparency, but I sure prefer honesty over a gendered male feminist pretending he doesn’t have problems (anymore). And yes, I understand people think he’s exploiting transparency for fame and fortune. Frankly that’s something for psych specialists to figure out — I can only judge him based on his present work, while forgiveness is something only Schwyzer’s ex-partner can parcel out.

    Diagnosed with narcissism? Are you kidding me? Like its a psychiatric disorder? What isn’t a psychiatric disorder these days? It took me a good 10 minutes to figure out how to respond to this, and as someone who usually knows exactly what they think, that’s a lot. This post upset me more than the huge flame fests I’ve seen all over the internet with expletives and insults flying. If we are setting the bar so low that being self obsessed is a problem why don’t we just go all the way and admit that no one controls their own behavior at all?
    Do you know the problem with this kind of diagnosis? Most people who go public saying I have such and such problem only do it AFTER THEY GOT CAUGHT and have no other options to maintain their coddled position. Frankly, even if I accept that as a real problem that Schwizzy actually has instead of just being a selfish asshole, he may be working on his issue but, he is doing a freaking piss poor job of it. He is in a position of powerful authority with thousands of adoring fans, much like Clarisse, he has had 4 wives, he never once had a real consequence for his past crimes, and he is shoving himself all over the blogosphere with his opinions on feminism when he is not self identified as a women and he is making great bank. So tell me, what part of that lifestyle is not the ideal situation for a self absorbed narcissist and what change is he making to stop being that way? If he really wants to not be so self involved anymore, maybe he should put his ass where his mouth is and park it in a monastery or a retreat for a few months to a year of a vow of silence and absence from the wide world.
    Otherwise I fail to see how his life is any different from his previous life, unless you could being a MORE well known and fawned on and wealthy.
    Treatment for narcissism? Please.

  207. WestEndGirl: I’m glad that Clarisse shut down the blog if she felt unable to moderate it. That is her setting her boundaries. And in what Feminist world is that anything other than admirable for a woman, hmm?

    In the world where a woman is hiding behind her boundaries because she (ironically) refuses be held accountable for her actions?

    WestEndGirl: Would you say the same about my cousin?

    Is your cousin profiting off of disabled people? That’s the only way you can compare the two situations. When she’s interviewed as an authority on disabled rights and its posted in a community against ableism, I will be the first person in line to call your cousin an asshole. Until then, apples and oranges. And if you were looking for the difference, there it is.

    WestEndGirl: Or use slut-shaming comments to personal attack another woman.

    I like that you’re not letting go of Alison’s comment after she apologized while advocating that we let go that Hugo tried to kill someone and got away with it. Totally consistent; brava.

  208. igglanova:
    Yes…

    I’m sorry, I don’t think I made my point correctly. I know what NPD is, I just wasn’t aware we were giving people a pass on attempted murder and abuse of authority and all of Hugo’s other crimes because they had NPD. Is that a legitimate defense in court? “I ruined her life but I don’t deserve jail cause NPD.” Additionally, I don’t recall Hugo being sent to an institution to get that worked on.

  209. Matt: What isn’t a psychiatric disorder these days?

    Being an ableist dick. Still not a psychiatric disorder. Congrats, you’re perfectly healthy.

  210. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is on the books as a diagnosis. I don’t know about Schwyzer’s history with it though I will note that it’s kind of unusual to find someone who admits to being diagnosed with NPD–one feature is typically they don’t think there’s anything wrong with their behavior, it’s that everyone else just isn’t recognizing their obvious importance. It’s really rare for people with NPD to willingly seek treatment, when they do it’s often because of a comorbid disorder that is bothering them or because they were court ordered to get help after an anger incident, etc. The person with NPD typically doesn’t suffer from the disorder so much as everyone else around them does.

    Personality disorders are (mostly) really, REALLY different from what we usually think of with regard to mental illness. It’s not like depression or schizophrenia where you can take medicines, get therapy, take care of yourself and manage your symptoms. A personality disorder is a deeply internalized dysfunctional set of coping mechanisms that color a person’s entire approach to life from adolescence to the grave. You can fight a personality disorder, but it is fundamentally a very different kind of struggle than treating, say, severe depression. A person has to be really committed to changing the way they think about themselves and others, how they approach stress and problem-solving, how they view the world itself–and it’s by all accounts a life-long struggle that isn’t always terribly successful even with the best of help from professionals. People with NPD are known to be particularly resistant to treatment.

    I would say from where I sit, looking at Schwyzer’s past misadventures and current behavior, it’s more likely that he is using the (alleged) diagnosis as a tool in his greater campaign of manipulating women to get what he wants out of us than it is that he is really committed to changing his ways.

  211. Yes, Igglanova, people are advocating putting him in jail.

    Lara, you don’t know anything about restorative justice. May I direct you here. Wanting to put someone in a cage where he will be raped and abused simply because he believed and acted in a way that is consistent with the beliefs and actions of many other white men who arbitrarily decide to call game over on someone’s life is not feminist, it’s not part of restorative justice, and it doesn’t address the fundamental problem of men believing they can control women’s bodies.

  212. Rodeo: believed and acted in a way that is consistent with the beliefs and actions of many other white men

    FFS, y’all. If you can make the claim that attempted murder is consistent with the beliefs and actions of “many other white men,” you need to get the fuck out of your community. And if “many” is an exaggeration, let’s stop trying to normalize attempted murder.

  213. Oh ‘simply’ because he actually went through with his attempted murder rather than just thinking about it like other people? How silly of us to think there is a meaningful distinction!

    What exactly do you propose as a plan for ‘restorative justice’? Doing fuckall and letting him actively profit from his crime?

  214. Rodeo: Wanting to put someone in a cage where he will be raped and abused simply because he believed and acted in a way that is consistent with the beliefs and actions of many other white men who arbitrarily decide to call game over on someone’s life is not feminist, it’s not part of restorative justice, and it doesn’t address the fundamental problem of men believing they can control women’s bodies.

    Wait, so…are you saying you don’t think men (or anyone) who try to murder women (or anyone) should be put in jail for that crime? Look, I think most of us here would agree that our prison system is extremely fucked up and awful, and I don’t wish rape or abuse on any prisoner…but I also do NOT think that because the prisons suck then we should not put violent offenders away. People who kill or attempt to kill, rape or attempt to rape, abuse, etc, *do* deserve punishment. While I wish the punishment we gave did not include such horrible things as prison rape, and while I wish more people in power cared about eradicating it, I absolutely do not think that therefore those perpetrators should just be left to mosey along their merry violent way in society.

    I mean…if I’m reading you incorrectly, please tell me. Because what I infer is you think no one should ever be sent to jail. And that is not feminist, either, especially when we’re talking about violent crimes against women.

  215. I’ll go farther.

    As a rape survivor, Hugo Schwyzer made me feel safe. He gave me a sense I could trust men. He inspired so many people, like EchoZen said, including some incredible young feminists. The thought of him going to jail seems such an inhumane waste and a dismissal of the experience of those who have been positively touched by him.

    Can’t we condemn what he was while accepting that he does real although imperfect good in real women’s lives?

  216. What, exactly, is so outrageous about suggesting that a man who attempted to murder his former partner ought to spend time in prison? Why would it be somehow shocking if someone HAD said “throw him in jail! He should do 10 years for what he did to her!”? Even if you want radical reforms of the criminal justice system, we’re not exactly talking about a crime like selling pot or stealing out of the cash drawer, here. He tried to end a woman’s life. While she was sleeping. And BECAUSE she seemed “too frail” to him.

  217. Kayla, with all due respect, I could not give less of a shit how he makes YOU feel. I care how he made his victim feel in the moment when she realized that a man she had trusted with her life had tried to end it while she was at her most vulnerable. I care how she must feel now seeing her ex strutting around being a “male feminist rolemodel” and bragging about how many female students he banged before he “reformed.”

  218. Alison: I mean…if I’m reading you incorrectly, please tell me. Because what I infer is you think no one should ever be sent to jail. And that is not feminist, either, especially when we’re talking about violent crimes against women.

    Anarcha-feminists would say there shouldn’t be any prisons. Personally, I think it’s naive to expect prisons will ever be used for feminist ends when historically prison has always been one of the cornerstone disclipinary tools of patriarchal/racist/classist societies (i.e. all societies that have had prisons). If feminism ever becomes powerful enough that it can decide who should go to prison and who shouldn’t, then it won’t need prisons, because there won’t be any more rapes or murders to punish (or very, very few) as patriarchy and its associated rapes and murders will already be history.

  219. Clarisse Thorn: In the future, if a thread that I am moderating gets to a point where I no longer feel comfortable moderating it, then I will leave a note stating that I am no longer moderating the thread, and I will delete the comments as they reach my email inbox.

    How is that different from closing comments? Either way, we can’t talk to each other in the on-line area in which we usually congregate, and either way, you have decided that what we have to say in response to what you post isn’t worth hearing.

    LotusBen: All I’m saying: I have phone numbers.

    Heh. I shall certainly bear this in mind, if not for use on this occasion, for sometime in the future!

    Kayla: Really? You’ve got phone numbers? Are we now saying it’s okay to threaten Schwyzer with harm?

    That is such an old joke/sarcastic aside that I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around someone taking it seriously. I’m fairly certain my friends and I were saying some version of that to each other in junior high, which for me, was quite some time ago. Yes. Obviously, if you intend to employ thugs-for-hire in order to break down somebody else’s door, destroy his blogging capabilities, and beat the shit out of him, the very first thing you would do is announce your intentions on a blog from which your ISP can be traced. Obviously.

    WestEndGirl: I’m glad that Clarisse shut down the blog if she felt unable to moderate it. That is her setting her boundaries. And in what Feminist world is that anything other than admirable for a woman, hmm?

    The world in which instead of walking away and finding someone else to moderate, or taking a mental health break from the moderation queue for 48 hours, or asking a friend to sift through the responses for her, she decided that her boundaries meant that nobody should say anything on that comment thread any longer. Maintaining boundaries does not mean inflicting them on everybody else. It means maintaining them for yourself.

    WestEndGirl: All the while ignoring the fact that the language style here is often bullying and used in a blunt manner to intimidate those who don’t have your wit, your quickness or even your in-speak.

    So…what do you suggest, precisely? That people who comment deliberately do so slowly and with as little wit as possible so as not to intimidate anybody else? That delicate euphemisms be employed at all times so as to avoid bluntness? Isn’t that a bit like me going to a gym and telling everybody else to stop being so strong with all their weight-lifting and flexible with all their toe-touching because it intimidates me? The problem, if it intimidates me, is not with strength or flexibility, or speed or wit or bluntness. The problem is with how they are employed, or the problem is with me, or the problem is with some combination of both.

    Matt: Diagnosed with narcissism? Are you kidding me? Like its a psychiatric disorder? What isn’t a psychiatric disorder these days? It took me a good 10 minutes to figure out how to respond to this, and as someone who usually knows exactly what they think, that’s a lot. This post upset me more than the huge flame fests I’ve seen all over the internet with expletives and insults flying. If we are setting the bar so low that being self obsessed is a problem why don’t we just go all the way and admit that no one controls their own behavior at all?

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not congruent with the way “narcissism” is used in general conversation, just like when I say that I’m going through an episode of severe depression, it is not the same thing as that time when you had a really crummy week and when Friday night rolled around you just put on your pjs and had a good cry, and afterwards ordered Chinese food and watched Aliens and felt better, if a little tired. Look it up.

  220. Yes, I’m saying to close all the prisons. Demands for punishment instead of justice destroys communities and families without even addressing the harm that was caused to the person injured. Remember, when we send someone to jail, we do so because they harmed the state, not the victim. If the victim wants justice, they have to sue for money in civil court. Otherwise, their body is simply the scene of a crime and they are nothing more than a witness for the state.

    Besides which, as Nanette and BFP said earlier, someone like Hugo or any other middle class white guy isn’t going to jail for any reason. Know who does? 1 out of every 3 black men. Doing time in prison is now a significant life event, similar to graduation or marriage. As BFP said:

    and then there’s also the way so many people in our communities are dealt with by the prison industrial complex. where victims of abuse are arrested and deported under mandetory arrest laws (that feminists created). where black men who rape white women are given death penalties and white men who rape women of color are high fived.

    Yeah, in theory it’s a great idea to send all the bad people to jails or remote islands far away from Europe. But if that worked in practice, that would be almost every man in my family currently incarcerated and leaving their wives with babies to raise and absolutely no income. Fortunately, my family and I have white privilege, so the men in my family can abuse with impunity and not worry too much about seeing a courtroom. Of course, that also means the women in my family have no recourse because they don’t want their loved ones in jail, so they simply put up with the crap.

  221. Branwen, it’s outrageous because it’s nothing more than an eye for an eye. He did a violent act to her, so we respond by committing/enabling violent acts upon him? I reject that premise as as feminist solution with my entire being.

  222. igglanova: Yes, women’s anger is so unbecoming. Would you like it better if I wasn’t such a potty mouth?

    Dismissing women when they say they’ve been hurt by something, though, that’s totally okay. I guess I should have been angry instead of upset, then my reaction would have been valid?

  223. PrettyAmiable: Being an ableist dick .Still not a psychiatric disorder.Congrats, you’re perfectly healthy.

    FYI, I have ASPD and I’m on the spectrum, so its not my fault!
    Actually as an atheist I believe that humans are merely the result of a very complex set of interactions and responses to input, so I don’t believe in anyone is responsible per say for their behavior, I just don’t like how people pick and choose what is a disorder. I mean, if you look at the history the general trend is that every time we redo the diagnostic system more and more conditions get added and more and more things are an excuse for behavior, so why don’t people just cut the bullshit and skip ahead to the end? Why does Schwizzy get a pass from so many people for his crimes due to mental disorder, but so many lower class, or foreign, or minority groups get sent to prison? Insofar as it relates to crimes and courts, psychiatric disorders are mainly used as a cop out for the rich who can afford a lawyer to get them off on an expensive defense strategy. Also the whole private treatment and rehab bullshit while regular people have to suck it up and go into the system. Do we even have conclusive evidence that Schwizzy has NPD? And who gets to decide the cutoff where his crime is because of NPD but someone else was acting of their own volition, as if anyone had volition at all, but thats a whole other big derail.

  224. Branwen: Kayla, with all due respect, I could not give less of a shit how he makes YOU feel. I care how he made his victim feel in the moment when she realized that a man she had trusted with her life had tried to end it while she was at her most vulnerable. I care how she must feel now seeing her ex strutting around being a “male feminist rolemodel” and bragging about how many female students he banged before he “reformed.”

    Ditto. I really want to know why we should prioritize your feelings, Kayla, over his victim’s.

  225. I think it’s naive to expect prisons will ever be used for feminist ends when historically prison has always been one of the cornerstone disclipinary tools of patriarchal/racist/classist societies

    Exactly. Prisons multiplied exponentially after slavery ended, 1/3 of black men will spend time in jail, hell, more black men are currently in jail than are in college, but we think prisons are a feminist response to violence against women. Someone’s been hoodwinked by the patriarchy.

  226. Matt: Is that a legitimate defense in court? “I ruined her life but I don’t deserve jail cause NPD.”

    Very few mental illnesses are defenses in court; the legal definition of “mental illness” that can be used as an affirmative defense is not the same thing as the psychiatric recognition of an illness. And no, by the way, I don’t find it to be a good reason to excuse attempted murder. That kind of thing is part of what makes narcissism so dangerous.

  227. Brett K: Dismissing women when they say they’ve been hurt by something, though, that’s totally okay. I guess I should have been angry instead of upset, then my reaction would have been valid?

    It is not a valid tactic to use your own hurt feelings to shame others or silence discussion. It’s manipulative. Plus your previous comment contained not just an admission of hurt feelings, but a judgement implying that ‘both sides’ were acting just as bad. I was not invalidating your feelings. I was pissed that you were judging me and others on my side.

    Not to be cruel, but if you are personally triggered or upset by heated discussion, then you have every right and ability to leave. I’m not pulling my punches because some people find my anger distasteful.

  228. Kayla: Can’t we condemn what he was while accepting that he does real although imperfect good in real women’s lives?

    It’s wonderful to learn of your and Echo Zen’s positive real life experiences with HS, but that’s not necessarily the whole story. Many are seeing evidence in his writing, in particular in the way he talks about his past, to suggest that his present manifestation may not be so different from his past persona, perhaps only a different affect. Your perspective makes me think about Thomas Jefferson. We can talk about Jefferson’s great works, and admire the Lawn of UVA, but I will always think of him as a child rapist.

  229. Branwen, do you think you can speak for his ex? He says she’s happily married and lives in the south. How can anyone here speak for his victims without hearing from them? If you’re going to erase my real experience as a rape survivor who has learned from Hugo, what gives you the right to speak for women whom you don’t know except through Hugo’s blogpost?

    It seems inconsistent and unfair.

    How will it benefit Hugo’s daughter to have her Daddy go to prison? Or does she not count?

    I smell selective feminism.

  230. Kayla: I’ll go farther.

    As a rape survivor, Hugo Schwyzer made me feel safe. He gave me a sense I could trust men. He inspired so many people, like EchoZen said, including some incredible young feminists. The thought of him going to jail seems such an inhumane waste and a dismissal of the experience of those who have been positively touched by him.

    Can’t we condemn what he was while accepting that he does real although imperfect good in real women’s lives?

    Of course he made a bunch of people feel good. So many people with issues are pillars of society. How could he get away with the crimes he did or does commit if he didn’t have this huge base of positive character references to erase the suffering of victims? That’s why you can do good for a million people but if you ruined the lives of 10 people you still need to be taken off the streets. You think prison is bad? Its un feminist to send people there, tell that to the people who aren’t the product of massive privilege who don’t have a whole bunch of people fighting against their incarceration. Instead of sitting here on a blog arguing about how people are so mean to poor Hugo, get some people actually in jail for something like marijuana possession out.
    Not ignoring all the good an abuser does is how they have the power to keep abusing people!

  231. Matt, find me the comment where someone excused his murder attempt on account of the NPD diagnosis.

    Let me beat you to the punch: it didn’t happen. Stop using this red herring to reinforce your own stigmas against mental illness.

  232. Rodeo: Exactly. Prisons multiplied exponentially after slavery ended, 1/3 of black men will spend time in jail, hell, more black men are currently in jail than are in college, but we think prisons are a feminist response to violence against women. Someone’s been hoodwinked by the patriarchy.

    But again, do you have a better idea? Let’s hear it.

  233. Kayla:
    If you’re going to erase my real experience as a rape survivor…

    I was about to write the same bleeding thing. Dismissing women’s experiences instead of disagreeing with them is something that belongs in MRA circles, not here.

  234. EG: Matt: Is that a legitimate defense in court? “I ruined her life but I don’t deserve jail cause NPD.”

    Very few mental illnesses are defenses in court; the legal definition of “mental illness” that can be used as an affirmative defense is not the same thing as the psychiatric recognition of an illness. And no, by the way, I don’t find it to be a good reason to excuse attempted murder. That kind of thing is part of what makes narcissism so dangerous.

    This is the feeling I wanted to express, I apologize that I couldn’t do it as neutrally and positively as EG. Thank you EG.

  235. Jesus Christ. You could read something by a woman of color, again, like Nanette and BFP suggested already.

    Start here: http://www.restorativejustice.org/

    No, it’s not going to be nearly as quick and easy as jail is. But if we’re talking about true justice, and not just vindictiveness, it’s going to take a while to implement.

  236. Kayla: How will it benefit Hugo’s daughter to have her Daddy go to prison? Or does she not count?

    I smell selective feminism.

    Can you please stop demonstrating how little you know about feminism? You’re not helping your former gender studies prof out.

    I’m sorry Hugo’s daughter was fathered by a monster who tried to kill someone. You know who’s fault that is? HUGO’S. Not the justice system. Not mine, for thinking he’s an asshole who should face consequences for his actions. HUGO’S. No one else’s. Using your definition, what a great feminist he is, doing everything he can to get taken away from his daughter.

    Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, but stop blaming everyone else for Hugo’s crimes.

  237. Kayla: How will it benefit Hugo’s daughter to have her Daddy go to prison? Or does she not count?

    I smell selective feminism.

    How does it benefit anybody who is not the victim of child abuse to have their daddy go to prison? Should we just stop imprisoning men with children unless they’ve been found guilty of crimes against their own children? What does that have to do with feminism?

  238. Echo Zen: Echo Zen 12.25.2011 at 8:44 pm

    Schwyzer has actually written publicly about being diagnosed with narcissism and his efforts to overcome it. Maybe I’m just partial to transparency, but I sure prefer honesty over a gendered male feminist pretending he doesn’t have problems (anymore). And yes, I understand people think he’s exploiting transparency for fame and fortune. Frankly that’s something for psych specialists to figure out — I can only judge him based on his present work, while forgiveness is something only Schwyzer’s ex-partner can parcel out.

    This is the comment I was responding to. Echo Zen is defending Schwizzy in several posts in the thread and he is the first to bring up the NPD issue. It really comes off as though NPD should have some ameliorating value on what he had done. Although I suppose I came off in not the best way when I responded to it, for which I am sorry.

  239. Matt: This is the feeling I wanted to express, I apologize that I couldn’t do it as neutrally and positively as EG. Thank you EG.

    Ah, in that case I entirely misread you, but am glad I got it right by accident! And also, there’s a comment of mine in moderation saying that yes, NPD is an actual disorder; while I was writing it, several other people posted the same thing and you posted to say yes, you knew. So it looks like I’m jumping in to tell you something that multiple people have told you and you have already said you knew. Just fyi.

  240. “Eye for an eye” my ass. Eye for an eye would be if someone waited until he was weak, sick, vulnerable, and alone and then beat him to within an inch of his life and left him there to bleed. Or waited until he was sleeping and then filled his bedroom with toxic gas. NOT sending him to prison. Further, while some feminists are completely against prison, many are not. There’s no “inconsistency” in a feminist thinking a man who tried to kill a woman deserves prison time.

    Speaking for his ex–I don’t speak for her, but neither, for God’s sake, does HUGO. So he says she’s “fine.” He has every reason to say so, doesn’t he? None of us really know how she feels, but my point is, whatever she feels, it’s a whole hell of a lot more relevant than the “safe” feelings of some woman who has an intellectual (or whatever) admiration for Hugo.

    Bringing Hugo’s daughter into this, ie “what if her daddy went to prison oh noes!!” For one thing that’s manipulative bullshit and you have to know just how inappropriate it is. For another thing, I could very well argue that a girl whose father is an abusive self-described narcissist who has tried to kill a woman would be better off without her “daddy” in her life at all. Better to keep him somewhere where he cannot abuse HER.

  241. Rodeo: I agree, EG. In my opinion, pacifism is glorified passivity. I’d never advocate it.

    Right. There’s a difference between supporting oppressive institutions like the military or the prison-industrial complex and saying that no one should use force ever. I’m all for oppressed people using force in self-defense against oppression. But police officers, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards don’t count as “oppressed people using force in self-defense” in my opinion.

  242. Rodeo: simply because he believed and acted in a way that is consistent with the beliefs and actions of many other white men

    are you *kidding* me?
    listen, i’ve spent ***years*** advocating both in writing and in the real world organizing i do for transformative justice. and this is without a doubt the biggest load of garbage people who work on transformative justice spew out. that a man who attempts to kill his wife was “simply doing what he was taught” or “didn’t know better” etc etc etc.

    no. he wasn’t “simply” trying to kill his partner. which is why *he* doesn’t get to be at the center as transformative types of justice are built. i don’t care if people trust him, i don’t care if he’s apologized, i don’t care if rape survivors find healing and catharsis at his hands. *that’s not the point of transformative justice*. the *perpetrators are not the point*–the *victims* are. and as andrea smith notes–many times what victims want is 1. to never have to see or be near their abuser again and 2. to make sure there are methods in place that he doesn’t abuse again– BUT–many times, the victim needs their abuser to be in jail. *and that is ok*.

    until there are adequate measures in put in place whereby the prison system no longer is necessary? that is *O. FUCKING. K.*. because transformative justice is about doing first and foremost what neither communities nor the criminal system does–and that is centering the needs of survivors. it is about making sure violence *stops*–NOT that we use our power as social justice advocates to pressure victims into silence for the sake of the community OR for her abuser. there have been several prominent cases of women of color using the court system to find justice (including ana mae aquash’s daughters)–and almost every single time–this comes not as an act of vengeance–but as an act of desperation–abuse doesn’t stop, violence doesn’t stop, abuser’s continue to harrass and violate–and THE SURVIVORS are the ones kicked out of the community. because people *USE* “transformative justice” as a powerful method to guilt trip and silence survivors rather than to build a world where survivors are centered, and their needs are met.

    to insinuate in *any* way that what those women of color are doing is wrong because people who killed or their loved ones were “simply” doing what they were trained to do is beyond the pale. transformative justice is not about hoping and praying and believing with all our hearts that abusers have changed–it’s about finding *genuine* *practical* responses to violence such that survivors are kept safe, the dependency on the nation/state is constantly decreased, abusers are held accountable, and god forbid, someday, the violence is stopped all together.

    the way it’s being talked about here is not just disgusting, it’s *frightening*.

  243. There’s no “inconsistency” in a feminist thinking a man who tried to kill a woman deserves prison time.

    Maybe not. But there is ignorance and unexamined white/class privilege behind that statement.

  244. Yes, because I’m unfamiliar with your personal creed and interests re: criminal justice, I must never have read anything by a woman of colour in my life. *eyeroll*

    Don’t act like I’m some ignorant turd because I asked for a summary, preferably in your own words, of what we should actually do here. As it is, I’ll check out your link anyway, because I am actually arguing in good faith and I’m interested in the subject.

  245. Rodeo: If Hugo gets sent to jail, he’ll be subject to more violence, including rape, and will be released after a few months/years with a few chronic diseases and a completely destroyed sense of self.

    You have no idea if that’s the case. None. In fact, he doesn’t even come close to fitting any of the demographic profiles that are likely to be subjected to prison rape. So I won’t shed any tears for him in advance of his hypothetical prison term that isn’t going to happen anyway.

  246. Branwen: For one thing that’s manipulative bullshit and you have to know just how inappropriate it is

    Since when isn’t it feminist to guilt people into absolving an abuser of his actions??

    Matt: Echo Zen is defending Schwizzy in several posts in the thread and he is the first to bring up the NPD issue.

    I’m pretty sure zie has not suggested NPD is a mitigating factor. It’s not in that post, at any rate, but I don’t pretend to speak for EZ.

  247. igglanova: It is not a valid tactic to use your own hurt feelings to shame others or silence discussion. It’s manipulative. Plus your previous comment contained not just an admission of hurt feelings, but a judgement implying that ‘both sides’ were acting just as bad. I was not invalidating your feelings. I was pissed that you were judging me and others on my side.

    Not to be cruel, but if you are personally triggered or upset by heated discussion, then you have every right and ability to leave. I’m not pulling my punches because some people find my anger distasteful.

    I think I was probably too vague in that comment; I didn’t mean to say that anyone was “just as bad” as anyone else – I just said that both sides weren’t coming across well. That wasn’t intended as an attempt to draw an equivalency. Two things can be bad without being equally bad. That’s all I meant to say, and I’m sorry if I miscommunicated. I also had no intention of silencing anyone or shutting down discussion, I was just disturbed by some of the personal attacks that I was seeing and I wanted to express that. Again, I apologize.

    On the other hand, I don’t think that “if you’re triggered, just leave” is a good standard to set in a feminist blog.

  248. trees: Your perspective makes me think about Thomas Jefferson. We can talk about Jefferson’s great works, and admire the Lawn of UVA, but I will always think of him as a child rapist.

    This is the only analogy so far that’s made a lick of sense. Am I defending his past actions? No, and I doubt even Schwyzer thinks his present actions will make up for it. I’m filling in facts where they seem pertinent or when commenters have missed something that might be relevant to the discussion.

  249. BFP, I re-reading what I wrote and I’m not sure why you think I’m disagreeing with you. I have a different approach and a different way of getting there, but we’re in agreement, as far as I can tell.

  250. Rodeo: Lara, you don’t know anything about restorative justice. May I direct you here. Wanting to put someone in a cage where he will be raped and abused simply because he believed and acted in a way that is consistent with the beliefs and actions of many other white men who arbitrarily decide to call game over on someone’s life is not feminist, it’s not part of restorative justice, and it doesn’t address the fundamental problem of men believing they can control women’s bodies.

    WTF!!!! Can we not gloss over the severity of attempted murder please? And also how dare you tell me that I’m not being feminist because I suggested Hugo might have deserved jail time for trying to kill someone.

    You know what also doesn’t help address the fundamental problem of men believing they can control women’s bodies? Letting guys go scott fucking free, oh and profit significantly these moments of his life.

  251. PrettyAmiable: I’m pretty sure zie has not suggested NPD is a mitigating factor. It’s not in that post, at any rate, but I don’t pretend to speak for EZ.

    People read different things into the same statements based on personal context. I can’t think of a use for the reference of NPD if its not ameliorating to some extent. How is his NPD relevant otherwise to his total lack of consequences for what he did if its not part of a reason? Several people certainly mentioned his mental condition and drug use as ameliorating facts in other posts in the thread. One instance would be the poster talking about her niece or cousin or w/e who tried to kill herself and her kid and how it was the depression’s fault and not her’s. I guess next time EZ comes to comment the meaning of the comment will be cleared up for us.

  252. If you want attempted murder to be recognized as a severe situation that demands immediate, effective intervention that respects the victim, then why are you demanding that we treat prison like an appropriate intervention when we KNOW it doesn’t have good outcomes? Why are you advocating for a response that results in nothing but failure for the victim and the community?

  253. Echo Zen: This is the only analogy so far that’s made a lick of sense. Am I defending his past actions? No, and I doubt even Schwyzer thinks his present actions will make up for it. I’m filling in facts where they seem pertinent or when commenters have missed something that might be relevant to the discussion.

    However much we talk about whether he has theoretically made up for his crimes, as a practical matter he suffered minimal to no consequences for what he did, didn’t go to jail for the murder attempt, didn’t lose his job for having sex with students or doing drugs with students, has a rabid base of supporters, gets to authoritate on feminism. Its easy for him to say: “Oh I am sorry and I know I can never make up for it” as compared to someone who is sentenced to death or prison saying that. What does he lose for saying that he can’t make up for it? Nothing, he only gains from people who look at his empty statement and say: “How courageous he is to admit that.” Having a privileged place in a community, especially one built upon “doing good” is the most powerful weapon in the abusers arsenal to avoid consequences. And as many said he gets paid for it!

  254. LotusBen: But police officers, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards don’t count as “oppressed people using force in self-defense” in my opinion.

    I agree with that, but that wasn’t the argument Rodeo made:

    Rodeo: He did a violent act to her, so we respond by committing/enabling violent acts upon him?

    It’s one thing to say that our prison system as currently constituted is unacceptable and abusive. It’s another thing to say that violence is not an appropriate feminist response to violence.

  255. Matt: I can’t think of a use for the reference of NPD if its not ameliorating to some extent.

    Well, given that zie was using it as an example of his honesty, I imagine the intended use was “Here’s an example of his honesty.”

    Matt: How is his NPD relevant otherwise to his total lack of consequences for what he did if its not part of a reason?

    No one made this link except you. EZ was not talking about his total lack of consequences.

    Matt: Several people certainly mentioned his mental condition and drug use as ameliorating facts in other posts in the thread.

    And got roundly debunked.

    Matt: ne instance would be the poster talking about her niece or cousin or w/e who tried to kill herself and her kid and how it was the depression’s fault and not her’s.

    Also didn’t happen. WestEndGirl said her cousin was depressed and fucked up on something, but did not imply a causal link. She implied that everyone thought we were waiting for a murderous relapse, which isn’t really the case, but that’s it. Reread the comment.

  256. Rodeo: I re-reading what I wrote and I’m not sure why you think I’m disagreeing with you.

    i don’t think you’re disagreeing with me, i think I’m disagreeing with YOU. we don’t just have “different approaches.” the language you’ve used has not just been alienating–it’s the same language used to guilt trip women out of responding to or otherwise even reporting the violence they’ve been subjected to. “he’s going to be raped! he’s going to come out a broken person!” do you know what powerful words those are to women of color who may very well have been imprisoned as well? who has seen what “broken” men do to their loved ones? and on an extremly HUGE ironic note–do you know how many times particularly black women have been ridiculed and mocked and otherwise fucked with by white feminists for not reporting abusive black men?

    I agree 100% that no person deserves to be locked up in cages, that horrible things very often do happen to people in prisons. but horrible things happen to women who suck it up for the good of their abusers. horrible things happen to women who have no where to turn to because they don’t want to “break” the person abusing them. horrible things happen to women who never say anything about the abuse they experience because the entire community will blame them if their abuser is sent to jail. women i know and love have NOT talked about violence they experienced because of the very same language you are using. because the same language that has been all over this entire bullshit (he’s changed! *I* feel good around him, why don’t YOU? that was so long ago!) thread and all the different posts. and it’s *frightening* to me the thought that ANY survivor of abuse would read this and second guess herself for a *second* about what she needs to do to survive.

  257. Oh I see what you’re saying. Well. I can only say that I try to align myself with people who don’t fight eye for an eye when we have better and more effective options available. You’re welcome to have your own opinions.

  258. Rodeo: Oh I see what you’re saying. Well. I can only say that I try to align myself with people who don’t fight eye for an eye when we have better and more effective options available. You’re welcome to have your own opinions.

    What are these options! Hmm?

    Again it’s not eye for a fucking eye, we are not saying kill him, or try and kill him

  259. I’m done here. I don’t see how this discussion helps anyone. Hugo isn’t perfect. He’s not Satan either. If this is the fair discussion Caperton promised, I’m disappointed in zie and Feministe. Congrats on silencing a rape survivor.

  260. Kayla: I’m done here. I don’t see how this discussion helps anyone. Hugo isn’t perfect. He’s not Satan either. If this is the fair discussion Caperton promised, I’m disappointed in zie and Feministe. Congrats on silencing a rape survivor.

    I’m sorry but what, how were you silenced here?

  261. Rodeo: BFP, I re-reading what I wrote and I’m not sure why you think I’m disagreeing with you. I have a different approach and a different way of getting there, but we’re in agreement, as far as I can tell.

    I don’t know – I see a pretty stark contrast between bfp’s comments and yours. I’m also really invested in new forms of justice and a dismantling of the prison-industrial complex, but I see bfp’s point as the fact that we can’t just throw prisons out right now without taking into account the impact of that on survivors and communities where there is no other meaningful system of protection and support in place, whereas your comments seem to be putting the cart before the horse by saying that any imprisonment is wrong and should be opposed because prisons are deeply flawed institutions, regardless of the needs of survivors and communities. I am hardly pro-prison, but I’m also really ill at ease with the way you are using statistics about black male incarceration while talking about someone who doesn’t even fit that population. It seems appropriative. The effects of incarceration are absolutely not as positive as many would like us to believe, but they are hardly so uncomplicated as to be nothing but evil and wrong.

  262. EG: It’s one thing to say that our prison system as currently constituted is unacceptable and abusive. It’s another thing to say that violence is not an appropriate feminist response to violence.

    OK, I see what you’re saying. I’m glad to see you don’t support the prison system either. On the Hitchens thread, you said leftists are too preoccupied with ideological purity, but I gotta say, you’ve passed all my political litmus tests so far with flying colors.

    I don’t really identify as a feminist, but I don’t see how any social movement could be successful if it completely rejected violence. Also, it seems inhuman to me to say that women aren’t entitled to defend themselves against their oppressors, especially when the state fails again and again to do anything to protect them.

  263. Kayla: I’m done here. I don’t see how this discussion helps anyone. Hugo isn’t perfect. He’s not Satan either. If this is the fair discussion Caperton promised, I’m disappointed in zie and Feministe. Congrats on silencing a rape survivor.

    Also attempted murder is much much much much more severe then “not perfect”

  264. PrettyAmiable: PrettyAmiable 12.25.2011 at 11:19 pm

    Matt: I can’t think of a use for the reference of NPD if its not ameliorating to some extent.

    Well, given that zie was using it as an example of his honesty, I imagine the intended use was “Here’s an example of his honesty.”

    Matt: How is his NPD relevant otherwise to his total lack of consequences for what he did if its not part of a reason?

    No one made this link except you. EZ was not talking about his total lack of consequences.

    Matt: Several people certainly mentioned his mental condition and drug use as ameliorating facts in other posts in the thread.

    And got roundly debunked.

    Matt: ne instance would be the poster talking about her niece or cousin or w/e who tried to kill herself and her kid and how it was the depression’s fault and not her’s.

    Also didn’t happen. WestEndGirl said her cousin was depressed and fucked up on something, but did not imply a causal link. She implied that everyone thought we were waiting for a murderous relapse, which isn’t really the case, but that’s it. Reread the comment.

    WEG:
    “In terms of the murder/suicide attempt, my cousin while under the influence of drugs and in an extremely disturbed state of mind, tried to kill herself and her disabled son. Luckily, she failed. She had no history of abuse and no-one I have ever met has called her violent, an abuser or likewise and luckily she has made a full recovery. ”

    I’m not sure how you can read that as not implying a causal link between the influence of drugs and an extremely disturbed state of mind and trying to commit a murder/suicide. It sounds like the depression and mind state were totally causal to me.

    As for an example of his honesty, what has selective honesty got to do with anything? A person good at hiding/erasing their crimes would want to be honest about something like that. There is no harm in telling the truth there and much benefit. Although as many said someone who actually has NPD is incredibly unlikely to believe or admit it, just another mark against his NPD diagnosis and his honesty IMO.

  265. Kayla: Kayla 12.25.2011 at 11:28 pm

    I’m done here. I don’t see how this discussion helps anyone. Hugo isn’t perfect. He’s not Satan either. If this is the fair discussion Caperton promised, I’m disappointed in zie and Feministe. Congrats on silencing a rape survivor.

    No one silenced you or denied that you were telling the truth. They just noted that how Schwizzy makes you feel has no bearing on the things he has done to other people.

  266. If Hugo is really trying to break away from his NPD, and if this comment thread indicates his overall impact on the feminist movement, I think he should, at very least, endeavor to make himself as low profile as possible.

    If he’s going to loudly walk away from this thread, or this site, but continue making himself a prominent (highly controversial) figure in feminism – then I don’t think he’s acting in the best interest of the movement.

  267. BFP, I’m going to read through my posts in a few days after my defensiveness is reduced and see why my language could cause guilt or alienation for women, because I’m still not sure what your disagreement is about.

    If women are scared to report their abuse because they fear what will happen to their partner and they fear how their community will respond, then this tells me that the single-minded dedication to putting abusers in jail is misguided because women are still being harmed. If the community doesn’t want the perp in jail, and if the woman doesn’t want the perp in jail, then we have an entire world of possibility to create community-based feminist responses.

  268. Lara Emily Foley: I’m sorry but what, how were you silenced here?

    I think by “silenced” she means that people are unwilling to accept her perspective on Hugo as the be all and end all of this discussion. No one is silencing her.

  269. Matt: I’m not sure how you can read that as not implying a causal link between the influence of drugs and an extremely disturbed state of mind and trying to commit a murder/suicide. It sounds like the depression and mind state were totally causal to me.

    Because it would read exactly the same way if she were just mentioning that drugs and mental illness were had by her cousin? And because if she were saying the illness and drugs were to blame, it would read, “And if she had never tried drugs, this never would have happened” or something to that extent? Or “blame the drugs, not my cousin” – which definitely never happened, but you implied that it did.

    Matt: As for an example of his honesty, what has selective honesty got to do with anything?

    NOT THE POINT. EZ didn’t say NPD is the cause of the murder attempt. Are you seriously pissed EZ wasn’t having the fight you wanted to have before you started having it (with no one, since no one has said NPD is the reason behind his murder attempt)? FFS, here’s my point, since you seem to keep missing it in your banal attempt to prove that someone blamed NPD for the murder attempt: Your entire comment at 221 is offensive. It is dripping with ableism. You can pretend that it was a reaction to using NPD as a defense (which, again, didn’t happen), but saying shit like, “Diagnosed with narcissism? Are you kidding me? Like its a psychiatric disorder?” if offensive and unacceptable. It is what people say about MOST disorders. And PS, they’ve been diagnosing it for about 30 years now, so.

  270. Rodeo: BFP, I’m going to read through my posts in a few days after my defensiveness is reduced and see why my language could cause guilt or alienation for women, because I’m still not sure what your disagreement is about.

    If women are scared to report their abuse because they fear what will happen to their partner and they fear how their community will respond, then this tells me that the single-minded dedication to putting abusers in jail is misguided because women are still being harmed. If the community doesn’t want the perp in jail, and if the woman doesn’t want the perp in jail, then we have an entire world of possibility to create community-based feminist responses.

    Sometimes prison is the best among flawed and limited options. Sometimes prison may be the only way to keep a victim safe. A woman shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about pursuing that option.

  271. And Kayla, given that you tried to manipulate people into siding with an abuser, please don’t whine about silencing. And FYI, you are not the only assault survivor on this thread.

  272. Rodeo: then we have an entire world of possibility to create community-based feminist responses.

    Had we but world enough and time…

    But we don’t. When a woman is being abused and/or raped, she cannot afford to wait for a community-based feminist response that avoids imprisonment. If what she needs is for the abuser not to be able to reach her or her children, the only legal option we currently have is prison, and if this woman is besieged with a discourse that she owes it to her community not to let the abuser be damaged like this, she may well act not take that option, and then the abuser will continue to do horrible, horrible things to her.

  273. Kayla: If this is the fair discussion Caperton promised, I’m disappointed in zie and Feministe…

    Wha…? Did I say something? My last comment to you was on how dismissing women’s experiences instead of disagreeing with them is inherently un-feminist. Unless “zie” is actually someone else’s nickname…

  274. I see bfp’s point as the fact that we can’t just throw prisons out right now without taking into account the impact of that on survivors and communities where there is no other meaningful system of protection and support in place, whereas your comments seem to be putting the cart before the horse by saying that any imprisonment is wrong and should be opposed because prisons are deeply flawed institutions, regardless of the needs of survivors and communities.

    I’m definitely going to think through this. My lens is primarily fixed towards a prison abolition view, and I usually see that as a good thing (especially because I don’t have the power to actually implement my “close all the prisons” rallying cry!). But now I see what bfp is saying about women feeling guilt or alienation because of how I’m approaching it. Of course that’s not my intent, but if that’s the result then I will think through it some more and figure out what I’m actually trying to say.

  275. trees: Sometimes prison is the best among flawed and limited options. Sometimes prison may be the only way to keep a victim safe. A woman shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about pursuing that option.

    But should a woman be made to feel guilty for not pursuing that option?

    I intend these as honest questions. If the issue is the safety of the victim, and the victim does not want to pursue the incarceration of her abuser, is it the place of others to pursue his incarceration in her place?

    I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing that Hugo should go to prison, or questioning his victims actions in any way.

  276. PrettyAmiable: You can pretend that it was a reaction to using NPD as a defense (which, again, didn’t happen), but saying shit like, “Diagnosed with narcissism? Are you kidding me? Like its a psychiatric disorder?” if offensive and unacceptable. It is what people say about MOST disorders. And PS, they’ve been diagnosing it for about 30 years now, so.

    I do not intend this to be a derail, but I have a big problem with the notion that recognizing the role of factors in an incident play automatically means those actions are being defended and the guilty party is somehow innocent.

  277. Rodeo: If women are scared to report their abuse because they fear what will happen to their partner and they fear how their community will respond, then this tells me that the single-minded dedication to putting abusers in jail is misguided because women are still being harmed. If the community doesn’t want the perp in jail, and if the woman doesn’t want the perp in jail, then we have an entire world of possibility to create community-based feminist responses.

    :::sputtering:::

    so–community using their power to *silence survivors* is what creates possibilities?

    what happens when a woman is scared to speak about the abuse she experiences because she is terrified of what the community will do to *her*? what happens when she wants to report her abuser and she wants her abuser in jail as far away from her as possible, and she knows she’ll be deported for reporting? is that really a moment for imagining the possibilities? can possibilities be imagined when how power plays out against survivors of violence is not addressed?

  278. PrettyAmiable: “Diagnosed with narcissism? Are you kidding me? Like its a psychiatric disorder?” if offensive and unacceptable. It is what people say about MOST disorders. And PS, they’ve been diagnosing it for about 30 years now, so.

    This is tangential, but I’m just curious how you’ll respond to it. In your opinion, is it ableist to note that psychiatry is a for-profit industry and the more “disorders” there are and the more people have “disorders,” the more money the industry makes? The psychiatric establishment doesn’t exactly have a great history of respecting human rights or advocating for social justice. Some people believe they really are mentally ill, and I say more power to them, they should get whatever form of treatment they desire. But there’s also a lot of so-called “mentally ill” people who reject the industry’s diagnostic categories and authoritarian treatment methods. Different doesn’t equal diseased.

  279. Drew: I do not intend this to be a derail, but I have a big problem with the notion that recognizing the role of factors in an incident play automatically means those actions are being defended and the guilty party is somehow innocent.

    Cool story, bro. If I had said that recognizing the role of a factor fraudulently absolves someone of guilt, I would be more involved in this conversation with you right now. Instead, I’m pretty sure the problem here is that you couldn’t be bothered to read the thread.

  280. PrettyAmiable: Cool story, bro. If I had said that recognizing the role of a factor fraudulently absolves someone of guilt, I would be more involved in this conversation with you right now. Instead, I’m pretty sure the problem here is that you couldn’t be bothered to read the thread.

    I was speaking to the fact that Matt seemed to be saying that recognizing Hugos NPD and drug use was equivalent to absolving him of his guilt. I’m sorry that it seemed I was implying that you said anything you didn’t say.

  281. LotusBen: In your opinion, is it ableist to note that psychiatry is a for-profit industry and the more “disorders” there are and the more people have “disorders,” the more money the industry makes?

    If you preface something ableist with this comment, then yes, I think it is ableist – or rather, that it’s being used to support something ableist. For example, if someone says they have a disorder, the way Hugo does with NPD, he clearly believes it to be a disorder. A not inconsequential number of people can be identified by this set of symptoms. Given this information, turning around and saying “IT’S TOTALLY MADE UP” is ableist, regardless of how your support it.

    In and of itself, it is not ableist (IMO). That said, many things are for-profit without being completely corrupt. I’d feel better hearing a psychiatrist say it – or at least someone with a lot of exposure to the medicine behind it.

  282. Drew: I was speaking to the fact that Matt seemed to be saying that recognizing Hugos NPD and drug use was equivalent to absolving him of his guilt. I’m sorry that it seemed I was implying that you said anything you didn’t say.

    JK. I’m fucking wound up on this whole topic. But yes, that was an issue with his interpretation of WEG’s story as well. Apologies for being short; it was rude.

  283. Somehow I always figured that at the bottom of all the “dismantle the prisons” rhetoric was the idea that good, righteous ideologically pure people the community likes get “restorative justice”, and people you never liked anyway can just go to prison.

  284. PrettyAmiable: JK. I’m fucking wound up on this whole topic. But yes, that was an issue with his interpretation of WEG’s story as well. Apologies for being short; it was rude.

    No apology needed. This is your space, not mine.

  285. Drew: But should a woman be made to feel guilty for not pursuing that option?

    I intend these as honest questions. If the issue is the safety of the victim, and the victim does not want to pursue the incarceration of her abuser, is it the place of others to pursue his incarceration in her place?

    I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing that Hugo should go to prison, or questioning his victims actions in any way.

    I don’t know the answer to your questions. It all seems so general and theoretical. From my own personal history. I can say that the vast majority of crimes (including very serious crimes like murder) go prosecuted.
    Of course women shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for pursuing incarceration?!? I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this line of questioning. Of course, you understand how this so often plays out in domestic violence cases. Right now I am struggling to help a family friend whose husband attempted to kill her about two months ago. Initially she wanted to pursue prosecution, but now wants to drop all charges. This is not the first time, or even the second time, her husband put her in the hospital. Unfortunately, she is prioritizing the needs of her husband and following the teachings of her church, before keeping her son and herself safe. This makes me sick to my stomach, and her family and I are at a lost as to how to support her. We fear she will return to him; we fear the worst. But guilt, absolutely not! No, she should not be made to feel guilt. This is about love and support, not pain.

  286. trees: Of course women shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for pursuing incarceration?!? I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this line of questioning.

    Um, yes. A woman should not be made to feel guilty if she wants to press charges and put her abuser in jail.

  287. OK PrettyAmiable. That makes sense. I can see how what Matt was saying was ableist in that context.

    Although, all the categories in the DSM ARE totally made up. It’s not like God came down and wrote it, it was written by humans, and in a pretty psuedo-scientific way in my opinion.

    That said, for any individual who identifies with any of the categories, I wish for them complete autonomy–that they get to decide how they are labeled, how they are treated, and what drugs they take–with no interference from doctors or anyone else.

  288. I think that I am posting a little too much on this topic, so this will be my last post:
    I realize the post is long, but even the summary of the theory takes a lot of words, I hope it doesn’t inconvenience anyone.
    As regards the goal of the justice system, one theory that I have some interest in is called:

    Design Document of Justice:
    A Theory of Justice Where We Assign Priority To The Steps Involved In The Resolution of a Conflict

    Essentially our theory postulates that the justice equivalent of the physiological step in the hierarchy is to remove the identified offending party from proximity to the victim/s. This is the first and most critical part of justice.
    The step equivalent to safety is assure that the identification of the offender is correct. If the wrong offender apprehended the victim is in just as much if not more danger because not only is the offender still proximate but the victim has now defied and enraged them by bringing an outside force to the situation.
    The next step while retaining the achievement of step one is to determine the extent of the crime as described by the victim. This is the most difficult of the first three steps because it has a powerful effect on the consequences of the crime determined in the later steps. It is also because we here begin the calculus of equating the consequences for the perpetrator to the consequences the crime brought onto the victim.
    In the fourth step we must consider what method is feasible to address the gravity of the crime. We do not want the offender to commit the crime again on either the victim or another party, and we also want to address the higher order needs of the victim aside from separation from the offender. Perhaps we should force the offender to pay for any counseling needed by the victim. This both provides a service to the victim as well as a consequence to the offender. It also does not have the drawbacks of a jail sentence in regards to physical harm to the offender, although we may come back to imprisonment later. Our next step is to make sure that no officer of the state gives the impression that they disbelieve the victim. This should be grounds for significant disciplinary action and possibly termination. Whether or not the employees of the system believe the victim they must never communicate this to the victim.
    In the fifth step, given that we are sufficiently sure of the commission of the crime we must make clear or allow the community to make clear to itself that the perpetrator is the one at whom they must direct their ire. Did they harbor feelings of a positive kind towards the perpetrator? Than rather than direct their anger at the victim for the act of shining the light on the perpetrator, they should direct their anger at him for betraying their trust. A good method is to have community counseling services, after all everyone who has a connection to the perpetrator of a crime is a recipient of consequences they may or may not be able to deal with properly, by this we mean that they may become angry with themselves for trusting the perpetrator or angry at the victim for dispelling their illusion of his personality and nature. It seems very much that the justice system does not cast a wide enough net as to the number of people whose lives are overturned when providing victim services. Not only the family and community of the victim but the family and community of the perpetrator may need counseling to deal with the shift in their reality.
    In the sixth step we move to the fate of the perpetrator themselves. How are we to manage their separation from the victim if they are residents of the same area? Can we prevent them from living or going there? Assuming they are not first incarcerated, or that their incarceration is not of long duration, how do we enforce the separation of that person? This is often a difficult issue to address and will not be dealt with definitively in this summary.
    In the seventh step we address how we deal with the consequences assigned as regards actual incarceration. How do we structure our system to produce ideal results? In the first case the most powerful method of controlling prison conditions and the negative effects of incarceration is to remove as many unnecessary inmates as possible. In this case we may want to remove certain drug offenses such as incarceration for the use or distribution of marijuana from our system. We should restructure what constitutes a crime using our new wealth of scientific knowledge about substances. We will not go into extensive detail on this topic in this summary.
    In the eighth step our goal is to separate populations based on their crimes. For instance we may want to organize our inmates based on the length of their terms so that long term or lifer inmates cannot have negative behavioral affects on inmates who committed less violent or severe crimes.
    We may also want to segregate inmates with gang related offenses so that gangs are not able to recruit new members from our system, and we may want to segregate based on the activities of a gang so that members of less violent or dangerous gangs will not be induced to swell the numbers, through coercion of more dangerous groups when they are set free.
    We will proceed to further steps and leave further complexities to another more specific text.
    In the ninth step we address the activities of inmates while incarcerated. How do we structure their time and activities so that they have less of the boredom necessary to formulate trouble, without working them in a physically traumatic manner? Perhaps we would create activities such as crafts, studying, sports, and job training to provide them with something to do which they can continue to pursue on the outside. Again we refrain from a complex and detailed discussion in the interests of conveying our overall idea.
    In the tenth step we address systems of moving the inmates back into the larger world as we remove the limitations placed on them in the system.

  289. Drew: trees: Of course women shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for pursuing incarceration?!? I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this line of questioning.

    Um, yes. A woman should not be made to feel guilty if she wants to press charges and put her abuser in jail.

    Sorry, I meant the opposite, or rather either way. This is not about guilt. I still don’t understand where you’re going with this.

  290. trees: Sorry, I meant the opposite, or rather either way. This is not about guilt. I still don’t understand where you’re going with this.

    I wasn’t trying to make any points. My question was, if the main issue is the safety and care of the victim, should anyone other than the victim decide if incarceration should be persued for her abuser?

  291. and let me be clear. it’s not that i don’t think possibilities are good. they are. but when something unjust is happening, like a victim of abuse doesn’t say anything about the abuse because she’s scared she’s going to lose her community or a rape survivor doesn’t report her rape because she knows she’ll be deported–that is not a moment to imagine the possibilities–that is a moment to sit down and center the survivor. and once the crisis moment has been dealt with–then it’s time to sit down with other survivors and continue the work that was started from that response.

    in other words–“imagining the possibilities” dislocates responses to gendered violence from the needs of the survivors. which means that “imagining the possibilities” is not all that transformative. it assumes survivors haven’t already responded to violence in any adequate way or that they are incapable of doing so. and it doesn’t deal with the very basic reality that it’s not just that some communities don’t want men going to prison–it’s that they don’t think there’s *anything wrong with a woman being beaten, period.* and advocating to keep men out of prison stems less from an anti-prison industrial complex framework, and more from a deeply misogynistic heteropatriarchal framework–where a man should have his life ruined ****because of a lying whore.****

  292. LotusBen: is it ableist to note that psychiatry is a for-profit industry and the more “disorders” there are and the more people have “disorders,” the more money the industry makes? The psychiatric establishment doesn’t exactly have a great history of respecting human rights or advocating for social justice. Some people believe they really are mentally ill, and I say more power to them, they should get whatever form of treatment they desire. But there’s also a lot of so-called “mentally ill” people who reject the industry’s diagnostic categories and authoritarian treatment methods. Different doesn’t equal diseased.

    Ben, I’m going to make a point of responding calmly, so I do not flip the fuck out. This is going to be made difficult for me by the patronizing language you have employed in your comment, but given how we’ve interacted in other threads, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and addressing you as someone who means well and doesn’t realize how insulting that language is.

    Every single thing you say here about the psychiatric “industry” could just as easily be applied to medicine and the history of medical treatment in general. But somehow our culture finds it acceptable to posit that because of that history and past, psychiatric illness is not “really” illness, while physical illnesses are not looked at in that way at all. All professions and fields of knowledge of histories that are at least checkered. That does not mean that they have not generated genuine knowledge and effective remedies for problems.

    My depression is not a “different” way of being. It is a source of suffering and misery that has prevented me from enjoying my life to the fullest, has limited my ability to take advantage of opportunities, has caused me pain, and has really fucked me up. I do not “believe” that I “really” am mentally ill. I am actually mentally ill. Diagnosis was the most freeing thing that ever happened to me. And no, I should not get “whatever form of treatment [I] desire.” I should have access to treatments that have been proven to work, so that every damn thing I’ve worked to achieve doesn’t fall through my fingers.

    My late best friend’s asthma was not a different way of breathing. It was a source of suffering and misery that prevented her from enjoying her life to the fullest, limited her ability to take advantage of opportunities that were available to her, caused her pain, and really fucked her up. She did not just believe that she was ill. She was actually ill. And from childhood, she should have had access to the treatments that had been proven to work and an environment conducive to her healthy breathing.

    The history of the medical profession is no less authoritarian, or laden with human rights violations, or based on profit than that of the psychiatric profession. The difference between my psychiatric illness and the respiratory illness of my late best friend is that I was fortunate enough to get access to the proper treatment in time.

    Please do not condescend to me or to anybody else who requires psychiatric treatment again.

  293. LotusBen: Although, all the categories in the DSM ARE totally made up. It’s not like God came down and wrote it, it was written by humans, and in a pretty psuedo-scientific way in my opinion.

    As opposed to the names we give non-psychiatric disorders, which were brought down by Moses on a stone tablet? Prior to the invention of a variety of technologies, all medical diagnoses were judgment calls made by humans, and even with these technologies, there can be disturbing mismatches between what the test says and what the person being tested reports.

    LotusBen: they get to decide how they are labeled, how they are treated, and what drugs they take–with no interference from doctors or anyone else.

    What? What? You know, doctors actually provide a valuable service. They fucking well know more than I do about my illness and its treatments. No, I should not get to decide what drugs I take and what treatments I get without any interference from doctors. Doctors are not short-order chefs. I don’t get to walk into a doctor’s office and tell her “I have depression, so hand over the Prozac immediately.” There just might some things about psychiatric meds and how best to treat psychiatric disorders that somebody who has studied those things could know and I don’t. Hard to believe, but there it is.

  294. Drew: I wasn’t trying to make any points. My question was, if the main issue is the safety and care of the victim, should anyone other than the victim decide if incarceration should be persued for her abuser?

    I don’t know. I wish I knew the right answer. In the case of my family friend, that doesn’t seem to be an option. I don’t really understand why this is so. She doesn’t want to prosecute and has recanted her account of what happened that particular night. But the police have her medical records that show the escalating pattern of physical abuse. The greatest influence in her life is her jackass pastor and her church community. Her pastor seems to believe that attempted murder can be healed with a little prayer and a few Bible versions, along with the wife falling in line with her husband’s unquestioned authority. We may not be able to protect her, but her young son is a different story. The husband may not be prosecuted (this time anyway), but there are steps that can be taken to hopefully keep the boy safe.

  295. EG: What? What? You know, doctors actually provide a valuable service. They fucking well know more than I do about my illness and its treatments. No, I should not get to decide what drugs I take and what treatments I get without any interference from doctors. Doctors are not short-order chefs. I don’t get to walk into a doctor’s office and tell her “I have depression, so hand over the Prozac immediately.” There just might some things about psychiatric meds and how best to treat psychiatric disorders that somebody who has studied those things could know and I don’t. Hard to believe, but there it is.

    I was baffled by his comment as well. Nevermind taking into account that a person with a mental illness *has a fucking mental illness* and therefore may not be the best person to decide their own course of treatment.

  296. LotusBen: PrettyAmiable: “Diagnosed with narcissism? Are you kidding me? Like its a psychiatric disorder?” if offensive and unacceptable. It is what people say about MOST disorders. And PS, they’ve been diagnosing it for about 30 years now, so.

    This is tangential, but I’m just curious how you’ll respond to it. In your opinion, is it ableist to note that psychiatry is a for-profit industry and the more “disorders” there are and the more people have “disorders,” the more money the industry makes? The psychiatric establishment doesn’t exactly have a great history of respecting human rights or advocating for social justice. Some people believe they really are mentally ill, and I say more power to them, they should get whatever form of treatment they desire. But there’s also a lot of so-called “mentally ill” people who reject the industry’s diagnostic categories and authoritarian treatment methods. Different doesn’t equal diseased.

    I have a somewhat different opinion of psychiatric illness that many people. I want to stipulate before I say anything else, that PA was right, what I said was not appropriate. I was focused on whether EZ and others were using a medical diagnosis, which is different from an affirmative defense to ameliorate, or lessen, although not totally remove, the blame for Hugo’s and other peoples’ actions, and I lost track of filtering ableist sentiment. I should have been more conscious of what I was saying.
    In any case, I was diagnosed with depression during my teen years and this depression had a significant negative effect on my life. I declined to pursue drug or therapeutic treatment for various reasons. I eventually significantly reduced the severity of my depression and the negative effect it had on my life. I paid a large price for not both seeking a diagnosis earlier so that I knew it was a problem, and also for not seeking profession help. I had a checkered academic record and in my second year of college I stopped going to classes halfway through the semester and I completely ignored both my roommates and parents as much as possible and just wasted my life sleeping, doing computer games, and generally tossing away my time. I failed all of my classes and flunked out. My parents then got me enrolled in community college and I passed 3 of 5 classes. This semester I finally passed all of my classes and received all As and Bs. I am doing better now but I still get that crushing feeling sometimes where I can’t get things done. In some cases depression can be self treated as I did it or fought with changes of environment or reaching out socially and so forth. However a few of my friends and also my mother needed counseling and/or medication to manage their depression.
    People don’t “believe” they are mentally ill, they actually. Its not just some teenage angst or midlife crisis where you sit down one day and say many, my life sucks, maybe I’m depressed. Clinical depression is characterized by a long term severe set of symptoms and is generally not over diagnosed. If anything due to the inherent nature of depression and other disorders they are massively under diagnosed. Many people believe that depression isn’t real and that they should just “snap out of it”. This has historically been a common attitude. Thus they do not even go into a doctor to ask if they have a problem.
    As regards the drug industry, 90% of the time their greed is satisfied by creating ineffective treatments that people remain on for a significant time because they believe that they should work and that eventually they will. Even professionals suffer from these incorrect beliefs. It is much easier to sell useless treatments whose results are just ambiguous enough to satisfy the industry execs tiny consciences and whose ineffectiveness causes excessive long term and thus expensive use of the treatment than it is to convince someone without depression that they have it and need meds. This occasionally happens but it is not the majority of the issue. Nearly all people being treated for depression really do have it.

  297. trees: trees 12.26.2011 at 1:01 am

    Drew: I wasn’t trying to make any points. My question was, if the main issue is the safety and care of the victim, should anyone other than the victim decide if incarceration should be persued for her abuser?

    I don’t know. I wish I knew the right answer. In the case of my family friend, that doesn’t seem to be an option. I don’t really understand why this is so. She doesn’t want to prosecute and has recanted her account of what happened that particular night. But the police have her medical records that show the escalating pattern of physical abuse. The greatest influence in her life is her jackass pastor and her church community. Her pastor seems to believe that attempted murder can be healed with a little prayer and a few Bible versions, along with the wife falling in line with her husband’s unquestioned authority. We may not be able to protect her, but her young son is a different story. The husband may not be prosecuted (this time anyway), but there are steps that can be taken to hopefully keep the boy safe.

    The problem is that many religions really do a great job of fucking up reality for their adherents and this is a significant problem for non privileged groups in that religion, in most cases children and women. When you are told your whole life this is how things should be from the moment of your birth and powerful authority figures enforce these rules mercilessly, it can be impossible to say: No, this is wrong, this can’t be the way things should be. Watching and listening to my fellow atheists discuss their journey to non belief and their “coming out” event with their families and communities has drummed this into my head. Not every person is in a position to make rational decisions about the best thing for them. The problem is that once you have been indoctrinated it may well be more harmful to you to have the lies dispelled than to continue in the situation and your subconscious often knows that.
    In the case of trees’s friend I suspect it is a case of the fact that if she admits that what her husband is doing is wrong, against the claims of her community authority figures than she will have to confront all the abuse she suffered previously and from people other than her husband.
    Here are a few of the things I have heard people explain that they had to confront:
    If what my parents, the people even outside society and also evolution and psychology tell me are most supposed to protect support and love me, have lied to me about my husbands behavior being okay, what does that say about everything else in my life?
    Were the beatings I got for not following the will of my parents also wrong? Did my own parents abuse me?
    If my pastor is wrong or lying about this, what else did I learn from him that was a lie? What about all those hours in church with everyone I know and love expressing their submission to the will of god as given to them by my pastor? Was that all a lie? What about the lie I was told that my husband was a caring, righteous, upstanding member of my community? How can I trust anything in my life when all the people who taught me how to live were so horribly cruelly wrong about my right not to be abused by my husband?
    In the mind of many victims of religious or cultural indoctrination, to accept all those horrible truths would be more emotionally scarring and traumatic than to accept that they had done something wrong, to convince themselves that they should submit to the will of the authority and the community and to accept physical trauma. This may or may not be true, but we hope that removing her from an abusive situation would eventually be counted by her as a benefit.
    How can we say that given this incredible pressure she really has the agency to decide whether charges need to be pressed or the abuser moved?
    We hit a stone wall because we just don’t know whether we should push the event to trial. If her community is fucked up enough she could lose her family, her friends, her religion, her home, basically her whole life up to that point.
    From survivors of THE JESUS LAND/LIFE many atheist activists have heard the horror stories of the parent or community crushing the life out of someone struggling to escape.
    This is not to say that all religious communities are like that, but in many fundamentalist or zealous religious groups autonomy exists only within the intense and constrained acceptable behaviors. Some Christians are great people, some are only mildly terrible, and some can make you lose all faith in humanity for the instant that you are listening to the story.

  298. EG. . .I appreciate your measured response given the sensitivity of this topic. I’m also sorry to hear about your struggles with depression.

    I’ve been quite shy and paranoid of others my whole life. In middle school, I hid in the bathroom during recess because I was afraid to be around the other kids. About five years ago I was diagnosed with social anxiety. I did find the label helpful to a certain extent, although the main benefit of the diagnosis was my health insurance covered counseling I thought I needed.

    Currently, I’m in the middle of a moderate 10 month depression (not professionally diagnosed). You’re right; it is very difficult. I often have suicidal thoughts, sleep all day, skip meals, feel hopeless, feel sad, socially isolate myself.

    I’ve been to about 5 different therapists during my life. Some were helpful, some weren’t. I like humanistic therapeutic techniques. I’ll go again when my finances allow, for the social anxiety, the depression, and sexual dysfunction issues. I’ve never taken prescribed psychiatric meds (I don’t want to), although I’ve self-medicated with alcohol, pot, and psychedelics.

    All of this is just basically said to build sympathy (lol) and also let you know I have some idea about these issues. I’m not just some idiot off the street. I took psychology classes in college, too.

    And I reject the mental problems or abnormalities = disease model for myself. A lot of other people do, too. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with you defining yourself in those terms. And I know a lot of people have been helped by psychiatric prescriptions. My grandfather was bipolar and meds helped him a lot. A lot of meds don’t work though. It depends on the person. That’s why I advocate complete deregulation of all drugs and every individual having complete freedom to take whatever drugs they want in whatever dose, whether it is depacote or LSD.

    There is no “correct” way to experience reality. I consider my misogyny to be a lot more pathological than my depression, but since my misogyny is “normal” it’s not a disease. Good luck finding “patriarchal personality disorder” in the DSM. Or “consumerist personality disorder.” But the transphobic “gender identity disorder”? Yeah, that’s in there. I see the psychiatric establishment largely as enforcing the status quo. I could say the same thing about the medical establishment that deals with physical disease, too.

    Basically I’m just advocating individual freedom. I’m not saying that health insurance shouldn’t cover people with mental problems. I think that’s completely fucked up. I want people with mental problems to have all the resources and support in the world, as well as complete freedom to do whatever they want.

    Hope you’re still not pissed off at me after this post. I don’t know if you will be or not. I do think our perspective may differ on this. I respect the legitimacy of your perspective and your self-definition, and your experience of how diagnosis was the most freeing thing that ever happened to you.

  299. EG. . .I appreciate your measured response given the sensitivity of this topic. I’m also sorry to hear about your struggles with depression.

    I’ve been quite shy and paranoid of others my whole life. In middle school, I hid in the bathroom during recess because I was afraid to be around the other kids. About five years ago I was diagnosed with social anxiety. I did find the label helpful to a certain extent, although the main benefit of the diagnosis was my health insurance covered counseling I thought I needed.

    Currently, I’m in the middle of a moderate 10 month depression (not professionally diagnosed). You’re right; it is very difficult. I often have suicidal thoughts, sleep all day, skip meals, feel hopeless, feel sad, socially isolate myself.

    I’ve been to about 5 different therapists during my life. Some were helpful, some weren’t. I like humanistic therapeutic techniques. I’ll go again when my finances allow, for the social anxiety, the depression, and sexual dysfunction issues. I’ve never taken prescribed psychiatric meds (I don’t want to), although I’ve self-medicated with alcohol, pot, and psychedelics.

    All of this is just basically said to build sympathy (lol) and also let you know I have some idea about these issues. I’m not just some idiot off the street. I took psychology classes in college, too.

    And I reject the mental problems or abnormalities = disease model for myself. A lot of other people do, too. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with you defining yourself in those terms. And I know a lot of people have been helped by psychiatric prescriptions. My grandfather was bipolar and meds helped him a lot. A lot of meds don’t work though. It depends on the person. That’s why I advocate complete deregulation of all drugs and every individual having complete freedom to take whatever drugs they want in whatever dose, whether it is depacote or LSD.

    There is no “correct” way to experience reality. I consider my misogyny to be a lot more pathological than my depression, but since my misogyny is “normal” it’s not a disease. Good luck finding “patriarchal personality disorder” in the DSM. Or “consumerist personality disorder.” But the transphobic “gender identity disorder”? Yeah, that’s in there. I see the psychiatric establishment largely as enforcing the status quo. I could say the same thing about the medical establishment that deals with physical disease, too.

    Basically I’m just advocating individual freedom. I’m not saying that health insurance shouldn’t cover people with mental problems. I think that’s completely fucked up. I want people with mental problems to have all the resources and support in the world, as well as complete freedom to do whatever they want.

    Hope you’re still not pissed off at me after this post. I don’t know if you will be or not. I do think our perspective may differ on this. I respect the legitimacy of your perspective and your self-definition, and your experience of how diagnosis was the most freeing thing that ever happened to you.

  300. Matt: As regards the drug industry, 90% of the time their greed is satisfied by creating ineffective treatments that people remain on for a significant time because they believe that they should work and that eventually they will. Even professionals suffer from these incorrect beliefs. It is much easier to sell useless treatments whose results are just ambiguous enough to satisfy the industry execs tiny consciences and whose ineffectiveness causes excessive long term and thus expensive use of the treatment than it is to convince someone without depression that they have it and need meds. This occasionally happens but it is not the majority of the issue. Nearly all people being treated for depression really do have it.

    Why don’t you tell us which are the treatments for depression that you’ve decided are “useless” and ineffective? Like it or not, and despite all the anti-psychiatry and anti-pharmaceutical propaganda so many love to swallow wholesale, anti-depressants do save many people’s lives and allow them to function in a way they never believed possible. Nobody has ever claimed that they work for everyone. I know what a difference they’ve made in my life, not for depression as much as for severe anxiety issues. I also know what happens if I stop taking them.

  301. @Drew
    The thing is, she wasn’t actually raised within this fundamentalist Christian community. She grew up in a pretty mainline-only-goes-to-Mass-on-some-Holidays-Catholic family. She accepted her new church on marriage to her husband. Most of her family is deeply troubled by her new-found religiosity, and her following the teachings of her jackass of a pastor. This creates an us vs. them dynamic, with her family cast as godless heathens.

  302. DonnaL: DonnaL 12.26.2011 at 1:53 am

    Matt: As regards the drug industry, 90% of the time their greed is satisfied by creating ineffective treatments that people remain on for a significant time because they believe that they should work and that eventually they will. Even professionals suffer from these incorrect beliefs. It is much easier to sell useless treatments whose results are just ambiguous enough to satisfy the industry execs tiny consciences and whose ineffectiveness causes excessive long term and thus expensive use of the treatment than it is to convince someone without depression that they have it and need meds. This occasionally happens but it is not the majority of the issue. Nearly all people being treated for depression really do have it.

    Why don’t you tell us which are the treatments for depression that you’ve decided are “useless” and ineffective? Like it or not, and despite all the anti-psychiatry and anti-pharmaceutical propaganda so many love to swallow wholesale, anti-depressants do save many people’s lives and allow them to function in a way they never believed possible. Nobody has ever claimed that they work for everyone. I know what a difference they’ve made in my life, not for depression as much as for severe anxiety issues. I also know what happens if I stop taking them.

    I have decided nothing. I already said in that comment that drugs are necessary and useful in treating many peoples’ depression. That doesn’t negate the fact that many pharma companies bury studies with bad results or push a drug really hard even if it doesn’t have sufficiently proven benefits through because they made a big investment and can’t afford to have a huge failure. This of course extends to all areas of medicine. I have seen many anti-depressants significantly improve the lives of those around me. I was merely pointing out to Ben that in a case where corporate greed was a problem that a useless treatment was more likely than companies pushing the idea that many many people need drugs as a way to line their pockets. If this was not clear in my post I apologize. I did not mean to say that anti-depressants are not useful.
    There have been some studies which have claimed that many anti depressants touted as massively successful have not been significantly more effective than a placebo and a person’s belief that they were being treated. But I was not referring to that in this case or suggesting that we do away with them.

  303. trees: trees 12.26.2011 at 1:54 am

    @Drew
    The thing is, she wasn’t actually raised within this fundamentalist Christian community. She grew up in a pretty mainline-only-goes-to-Mass-on-some-Holidays-Catholic family. She accepted her new church on marriage to her husband. Most of her family is deeply troubled by her new-found religiosity, and her following the teachings of her jackass of a pastor. This creates an us vs. them dynamic, with her family cast as godless heathens.

    Hmm, given that this is the case my comment is not at all relevant, my apologies.

  304. trees, is your family friend’s partner’s church also Catholic? I won’t be surprised if it’s actually Southern Baptist — they’re hardly the only reactionary misogynists on the block, but they’re the ones most open about their goal of subjugating half the U.S. population. Well, that and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops…

  305. trees: @Drew
    The thing is, she wasn’t actually raised within this fundamentalist Christian community. She grew up in a pretty mainline-only-goes-to-Mass-on-some-Holidays-Catholic family. She accepted her new church on marriage to her husband. Most of her family is deeply troubled by her new-found religiosity, and her following the teachings of her jackass of a pastor. This creates an us vs. them dynamic, with her family cast as godless heathens.

    I respect that this is a very important issue to you, but I think it’s off the topic of this comment thread.

    I did not mean to imply that anyone should or shouldn’t do anything, in my questions – just to get input on the topic.

    I really hope some solution can be found to result in your friend, and her child, never being abused again.

  306. Matt: There have been some studies which have claimed that many anti depressants touted as massively successful have not been significantly more effective than a placebo and a person’s belief that they were being treated.

    My understanding is that when the break the subjects into groups based on the severity of their depression, the meds make a huge difference for people with severe depression, but not very much of one for people with mild or medium depressions. At least, that was the last write-up I saw. It’s really interesting stuff.

    Ben, yes, we just disagree then. And I’m too tired to engage on this topic, except to say that “correct” is a moral or factual judgment. When it comes to morality, I agree that there is no externally imposed objectively “correct” way to experience or understand the world. When it comes to factuality, I don’t agree–I may experience myself as useless and worthless compared to other people, but factually, that is incorrect (to say nothing of even more concrete facts: no matter what anybody’s experience is, the sun does not orbit the earth). However, the issue is not whether there is a “correct” way to experience the world. The issue is whether some ways of experiencing the world are less healthy (i.e. unnecessarily painful, limiting life and abilities, etc.) than others, and, if so, how we can best move people who find themselves in the one category to the second. I maintain, as I almost always do, that personal experience, even combined with college courses, is no substitute for extensive high-level empirical research and study, using the scientific method.

  307. EG, thanks for your brief but thoughtful response. I’m glad I seem to have stopped triggering your offensiveness sensor, lol. And I’m tired, too, so I’ll keep it short and go to bed. I definitely agree that some ways of experiencing the world are less healthy. For example, I’m trying to move past internalized cognitive/emotional patterns of self-loathing, self-deception, knee-jerk mistrust of others, misogyny, deference to authority–all of which I perceive as self-destructive and unhealthy. This growth process has taken a lot of introspection, as well as help from friends and professionals,

    I maintain, though, that high-level empirical research by a bunch of people I’ve never met at some distant university is no substitute for the hands-on, concrete empirical research I get into my own experience from paying attention to my own life. Which is why advocate that I, and every other person, do whatever we want in our lives. If what a person wants is to listen to and follow the advice of psychiatric professionals, then I support that. I’ve followed that course at times also. If a person wants to completely ignore or disregard what psychiatric professionals say, then I support that, too. I don’t think a person should ever go against zer own intuition, reason, or better judgment–and definitely not to obey authority (even when said authority is licensed with a medical degree).

    Oh, and you definitely aren’t useless or worthless compared to other people EG. Quite the contrary!

  308. I think I was probably too vague in that comment; I didn’t mean to say that anyone was “just as bad” as anyone else – I just said that both sides weren’t coming across well. That wasn’t intended as an attempt to draw an equivalency. Two things can be bad without being equally bad. That’s all I meant to say, and I’m sorry if I miscommunicated. I also had no intention of silencing anyone or shutting down discussion, I was just disturbed by some of the personal attacks that I was seeing and I wanted to express that. Again, I apologize.

    On the other hand, I don’t think that “if you’re triggered, just leave” is a good standard to set in a feminist blog.

    In my experience, you should only apologize if you’ve done something wrong. You didn’t miscommunicate, you were misinterpreted.

  309. Echo Zen:

    Wha…? Did I say something? My last comment to you was on how dismissing women’s experiences instead of disagreeing with them is inherently un-feminist. Unless “zie” is actually someone else’s nickname…

    ‘Zie’ is a gender neutral pronoun, like ‘ou’ or ‘they’. In Kayla’s comment it was referring to Caperton.

  310. Hey, do you know what is a massive derail on a topic about accountability, abuse and Hugo Schwyzer?

    A generalised discussion about whether or not anti-Ds are helpful.

    Seriously. I’ve been busy with Christmas stuff, and thus haven’t had the time to properly engage with this discussion, but this really isn’t helping me feel like actually parsing out my various thoughts about Hugo Schwyzer and Feminism.

  311. Drew, your contempt for the mentally ill is duly noted, but I’m wondering how you think an effective treatment regime is going to be enacted without the collaboration of the person who, you know, has to fulfill that regime? If someone hasn’t been involved in the choice to take a particular drug, then it’s fairly likely that they are not going to continue to choose to take that drug. A mental illness does not make a person incapable of thought and analysis- you might know as much if you had formed your conclusion with some awareness. Ironic, huh?

  312. Hey–the comments about the prison-industrial complex are fascinating, sincerely, but Hugo will never spend a day in jail for this. In fact, nothing will ever happen to him because of this. He will not lose his freedom, his job, his platform, his marriage, or his child. It won’t happen. All of this is a hypothetical, as removed from our current circumstances as ideal incarceration options.

    So it’s messed up to try to link his situation with incarceration in general, but it’s especially messed up to try to link his situation with that of say a black teenager in prison for marijuana possession, or indeed anyone who might actually get sentenced for committing a crime. He’s above the law, not trapped in it.

  313. Agree Li, it’s very odd to see a thread about such a serious topic – the fact that a male serial abuser of women has been given/taken a high profile and well-rewarded position in feminism – being derailed to ensure that anything but that is discussed.

    How has Schwyzer been made accountable for what he did? How has justice been done, resotrative or not? Apparently he told his employers (who allow him to teach feminism to young women) that he’d committed attempted murder and they had no problem with it. His colleagues were aware of his sexual predation on his students and yet no action was taken against him apart from a quiet word to tone it down.

    None of his anti-feminist, anti-woman activities or beliefs have had any impact on his standing amongst liberal feminists. In fact his “confessions” appear to have made them like him all the more. Somehow a man telling liberal feminsts he has harmed women turns him into a good guy to them, despite the fact that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

    I’ll be interested to see how many feminists will be happy to offer him slots on their blogs, or promote him or his work after these revelations.

  314. Just to clarify as regards to my cousin, the reason I brought up her story (a very painful and upsetting time for the family as you might imagine) is because of the parallel between someone in a disturbed mental state acting against someone from a group with less power and traditionally oppressed in a given moment in time. My cousin was never incarcerated and received treatment for her addiction and mental health and now happily lives with my baby cousin and her other child. She also does counsel other addicts and so makes her money ‘off’ her experiences.

    So, the reason I brought this up is because numerous people have specifically used the fact that there were no consequences to Hugo of his murder/suicide attempt as proof of his ongoing malevolence and manipulation of women (the oppressed group in this case). I brought it up to highlight the fact that people can, and do, do terrible things at one moment in time which actually – given the right treatment – will not be repeated. If people would be happy to say no, they would not trust my cousin and consider her getting off scott free, then fine, that’s consistency, but if not, there is something else going on in here.

  315. This was not an isolated incident. This was not the only woman. This was not a single episode. This is his personaity. I know that mental illness can lead people into terrible places, and I know that drug addiction and alcoholism can do the same thing. But at some point, it’s not the same thing. He kept on being an asshole. And his current position is a lot less like making a recovering drug addict an addiction counselor and a lot more like making them a pharmacist.

    And again, for the love of God, we are not a parole board. We are not state legislators. We’re not doctors. We’re not even his fucking boss. We can’t do anything but walk away from him, and we’re all going to have a little bit of trouble doing that.

    So please, everyone, stop making this about physical or chemical restraints, or about abandonment, or about depriving someone of their place in society. We have inflicted nothing. It’s offensive, honestly, to see people straight-facedly comparing this guy to a black teenager caught with drugs. It’s like comparing Jack Abramoff to, well, a black teenager caught with drugs.

  316. Something that really creeped me out about that post was the way he dealt with having sex with someone who he had implied was just raped. I think calling the sex he had with her directly after that ‘desperately hot, desperately heartbreaking’ is pretty effed up. And makes me really question his ‘even if it was consensual and with my chronological peers’ addendum he makes when speaking about sleeping with his students in the other interview.

    Maybe he thinks it is obvious enough not to have to point out that having sex with someone who is not only under the influence of drugs but has also with the last few hours been seriously abused or even had been raped is not, you know, a super awesome thing to do, but i think if he were really ‘shattering gender myths’ he might have mentioned that it is crossing a few ethical and consent boundaries rather than framing it in more of a ‘oh our relationship was just so characteristically bohemian’ kind of way.

  317. And makes me really question his ‘even if it was consensual and with my chronological peers’ addendum he makes when speaking about sleeping with his students in the other interview.

    Jesus, is that ever damning with faint excuse. I’m not questioning any of that in general; I don’t care if his students were willing or if his students were more or less his age. It’s still a horrible thing to do. And it’s a horrible thing that is strikingly similar in some important ways to the much more horrible things he did before that.

  318. This whole thread just makes me sad. I feel like I’m being a Bad Feminist when I get tired of hearing everything being called out all the fucking time–and I’m not a bad feminist. Obviously this thread is not about me, which is a good thing, but I want to note how sickening it feels to have everything being called out constantly. It feels like the judgement here is pretty intense.

    For the record, I think CT fucked up on the original thread, big time. And addiction is not an excuse for TRYING TO KILL SOMEONE. Jesus Christ.

  319. WestEndGirl: but if not, there is something else going on in here.

    For the second time, your cousin doesn’t seem to have made a follow-up career off of disabled people. That’s the difference.

  320. Or fuck people in vulnerable positions, now that I think about it, which is another reason this guy is a dick.

  321. Piny if you have evidence that he tried to attempt murder/suicide on other people, I would be glad to reconsider my opinion on this. And I’m pretty sure you don’t.

    As I said in my prior post, I do not believe that having sex with numerous students of proximate age, without pressure, with consent, is anything other than sleaziness. Not abuse, not predation, but sleaziness. Look, I had sex with a post-Grad lecturer at Uni (similar position to that which Hugo was holding) and I do not feel abused at all. Why should I? I wasn’t suffering from false consciousness, or pressured; he was hot and I felt like it! So I really resent the insistence of many commenters who insist that there is only one way to read Hugo Schwwyzer and his past and current actions.

    I think this is the crux of the issue really for me. For those people who believe strongly that he is a predator and abuser they see the attempted murder/suicide act through the lens of someone who is a predator and abuser rather than someone who was an addict with all the weakness and self-centredness that goes along with that. I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist so I am not qualified to pontificate on the essence of Hugo Schwyzer whereas so many others feel that they can. There are people saying on this very comment thread that they *do* benefit from the work that Hugo does and how he has interacted with them post- his addiction and I believe that their reading is to be equally valued and not dismissed.

  322. Piny if you have evidence that he tried to attempt murder/suicide on other people, I would be glad to reconsider my opinion on this. And I’m pretty sure you don’t.

    Oh, my God. So if your sister committed countless somewhat-less-serious acts of child abuse and neglect, but only actually tried to murder one kid, then she’d be a fit parent? What is wrong with you?

    No, I don´t have evidence that he tried to murder other women. (And it’s not people, all right? It’s women. He behaves this way towards women. Women.) I have his own admission that he has abused countless women–emotionally, physically, and sexually.

    This was an unusually serious offense among others, but it’s part of a larger pattern of abusing women that lasted for years and years. And either he is still being totally dishonest about the degree of consent in all those sexual encounters with students, or this behavior lasted long into recovery and long after he was suffering from any serious degree of mental disorder. This man is not your like your sister. His attitude towards this woman is the same as his attitude towards women in general, and his treatment of her, while unusually dangerous, was not unusually heartless or unusually selfish.

    And with regards to your own feelings about the affair you had with your professor, well, that’s great, but so what, really? It doesn’t matter how the student feels. It matters that the professor abused their position and trust–not just towards you, but towards all of their students. And it matters that the man who also did this has a history of violating boundaries and trust, a history of hurting the people he loves, a history of exercising poor judgment. If he really had been in recovery, he would have had some inkling of the serious problems with that situation. It would have made about as much sense as becoming a pharmacist.

  323. He committed a violent crime against a woman. Which he got away with. That’s the bottom line here. He also sexually preyed on his students until another man told him it wasn’t such a great idea. It has taken other men (the police who arrived at the crime scene, his colleague who mentioned his predatory behaviour) witnessing his abuse of/crimes against women to stop him harming women in those ways. What women say or do about his behaviour means nothing to him however, all his focus is on other men and what he can get away with.

    This thread makes me so glad I am a radical feminist, because Schwyzer has had zero traction in radical feminism, in fact it has been radical feminists who have exposed him, pointed out what sort of man he is and will continue to do so.

    If your politics involve making feminism safe for male predators then you need to rethink them.

  324. WestEndGirl: For those people who believe strongly that he is a predator and abuser they see the attempted murder/suicide act through the lens of someone who is a predator and abuser rather than someone who was an addict with all the weakness and self-centredness that goes along with that

    FYI, I have never given anyone a pass because they were an addict. Not once. I know addicts. I do not know addicts who have determined they should and have tried to take someone else’s life. Is this what you’re asking with regards to your cousin? Because yeah, I think at the core of it, there’s something in her that can murder people and no, that is not typical of people in her situation.

    You do not need to be a shrink to say “murder is bad. This dick never faced ANY consequences for murder, or for telling everyone his girlfriend is crazy so he would get away with it. Then this guy is interviewed for an article on ACCOUNTABILITY in some monstrous stroke of irony.” And I don’t care if he was nice this other time to someone else. Most murderers aren’t assholes to everybody all the time, right? There’s a guy in NYC who lit a woman in an elevator on fire. One of her neighbors is interviewed as having said, “He seemed like a nice guy. We talked about the Bible.” Which is great, but still a murderer. No one needs to make allowances for a degenerate just because one of his fans comes in and starts trying to manipulate people into liking the abuser. And frankly, maybe I would have respected Kayla even a little bit if she wasn’t trying to guilt trip us for Hugo’s actions. That’s absolutely ridiculous.

  325. I see there have been some comments along the lines of “it wasn’t abusive that he had sex with his students”, I’m afraid to say that’s nonsense. The power deferential makes such a relationship unacceptable (there is a reason most businesses have rules expressively prohibiting subordinate/ manager relationships).

    So, to add to the already known very problematic issues, which, in fact, render him unfit to be speak on behalf of feminist women, I’d like to bring attention to yet another one, which, so far, I haven’t seen mentioned: the fact that he “repentantly” (in the usual Schwyzer repentant way), outs another woman who cheated on her husband with him and got pregnant mid affair. Even blogs known for their anti feminism express outrage that this guy speaks on behalf of feminist women!

    Yet, Clarisse Thorn is still standing for this guy and shutting down any dissent on the issue (in her own blog as well, not just here) and vehemently defending him in detriment of legitimate feminist critiques. How Ms. Thorn is going to come back from this with any shred of credibility is anyone’s wonder.

  326. You’re right, Li, and I apologize for the derail. It was regarding an issue on which I have a very short fuse, and I think that by focusing on not going ballistic in my response, I forgot to focus on whether or not this was the time and place for the response at all.

  327. samanthab: Drew, your contempt for the mentally ill is duly noted, but I’m wondering how you think an effective treatment regime is going to be enacted without the collaboration of the person who, you know, has to fulfill that regime? If someone hasn’t been involved in the choice to take a particular drug, then it’s fairly likely that they are not going to continue to choose to take that drug. A mental illness does not make a person incapable of thought and analysis- you might know as much if you had formed your conclusion with some awareness. Ironic, huh?

    I have no contempt for the mentally ill. I’m sorry I gave that impression.

    My point was simply that it doesn’t make sense to expect a person who has a problem with their mind to use their mind to determine their own medical treatment (especially if they have no medical experience).

  328. As an addendum to my last comment, I thought I’d add another link, where he decides the issue of outing a woman who might have gotten pregnant by him is to be closed and finished. He dubs the whole thing “spermgate” and again, in the usual Schwyzer “humblebrag”, he points out how profitable this “spermgate” has been in terms of higher traffic for his blogs and his exposure.

    He obviously has no concern for the outing of this woman and the consequences for her, her child and her husband. To him, it appears to be an issue of “exposure” and “higher traffic”. Someone please remind me again how this is “pro woman” and “feminist”? Because this is the opposite of what a feminist ethics should entail.

  329. While there’s no evidence that HS is at risk of physically harming anyone today, now that he’s (presumably) sober and (presumably) stable, there is evidence that he shows serious misjudgement in his politics and in positioning himself interpersonally and within the feminist movement. We should encourage people to notice and pay attention to red flags. If it feels creepy, it’s creepy. Listen to that.

    I don’t see any evidence that Clarisse knew half of what’s behind the ire for HS, any of the history he has with WOC bloggers or how he’s come down hard on the wrong side of prior issues. I think she saw the redemption story and thought it would be an interesting intellectual exercise for the group in applied theory, as in, we talk a lot of game about community accountability and abuser reform, but how does that look in real life? I don’t blame her for that, and I think it’s odd to blame and shame people for not knowing what they don’t know. We’re in a weird place when we can’t accept that all participants are on different areas of the learning curve.

    I think we should encourage bloggers and commenters to set boundaries that are appropriate for themselves. If shit is triggering, you’re responsible for making sure you’re not triggered. Close comments, step away from the computer, whatever. This exercise should never put people at risk of self-harm.

    Anyway, there are a lot of things at play here. There are problematic politics coming up against long-standing personal beefs, specific news that someone in our midst tried to kill a woman once and got away with it coming up against rhetorical standards of capital-F identity feminism. This is one giant jumble of yuck.

  330. She could have stepped away, but she didn’t really do that.

    I think she saw the redemption story and thought it would be an interesting intellectual exercise for the group in applied theory, as in, we talk a lot of game about community accountability and abuser reform, but how does that look in real life? I don’t blame her for that, and I think it’s odd to blame and shame people for not knowing what they don’t know. We’re in a weird place when we can’t accept that all participants are on different areas of the learning curve.

    I do have a problem with that. It’s not an unusual kind of deflection, going from This Thing That Happened to Larger Questions. And it wasn’t an exercise in applied theory; it was an attempt to keep that theory from being applied to a particular person. Commenters were not invited to consider that question; they were invited to stop talking, because their answers were making Clarisse angry on behalf of herself and her friend. It wasn’t a supplement or a natural progression, either; the discussion about This Thing That Happened was shut down hard.

    I don’t really expect Clarisse to know everything on the internet, but if she is coming at this in ignorance, then she needs to be more respectful of people who seem to come out of left field with new information, and less inclined to dismiss what they’re saying. The alternative is not a learning process.

    All of that having been said…I respect that people want to talk about all of the other stuff related to Hugo and his history on the internet. I don’t have a problem with that. It is important. But I don’t think it’s necessary to know about all of that in order to have a considered response to Hugo’s past and specific reactions to that. Commenter feelings about Hugo in our midst can be heard all by themselves. And they should have been.

  331. pls let me thank you Caperton for this post.

    1. imo whatever Clarisse posted in connection with H.S. on feministe should have been on her own blog.

    2. imo *menz* can be allies to soc. feminists/women in the soc. feminist movement IF …
    otherwise menz pls. do a “manimist-movement” (or however you wish to call it).

    3. : imo *trolling* soc. feminist-blogs/blogging-profitiering as a soc. fauxminist (like H.S. and others) to seek/get e.g. ego-strokes and applause doth not maketh you a trustworthy ally. ever :

    4. agree with e.g. #102

    5. *menz* like H.S. who suffer from/behave like pseudo-douche-alphas pls. self-educate yourselves, e.g. here : http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/alphabehavior.htm
    or simply become a “self-developing human-being”.
    which imo is never-ending; it is an ongoing pro-cess/pro-cedere.

    6. imo beware/learn from the past, which no-one of *us* can change.
    and pls beware that trust once broken cannot be soc. reset or rebooted.
    (also, i am a human being, not a wifi-set or a slot-machine)

    (disclaimer : i am of non us-origin and have been reading feministe for more than a year and usually i do not comment, but am/have been acutely/daily aware of “what is going on” on/in “the feminist-websphere” mostly in the us/europe. and when I saw Clarisse’s posts here i thought “that’s it. feministe is fini/over”.
    as a soc. 2nd wave feminist i have become extremely choosy who and what i dedicate my time to)
    well, imo just don’t make the same mistake again and beware of soc. red-flags.

  332. Jesus Christo, wtf am I reading? Everything West End Girl said @189. All of it. Affairs with students your own age: fucked up? Yes. Patriarchal? Probs. Always predatory, every single time? Always negative for the student, every single time? I really don’t know about that. Murder-suicide stemming from depression & addiction the same as murder-suicide stemming from “I hate that bitch and jail would really suck”? Really?

    On the other topic: Racism is absolutely one of the reasons Valenti and Marcotte get book deals and woc don’t. At the same time, anyone who thinks that they’re the “voices” of U.S. feminism is living on Mars. They’re big news in the feminist blogosphere, which most of mainstream America has never even heard of. Most Americans with internet access are playing Farmville or whatever the fuck on Facebook and maybe, maybe know who Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan are. Maybe.

    And I get why people are criticizing Hugo’s place in the movement, but I’m also getting a whiff of subtext that it’s Totally Not Okay to get paid for doing what you love if what you love is activism, ally or not. Even though we live in a capitalist society. Even though we’re not going to create a socialist paradise within our lifetimes. Or possibly any lifetime.

    That said: bfp, I’m sure, based on this comment, I’m one of the last people you’d want “yes, this”-ing you, but your comments on TJ needing to be centered around survivors and if sometimes that means prison despite the shittasticness of the prison industrial complex… THANK YOU. THANK. YOU.

  333. For those people who believe strongly that he is a predator and abuser they see the attempted murder/suicide act through the lens of someone who is a predator and abuser rather than someone who was an addict with all the weakness and self-centredness that goes along with that.

    It has been stated by multiple people on multiple occasions in this thread and others relating to this topic that the “recovering addict” narrative is inconsistent with Schwyzer’s *current* behavior, which is analogous to a recovering pothead moving to Amsterdam, renting an apartment above a coffee house, and hanging out in the coffee house all day inhaling secondhand potsmoke and thereby getting high. In other words, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that by intentionally placing himself in the position he currently is in–centering himself in a position of authority with young women like the ones he fucked and the one he tried to kill *and* making money as an expert on the very subject of such women’s oppression–he is exactly like an alcoholic who used to chug a fifth of vodka per day “reforming” by giving up the vodka, getting a job in a brewpub, and now chugging india pale ale all day.

    There is no evidence that Schwyzer has overcome the “all the weakness and self-centeredness” of the addict. If he really had, he wouldn’t be creating a life for himself in which he is surrounded by young women and in a position of great influence and authority over them from which he financially profits, both in person in his classroom and on the Internet. Rather, he would be staying the fucke away from taking positions of centeredness and authority over women, just like a genuinely reformed drug addict or alcoholic doesn’t hang around shooting galleries or speakeasies.

  334. in other words–”imagining the possibilities” dislocates responses to gendered violence from the needs of the survivors. which means that “imagining the possibilities” is not all that transformative. it assumes survivors haven’t already responded to violence in any adequate way or that they are incapable of doing so. and it doesn’t deal with the very basic reality that it’s not just that some communities don’t want men going to prison–it’s that they don’t think there’s *anything wrong with a woman being beaten, period.* and advocating to keep men out of prison stems less from an anti-prison industrial complex framework, and more from a deeply misogynistic heteropatriarchal framework

    Everything bfp has said in this thread, but ‘specially THIS. Any vision of “transformative justice” that does not center the needs of survivors is NOT transformative, nor is it justice. Abstracting this; assuming that even most women have social infrastructures or communities that believe them (us), let alone are willing to provide tangible backup (meaning: PHYSICAL assistance that actually keeps a survivor safe, allows a survivor to stay employed, etc.—not lip service)…..is mind-boggling.

    I also cosign to every person on this thread that mentioned the fact that the woman who was the victim of attempted murder (and almost the victim of murder) was abandoned by the “authorities” whose sworn duty it was to protect her. That she was painted as an emotionally fragile, suicidal woman, after being raped; that the “authorities” chose to believe (one of) the men who assaulted her, rather than her. That he used his social and institutional power to not only protect himself, but to erase her power. She became a nonvictim in the eyes of the system after a glib assaulter accustomed to working the system to his own ends used not only his personal resources but also the background structures (such as the idea that “troubled” women are suicidal, that men are more believable than women, that addicted (among other kinds….) of women are unrapable, etc.) to BE UNACCOUNTABLE. For Fuck’s Sake, people. He played the system TO BE UNACCOUNTABLE. And we’re having an abstract discussion of accountability around this, of all examples?

  335. WEG, I don’t know what you hoped to accomplish by bringing up your (female) relative, especially when someone already brought up stats upthread that really highlight that murder/suicides are almost always committed by men. It’s just not really a valid comparison and it’s almost a dare for someone to come out and say that they feel your relative has to be held accountable, addiction notwithstanding. Thats just really emotionally manipulative. I come from an extended family that’s been plagued by addiction, have had friends with substance use issues, and have worked with people with substance use issues. And I can tell you that in my experience, substances are not responsible for someone’s abusive behavior. Most addicts are not abusive. Those that are, are responsible for their own actions. Not drugs, not alcohol. I think once someone “cleans up,” many choose to then blame substances for their actions, just because it’s easier to deal with the guilt by displacing the causes of one’s behavior to external factors. Which is actually a pretty common way of coping with addiction.

    But the issue here is not whether substances “made him do it.” the issue is whether we want someone with this past in our community. We aren’t coming to arrest Hugo, take his job away, or take his child. We don’t even have the power to kick him out of the feminist blogosphere, since even here our feelings about Hugo aren’t unanimous. So, again, I don’t see the comparison. How do the possible consequence for your relative, which I assume could’ve included prison time, loss of custody, loss of relationship with her family and child, court-enforced substance use treatment, etc. compare with possible consequences for Hugo, which so far include the staff of one feminist blog saying that they should not have published an interview with him and closed comments on an entry?

  336. WEG:

    if you have evidence that he tried to attempt murder/suicide on other people, I would be glad to reconsider my opinion on this.

    I don’t even. So everybody gets a freebie on their first attempted murder? Are you even thinking before you type?

    Look, I had sex with a post-Grad lecturer at Uni (similar position to that which Hugo was holding) and I do not feel abused at all. Why should I?

    And everybody else in that situation is, or should be, just like you, right?

    an addict with all the weakness and self-centredness that goes along with that.

    Oh, christ, take that 12-stepper crap and shove it. Having an addiction doesn’t relieve you of moral responsibility, and it doesn’t make an attempted murderer into a pitiable figure.

  337. 1. I agree with AL (#349)

    2. Frankly, I don’t know why HS belongs here as a subject. Why is it so important to profile a man whose only contribution to the improvement of the lot of women is a collection of essays of dubious merit? If some people, such as Clarisse Thorn, get good vibes from him, that’s very nice and all, but doesn’t that belong on their blogs, rather than on a blog that AFAIK exists for the advancement of women?

    I’d much rather see the space that is currently being devoted to HS and his ilk being devoted to, say, articles from Women Of Color (WOC) and other groups of women who feel marginalized by the sort of feminism that is usually presented here.

    3. I’m really skeptical of people who call themselves “male feminists.” One reason I don’t call myself one is because I don’t want to be put in the same category with people like HS. But another is that it seems patronizing. Women don’t need people like me to “liberate” them, they need for me to get my boots off their chests, and to get my fellow men to get their boots off, too.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t found any blogs or websites that seriously deal with what men can do. Places like HS’s website, or the Good Men Project, or What About Teh Menz can’t do it, because they have as a tacit ground rule that one shouldn’t expect men to give up their positions of privilege. Since feminism is (among other things) about undoing male privilege, sooner or later those sites always come into conflict with feminism.

  338. Or, instead of egotistically defining yourself as a male feminist, you let others decide if they identify you as one. That’s what keeps you accountable to your community.

  339. number9: We aren’t coming to arrest Hugo, take his job away, or take his child. We don’t even have the power to kick him out of the feminist blogosphere, since even here our feelings about Hugo aren’t unanimous

    i just really need people to sit with this, long and hard.

    when (black queer mama) mai’a talked about bringing her child to a bar (which doesn’t serve alcohol), she *absolutely did* have people saying she needed to have her child taken away, saying she should be arrested, saying we should all call DPS (except, ooops, she’s in egypt!), writing long angry posts and 700 comment long threads about what a horrible person she is, she’s just trying to dump her spoiled fucking brat on the rest of us and what’s she’s doing is fucking abusive and she’s a sick horrible monster! oh, and she hasn’t been back to post on any major feminist blog, nor has she gotten book deals or speech requests, etc.

    but this white guy who tried to kill a woman—people are *protecting* him–saying what a *tragedy* it would be to see him in jail when he’s done so much good! and there’s the rush to assure–oh, no! we don’t have the power to do that, NOR DO WE WANT TO.

    this is my last comment here. this has been a gut wrenching experience to read–over and over and over again in so many ways, people are stating quite plainly–a white man who attempted murder *against a woman* has value as a human being, as a family man, as a feminist, as a *man who has abused*–he has value that women of color *don’t.* he is deserving of feminist protection that women of color experiencing gendered attacks simply aren’t.

    smh.

  340. bfp, just to clarify, on a personal level, I would dearly love to never see Hugo in this community ever again. I was just pointing out the relative powerlessness of women in this situation, when we can’t even agree on what should happen. It’s not something that I say without pain. It sucks. It sucks even more in light of what you are saying. I’m just sort of hopeless here.

  341. ok, fine, it wasn’t my last comment, this one is. *wry smile*

    i want to be clear, i’m not suggesting that people *should* call the police and have mr’s child taken away from him.

    i am saying that those of us who’ve been on the brunt end of feminist attacks *see the difference* in how we were treated versus how mr is being treated right now.

    and we know those differences are not because mr is a kind considerate human being who has changed the lives of so many and the rest of us (black, brown, queer, mamas) *haven’t*.

    we see the differences. and we see who is considered a part of the community and who is not.

  342. Why shouldn’t Schwyzer be in prison for atttempted murder of a woman? Thats’ a serious question. He knew that’s where he was heading which is why he lied to the police.

    What makes him different from other criminals who have to face the criminal justice system every day?

  343. Mai’a is a wonderful mother, and that thread was repellent. And the handling of that thread was repellent.

    But I wasn’t reassuring anyone, bfp. I wasn’t saying that any of this was right. I was pointing out that this man is protected. So it’s wrong to act like there’s any similarity at all between bouncing him off of a blog and throwing him in jail. It’s disgraceful to link concerns over our prison-industrial complex or our reckless and punitive culture in general to this tiny belated measure of accountability, and to invite us to compare Hugo to, oh, I don’t know, someone who might eventually be held accountable for what he did, let alone injured by our current criminal justice framework.

    I’m not protecting him or insisting that anyone protect him. I’m saying that our entire society collaborates to protect him already. And number9 was saying the same thing: fuck comparing this man to any vulnerable person. And it would also be disgusting to compare banning Hugo to labeling Mai’a a bad mother. Mai’a actually has reason to worry. Hugo doesn’t. He already walked away from this. He’s fine.

    That isn’t the outcome that I want. But it’s the outcome that I have to acknowledge.

  344. But I wasn’t reassuring anyone, bfp. I wasn’t saying that any of this was right. I was pointing out that this man is protected. So it’s wrong to act like there’s any similarity at all between bouncing him off of a blog and throwing him in jail. It’s disgraceful to link concerns over our prison-industrial complex or our reckless and punitive culture in general to this tiny belated measure of accountability, and to invite us to compare Hugo to, oh, I don’t know, someone who might eventually be held accountable for what he did, let alone injured by our current criminal justice framework.

    THIS. What I was trying to say. I don’t think anyone here not defending Hugo wants this outcome. But he is protected. We don’t have the power to radically change that fact. That’s why those of us who identify as feminists need feminism, I assume. We have to acknowledge the reality of the power relationships here.

  345. He doesn’t need to be protected by feminism or rather by liberal feminists, which he has been up to now. His feminist credibility and credentials have been protected and in fact promoted by a whole lot of feminists, including the feminist who closed down the thread which brought his crime to light.

  346. number9: But he is protected. We don’t have the power to radically change that fact.

    no–THAT is what transformative justice is *for*. to hold people who are protected (and why isn’t anybody asking what is protecting him? there’s been some hint at the fact that he’s white and rich–but it’s *white supremacy* and *capitalism* that is protecting him, not just his identity) accountable when the nation/state decides there is no need to.

    this is what happens when transformative justice is retranslated to mean “change and forgive the abuser” rather than “empower and protect the survivor.”

  347. I don’t actually agree with that last part. I think we do have the power to change all of this–and that one of the things we can do is look very carefully (or, Christ, just look) at differences between the way a WOC mom was treated when she said she brought her kid to the Egyptian equivalent of a bar&grill and the way Hugo Schwyzer was treated when he bedded ALL OF THE COLLEGE STUDENTS and also, whoops, almost killed that woman. It’s small but important. We can’t have Hugo hauled off in irons, or even get him fired. But we can recognize him for what he is–and recognize all of the forces behind him, including the ones that we’re invested in. And when we do that, we do make it harder for someone like Hugo to remain legitimate. It’s complicated, but his credibility is part of his brand, and we help to give him that. It’s good, I think, that we’re divesting. It’s not insignificant, and it might eventually add up to more significant changes in the lives of other creepy men. I get what you’re saying about power relationships, but part of that learning process is the knowledge that we’re not entirely powerless.

    Too, Mai’a is an example of someone who can be damaged by recklessness that someone like Hugo would just bat away.

    I just wasn’t trying to comfort any of the weepy forgiveness freaks maundering on about Hugo’s marshmallow center, okay? I am not happy about any of this. I just want to spit when I see no more feministe interviews being compared to incarceration. Or any kind of expulsion. Not the same.

  348. Whoops, sorry, this is what I was responding to:

    We don’t have the power to radically change that fact. That’s why those of us who identify as feminists need feminism, I assume. We have to acknowledge the reality of the power relationships here.

  349. And I’m sure that he would not have publicly told that story if he ran the risk of facing legal repercussions for it. I’m sure he had it vetted with a lawyer first, to make sure some cop wouldn’t be able to knock on his door with a set off cuffs and haul him off to jail.

    But the thing that sickens me the most is that he is using the pain he inflicted onto someone else to further his own story into how far he has come as a person. It’s one thing to say that you nearly died from an OD in a squalid motel room, it’s another to say that you brought another with you. It is like he is revictimizing her again, in order to give himself some sort of cred. And I highly doubt he got her permission to share her pain with the world, even if he doesn’t ID her publicly.

  350. Well, ok, I divested a long time ago. I don’t read him, don’t link to him, don’t buy his books (assuming he has any – I don’t even know). What’s next? How does the feminist community proceed? I feel powerless in that sense, because I see this thread and he’s being defended by a large number of feminists. For transformative justice to take place, the whole community has to reach consensus, right? How do we do that when people don’t even understand transformative justice, as the exchange between Rodeo and bfp demonstrated? And some don’t even buy into the concept. That’s what I’m grappling with here.

  351. Uh, reading between the lines, I don’t think she or her family are even willing to speak to him. And good for her.

  352. Re: Jail

    Statute of limitations has run. He’s not going to jail even if he walked into a cell and confessed.

    Re: Sex with students

    Two points: 1) How can he be so *sure* that it was consentual when there were enormous power embalances and he was so high that he had large memory lapses. 2) I’ve had profs like that, you’re not just fucking your students, you’re also creating a horrible learning environment for the other women you teach who have to wade through that mess just to get an education.

  353. number9: I see this thread and he’s being defended by a large number of feminists.

    That’s sure not the impression I’m getting. Are you referring to other feminist blogs where this discussion is taking place concurrently?

  354. piny:
    Uh, reading between the lines, I don’t think she or her family are even willing to speak to him. And good for her.

    Yeah, so he is going ahead and telling this anyway, even though he didn’t get her permission to tell a story about her rape, addiction, and how someone tried to kill her.

  355. bfp can probably articulate this better than me, but I don’t think transformative justice has to take place over a single comments thread in order to be a viable strategy. Being thoughtful and conscious isn’t something that automatically changes the mind of everyone around you. It does make you better at seeing your own place in each process, positive and negative. That way, when you are in a position to offer support (or not worsen a bad situation), then you can. That might be something as minor as offering kind words to a mother who’s just been told that she isn’t a human being, and it might be as major as parenting a child.

  356. Just off the top of my head. . .

    I checked Schwyzer’s Wikipedia entry, and there is no reference to any of his problematic history, let alone his attempted murder. Someone could edit that.

    Someone could do some research about Pasadena City College and its employment policies, any ways in which Schwyzer might fall short. People who live in the L.A. area could organize protests outside his classes. A lot of his students might not know about his attempted murder.

  357. Quoting California Penal Code, Sec. 664.
    Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts, as follows:

    (a) If the crime attempted is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, the person guilty of the attempt shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one-half the term of imprisonment prescribed upon a conviction of the offense attempted. However, if the crime attempted is willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, as defined in Section 189, the person guilty of that attempt shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole. If the crime attempted is any other one in which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death, the person guilty of the attempt shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years. The additional term provided in this section for attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder shall not be imposed unless the fact that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by the trier of fact.

    * * *
    Quoting California Penal Code, Sec. 799.
    Prosecution for an offense punishable by death or by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for life without the possibility of parole, or for the embezzlement of public money, may be commenced at any time.

    This section shall apply in any case in which the defendant was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense and the prosecuting attorney could have petitioned the court for a fitness hearing pursuant to Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

  358. Who decided that transformative justice was the best solution in this situation?

    Why not the kind of justice that courts are set up to administer, especially in the case of murder or attempted murder?

  359. @delphyne,

    I seriously doubt a case for premeditated murder could be brought since there is no evidence he planned in advance to kill her. Consequently, that SOL doesn’t apply and the lesser one contained in Sec. 800 does. That runs in 6 years.

  360. What can we do? Well, I for one have set up a google alert so whenever his name is mentioned on the web, if it’s in a positive and/or fawning manner, I can show up now and set the record straight, show the people admiring him just who he really is. If I do that, it’s just one person, but some may still listen. If many of us do the same thing…well, that sends quite a stronger message.

    We can write his dean, protesting that a man with such a history as his is put in a position of authority teaching young women about feminism.

    When he advertises a speaking engagement, etc, on his blog, we can send protest letters to the organizers, or even show up and picket.

    Come on people, this is basic activism, right? We are not powerless, here.

  361. I seriously doubt a case for premeditated murder could be brought since there is no evidence he planned in advance to kill her.

    Premeditation does not require advance planning that occurred days or hours before. Rather premeditation requires only that there be some degree of planning or deliberation before committing a crime, but the deliberation could take place only minutes or seconds before the act.

    The following step-by-step sequence of deliberate acts described by Schwyzer are more than sufficient to constitute extremely strong evidence of premeditation:

    “I walked into the little kitchen only steps from where my ex lay. I blew out the pilot lights on our gas oven and on the burners, and turned the dials on everything up to maximum. I pulled the oven away from the wall, leaving the gas line intact, positioning it so that the gas was blowing directly at the passed-out young woman on the floor.”

    1. I’m out of town for the holidays and have zero time to moderate this thread, but just want to say that comments like this:

      I’ve got the phone numbers of some people, you know, if we ever decided we needed to take care of business. I mean, I wouldn’t ever want to do anything. Anything illegal. Clearly an overreaction.

      All I’m saying: I have phone numbers.

      Are not ok here. I don’t care if it’s a joke. Anything threatening, or that could be construed as threatening, will be deleted and will get you banned.

  362. I would, should he dare to, refuse to engage him in any issue, at all, ever, if he shows up on any website. He can’t suffer any real consequences here, so the less attention he is personally given, positive or negative, the better. I personally have nothing to say to him, so I am not going to bother.

  363. Jill: I don’t care if it’s a joke. Anything threatening, or that could be construed as threatening, will be deleted and will get you banned.

    Got it. Lesson learned. Just for the record, I don’t have any phone numbers of jackbooted thugs. I don’t even know what a jackboot is.

  364. I’m not going to argue the technicalities of timing, intoxication and premeditation here. I recommend reading some of the jury instructions on premeditation for those interested.

  365. Are you a lawyer Kristen?

    If you don’t think Hugo’s crime is attempted murder, then what crime do you think he committed? And what has statute of limitations run out on?

  366. See below for the first few that I found, and all of which would seem to be amply satisfied by Schwyzer’s multi-step plan to kill the woman, and each step of which required an independent decision to act:

    (1) Walk into the kitchen.

    (2) Blow out the pilot lights on the oven *and* each of the burners (each multiple independent acts).

    (3) Turn each of the dials up to maximum (each multiple independent acts).

    (4) Pull the oven away from the wall.

    (5) Make sure to leave the gas line intact.

    (6) Position the oven so that the gas is blowing directly on the unconscious woman on the floor.

    Premeditation & Deliberation

    Standard Jury Instruction (Premeditation): The Court instructs the jury that to premeditate is to think of a matter before it is executed. Premeditation implies something more than deliberation, and may mean the party not only deliberated, but formed in his mind the plan of destruction.

    Standard Jury Instruction (Deliberation): The Court instructs the jury that to deliberate is to reflect, with a view to making a choice. If a person reflects even for a moment before he acts it is sufficient deliberation.

    Proposed Jury Instruction (Premeditation): The defendant has been charged with murder. To convict the defendant of first degree murder, you must find that the defendant’s acts were premeditated and deliberate.

    Premeditated killing means that the defendant intended to kill and made a conscious decision to do so. It means simply that the defendant thought about [his] [her] acts before they were undertaken. The decision to kill must have been formulated at the time of the killing. The law does not fix an exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the intent to kill and the acts that result in the killing. The period of time must, however, be long enough to allow reflection and conscious choice by the defendant.

    Whether premeditation exists is to be determined by all the evidence presented to you concerning the facts and circumstances of the killing.

    Proposed Jury Instruction (Deliberation): Deliberation requires reflection and the making of a choice. If a person reflects on the act of killing, for whatever length of time, it is sufficient to constitute deliberation.

    Commentary & Relevant Cases

    1. §61-2-1 of the West Virginia Code defines first degree murder (among other definitions), as “any willful, deliberate and premeditated killing . . . .” First degree murder also requires a showing of malice.

    2. The primary cases on premeditation and deliberation are: State v. Schrader, 172 W.Va. 1, 302 S.E.2d 70 (Sup.Ct.App. W.Va., 1982) [text of the opinion] and State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.3d; 1995 W.Va. LEXIS 169 (Sup.Ct. App. W.Va., 1995)(overturning the definition of premeditation and deliberation in Schrader) [on-line text] [Justice Workman concurring]

    3. The revised premeditation jury instruction is modeled on Florida’s instruction. [Standard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases]

    http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/adcrimlaw/premeditation.html

    If Schwyzer’s described actions aren’t sufficient to provide compelling evidence of premeditation, then nothing is. My guess is that Schwyzer feels immune from prosecution for a reason that has nothing to do with the statute of limitations, namely, that there is presumably absolutely no remaining physical evidence that any crime was ever committed.

  367. LotusBen, you seem like a cool guy, but EG, as a mentally ill chick myself, thank you for your responses re: mental illness. Ben, as a democratic socialist, there are places where my beliefs and anarchist beliefs overlap quite a bit, and I think we’re comrades in the struggle and all that jazz, but when it comes to science, you realllllly need to step away from the anarchy. Like, seriously, there is not that much difference between what you’re saying, the stuff liberal anti-vaxxers say, and what right-wingers who think God giveth illness and God taketh away. It’s the same belief in different wrappers — it’s all a misunderstanding of science coupled with a distrust of authority even when the authority in question is actually loads more knowledgeable about the subject in question. Not all-knowing, not flaw-free, not *ism-free, not un-corruptible, but they did go to a fucking shit-ton of school. /total derail

  368. So Very Unhip. . .exactly: they went to a fucking shit-ton of school, and school is an indoctrination system. I have no problem accepting scientific evidence. But when it comes to my own life, I made my own choices. If you want to follow people who you believe are more knowledgable than you, then feel free to do that.

  369. piny: It’s not an unusual kind of deflection, going from This Thing That Happened to Larger Questions. And it wasn’t an exercise in applied theory; it was an attempt to keep that theory from being applied to a particular person. Commenters were not invited to consider that question; they were invited to stop talking, because their answers were making Clarisse angry on behalf of herself and her friend. It wasn’t a supplement or a natural progression, either; the discussion about This Thing That Happened was shut down hard.

    I get why this synopsis is unforgiving, I do. But I think Clarisse was applying a pretty standard journalistic premise, using an example or a person to talk about a larger idea. I’d bet money on her knowing and expecting the controversy of the murder/suicide story, but that she didn’t know the person and the example she used was problematic and offensive for a hundred additional reasons she didn’t yet know. Personally, Hugo, as a changed man, should’ve given her fair warning that his name at the top of any major feminist would draw serious fire for reasons X, Y, Z. Did he?

  370. That’s the kicker. Feministe has been linking to Schwyzer for years without incident. This row came out of nowhere.

  371. I would love to be a prosecutor taking Schwyzer’s admitted actions and state of mind as facts to a jury to prove willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, given those California instructions. The closing argument writes itself. The reason Schwyzer is probably not worried is that he can always claim he made all that shit up to sell books or whatever, and there is no physical evidence that any crime was ever committed.

  372. My point was simply that it doesn’t make sense to expect a person who has a problem with their mind to use their mind to determine their own medical treatment (especially if they have no medical experience).

    THIS. IS. ABLEIST.

    If you are severely depressed and struggling with the urge to kill yourself, that doesn’t prevent you from knowing enough about what’s good for you to recognize that what the doctors are pushing is not going to help. Especially when they’re pushing an indeterminate stay in a locked facility with no privacy whatsoever, and tranquilizers forced on you if you make too much noise arguing about your privacy rights, with medical professionals holding you down on a table and forcing them into your ass if you refuse to take them, which is of course aggravating your sexual trauma issues but the doctors are so blinded by the idea that pills are the best solution and that your diagnosis means you’re not worth listening to that they only see the pain they cause you as another symptom of your illness.

    I have suffered from extremely painful mental states. I refuse to put them into a diagnostic box because I refuse to disengage these experiences from the events in my life and say that it’s all just my own broken brain chemistry. Pills have mostly not done anything, one pill combo made me numb but that’s not the same thing as happiness. The best “treatment” has been having people around on a constant basis who care about me, like living with a close lover or friend, or in a communal situation like the Occupy Wall Street camp.

    The worst “treatment” has been getting locked up in a psych ward, which has deeply harmed me and was inflicted on me by a false “friend” who bought into the idea that the doctors have all the answers, and by doctors who thought they had all the answers. Exhibit A on why people should have the right to self-determination regardless of what medical professionals say about their minds.

  373. LotusBen: School is a lot of things, including an indoctrination system, and I don’t think that makes everything you learn there hogwash, but that topic is a derail — I posted my comment before finishing the entire thread, and I shouldn’t have. Agreeing to disagree, back on topic, etc.

  374. If you guys are convinced that he should be prosecuted, call the DA’s office in LA and tell them that. Head prosecutors are elected officials, so if you feel strongly about this, why not contact the office that actually makes the call? I’m not saying Kristen J.’s wrong about the law here, or that your call will result in a prosecution, but if you feel frustrated about the lack of scrutiny on folks like Schwyzer, you could try to bring that scrutiny to bear if you think that’s what should happen.

  375. Echo Zen:
    That’s the kicker. Feministe has been linkingt o Schwyzer for years without incident. This row came out of nowhere.

    This row came out of several regular commenters having it in for Clarisse Thorn, and just waiting for some convenient pretext to jump all over her and rile up the crowd that’s always dying to be scandalized by something new (with the predictable cowardly distancing of the regulars). If it hadn’t been about Schwyzer, it would have been something else, but he has the added benefit of attracting a bigger sour grapes brigade because of previous blog-wars.

  376. Sarah Harper: The worst “treatment” has been getting locked up in a psych ward, which has deeply harmed me and was inflicted on me by a false “friend” who bought into the idea that the doctors have all the answers, and by doctors who thought they had all the answers. Exhibit A on why people should have the right to self-determination regardless of what medical professionals say about their minds.

    I am genuinely curious about how far this should go, though. (This is a derail. I recognize it as such. Feel free to continue the discussion on my blog). For example, I was put in a pysch ward once. My shrink convinced my parents to put me there because I would have probably killed myself otherwise. I did not go willingly. The question, I guess, is what would you say to that? How far should self determination go if people are determined to kill themselves? I’m geniunely asking, here.

  377. Anon for this: This row came out of several regular commenters having it in for Clarisse Thorn, and just waiting for some convenient pretext to jump all over her and rile up the crowd that’s always dying to be scandalized by something new (with the predictable cowardly distancing of the regulars). If it hadn’t been about Schwyzer, it would have been something else, but he has the added benefit of attracting a bigger sour grapes brigade because of previous blog-wars.

    Yeah, getting upset about attempted murder is just pearl-clutching.

  378. shfree: I’m sure he had it vetted with a lawyer first, to make sure some cop wouldn’t be able to knock on his door with a set off cuffs and haul him off to jail.

    That’s exactly what he did, and he even brings it up in his “confession.” Which was one of the many reasons I mentioned (# 67) that made me extremely skeptical that he truly understands the magnitude, or accepts the consequences, of his crime.

  379. So Very Unhip. . .no big deal, I skim through stuff all the time so I can’t fault someone else for doing it.

    Sarah Harper. . .that’s a horrific story. It really pisses me off how people with mental problems are oppressed in this society. I’m sorry all that happened to you.

  380. suspect class: Yeah, getting upset about attempted murder is just pearl-clutching.

    Yes, but the article about this particular incident has been common knowledge among folks who’ve been following (or stalking) Schwyzer for years, professionally or otherwise. There was no mass outrage then, even as the article got heavy play on social networking sites when it was first published.

  381. suspect class: Yeah, getting upset about attempted murder is just pearl-clutching.

    The outrage tsunami would look more plausibly spontaneous if it weren’t the case that Schwyzer had been approvingly linked to from here after he made his confession with not a word of complaint from the usual suspects until it had to do with Clarisse and them being eager to step over her boundaries (btw, given that the story comes from him writing about it on his own blog almost a year ago, the people here saying that anything was “revealed” on that closed down thread sound ridiculously disingenuous).

    As it happens, I think Schwyzer is a talentless creep, and deserves everything he’s getting and more, but really he’s just the collateral damage in this whole affair.

  382. Sarah Harper: THIS. IS. ABLEIST.

    I disagree. I don’t think it’s any more ableist than to say that a person with a broken leg should not have the option to just “walk it off” because (a) they have no medical experience and (b) they have a *broken fucking leg* (that is to say, the thing they would be using to rehabilitate themselves is exactly the thing that is impaired).

    Of course a patient should be a part of the rehabilitation process. But that wasnt the quote. The quote was “That said, for any individual who identifies with any of the categories, I wish for them complete autonomy–that they get to decide how they are labeled, how they are treated, and what drugs they take–with no interference from doctors or anyone else.”

    I’m honestly very upset at the treatment you’ve faced at the hands of the medical community, and your experience illuminates a lot of serious problems. But them mistreating you does not mean that anyone, including you, should be able to diagnose themselves, autonomously determine their treatment, and decide *what drugs they take* with no interference from doctors or anyone else.

    It doesn’t make one lick of sense – should I be able to diagnose myself with fibromyalgia and demand painkillers? Or glaucoma and self prescribe medical marijuana?

  383. Perhaps the quote was intended to mean that a person with a mental illness should decide if they will take medication or not. That is a reasonable statement and I agree, as no person has the right to tell another what they must put in their bodies.

    If that was the intent of the orginal quote, I apologize. But if the intent was that a patient should be able to demand any medication they desire, then, of course, I disagree.

  384. That’s the kicker. Feministe has been linking to Schwyzer for years without incident. This row came out of nowhere.

    This is not true, Echo Zen. Use the “search” function at the top of the Feministe sidebar. He is not linked in the blogroll, either. As for “nowhere”, those of us whose memories extend as far back as 2008 would not consider “nowhere” as a source of the current discussion.

  385. Employing binaries isn’t conducive to this discussion, Drew. Discussing continuums of patient involvement might actually lead to constructive conversation.

  386. Echo Zen: Employing binaries isn’t conducive to this discussion, Drew. Discussing continuums of patient involvement might actually lead to constructive conversation.

    I agree. And I’m sorry if I implied the idea of a binary. But the original suggestion (of full autonomy) was, I feel, too far to one end of that continuum.

  387. This row came out of several regular commenters having it in for Clarisse Thorn, and just waiting for some convenient pretext to jump all over her and rile up the crowd that’s always dying to be scandalized by something new (with the predictable cowardly distancing of the regulars). If it hadn’t been about Schwyzer, it would have been something else, but he has the added benefit of attracting a bigger sour grapes brigade because of previous blog-wars.

    Oh for the love of pilot lights.

    Well, at least it took over 300 comments to get to “U R all just jellus” this time? Progress of a sort, I suppose.

    I won’t pretend to know what “the cowardly distancing of the regulars” is about, but I will note that you’re posting as “anon for this.” I have a spare irony detector if yours is out of service. I’d be happy to lend it to you.

    As for the substance of your remarks, brainiac, which do you suppose is more likely:

    Women, some of whom have been victims of similar behavior to Schwyzer’s, are upset about the level of defensiveness and protection he has received from Clarisse and way too many other commenters on a feminist blog where, at the barest minimum, one might expect that the needs of such women would be prioritized;

    OR

    A few meanies have it in for Clarisse and were just waiting for the right moment to strike, which moment was conveniently provided by some schmo on the internet admitting to attempted murder, LOL! What’s THAT about, huh? Anyway, boo, Clarisse!

    Conspiracy theories don’t make you a clever little prodigy who knows What’s Really Going On, you know. Conspiracy theories put you in company with birthers, truthers, and the like. Yeah, I’d be anon for that, too.

  388. Anon for this: The outrage tsunami would look more plausibly spontaneous if it weren’t the case that Schwyzer had been approvingly linked to from here after he made his confession with not a word of complaint from the usual suspects until it had to do with Clarisse and them being eager to step over her boundaries (btw, given that the story comes from him writing about it on his own blog almost a year ago, the people here saying that anything was “revealed” on that closed down thread sound ridiculously disingenuous).

    Well, I can’t possibly speak for anyone else, but I’ve been reading Feministe since 2007 or 2008 and have only once or twice read anything by Schwyzer. I find him obnoxious and don’t read his work, and had never heard of any of these things until the post the other day. I don’t find it implausible that plenty of other people around here didn’t know about it either.

  389. Well, I can’t possibly speak for anyone else, but I’ve been reading Feministe since 2007 or 2008 and have only once or twice read anything by Schwyzer. I find him obnoxious and don’t read his work, and had never heard of any of these things until the post the other day. I don’t find it implausible that plenty of other people around here didn’t know about it either.

    Same here. Reading through all these threads, the idea that this is all some kind of excuse to pile on Thorn doesn’t hold any water at all. As far as I can tell, very few commenters seem to give much of a flying fucke about Thorn herself, except to the extent that her lauding and protection of Schwyzer is viewed as a symptom of a broader issue.

  390. suspect class: Well, I can’t possibly speak for anyone else, but I’ve been reading Feministe since 2007 or 2008 and have only once or twice read anything by Schwyzer. I find him obnoxious and don’t read his work, and had never heard of any of these things until the post the other day. I don’t find it implausible that plenty of other people around here didn’t know about it either.

    I’m not sure if I count as one of the cowardly regulars, but this is my experience as well. Which is probably a sign that I need to diversify (and un-whiten) my blog habits a little more, but that’s secondary.

  391. ilyka: which do you suppose is more likely:

    Women, some of whom have been victims of similar behavior to Schwyzer’s, are upset about the level of defensiveness and protection he has received from Clarisse

    Yeah, right. Now compare:

    EG: I agree [that Clarisse should “examine” her reactions]. She and I and some other commenters were in a fairly heated but civil argument about the value or lack thereof of sex-positive feminism sometime ago, when she abruptly shut off comments because we were “talking past” each other or something like that. […] I really resented that […]

    As for the sour grapes brigade:

    La Lubu: As for “nowhere”, those of us whose memories extend as far back as 2008 would not consider “nowhere” as a source of the current discussion.

    I suppose that’s as close as anyone will get to admitting that their fundamental beef with Schwyzer is actually that he defended Amanda Marcotte when BFP falsely accused her of plagiarism.

  392. LotusBen: I checked Schwyzer’s Wikipedia entry, and there is no reference to any of his problematic history, let alone his attempted murder. Someone could edit that.

    I made a note about it on the talk page.

  393. Yes, but the article about this particular incident has been common knowledge among folks who’ve been following (or stalking) Schwyzer for years, professionally or otherwise. There was no mass outrage then, even as the article got heavy play on social networking sites when it was first published.

    Social networking sites? Dude, Schwyzer could join the fucking Moonies tomorrow, or torch the deYoung, or disappear altogether, and I wouldn’t find out about it unless and until someone mentioned it here. I haven’t been following or stalking Schwyzer for years. I’ve been actively avoiding him for years, since back when he was an anti-abortion feel-my-pain dickhead. I don’t go out of my way to learn about people I dislike. I definitely don’t link them on social-networking sites, or read updates on their activities.

    I had no idea about this, and I think a lot of people who were vaguely aware of him were in the same situation. And I think the comments thread reflects that, and is basically, “Ew, Hugo?” “Yeah, Hugo sucks,” “Hey, did you guys know he tried to kill somebody one time?” “HE WHAT?” And I was one of those people who was all, “HE WHAT?” I did not know. And I still am a little bit shocked.

    And this is how it usually works. For example, if you go to Hugo’s blog and read his latest (and only) comment on this whole thing, you have to dig down two layers of links to find out exactly why people are all, “HE WHAT?” And you might not even know you should if you don’t read at least one long associated comments thread. People don’t do that unless they’re curious, and they’re not curious about people they’ve already written off. That’s the internet. And you know, if you have a professional interest in making a bunch of antagonists seem like hysterical bitches, then you can really use that default opacity to your advantage.

  394. Other feminists have been angrily emailing me, Tweeting at me, etc with things like “FUCK YOU FOR PROTECTING THIS WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING.” But I have seen no evidence that Hugo hasn’t made an honest and sustained effort at recovery and accountability. I have seen no evidence that Hugo’s religious re-conversion was dishonest. And I have seen no evidence that Hugo continues problematic behavior.

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/23/on-change-and-accountability/

    So Thorn believes that skeptical or wary persons should provide evidence that Schwyzer currently behaves problematically before they announce their suspicion, objections and condemnation?

    But what does Schwyzer himself say about suspicion?

    Men who grumble about being “guilty until proven innocent” are demanding to be seen as individuals, separate from their perceived sex and the history that goes with it. That’s a tempting but unreasonable demand to make.

    In a society where women, rather than men, are overwhelmingly the victims of harassment and assault, those who have suffered most are the ones being asked to lay aside their prior experience and knowledge and approach each new male in their lives with a blank slate, free from judgment. That’s a hell of a weight to ask women to carry, and a hell of a risk to ask them to take, again and again and again.

    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-rape-culture-all-men-are-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

    Alright then. If it is legitimate and understandable for women to be wary and suspicious of men who may not have individually committed acts of violation and abuse, I do not see how it is unreasonable or “judgmental” to maintain suspicion of a man who admittedly committed multiple acts of abuse and violation towards women. In addition to the collective “history” and present that goes with his male gender, he has his own individual “history” which is cause for ample concern on its own terms.

  395. Anon for this: I suppose that’s as close as anyone will get to admitting that their fundamental beef with Schwyzer is actually that he defended Amanda Marcotte when BFP falsely accused her of plagiarism.

    *actually*. If you want to be entirely correct–my fundamental beef is that I HATE WHITE WOMINNZ!!!!! I AM JEALOUS OF THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!! WHITE WOMEN!!!! WHY U SO PRETTY AND SMART!!!???

  396. I suppose that’s as close as anyone will get to admitting that their fundamental beef with Schwyzer is actually that he defended Amanda Marcotte when BFP falsely accused her of plagiarism.

    Well, no. This isn’t about this one thing he did way back when. I started disliking him when he called a woman a murderer when she had a selective reduction–and wrote an all-about-my-pain post about her pregnancy. And I disliked him more the next several times I encountered him, when he came off as a smarmy, condescending, self-centered dick. Then I found out that he had slept with many of his students, and I disliked him even more. Then I found out about this, and was horrified. And then I saw that Clarisse was cracking down on all the women who had the same reaction I did, and I was even more horrified.

  397. Fennel: I think that the fact that a man who admits to attempting to murder a woman is welcomed and coddled in liberal feminist circles should bring up some very important questions that liberal feminists need to answer.

    Fennel: something that liberal feminists should be asking themselves about their ideology if *this* sort of a man is to be allowed a voice – and encouraged. Why has he chosen liberal feminism? What’s in it for him?

    delphyne: Somehow a man telling liberal feminsts he has harmed women turns him into a good guy to them,

    delphyne: None of his anti-feminist, anti-woman activities or beliefs have had any impact on his standing amongst liberal feminists.

    delphyne: This thread makes me so glad I am a radical feminist, because Schwyzer has had zero traction in radical feminism, in fact it has been radical feminists who have exposed him, pointed out what sort of man he is and will continue to do so.

    delphyne: He doesn’t need to be protected by feminism or rather by liberal feminists,

    Not that I’m sure exactly what “liberal feminism” means to those who love to attack it — I guess it’s something akin to “fun feminism,” or to not being sufficiently pure and steadfast ideologically, or simply to not being a
    radical feminist — but whatever it means, it’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that all liberal feminists, or all non-radical feminists, have supported and defended Hugo Schwyzer or continue to suffort and defend him, either in general or in this particular case. I suspect that a great many women who’ve posted on this thread might (like me) fall into the criticized category, to a greater or lesser extent (whether or not it’s ever occurred to them to identify as such — I can’t say I have), and yet, like me, the overwhelming majority of women posting here don’t welcome him, coddle him, encourage him, or consider him a good guy or anything like it.

    I really wish that those self-identified radical feminists who take every opportunity to criticize other feminisms would spend a great deal more time examining and acknowledging the plank in their own eye, specifically the failures and reprehensible actions taken in the name of their own movement over the last 40 years, and the enormous harm that’s been done.* Instead of engaging in the kind of rhetoric quoted above. It’s infuriating, under the circumstances.

    Donna

    * One example (to make my point, not to start an off-topic discussion), from Monica Roberts’s TransGriot, perhaps the most well-known trans WOC blog: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-trans-community-hates-dr-janice-g.html

  398. I actually have appreciated Thorne’s writings on sex positivity, it’s Schwizer I object to. I’ve always found him off-putting when I first became aware of him during his defense of Marcotte, and honestly hadn’t known he was considered to be a “name” in feminism. What with him being a man and all.

    He and I are probably of an age, and I find his gall to say that he has the authority to teach young women feminism utterly repellent. And I thought that before I knew about the attempted murder, only due to the fact that he slept with students our age.

  399. Yeah, right. Now compare:

    EG: I agree [that Clarisse should “examine” her reactions]. She and I and some other commenters were in a fairly heated but civil argument about the value or lack thereof of sex-positive feminism sometime ago, when she abruptly shut off comments because we were “talking past” each other or something like that. […] I really resented that […]

    This was when people were insisting that any “beef” with Clarisse was related to an isolated incident involving unforseen circumstances. It’s not that we have a problem with Clarisse, it’s that her reaction seems to be much more about kneejerk defensiveness than hate mail and comments out of control, because she gets defensive a lot.

  400. Oh, and. The reason everyone keeps bringing up old business regarding Hugo Schwyzer isn’t that people are obsessed with Amanda Marcotte. It’s that a bunch of commenters have been defending him by claiming that this episode was addiction, or depression, or unspecified mental illness, or unregenerate misogyny I guess, and that he is totally over all of these things and does not behave like this anymore. And so people are like, well, no, he’s not such a nice guy now, either. He’s kind of a dick. And his sordid past is a lot more recent than this one terrible thing.

  401. This row came out of several regular commenters having it in for Clarisse Thorn, and just waiting for some convenient pretext to jump all over her and rile up the crowd

    Just for shits and grins, I used the “search” function for Clarisse’s posts on Feministe, and didn’t see any evidence of the sort. For the most part, the Feministe regulars are very supportive of her posts, and even the comments critical of certain of her posts were/are respectful. Calling bullshit on this on, “Anon”, just like I’m calling bullshit on your “false accusation” nonsense (you prudently avoided the issue of racism, I note). I think ilyka has it right: Yeah, I’d be anon for that, too.

  402. piny: It’s not that we have a problem with Clarisse, it’s that her reaction seems to be much more about kneejerk defensiveness than hate mail and comments out of control, because she gets defensive a lot.

    Because we all know women totally lie when they talk about how upsetting hate mail is to them, especially those “defensive” ones.

    Jill herself admitted that Clarisse asked her that someone else moderate the thread because she could not emotionally deal with it and he abuse she was receiving through email. Jill told her nobody was interested in doing that, and that she should close the thread if she felt she had to. So she did. And now she’s being accused of propping up a racist misogynist while sucking his cock. Nice. I guess that’s what one deserves for breaking feminism (again).

  403. Yes, I believe she received hate mail. But she didn’t react badly to hate mail. She reacted badly to people attacking a man she thought of as a friend:

    I am closing comments on this thread because I have received multiple email complaints about the ugliness of its tone. I would also suggest that throwing around psychological diagnoses without a background in psychology is, at the very least, irresponsible.

    She herself says that she didn’t close comments because she got hate mail, but because people were being unpleasant towards Hugo:

    Because of Hugo’s history, a lot of people really don’t like him. When I posted the interview at Feministe, one of the top feminist blogs, the comments exploded. Pretty soon, the comments had nothing to do with the interview at all. Some commenters were making amateur psychological diagnoses of Hugo, and other readers were emailing me privately to express shock at how ugly the discussion had gotten. So I closed down the discussion, making it impossible to continue commenting in that particular forum. As a result, I have now received more hate mail from other feminists than I ever have from anti-feminists. (Note: I have not received a small amount of hate mail from anti-feminists.)

    And then she posted about this issue again, to defend Hugo and disparage the women who were angry about his presence, and then pre-emptively closed comments. That is not stepping away from a contentious issue for the sake of your sanity. That is getting the last word in and then stepping away before anyone can challenge you. That is defensiveness.

  404. piny: And so people are like, well, no, he’s not such a nice guy now, either. He’s kind of a dick.

    I’ve never had a positive view of him as a person, and can’t think of a single thing he’s written that was simultaneously original and insightful. I think Clarisse is mistaken to the extent that she has a good opinion of him. But just interviewing him and then not taking abuse from people who felt entitled to comment on her post once she’d had enough didn’t break feminism – it wasn’t even wrong – and doesn’t warrant the sort of response she’s gotten.

  405. Social networking sites? Dude, Schwyzer could join the fucking Moonies tomorrow, or torch the deYoung, or disappear altogether, and I wouldn’t find out about it unless and until someone mentioned it here. I haven’t been following or stalking Schwyzer for years. I’ve been actively avoiding him for years, since back when he was an anti-abortion feel-my-pain dickhead. I don’t go out of my way to learn about people I dislike. I definitely don’t link them on social-networking sites, or read updates on their activities.

    THIS!

    And you know what, I’m really, really tired of whatever-the-hell group it is–hard to say, when you’re “anon for this”–accusing people who’ve put their names to their words of holding grudges or harboring (and oh, this was precious) “longstanding personal beefs.” Because here is the thing about that: If noticing that mai’a’s treatment here was vastly different from Hugo’s treatment here is “personal beef,” then so is complaining about poor Amanda Marcotte, who is still writing professionally, still selling books, still cruising along as though nothing ever happened, having missed no opportunities, having suffered no measurable repercussions.

    That’s just personal beef too–or none of it is. Maybe people are upset for, get this, the reasons they say they are upset. Maybe attempted murder is reason enough to be upset. I cannot believe I just typed that.

    Insinuating that they aren’t “really” upset for the reasons they say they are means exactly one thing: You do not trust women. You do not trust women to communicate their feelings in an honest way. You reserve the right, in fact, to all but call them liars to their faces–in a cowardly, distancing way from behind a handle like “anon for this,” of course.

    What’s your personal beef, then? Here’s mine: Women, some women, some women who were predominantly not white, learned years ago that Hugo Schwyzer was not an ally to women–not, that is, if women includes women of color. Now it turns out that Hugo Schwyzer is really, really, REALLY not an ally to women, because you know what gets you kicked out of that club?–Trying to murder one. And now some of us are noticing that trying to murder a woman is apparently easier defended, easier forgiven, than taking your child to a bar, or noticing similarities in the work of women of color to blog posts slapped together by white women, or objecting to being labeled “an academic aside,” or, or, OR just use the goddamn search function, ’cause there are plenty of examples demonstrating exactly this discrepancy between the way a white male is treated at Feministe, and the way most women of color are.

    And narcissistic would-be “journalists” now want to pretend that this is just more of the same from some internet hate brigade that has it in for Clarisse Thorn for . . . why, exactly? Oh, right–the jealousy. The personal beefs.

    You know what? I get it. You’d like it to be about that because that would put you, and like-minded white people, squarely in the victim spot. You are all so picked on; you are all so abused; you are all so unfairly targeted. You are all so deserving of tea and sympathy.

    Well, riddle me this: If it’s all y’all who are so persecuted, and if this is all just over longstanding personal beefs, why was one of Schwyzer’s first actions in the wake of this scandal to try to follow on Twitter some of the same women of color he rained judgment upon three years ago?

    I’ll tell you why: Because HE wants there to be a connection, between now and three years ago. He hasn’t had the level of attention he used to get back then lately–really, the people who are telling you they long ago quit reading him are not lying to you. He wants that connection; he wants this to be about Hugo The Victim, not about Hugo The Attempted Murderer. Anything he can do to forge that connection is a win for him; thanks for helping him do it, you spineless oaf. He thrives on negative attention, he thrives on contrived redemption narratives. He knows exactly what he’s doing. A would-be murderer he may be, but the tragic part is, he’s smarter than all the people excusing and defending him.

  406. “Stalking” Hugo, really? Really?? Paying attention to what a dude (who is so incredibly self-promoting that when you go to his website you’re greeted by his Rushmore-sized visage and who manages to “guest” appear on almost every major feminist blog) says online over a span of years is “stalking”?

  407. I suppose that’s as close as anyone will get to admitting that their fundamental beef with Schwyzer is actually that he defended Amanda Marcotte when BFP falsely accused her of plagiarism.

    Oh for fuck’s sake. No, absolutely not. Hugo playing white knight from on high and denigrating women of color is what happened and germane to his accountability (or lack thereof) in terms of the feminist community. One only has to read one of his posts about WASP culture to get a sense of his appalling lack of awareness on issues of race and class and his past history in all it’s fucked up glory bears directly on how he’s accountable or not.

  408. I’ve never had a positive view of him as a person, and can’t think of a single thing he’s written that was simultaneously original and insightful. I think Clarisse is mistaken to the extent that she has a good opinion of him. But just interviewing him and then not taking abuse from people who felt entitled to comment on her post once she’d had enough didn’t break feminism – it wasn’t even wrong – and doesn’t warrant the sort of response she’s gotten.

    She didn’t say, “I can’t do this anymore, I need a break.” She dismissed and insulted the women who were really upset about the presence of a man they see as an abuser–and who were then much more upset when they found out how much of an abuser he was. That’s what people are talking about. It’s not that she backed away from the discussion. It’s the way she treated the women she was arguing with.

    1. Jill herself admitted that Clarisse asked her that someone else moderate the thread because she could not emotionally deal with it and he abuse she was receiving through email. Jill told her nobody was interested in doing that, and that she should close the thread if she felt she had to. So she did.

      Just for the sake of clarity, that’s not what happened. We received emails asking to close the thread. Since it was Clarisse’s thread, I forwarded them to her and said “it’s your call.”

      What I said is that I should have paid more attention to what was happening on that thread, and I should have handled it better. I should have offered to mod, or, since I didn’t have the time, should have seen if the other Feministe bloggers were available.

  409. piny: It’s the way she treated the women she was arguing with.

    She didn’t let them – you – comment on her post. I’m fascinated to learn that being able to comment on a post is one of the fundamental human rights, and being denied it is an inexcusable affront to dignity (quick, someone call Melissa McEwan!)

  410. Oh, and compare this:

    I’ve never had a positive view of him as a person, and can’t think of a single thing he’s written that was simultaneously original and insightful.

    With this:

    I suppose that’s as close as anyone will get to admitting that their fundamental beef with Schwyzer is actually that he defended Amanda Marcotte when BFP falsely accused her of plagiarism.

    Gee, maybe it’s not just this one unfortunate and oh-so-regrettable isolated incident from a million (give or take) years ago? Or are you the only one who’s allowed to sensibly think that Hugo is an asshole without redeeming qualities?

  411. piny: Or are you the only one who’s allowed to sensibly think that Hugo is an asshole without redeeming qualities?

    Strangely, I’m able to hold that opinion without thinking I should heap abuse on a regular guest blogger who thinks differently while the headliners wash their hands off her (even while Jill says she okayed the comment-closing, and would have okayed the interview). I just hope everyone who took the time to write Clarisse hate mail took as much time to write some to Hugo (and Jill).

    1. Strangely, I’m able to hold that opinion without thinking I should heap abuse on a regular guest blogger who thinks differently while the headliners wash their hands off her (even while Jill says she okayed the comment-closing, and would have okayed the interview). I just hope everyone who took the time to write Clarisse hate mail took as much time to write some to Hugo (and Jill).

      Oh don’t worry, they have (at least to me).

      I’ve stayed out of this thread because I’ve been trying to let the community get out their grievances and frustrations and feelings, which were cut off (and exacerbated) when the previous thread was closed. I agree that it’s unfair to heap all of the blame on Clarisse (if that’s your point here, which I’m not sure it is). A lot of things went wrong, and there were a lot of bad decisions made by various people, myself included. But I also think it’s good to give people the space to express their feelings about this whole situation, and all of our roles in it.

  412. She didn’t let them – you – comment on her post. I’m fascinated to learn that being able to comment on a post is one of the fundamental human rights, and being denied it is an inexcusable affront to dignity (quick, someone call Melissa McEwan!)

    Well, yeah, to be fair, no bamboo slivers were shoved under fingernails.

    Except, wait, that’s equally true of both sides, so what the fuck was your point again?

    It was incredibly disrespectful of her, and I say anti-feminist, to insult a group of women whose anger about Hugo’s history and self-serving use thereof is at minimum totally fucking reasonable, and then refuse to let them respond. If she couldn’t handle a discussion with them, fine, go have a cup of tea and watch kitten videos, but don’t insult them all first, and dismiss their response as women and abuse survivors as so much cheap political distraction. Don’t act like that isn’t a totally worthwhile discussion. And especially don’t shut them up because you’re actually upset about their harsh treatment of your male friend, who almost murdered his girlfriend. All of that was disgraceful. And she should have known better.

  413. Strangely, I’m able to hold that opinion without thinking I should heap abuse on a regular guest blogger who thinks differently while the headliners wash their hands off her (even while Jill says she okayed the comment-closing, and would have okayed the interview). I just hope everyone who took the time to write Clarisse hate mail took as much time to write some to Hugo (and Jill).

    So now Clarisse has not only been mistreated by these mean commenters who call her nasty things like “defensive,” but also by the fact that Caperton apologized in editorial while she went off and drowned her sorrows or whatever. And although Clarisse has total control over her posts and threads, and every right to moderate those threads as she sees fit, it’s actually her co-bloggers’ responsibility to cover for her when she screws up. Except, they can’t respond on her behalf or do independent damage control. Great.

  414. Anon for this:
    Shedidn’tletthem–you–commentonherpost.I’mfascinatedto
    learnthatbeingabletocommentonapostisoneofthe
    fundamentalhumanrights,andbeingdenieditisan
    inexcusableaffronttodignity(quick,someonecallMelissaMcEwan!)

    my goodness, why are you behaving like such an asshat?!

    there are ca. 350 comments that make this point already: people did not get angry because clarisse chose to close a comments thread.

    people got angry because a) hugo schwyzer’s history and present behaviour,
    b) because a prominent feminist blog like feministe gave him an explicit forum to talk about himself yet again,
    c) new shit came to light (sorry, i couldn’t resist that phrasing), namely, that he attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend (and no, i did not know that),
    d) people were shocked and reacted, maybe not always appropriately but never viciously, to this fucking frightening piece of new information,
    e) clarisse then decided to close down the thread where people were talking about this, officially due to a “tone” argument,
    f) clarisse then posted another blog post about forgiveness that sounded more than condescending to a lot of people, including me, AND decided to preemptively close the comments before anyone could disagree or challenge her view.

    but, as it has been pointed out before: this is kind of what most feminist blogs, especially feministe in the past (to my experience) are about. it’s about the discussion. it is about providing a forum for debate and hopefully learning something in the process. it’s about providing a space for women* and feminist allies.

    yet, instead of maybe addressing or at least thinking about the issues that people have brought forward, namely schwyzer’s racist behaviour towards WOC, the abuse of a power structure to get laid, and, last but not least, THE ATTEMPTED MURDER that he confessed (after checking with a lawyer that he is indeed safe from any legal repercussions, but has a wonderful new purgatory story to tell), people can’t help but defend him against all these upset, silly women and/or mourn white women’s tears for awesome white dude.

    fuck that.

  415. Some commenters were making amateur psychological diagnoses of Hugo,

    That reminds me. I don’t recall anyone diagnosing him other than saying he was narcissistic. (And some sociopathy?) But didn’t Hugo say he is under treatment for NPD? So how was that “armchair diagnosing”?

  416. Call her a drunk, too, won’t you? Classy.

    ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? You are either the most intellectually dishonest person I’ve met online, or the most obtuse. Forget Hugo. You’re officially the most full of shit on the internet.

    Right. I totally just called her a drunk.

    Fuck you.

  417. If I had made some crack about a pint of ice cream, would you have accused me of hanging binge-eating disorder around her neck? You’re unbelievable, you know that? I’m glad I don’t know who you are. Hopefully you can win free of whatever troll demon has its teeth into your neck and start acting like a responsible adult, and under your own name, and then I won’t have to forever think of you as that douche who thinks that “drowning her sorrows” is actually a coded reference to Clarisse’s drinking problem.

  418. LC: I don’t recall anyone diagnosing him other than saying he was narcissistic. (And some sociopathy?) But didn’t Hugo say he is under treatment for NPD? So how was that “armchair diagnosing”?

    Again, I have no love for the guy, but mental illness was tossed around in the perjorative on that thread. I personally wouldn’t have been sure where the line was between benign referencing of a previously diagnosed mental illness and just being ableist.

  419. Florence: I personally wouldn’t have been sure where the line was between benign referencing of a previously diagnosed mental illness and just being ableist.

    Fair point, thanks.

  420. Drew: Okay, let me spell it out for you. Mental health rights advocates seek complete autonomy, as you said. This translates, in practical terms, to:

    1. Freedom to live where we wish. No forced hospitalization, no making housing and other services contingent on taking psychiatric drugs.

    2. Freedom from medication. While some people have anecdotally reported curing themselves of mental problems with substances like marijuana, Ecstasy and hallucinogens, the movement’s main focus is not on legalizing these but on making sure no one is forced to take psychiatric medication, exposing the lies of drug companies regarding their safety and effectiveness, and changing the culture so that pills are not seen as the be-all and end-all answer to emotional distress.

    3. FREEDOM FROM DIAGNOSIS. Diagnosis of mental health problems is not clear-cut the way diagnosis of a broken bone is, you can’t see the problem on an X-ray nor guarantee that the treatment will stop it. The way diagnoses get into the DSM is not a scientific process but a political and corrupt one. And the problem with looking at people’s emotional problems through the lens of psychiatric diagnosis is that it provides an excuse to not listen to anything they say, because after all “their brains are impaired”, and to claim veto power over any kind of decisions they make about their own lives. Having the people around you pay more attention to the labels doctors have slapped on you than to your own interpretation of your own life story is incredibly damaging.

    Lotusben: Thanks for the support.

    Vanessa: I don’t think anybody should have treatment forced on them, period. I believe that if you truly care about someone you should be there for them yourself instead of palming them off to professionals who’ve already proven themselves to be abusive.

  421. Sarah Harper: Drew: Okay, let me spell it out for you. Mental health rights advocates seek complete autonomy, as you said. This translates, in practical terms, to:
    1. Freedom to live where we wish. No forced hospitalization, no making housing and other services contingent on taking psychiatric drugs.
    2. Freedom from medication. While some people have anecdotally reported curing themselves of mental problems with substances like marijuana, Ecstasy and hallucinogens, the movement’s main focus is not on legalizing these but on making sure no one is forced to take psychiatric medication, exposing the lies of drug companies regarding their safety and effectiveness, and changing the culture so that pills are not seen as the be-all and end-all answer to emotional distress.
    3. FREEDOM FROM DIAGNOSIS. Diagnosis of mental health problems is not clear-cut the way diagnosis of a broken bone is, you can’t see the problem on an X-ray nor guarantee that the treatment will stop it. The way diagnoses get into the DSM is not a scientific process but a political and corrupt one. And the problem with looking at people’s emotional problems through the lens of psychiatric diagnosis is that it provides an excuse to not listen to anything they say, because after all “their brains are impaired”, and to claim veto power over any kind of decisions they make about their own lives. Having the people around you pay more attention to the labels doctors have slapped on you than to your own interpretation of your own life story is incredibly damaging.

    I can see your position much better now, and I’m sorry that I was saying offensive things. Thank you.

  422. Is Narcissistic Personality disorder a disability? I mean, is the concept of ableism really applicable to it? How about antisocial personality disorder (aka sociopathy)? Not every diagnosable condition or state is necessarily a disability and I don’t think the concept of “being ableist” really applies when talking about how we regard someone whose disorder is mostly manifested through his generally feeling entitled to behave badly towards others. And at what point is calling a man who has been diagnosed with NPD out on his misogynist and racist shit also “being ableist” because, after all, as a narcissist, he can’t help it?

  423. Branwen: And at what point is calling a man who has been diagnosed with NPD out on his misogynist and racist shit also “being ableist” because, after all, as a narcissist, he can’t help it?

    Can we stop doing this, please?

    Explaining something is not the same as excusing something.

    Explaining something is not the same as excusing something.

    Explaining something is not the same as excusing something.

    “Some of Hugos actions are explained by his NPD” =/= “he can’t help it”

  424. saurus:

    [Mod note here: Try not to quote an entire long comment–trim it down or summarize. saurus’s name there links to the full comment in question. -Caperton]

    This comment from Saurus was brilliant, and of course, ignored.

    I want to see these conversations happen, too.

    I also really recommend reading the radical hub. The women who blog there are always right on the mark, and they smelled Hugo’s dubiousness long ago.

    http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/steering-the-sluts-update/

  425. Maybe a part of the stigma around being diagnosed with a mental illness is the idea that anyone with a mental illness should never be held accountable for their actions because “they can’t help it, they have ____”.

    It really needs to stop.

  426. Branwen: Is Narcissistic Personality disorder a disability? I mean, is the concept of ableism really applicable to it? How about antisocial personality disorder (aka sociopathy)?

    Not an expert on the DSM or ableism, but NPD is a personality disorder, meaning it’s a cluster of traits that are endemic to the individual’s personality and not responsive to medication or (typically) treatment. My personal problem here is the stigmatization of mental illness in general and the casual use of labels like narcissistic and psychopathic to describe traits or behaviors that are clinically neither.

    Anyway, these things are serious. People with these traits leave a wake of personal and professional destruction in their paths. I don’t think we benefit by taking it lightly.

  427. Sarah Harper: Vanessa: I don’t think anybody should have treatment forced on them, period. I believe that if you truly care about someone you should be there for them yourself instead of palming them off to professionals who’ve already proven themselves to be abusive.

    OK, but what if they *aren’t* abusive? Should we just let depressed teenagers kill themselves, if that’s what they think they want?

  428. I think the whole idea of a personality disorder is problematic enough that fitting it neatly under the umbrella of “mental illnesses” does not work. We recognize some men have a pattern of lying, cheating, and harming to get what they want. We can diagnose them with antisocial personality disorder. Recognizing that lifestyle pattern is not at all the same as diagnosing someone with schizophrenia, practically speaking.

  429. vanessa: OK, but what if they *aren’t* abusive? Should we just let depressed teenagers kill themselves, if that’s what they think they want?

    That’s the problem I have with the “self diagnosis” or “freedom from diagnosis” part. If a man returns from Iraq and wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, and flips out at loud noises.. should we just take his word that he *doesn’t* have PTSD, if he decides he doesn’t?

  430. Branwen: I think the whole idea of a personality disorder is problematic enough that fitting it neatly under the umbrella of “mental illnesses” does not work. We recognize some men have a pattern of lying, cheating, and harming to get what they want. We can diagnose them with antisocial personality disorder. Recognizing that lifestyle pattern is not at all the same as diagnosing someone with schizophrenia, practically speaking.

    I feel like a) asking you to elaborate is a total derail, and b) you have no idea what you’re talking about. So, okay.

  431. EG: I reject the premise that feminism requires pacifism.

    Seconded.

    Rodeo: But if we’re talking about true justice, and not just vindictiveness..

    I don’t think this “twoo justice’ can be achieved. For small stuff, like drug possession, robbery, shoplifting, I think restorative justice might be the way to go. But if you’re talking stuff like rape, murder, assualt, my instinct is to go with vindictiveness. If I found out that someone I knew had been raped, or I’d been raped, I’d just buy a gun.

    As for Hugo. I dunno. People who are depressed tend to get into weird headspaces. And former addicts tend to be really immature- to the point that you should knock one year off their age for each year that they were addicted. Not saying that what he did was any less wrong, but considering that he was not in his right state of mind, maybe the tar and feathering could be postponed?

  432. It’s pretty ridiculous and rude to say *I* have no idea I am talking about because you didn’t understand one post. Suffice to say, moreso than many other aspects of psychology, the personality disorder system is constructed based on subjective observations and not scientific research or other verifiable, empirical evidence. If you read a little about the history of the DSM and how these categories were chosen and constructed, you will see how little in common they have with something like depression or schizophrenia which have been observed throughout history, cross-culturally.

    All that to say, Schwyzer clearly brings up his NPD diagnosis (alleged) as another tool of manipulation, and anyone who shouts “ableism!” when it is mentioned is only further muddying the water in favor of his escaping accountability.

  433. suspect class: have only once or twice read anything by Schwyzer. I find him obnoxious and don’t read his work, and had never heard of any of these things until the post the other day. I don’t find it implausible that plenty of other people around here didn’t know about it either.

    This. Don’t care for him. Turned off by his voice when I read it. But had no idea he tried to kill his ex-girlfriend. For me, it was quite the ‘whoa’ moment and an informative and compelling thread.

    And nothing against Clarisse. Just feeling that if you’re going to bring a person as controversial as Schwyzer with that loaded a history to someplace like Feministe, with the context of the blog article being accountability, you ought to be open to hearing what your commenters think about that (especially when a bunch of them are finding out for the first time that your subject tried to kill a woman). Not cutting them off because of “tone” complaints, or because some opinions about your subject are uncomfortable to hear. As a reader and occasional commenter, I’d be unhappy if any of the moderators had put up something provocative and controversial, been irritated and dismissive of the voices of survivors and others, and then shut down the conversation.

    This is part of a larger discussion about those activists that have the power of a platform and how they use that platform and whose voices they privilege. It’s an ongoing issue that everyone’s seen crop up many times before, and one that’s sure as hell going to smolder and explode again in the future. Now we’re hearing perspectives about centering survivors and variations of justice and privileged voices and so forth, a conversation imo always worth having. So I’m puzzled as to why anyone would assert that this is all a convenient excuse to hate on CT.

    Sheelzebub: You want to be an ally? Be a great anti-racist, anti-misogynist, pro-feminist, pro-LGBT, pro-disability awareness and rights advocate at work, in whatever your job is. Bring that to your friends and family and colleagues and fellow congregants or fellow activists. I’d much rather these allies brought this to the forefront within their general activism than make their living off of it. I’d much rather they actually gave a shit rather than use this “expertise” (barf) as a bludgeoning stick against other groups they feel threatened by.

    But no marginalized group is a job opportunity, for fuck’s sake.

    I like the whole comment this comes from, but especially this. I wish that last part were true.

  434. Branwen: and anyone who shouts “ableism!” when it is mentioned is only further muddying the water in favor of his escaping accountability.

    WTF are you talking about?

  435. Branwen: And at what point is calling a man who has been diagnosed with NPD out on his misogynist and racist shit also “being ableist” because, after all, as a narcissist, he can’t help it?

    Is this where this stems from? Are you seriously arguing a straw disabled-rights person here? No one said this. No one said we cannot call Hugo out on his misogyny and racism because of his NPD. No one. And if someone said a person with NPD cannot control their actions, they’d be wrong. Period. Fullstop. That is not what NPD is.

    Sorry someone said something ableist earlier and got called on it, but put your big-boy pants on and get over it. FFS. He is not in any way absolved from guilt when we call people on ableism. What offensive bullshit.

  436. Recognizing that lifestyle pattern is not at all the same as diagnosing someone with schizophrenia, practically speaking.

    This. I work in a psychiatric hospital, and you absolutely *do* know what you are talking about. More troubling than the NPD diagnosis, which is troubling enough, is the Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnosis, which he has also written about. The main “symptom” of APD is hurting the hell out of the people and animals around you, and not having the capacity to feel remorse for doing so.

  437. “Big boy pants”? I think you misgendered me. Either way, I find it offensive in this context. I have nothing else to say about this, because I think you have fundamentally misunderstood where I am coming from on several levels. As a disabled feminist myself, I do NOT want Schwyzer lumped into the category of “people struggling with bias against the disabled in an oppressive society” because he was bold enough to let us know his shrink thinks he is self-centered and entitled to the point of pathology. I find his blatant manipulative abuse of the language of mental illness and disability to be yet another red flag showing who he really is, nothing else.

  438. Question: How did he open all the gas burners AND pull the stove away from the wall, pointing the gas jet directly onto his victim’s face? Wouldn’t that disconnect the gas line from the stove, making the open burners ineffective?

    Also: one person way upthread noted that he had sex with a woman who was not in control of her faculties ( e.g, he raped her) immediately after she had been tied up and raped by her drug dealer). Schwyzer noticed the ligature marks on her wrists.

    This man basically wrote a torture porn piece to illustrate how he related to a reader of his who accidentally let someone’s dog out of the house, in an area plentiful with coyotes.

  439. It may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus saying that:

    1) I appreciate the apology and the opportunity to discuss the issues raised by the Schwyzer posts.

    2) While I don’t think that this episode was the Worst Thing Ever or that Clarisse should have her feminism card (or blogging privileges) revoked, I do agree that she handled things pretty badly here. I can understand someone needing to step away from an upsetting comment thread or angry emails, but I think a lot of the anger Clarisse generated was a product of how she did so. It’s one thing to post an update that saying that the posts and emails have become personally difficult for you to deal with and so discussion is being closed. It’s another to tell people that their (really pretty tame and civil) comments crossed a line and then post a long, no-comments-allowed follow up in which you accuse people of just not getting it because they refused to ignore your subject’s abusive history.

    3) I was not aware of Schwyzer’s history prior to this series of discussions — I was really only vaguely aware of him as an internet personality — but having now read a lot of his posts and a lot of responding commentary, I agree with those who are creeped out by his more recent actions and attitudes as well as the older stories he’s shared. I don’t think that any and all conversations about him are off-limits, but he’s not someone I’m personally particularly interested in reading about.

    4) I’m similarly uninterested in the discussion about whether Schwyzer has really changed and if he’s redeemed himself. I don’t know how I’m supposed to be able to tell that based on some blog posts he’s made, and in the context of whether he’s a good person to put forward as a feminist authority, I don’t particularly think it matters. There are other voices I’d rather hear from that get less than a fraction of the space and attention Schwyzer does, and privileging his voice despite his past behavior — even if he’s really and truly repented — is, as evidenced by this discussion, obviously alienating for many feminists.

    5) Finally, I would echo all of the people who have rightly pointed out that forgiveness is not an obligation. I think there are a lot of interesting conversations to be had about how we treat people who have committed crimes and when and how to reintegrate them into our communities, but when it comes to any specific person’s feelings toward any specific perpetrator, no one has a right to demand they get over it. One of the consequences of doing bad things — which I’m sure we’ve all done, to lesser and (much) greater extents — is that sometimes people’s feelings towards you change forever. No amount of being sorry can undo what you did. Actually accepting responsibility for your actions means respecting the negative reactions other people may have to those actions.

  440. Anon for this: Yeah, right. Now compare:

    EG: I agree [that Clarisse should “examine” her reactions]. She and I and some other commenters were in a fairly heated but civil argument about the value or lack thereof of sex-positive feminism sometime ago, when she abruptly shut off comments because we were “talking past” each other or something like that. […] I really resented that […]

    If you go back to the original thread, you’ll note that I wasn’t participating. I wasn’t participating in it because a) I’ve heard of Schwyzer here and there but have never found him very interesting, so why would I care about an interview with him, and b) I tend not to read CT’s posts, as I’m not very interested in the sex lives of people I don’t know. So the idea that I was just lying in wait to pounce on CT the minute she slipped is a bizarre overestimation of how much I care about her; if I had been looking for an excuse to fight her, believe me, I would have been all over her posts with a fine-toothed comb. Fortunately, I have a life, so when a sex-positive feminist and I have a disagreement, and it is the same disagreement I have been having with sex-positive feminists for over ten years now, I mostly shrug, file it away in my “…and this is why I have no time for sex-positive feminism” box, and move on to reading things by people whose posts I find more interesting and useful.

    I looked at the thread when people whose thoughts I always find interesting seemed to be posting and the thread seemed to garnering more comments than CT’s posts usually do. She closed it, she did this finger-wagging “you were mean and no back talk” post, and I thought “Yes, that seems very much in character with what happened before.” Did I bring it up before asked? No. Did I email anybody–CT, Jill, Caperton–about it? No. I believe I made one comment on the cross-linked blog to the effect of “Of course Feministe readers are commenting here; she closed comments and referred us here” in response to a commenter on that blog who was shocked and horrified that people were insisting on discussing something that CT had made clear she didn’t want discussed, and how could they!

    And when Caperton opened up a thread specifically about how Feministe as an entity had handled this entire situation, yes, I made a comment noting that this action was completely in line with something CT had done previously that I felt demonstrated similar disrespect to commenters and a similar disinclination to put up with people disagreeing with her in public. Then, my evil plan to DESTROY CLARISSE THORN completed, I made myself a cup of tea and ate a few cookies.

    Jeez. Do you really think that CT is that important? Your criteria for a personal vendetta waiting to happen seems to be as low as hers for an “ugly” tone. Please release your pearls and relax on the fainting couch as you try to take in that it’s possible to think that somebody’s done something irritating and disrespectful more than one time without actually caring very much.

    piny: Social networking sites? Dude, Schwyzer could join the fucking Moonies tomorrow, or torch the deYoung, or disappear altogether, and I wouldn’t find out about it unless and until someone mentioned it here.

    Ditto. Especially given that I avoid social networking sites like the plague. I read Feministe, I read ABW, I read the New York Times, I read my email, I check a few sites that have to do with my job. That is the sum total of my time on the internet. Just as CT does not show up on my mental list of “People to Take Down Whenever I Have the Chance” (if you must know, it is comprised of politicians who do terrible things and people I went to high school with), Schwyzer does not figure much in my political considerations. Every so often I see/hear/read his name mentioned and I think “Oh, yeah, that guy. I think I’ve heard his name before.”

    In other words: the feminist blogosphere is not the world. Some of us don’t actually spend all our lives immersed in it.

  441. piny: I started disliking him when he called a woman a murderer when she had a selective reduction–and wrote an all-about-my-pain post about her pregnancy.

    Whoa, what. And even if we leave aside everything else, by which I mean the attempted murder, he’s getting cited as a feminist? Fuck that shit.

    DonnaL: I really wish that those self-identified radical feminists who take every opportunity to criticize other feminisms would spend a great deal more time examining and acknowledging the plank in their own eye, specifically the failures and reprehensible actions taken in the name of their own movement over the last 40 years, and the enormous harm that’s been done.*

    Seconded. I have problems with liberal feminism, just as I have problems with liberalism in general, which come down to the fact that I genuinely do not believe that a fundamental commitment to social justice can be made and followed through on by operating only within our political system, but I stopped calling myself a radical feminist years ago, given particularly the poisonous rhetoric radical feminists have promoted about transpeople.

    Anon for this: But just interviewing him and then not taking abuse from people who felt entitled to comment on her post once she’d had enough didn’t break feminism – it wasn’t even wrong – and doesn’t warrant the sort of response she’s gotten.

    The abuse she’s gotten, she has said, has been through email. How, precisely, does closing the comment thread end abusive emails?

    Anon for this: I’m fascinated to learn that being able to comment on a post is one of the fundamental human rights, and being denied it is an inexcusable affront to dignity (quick, someone call Melissa McEwan!)

    Something doesn’t have to be a human-rights violation to be disrespectful, immature, and a generally bullshit move. Trust me, I use much stronger language when discussing human rights violations.

    Why are you Anon For This? Plenty of people are Anon For This when revealing personal history relevant to a thread on sexual violence, or child abuse, or other matters that they may not be comfortable having associated with their real or screen name. Being Anon For This because you want to express an unpopular opinion and slag off other commenters without them being able to know it was you later is just some cowardly bullshit right there. Kind of like pre-emptively closing comments because you don’t want to deal with people disagreeing with you.

  442. For this website to accuse anybody of “having problems with woc” is ridiculous. Especially this blogger Caperton who responded to an article by a sports announcer about Michael Vicks and racism by announcing racism was irrelevat because some white people are poor and some Black people are middle class, and then one of the few commenters who ‘called her out’ was banned. I’m sick of white feminists using “woc” as a stick to beat men they dislike.

    And iirc his problem with racism was defending the racism of Amanda Marcotte who hasn’t been kicked out of feminism. My problem with him is he is the white knight of the type of white middle class feminism represented by feministe

  443. “And did you pass around this post, too? Did you sit with it and its insights for a good long time? Because this is what people are talking about:
    And then it came to me: I needed to do for her and for myself the one thing I was strong enough still to do. I couldn’t save her, I couldn’t save me, but I could bring an end to our pain. My poor fragile ex would never have to wake up again, and we could be at peace in the next life. As drunk and high as I was, the thought came with incredible clarity. I remember it perfectly now.
    I walked into the little kitchen only steps from where my ex lay. I blew out the pilot lights on our gas oven and on the burners, and turned the dials on everything up to maximum. I pulled the oven away from the wall, leaving the gas line intact, positioning it so that the gas was blowing directly at the passed-out young woman on the floor. Then I swallowed one more handful of pills and vodka, lay down beside her, spooned her, and lost consciousness.”

    I didn’t, but I should have. You see, I relate to that story, and I think I’m not the only one. My parents had a verbally and emotionally abusive relationship in which my father threatened to kill himself several times. I have a friend who recently started divorce proceedings with his wife because she’s a heroin addict and he knew that she would drag him to hell if he didn’t. I’m friends with a couple that recently split because one of them wanted to face his alcoholism and the other one did not. I myself live with a man who has multiple psychiatric problems, a man that I love deeply and am responsible for. His depression is, at times, my depression. In the darkest, most hopeless hour of this depression, we had a conversation about how easy it would be for me to pour a bottle of pills down his throat while he was sleeping, and then hold a pillow over his face to keep them there, until he stopped breathing. He was behind this; his only concern was that I might go to prison for it. When I decided not to do this, he argued with me for two hours about why I should. It was the most fucked up moment of my entire life. So I am not unfamiliar with this abuse (of oneself or others), addiction, or mental illness. I would almost go so far as to say I understand it.

    Should Hugo go to prison for attempted murder? If his ex wants to press charges, yes. But it seems that she doesn’t. If we are feminists, we should respect her decision in this matter, and not try to ignore what she wants.

  444. No, Jess- we have “State vs. ” because murder is a crime against all of us. Individuals don’t get to determine whether the person who tried to murder them should be charged.

  445. Jess:

    I didn’t, but I should have. You see, I relate to that story, and I think I’m not the only one. My parents had a verbally and emotionally abusive relationship in which my father threatened to kill himself several times. I have a friend who recently started divorce proceedings with his wife because she’s a heroin addict and he knew that she would drag him to hell if he didn’t. I’m friends with a couple that recently split because one of them wanted to face his alcoholism and the other one did not. I myself live with a man who has multiple psychiatric problems, a man that I love deeply and am responsible for. His depression is, at times, my depression. In the darkest, most hopeless hour of this depression, we had a conversation about how easy it would be for me to pour a bottle of pills down his throat while he was sleeping, and then hold a pillow over his face to keep them there, until he stopped breathing. He was behind this; his only concern was that I might go to prison for it. When I decided not to do this, he argued with me for two hours about why I should. It was the most fucked up moment of my entire life. So I am not unfamiliar with this abuse (of oneself or others), addiction, or mental illness. I would almost go so far as to say I understand it.

    Should Hugo go to prison for attempted murder? If his ex wants to press charges, yes. But it seems that she doesn’t. If we are feminists, we should respect her decision in this matter, and not try to ignore what she wants.

    I want to make two points here. The first is that there is a meaningful difference between your discussion with your ex and Hugo Schwyzer’s decision to end his girlfriend’s life. Hugo made the decision for his girlfriend. She didn’t argue with him for two hours to convince him: his decision was unilateral. And the decision to end the life of a woman because of her suffering is both sexist and ableist. (Which, you know, is what gets me about a lot of the discussion that has happened about ability and mental illness in this thread thus far. it ignores the very real and serious ableist dimension of Hugo’s crime in the first place.)

    The second is that we don’t actually know precisely what Hugo’s victim wants. I agree with you that demanding for charges to be pressed with no reference to what that would mean for the victim is fucked up. But I also think that it’s clear that she wants nothing more to do with him, and respecting her wishes in this case certainly doesn’t involve doling out forgiveness.

  446. tinfoil hattie: No, Jess- we have “State vs. ” because murder is a crime against all of us. Individuals don’t get to determine whether the person who tried to murder them should be charged.

    Yes, but we should also consider the impact of bringing something to trial would have on the victim. Which in this case may involve her publically revisiting a fucked up period in her life she wants to move on from. I mean, we can talk about the state’s interest in determining who is charged for violent crimes, but that doesn’t mean ignoring the very real interests of the victim. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to automatically go with their decision, but I do think honouring and respecting the victim’s preferences and needs is an important part of how we should approach a particular case.

  447. I just wanted to let you all know that I’ve read this entire thread, but I doubt I’m going to continue due to other obligations.

    As I said before, I am grateful for the positive feedback, and I am doing my best to be grateful for the neutral and negative feedback too (or at least the negative feedback that doesn’t include words like “FUCK YOU” or make assertions about my sex life).

    I continue to be interested in transformative justice and alternative justice models. I have done some research on them but not enough, and I will continue to do that. If anyone would like to share further resources by email, they are welcome to get in touch with me to do that.

  448. Li: I want to make two points here. The first is that there is a meaningful difference between your discussion with your ex and Hugo Schwyzer’s decision to end his girlfriend’s life. Hugo made the decision for his girlfriend. She didn’t argue with him for two hours to convince him: his decision was unilateral. And the decision to end the life of a woman because of her suffering is both sexist and ableist. (Which, you know, is what gets me about a lot of the discussion that has happened about ability and mental illness in this thread thus far. it ignores the very real and serious ableist dimension of Hugo’s crime in the first place.)

    1) Not my ex, because we got through that time in our life together and we’re stronger than ever.
    2) The decision to end the life of anyone because of their suffering, without consulting them about it, is fucked up. It doesn’t have to be anything -ist; there’s no need to politicize the decisions of a person with mental illness. Their actions aren’t reasonable; they’re not basing them on ideas about women or ideas about the disabled or any kind of actual reality. The violation of another person’s human rights doesn’t require any further justification for why it’s wrong based on some kind of sociological theory.
    3) Logically, I cannot forgive someone for a crime they have not committed against me. But I also cannot take personally something that was not done personally to me. I can condemn the act, of course, and it is only right to do so. But I honestly don’t understand all the “betrayed” and “hurt” comments by women who are no longer “comforted” by Schwyzer. What, is he supposed to be your parent or something? Why is it his role to comfort you and make you feel safe? How can his words, spoken to the void of the Internet, harm you or make you feel unsafe? He doesn’t even know who you are; how could he ever do something against you?

  449. Jess: 2) The decision to end the life of anyone because of their suffering, without consulting them about it, is fucked up. It doesn’t have to be anything -ist; there’s no need to politicize the decisions of a person with mental illness. Their actions aren’t reasonable; they’re not basing them on ideas about women or ideas about the disabled or any kind of actual reality. The violation of another person’s human rights doesn’t require any further justification for why it’s wrong based on some kind of sociological theory.

    Which is of course why we don’t talk about the role of sexism in domestic violence, or the role of racism in lynchings.

    People with disabilities, especially women with disabilities, are routinely murdered because their killer (who is overwhelmingly a carer or intimate partner) has decided for them that their life is not worth living. People with mental illnesses are no more likely to commit violent crime than people without them, but they are substantially more likely to be the victims of violence. I’m pointing this out so that it’s clear that I’m not trying to politicise the decisions of a person with a mental illness, I’m trying to politicise violence against the mentally ill or those percieved to be mentally ill. And by ‘politicise’, what I actually mean is recognising the inherently political nature of that violence, regardless of Hugo Schwyzer’s mental state at the time he tried to murder his “poor fragile ex” (since mental illness doesn’t magically erase situation).

  450. Jess: there’s no need to politicize the decisions of a person with mental illness. Their actions aren’t reasonable; they’re not basing them on ideas about women or ideas about the disabled or any kind of actual reality.

    I strongly disagree with this. People with mental illnesses do not exist in bubbles apart from the culture they inhabit and the power dynamics that inform it. Depression runs strongly in my family on my father’s side, but when he is in an episode, he ruminates on his professional, achievement-related failures, whereas when I am in an episode, my thoughts run to my romantic inadequacies. Is it just coincidence that this breaks down on gender lines? I doubt it. I very strongly doubt it.

    Why would a man direct his murder-suicide actions at a woman rather than another man–do we think that men in dire straits don’t know other men in similar circumstances? Again, I doubt it. Mental illness can predispose people to certain types of behaviors and thoughts, but the world they inhabit informs the content and specifies the subtype.

  451. Jess: Thank you so much for your courage in sharing your story on this thread. I think Li’s idea is that to make a major decision regarding an adult human being’s life without their input, supposedly for their own good, is the kind of crap women have had inflicted on them for centuries (being “married off”, etc.) and that disabled people also routinely face (being institutionalized, forced to take drugs etc.)

  452. Sarah Harper: Jess: Thank you so much for your courage in sharing your story on this thread. I think Li’s idea is that to make a major decision regarding an adult human being’s life without their input, supposedly for their own good, is the kind of crap women have had inflicted on them for centuries (being “married off”, etc.) and that disabled people also routinely face (being institutionalized, forced to take drugs etc.)

    Yes and no to this. Yes because obviously these things are connected by the thread that denies agency to women and people with disabilities, but no because I’m talking about the way in which the idea that disabled lives are unlivable is used to specifically justify the murders or attempted murders of people with disabilities by people who claim to love them.

    “She was just in so much pain!.”

    “I just couldn’t bear to look at her confined to her bed like that.”

    “She was so desperately sad”.

    “…we could be at peace in the next life.”

  453. I certainly agree that no one can decide that someone else’s life is not worth living, but as someone who’s had to coax someone into continuing to live, someone who’s had to outsmart a man who has repeatedly attempted suicide to make sure that he failed…I have trouble respecting the decisions that someone can make in a bad state of mind as being real, legitimate decisions. Because if I did, he wouldn’t be here to make his own decisions. Does that make sense? I don’t want to make this about me and my life, but of course my experiences inform where I’m coming from.

  454. Yeah, funny, but I seem to remember l’affaire Mai’a differently than her fans do. She informed everybody that her kid gets to stay up all night and that she doesn’t discourage the girl from annoying people — which, outside of Hip Mama Land, is considered to be a basic aspect of civilizing your children rather than “oppressing” them. She and her supporters informed childfree people that there are no legitimate adults-only spaces in the world, and they mocked those of us who get intense headaches or anxiety attacks from hearing loud, high-pitched noises. Funny how it’s “ableist” to call Hugo Schwyzer a sociopath but it’s not ableist to tell such women to stay home if they don’t like it.

    And there was the pronouncement from Mai’a and BFP that all women are “mamas,” with the strong implication that women are for breedin’ and that there’s something wrong with those of us, like me, who don’t want to. Plus the usual gender-essentialist crap about women as “nurturers.” I don’t nurture jack shit, nor do I want to. IDGAF if that’s your culture. I spend enough time fighting against those assumptions in my culture, thank you very much.

    None of Mai’a’s critics had any idea that she was a WoC until her supporters brought it up. She came off as yet another self-absorbed hipster parent. Oh, and by the way, she’s an American in Egypt, which gives her a modicum of privilege over there, race regardless. How many Egyptian women stay up all night with their kids in bars? Not many.

    I’m sick of hearing that if I’m a good feminist, I will never, ever criticize another woman’s choices, especially those of “a mama.” Being a feminist didn’t require me to check my brain at the door, and feminism isn’t a group validation session.

  455. Jess:

    … there’s no need to politicize the decisions of a person with mental illness. Their actions aren’t reasonable; they’re not basing them on ideas about women or ideas about the disabled or any kind of actual reality.

    People with psychiatric conditions live in the same world that the rest of us do. They absorb the same prejudices against women, people with disabilities, and everybody else that the rest of us do. There may be just as much a political component to their disordered thinking as there is to our (comparatively) ordered thinking.

    But I honestly don’t understand all the “betrayed” and “hurt” comments by women who are no longer “comforted” by Schwyzer. What, is he supposed to be your parent or something?

    Yeah, it’d be absolutely impossible to feel betrayed by a man who portrays himself as a feminist, then reveals that he attempted to murder his ex, which, you know, just might trigger women who have PTSD from having survived similar abuse. Or should they just, you know, harden up and get over it because YOU did?

  456. PGP:

    And former addicts tend to be really immature- to the point that you should knock one year off their age for each year that they were addicted.

    [citation needed]

  457. Jess:

    I certainly agree that no one can decide that someone else’s life is not worth living, but as someone who’s had to coax someone into continuing to live, someone who’s had to outsmart a man who has repeatedly attempted suicide to make sure that he failed…I have trouble respecting the decisions that someone can make in a bad state of mind as being real, legitimate decisions. Because if I did, he wouldn’t be here to make his own decisions. Does that make sense? I don’t want to make this about me and my life, but of course my experiences inform where I’m coming from.

    It makes sense, but my problem is that I don’t think the decision to murder someone is typically made in a ‘good’ state of mind, and the ‘legitimacy’ of that decision doesn’t actually impact on how dead the victim is.

    Additionally, I have experience of suicidal ideation, and I just don’t accept that it’s comparable to a decision to kill someone else. Murder is not some random quirk of mental illness, even if the decision to kill isn’t made ‘rationally’, because the gendered and ableist nature of violence is pre-rational. There’s a reason that the vast majority of murder/suicides are committed by men, even if that reason isn’t immediately visible in the motivations of individual perpetrators, much as there is a reason that people with disabilities face such a high level of violence from carers and intimate partners. There is something at play in murder/suicide that is not present (or, as the higher rates of suicidality amongst oppressed groups suggests, is inversely present) in suicidality as a whole, and I am just deeply discomforted by the way in which Hugo Schwyzer milks sympathy out of is fundamentally enabled by an entitlement (either personal or systemic) to control the lives of women and people with disabilities.

  458. I’m wondering if the high profile feminist bloggers who worked with Schwyzer and enjoyed mutually supportive professional relationships with him (he promoted their work and their books) will have anything to say about the fact that he tried to kill a woman and whether that changes their view on him. It doesn’t appear to have made any difference to how Clarisse sees him.

    The larger picture here – that a man who has committed a huge amount of harm against women – was given a warm welcome into feminism, appears to be being ignored.

  459. I don’t feel betrayed by Hugo. Like I said, I never really liked the guy. I’m disgusted by him. And folding all of this into paternalism, as though it’s immature to be outraged on a personal level by the revelation that Mr. Fresh-Faced Male Feminist is actually a thwarted murderer? To be affected by that? That’s also pretty disgusting.

    And also, this murder attempt may be chalked up to depression and drug addiction. His treatment of women in general, young and needy women in particular? His attitude towards them as disposable objects and/or extensions of his own personality, on the other hand? His blithe unconcern about any detrimental effect he might have on their mental and emotional health? His current insistence on centering himself in any discussion of what he did to them? Not so much. He hasn’t been in despair this whole time. (And he definitely can’t use that excuse now.) He says himself that his actions were predatory. To the extent that he was a depressed drug addict, he was a deeply misogynist depressed drug addict.

  460. I couldn’t disagree more with everything in your comment, J.? But on the other hand I don’t want to open up that massive derail? I’ll just say, that as someone who might never have children, and who is far from having them right now, the idea that “all women are mamas” resonated with me. Because somehow, even being alone, migratory, queer, and childless doesn’t exempt me from motherhood. And I might someday need to be an unfit good mother. I appreciated Mai’a’s post, and she seems like an incredible woman and an incredible mom.

  461. j.: Yeah, funny, but I seem to remember l’affaire Mai’a differently than her fans do.

    Clarisse and Mai’a really were treated differently. When Mai’a wrote something that some commenters found affronting and gave her a rough time about it, the headliners were all apologetic for not having shut up those commenters sooner. When Clarisse wrote something that some commenters found affronting and gave her a rough time about it, the headliners are apologizing not only for not letting the commenters go on and on about it, but for letting Clarisse write what she did in the first place.

  462. Anon for this: Clarisse and Mai’a really were treated differently. When Mai’a wrote something that some commenters found affronting and gave her a rough time about it, the headliners were all apologetic for not having shut up those commenters sooner. When Clarisse wrote something that some commenters found affronting and gave her a rough time about it, the headliners are apologizing not only for not letting the commenters go on and on about it, but for letting Clarisse write what she did in the first place.

    You can’t see the difference between the 67 comments on the Hugo Schwyzer thread and the 700+ on Mai’a’s? (That question’s rhetorical, by the way. I’m pretty sure you know exactly what the difference is but lack the intellectual honesty to let it contextualise your comparison).

  463. If a feminist blog isn’t going to apologise for giving a platform to a man who sexually exploited his students and tried to kill a woman, then who will? Who is defending women’s interests? Not rhetorical.

  464. You can’t see the difference between the 67 comments on the Hugo Schwyzer thread and the 700+ on Mai’a’s? (That question’s rhetorical, by the way. I’m pretty sure you know exactly what the difference is but lack the intellectual honesty to let it contextualise your comparison).

    Or, incidentally, between taking your kid to a bar and trying to kill your girlfriend? If Maia had tried to asphyxiate Aza, then this would be apples and apples.

  465. Li: You can’t see the difference between the 67 comments on the Hugo Schwyzer thread and the 700+ on Mai’a’s?

    If Mai’a had wanted to shut the thread down, she could have. She didn’t. If she had, I doubt the people who were bothered by her gender essentialism and other BS would have gotten an apology from the headliners for the fact that she was allowed to post her ideas in the first place and another essentially unmoderated whack at her, including the chance to call her a drunken misogyny-promoting cocksucker who is only upset at hate mail because she’s “defensive.”

  466. Hi guys!

    Here are some thinky thoughts from me. I know! I know! You’re DYING to read them! (Well, hopefully some of you do actually want to read them. Maybe. Stranger things have happened around here).

    1. I think I speak for at least some people when I say that I, for one, didn’t find Hugo’s revelation about trying to kill his ex and himself all that shocking. It seems perfectly in line with everything he has written about his past. Maybe I’ve kept a lot of grim company over the years – but I’ve heard several variations of this story from former addicts.

    2. The horrible casualness with which Hugo spoke about this incident (a dude accidentally let a dog out, dog could have died, came back safe – and this reminded Hugo of how he tried to commit a murder-suicide this one time) was also familiar. If you hear this for the first time, you go, “AW HOLY HELL.” If you’ve been living with this for years, though, it’s another story. And NPD does play heavily into that as well – how people with NPD can reveal this kind of information can be shocking.

    3. No amount of screaming on the internet will change the fact that for some of us, Hugo is someone to not be trusted. Or, for that matter, respected. People will make up their own minds.

    4. Similarly, no amount of screaming on the internet will change the fact that there are people out there who like and trust Hugo. People who love him as well – including the wife and child. Once again, people will make up their own minds.

    5. Hugo enjoys a successful career. Both privilege and luck play into that. If Hugo wasn’t privileged, he’d probably be behind bars. And if he were unlucky, he’d also probably be dead by now. Acknowledging this is not the same thing as “begrudging” Hugo anything – though as we have observed, there are those people who know of Hugo’s history, and yet still choose to work with him or to learn from him. If someone wants to protest Hugo’s work – they’re more than entitled to do that. But there is nothing shocking or surprising about the fact that he will have plenty of colleagues, students and friends sticking up to him. Not all of those people are brainwashed, or ignorant, or otherwise victims of Hugo or victims of their own ignorance – or else desperate to consciously protect the same privilege that has kept Hugo afloat. Some of them just like the guy and can relate (and that’s where privilege does play a part – we relate to people whose privileges we share). I personally find his story very interesting. It’s a story with no ending as of yet – just as none of us have an ending, until we’re dead, that is.

    6. This is a community issue. It’s a community issue on a macro level – but the micro level is personally more important to me, and by micro level, I mean the community here at Feministe. As we have seen over and over again, this is a place which frequently “devours itself.” People here are frequently vicious to each other – allegiances are forged, voices get drowned out. A lot of the voices that get drowned out have things in common – whether it’s a lack of privilege, or lack of knowledge, or lack of a religion, or if you have kids, or if you don’t have kids, etc. Let’s face it – we’re mean to each other, and sometimes it’s as if we almost enjoy it. (Almost? Haha) We pigeonhole each other. We demand that people rip their souls open before we allow them to speak on certain issues (as a friend of mine put it, as a Muslim speaking to secular Western feminists – “they want you to bleed on the floor”). We don’t trust each other – sometimes with plenty of reason, sometimes without. Sometimes, we CANNOT trust each other – and articulating that only proves as much. Stepping into hostile territory and announcing that it is, indeed, hostile will bring out the worst in people. Some of this is is a function of online behaviour. But there are other, structural problems at work. The Hugo Schwyzer incident is, in many ways, a symptom.

    I think the question that everyone needs to ask themselves is whether or not this community is worth preserving – on a personal level. Because even if you still come here simply to point out the ways in which this community has failed – you are still participating. You are still, in one way or another, a member. What does membership mean? What SHOULD it mean? If it’s worth it to ask such questions going into 2012 – then maybe this community is also worth it. For you.

    Having said all that – closing comments wasn’t cool. Hate mail is also not cool. Threats are not cool. Don’t know Hugo personally – am friendly with him online. Anyone who asks for my so-called “creds” will be given the contemptuous raised eyebrow treatment.

  467. I think the question is whether Hugo Schwyzer still has a place in feminism.

    For some feminists he clearly does.

  468. Well, yeah, because again: these two women took two different positions on two different issues. If Hugo had posted that entry here, would it be intellectually honest to compare anger at him with anger at Mai’a? No. It’s not hypocritical to have different reactions to different ideas.

    a drunken misogyny-promoting cocksucker who is only upset at hate mail because she’s “defensive.”

    I did not call her “drunken,” you lying shitstain. I can’t fucking believe you’re still clinging to that. Seriously, though, are you possessed? Did you forget to whistle past the Free Republic, or maybe turn your computer off without shutting it down properly? I usually have to go over to the Dawn Patrol in order to get this level of shameless dishonesty.

  469. Branwen: “Big boy pants”? I think you misgendered me. Either way, I find it offensive in this context. I have nothing else to say about this, because I think you have fundamentally misunderstood where I am coming from on several levels. As a disabled feminist myself, I do NOT want Schwyzer lumped into the category of “people struggling with bias against the disabled in an oppressive society” because he was bold enough to let us know his shrink thinks he is self-centered and entitled to the point of pathology. I find his blatant manipulative abuse of the language of mental illness and disability to be yet another red flag showing who he really is, nothing else.

    1. Assholes can still be mentally ill. That is all. It doesn’t make them any less assholes, and it doesn’t make them any less mentally ill. Those are two separate things.
    2. You built a straw-rights activist to argue against so that people can’t call others out on ableism. That’s still bullshit. I don’t care if you’re disabled. That doesn’t mean you can’t make it harder for other disabled people, and when people ask others not to use ableist language and you imply that’s somehow excusing murder, you’re being ridiculous.

  470. I think point 5 contradicts points 3 and 4. If Hugo’s status is a function of his privilege, then his status like his privilege is open to change through dialogue. And if his status is bound up in other people’s relationships with him, then those are also open to change through dialogue. And all of this already has changed in one small way: he’s no longer welcome here, and may also be excluded from other linked spaces. That’s a change in attitudes resulting from “screaming on the internet.” And points 1 and 2 also support this. Now a lot more women will probably make the link between Sleeps with Students and Probably Really Not a Good Guy. I’m ashamed I didn’t earlier myself. I have known people like this too, and I should have realized.

    Hey, incidentally, would you mind not characterizing all of this as incoherent internet rage? That’s disrespectful and inaccurate, especially given the number of commenters who have taken the trouble to write long posts to the effect of I feel this way for these reasons. And this is a serious issue, one that touches on a lot of very personal and very painful history. I’m actually impressed by the level of rhetorical engagement I’ve seen on these threads, given that most of the women commenting here have probably suffered sexual violence at one point or another.

  471. piny: I did not call her “drunken,” you lying shitstain.

    No, you were just speculating that she was off somewhere “drowning her sorrows” while she should have been genuflecting before you lot. But it was all in good humor, ha ha!

  472. No, I responded to you simultaneously attacking Caperton (and/or Feministe’s editorial board) for taking responsibility for this discussion and for failing to take responsibility for this discussion. I didn’t speculate about anything–I believe I also used the phrases “have a cup of tea,” and “watch some kitten videos.” In other words, off somewhere, doing something else, not handling this problem.

    And then you said that I had said that Clarisse was a drunk. Because you are a lying shitstain. Again, what the fuck is wrong with you?

  473. delphyne: I think the question is whether Hugo Schwyzer still has a place in feminism.

    For some feminists he clearly does.

    You’re absolutely right. I’m done calling myself a feminist. If modern feminism feels it is so important to protect an abuser from criticism at the expense of victims and to continue that power dynamic the way Clarisse did and the way Hugo’s defenders are, I am not a feminist. It’s ethically bankrupt.

  474. Hey, incidentally, would you mind not characterizing all of this as incoherent internet rage? That’s disrespectful and inaccurate, especially given the number of commenters who have taken the trouble to write long posts to the effect of I feel this way for these reasons. And this is a serious issue, one that touches on a lot of very personal and very painful history. I’m actually impressed by the level of rhetorical engagement I’ve seen on these threads, given that most of the women commenting here have probably suffered sexual violence at one point or another.

    While screaming on the internet is not automatically incoherent – I was pointing out the worst this type of incident can bring out in people. It’s shorthand. The best, for me, stands on its own.

  475. Natalia: Not all of those people are brainwashed, or ignorant, or otherwise victims of Hugo or victims of their own ignorance – or else desperate to consciously protect the same privilege that has kept Hugo afloat. Some of them just like the guy and can relate (and that’s where privilege does play a part – we relate to people whose privileges we share).

    But, Natalia, reconsider what you’re saying here. I understand that from a personal, individual level you like the guy and you think he has something valuable to offer in terms of perspective. I get that, seriously, as someone who believes that we all have something valuable to learn from one another even in our broken-ness, I do see how you and Clarisse and others can feel that way.

    BUT (oh, you knew there was a but, right?), this section right here (quoted above)…this is describing the mechanism by which privilege is reinforced by everyday people through individual action. There are systemic consequences to protecting people who have abused others. One of those systemic consequences is that women are constantly being asked to forgive privileged abusers…to put it behind them…to let it go…because ze’s really a good person.

    So yeah, its okay to appreciate his work. Its even okay to be his friend. Its okay to believe he’s a changed man. Its not okay to try to insulate him from criticism. Its not okay to suggest that other women just need to let it go. Its sure as fuck not okay to compare anger and shock over violence towards women to the normal bullshit asshattery we engage in around here.

  476. delphyne: I think the question is whether Hugo Schwyzer still has a place in feminism. For some feminists he clearly does.

    I would also like to ask *why* he still has a place in feminism, particularly when more many more talented and more honest marginalised women are either ignored or threatened or mocked for their voices. The assertion that people have been ‘nasty’ to Hugo on this thread is laughable when compared with the threats of sexual violence and murder that feminist women, many of them survivors of rape, abuse, prostitution, porn, face when daring to speak up on the internet.

    In case we’re still unclear:
    Hugo tried to murder a woman. This is not an ‘internet scandal.’ This is about a criminal who has never faced justice. He gets to be the face of feminism while myriad survivors are mocked or ignored.

    Come on, feminism. If you’re not on the side of the woman Hugo attempted to murder, then you are no feminism at all.

  477. Am i missing something or is feministe’s search feature not working correctly? Because i searched for Schwyzer and other than the recent posts, he was only linked in passing in one other post in 2011 and then he shows up in 2009 with nothing in between.

    That’s hardly supportive of the idea that he has been quoted and linked frequently here and people have simply been silent until they had the opportunity to attack Clarisse.

  478. You know, I think the normal bullshit asshattery we engage in around here has poisoned the well to such an extent that it’s very hard to have an honest conversation anymore.

    I also do believe that when it comes to this particular incident – forgiveness is not ours to give. We certainly cannot ask the community to forgive – the community is too diverse for that, frankly – the most we can do is give *each other* some respect right now.

    I’ve had people try to strong-arm forgiveness from me for stuff they did to me personally – and that was awful. It’s a pain I live with on top of, you know, the stuff they actually did. What happened between Hugo and that woman? Not my place to say “he should be forgiven.” The only thing I can say is that some of us can trust that he has changed – and others cannot.

  479. One of the things abusers and predators do is groom people around them as friends and allies, so when their crimes come to light a whole lot of people will jump to their defense and say what a great guy they are, and how the accusers are just being mean/vindictive/mad/overreacting.

    That’s what Hugo appears to have done. It’s not a surprise that he’s worked to give himself public standing, it’s classic behaviour for someone like this.

    My question to those still standing by him would be do you think he stopped drinking, turned to god and feminsim because a) he regretted the harm he’d caused to the young women he preyed on or b) because he nearly got caught and needed god to absolve him for his sins, and feminism to keep an eye on and neutralise anybody who might oppose him? What better cover for an abuser of women than to be a male “feminist”.

  480. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour Natalia. He hasn’t changed. If he’d changed he would have been fully open about this from the start. The fact that he nearly murdered a woman seems to be sadly lacking from his CV (except to his college apparently who were fine about giving him tenure even knowing that).

  481. Hugo had no chance to groom me – I don’t think we’ve interacted aside from the occasional stuff on Facebook. He’ll press “like” if I post a cute baby picture, or something. Maybe I’ll reciprocate on something of his if I like it.

    As I said, I know a lot of people with horrific pasts. Some of them I trust – others I don’t. People choose where to draw that line.

  482. (I use the word “trust” to refer to a person’s writing here, of course. Like I said, I have found much of what Hugo has written to be very familiar.)

  483. The line is interesting isn’t it Natalia? See I’d have thought it was pretty easy for feminists to draw a line with a man who had sexually exploited his students and tried to kill a woman and lied about it. However it turns out that those aren’t barriers to receiving a welcome to the table in lib fem land, and by extension a welcome into feminism. It’s not really about who you in particular trust, it’s about what does feminism actually stand for if it isn’t interested in stopping men like Hugo.

    Horrific past generally refers to someone who has been a victim. Hugo was a predator and he’s a criminal.

  484. DonnaL

    it’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that all liberal feminists, or all non-radical feminists, have supported and defended Hugo Schwyzer

    I didn’t say ‘all’ liberal feminists. If I had meant to, I would have done. However, he is a figure active in liberal feminism (broadly defined). So these questions have to be asked – as they would of any other branch of feminism that was espoused by a man who had tried to murder a woman.

  485. As a woman of color who reads this blog, I find it upsetting to see how often threads with objections by women of color on issues of race and white supremacy are dismissed.

    I think this lack of accountability quite typical for the “feminist blog” genre, but must ask the question: how many women of color are writing for this blog? It seems that our concerns are entirely left out of the framework of much of this site.

    And, moreover, does this bother the moderators or bloggers here at all?

  486. I am refering specifically to the comments on the original thread made by women of color speaking of the interviewee’s racism and blindness to his own privilege and how they were not addressed by the author or moderators.

  487. @Natalia,

    Maybe this is the disconnect between my perspective and the perspective of others, so I’m asking this from that place…Do you think he has hurt women generally (in addition to the specific harm to a number of women) by remaining in a position of power vis-a-vis his former targets?

  488. The point is surely not whether an individual personally ‘trusts’ or ‘likes’ Hugo (or any other man who has attempted the murder of a woman). Feminism is a political movement that exists in order to change the world, to transform it so women have access to the range of human possibilities, so they are free from male violence and oppression.

    It’s no good saying ‘trust him or not, your call’. This isn’t about whether we want to be friends with this man, or invite him to Sunday lunch. Who cares? IF something he says sounds ‘familiar’ or resonates with you – so waht? Really not the point. Terrible people can say true/ insightful/ ‘familiar’ things. No, this is about real consequences, for women in the world, especially for marginalised women who do not have the luxury of choosing either way.

    Why is feminism tolerating this man as a spokesperson? Why is he preaching to young women? What are the political, concrete consequences of this for women, for feminism as a political movement?

  489. Echo Zen: With Valenti and Feministing, I always felt as a kid that she was preoccupied (for lack of a better word) with highlighting WOC and trans issues and figures, which I thought was unusual because she’s neither a WOC nor trans herself. Does she have a secret history I don’t know about of discounting WOC voices, or is the main criticism that she’s writing about the same issues that WOC are writing about too, but getting more attention for it?

    Shouldn’t a feminists be preoccupied with addressing women’s issues? WOC are still women and trans women are still women. There are plenty of mainstream feminist blogs that don’t say much if anything at all about WOC or trans women and the issues the two groups face. If more mainstream feminsit blogs covered a larger variety of women’s issue regularly, something like this wouldn’t seem so odd.

  490. Do you think he has hurt women generally (in addition to the specific harm to a number of women) by remaining in a position of power vis-a-vis his former targets?

    That would depend on whether or not we trust his repentance and think he has something worthwhile to contribute – or if we think it’s all an act, wouldn’t it? And also how we consider power differentials wrt student-teacher relationships. Some believe that sleeping with students in an automatic abuse of one’s position – doesn’t Hugo himself say he believes that now? I personally think that cases vary. It’s abuse in some cases – both of the position and the student. In other cases – not so much, or so I think.

    Hugo remains in a position of power by virtue of being a man – and a man with a successful career, at that. Though this isn’t to say that, “Well, hell, men are powerful when compared to women – so we shouldn’t discuss this issue at all!”

    I suppose from the point of view of symbols – it would look like a win for feminism if he were fired. And some people are 100% sure that this would benefit his college community. I’m not one of those people. I mean, at the end of the day, I’m not even part of that community, for starters.

  491. That would depend on whether or not we trust his repentance and think he has something worthwhile to contribute – or if we think it’s all an act, wouldn’t it?

    No, I don’t think it necessarily would.

  492. Fennel: Feminism is a political movement that exists in order to change the world, to transform it so women have access to the range of human possibilities, so they are free from violence and oppression

    I like this version better.

  493. So, I lied. I’m back. And I’m going to make a few points:

    1) WRT the Mia’a debacle, here’s the thing: I took serious issue with some of the things she said. BUT I didn’t feel I could engage with her because we had such a clusterfuck of angry CF commenters who went off on her for going to a bar with her kid, for kids making noise in coffee shops, forwhathefuckever.

    2) One of the comments thrown out in one of those two treads was “Feminists got your ass the right to vote.” Well, apparently, a lot of feminists also privilege the voice of a man who has abused women and tried to kill a woman (and painted her as “crazy” and unreliable to the cops in order to get himself free of any accountability). You think about that, sisters. (And this goes for the rad fems here who want to insist on how Much Better They Are. Don’t use this an an opportunity to engage in a pissing contest, your community’s hands aren’t exactly clean.)

    3) The reasonable assertion of commenters (many of whom are survivors of rape and abuse) that HS should not be given leadership roles or a platform on a feminist blog IS NOT THE SAME GODDAMN THING AS THROWING HIM IN JAIL AND IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO DRAW A PARALLEL BETWEEN THE TWO.

    4) For those of you who want to respect the woman he tried to kill and who he lied about to the cops, know this: You have no idea what she wants, either. She may not have pressed charges because hello! THE JUSTICE ‘SYSTEM’ IS MISOGYNIST and she was already dismissed as unstable and therefore not as worthy (while Hugo, being “mentally ill” gets a get out of accountability card. WTF?)

    5) I have relatives who have struggled with addiction, and I’ve struggled with clinical depression. NONE OF US have tried to kill anyone and then lie about them afterwards to cover our own asses. It is NOT okay, and it is misogynist to decide for a woman what is best for her, and then lie about her to make it seem like she wanted this.

    6) So, sisters, know this. I am not the only person who dealt with shit at the hands of a progressive dude, just to see him “forgiven” and given a platform and treated like a goddamn hero. I’m so glad you all have so much compassion for Hugo, but it’s fucking galling that you have none for the woman he tried to kill, or for your fellow survivors. Who, by the way, hadn’t been calling for jail until Rodeo decided to derail things with the “if we put him in jail he will suffer!!!!111!!” bullshit.

    You know who is suffering? WOMEN. Women who have been abused at the hands of men, only to see those men forgiven and accepted back into the fold. Women who have been told that we just don’t rate, that it’s our problem if we can’t participate in or be a part of the community anymore. Because fairness!

    It’s telling that Hugo’s so important that some of you will continue to privilege his voice over the voices of women. The voices of survivors. You’re giving quite the message to us. Just know this: the next time an Assange-like case comes up, or a rape case or an abuse case or any kind of case comes up where the man is privileged over the woman, where the woman (and the women who point out how fucked up this is) is derided, dismissed, erased, and blamed, you can look in the mirror if you want to see someone who’s part of the problem.

    No, we don’t have to throw Hugo in jail. But we don’t have to give him a platform. We can prioritize women.

  494. @Natalia,

    I don’t think it does. When someone who victimizes his students is allowed to continue teaching, I think that sends a strong and harmful message about how much we think of women. It reinforces the notion that we do not matter, that our safety and our well-being is not as important as some dude’s career. As a professor you are not just some dude, flipping burgers…you have tangible authority over the daily lives of women. Believing in redemption doesn’t necessarily mean an abuser should be given the same power to reoffend, not because you don’t trust him but because you respect the feelings of those who are subject to that authority.

  495. Natalia: I also do believe that when it comes to this particular incident – forgiveness is not ours to give.

    Agreed. For whatever reason, Hugo’s victim and her family chose not to prosecute. To a reasonable extent we have to respect that. That doesn’t absolve Hugo from anything he did, he has to live with it and the social consequences he pays for it now.

    j.: And former addicts tend to be really immature- to the point that you should knock one year off their age for each year that they were addicted.

    [citation needed]

    I haven’t looked for a citation, but it’s common knowledge among addiction professional that addicts stop maturing as they use. They don’t develop the same social mechanisms and coping mechanisms that non-addicts do because their answer to stress or problems (or celebrations or victories) is to use drugs and alcohol. Once they stop using, they’re left to figure out years after the fact how to relate to regular life stuff without using, things non-addicts figured out on a relatively normal timeline. Coupled with the fact that most addicts are addicts alongside co-occurring emotional disabilities, this is a lifelong process they are left to overcome, usually with a lot of therapy and medication (depending on their access to decent healthcare). There was an awesome series of HBO documentaries out there that touch on this. I think they’re mostly online if you are inclined to watch.

    Natalia: I think I speak for at least some people when I say that I, for one, didn’t find Hugo’s revelation about trying to kill his ex and himself all that shocking. It seems perfectly in line with everything he has written about his past. Maybe I’ve kept a lot of grim company over the years – but I’ve heard several variations of this story from former addicts.

    Right, me too, enough that this is one of the primary themes among addicts — how one lives life sober after having done unthinkable things under the influence. Child abuse, domestic violence, murder, etc. In addiction communities, the answer is to be “rigorously honest” about your past, not to hide any of your past wrongdoings from family, friends, coworkers, etc., and to live with, mull over, and own the consequences of these things as you pay them within the support (usually) of a community of fellow addicts. This honesty is part of the accountability process because your support system helps to keep you honest and tends to notice if you’re slipping back into using behavior.

  496. I realize this is kind of a sidebar thing next to the question of whether we should give a platform to former abusers, but I did find the piece of the documentary that talks about addiction as a physiological disease, and it’s good watching. It’s 25 minutes in four parts, but doesn’t have a transcript that I can find online. It’s an interview with Dr. Nora Volkow who specializes in addiction and brain imaging:

    http://www.hbo.com/addiction/thefilm/supplemental/624_nora_volkow.html

    She specifically addresses how addicts suffer “catastrophic consequences” of their addiction and can’t control their using behavior even when they desire to quit using.

    None of this is an excuse for crimes that are committed under the influence — they should be punished as appropriate under the law — but I find it helpful to understand why we tend to be more empathetic to criminals who commit crimes under the influence and how these criminals should(?) be handled differently than those who commit crimes out of clear, unmitigated malice.

  497. Kristen @527, exactly. And maybe the students he slept with were his “chronological” peers and, yes, maybe not all (or maybe not even any) of them felt specifically pressured/abused/victimized. It is quite possible that some students just wanted some no strings attached sex with a hot prof, and that was that.

    However, what about the other women in his classes? When things like that go on in any kind of work environment, everyone knows about them. Does that not create a hostile educational environment for these other students? Isn’t it likely that they could think that maybe one of the conditions of getting a good grade is sleeping with the prof? Isn’t it likely that they might feel uncomfortable in such an environment? What about the male students in his classes – how are their beliefs about gender, power, and sexuality shaped by witnessing this? And is it possible that they could then re-enact these kinds of potentially abusive power relationships with their fellow students?

    So, we have someone undermining the ethical guidelines of his profession and the teacher/student relationship, creating a toxic educational environment for other students, recreating power imbalances in heterosexual relationships in what is ostensibly a feminist classroom, and engaging in predatory and potentially abusive behavior. That, to me, is the real kicker on the issue with sleeping with students – this thing, which antithetical to everything feminism stands for, happened in the context of teaching feminist theory. I don’t want to entirely throw out the idea of redemption, and so maybe (big maybe) one can come back from a thing like that as a human being, as a teacher even, but as a feminist teacher? Just. NO.

  498. Feminism isn’t “broken,” unless one decides that women one disagrees with are the “real” feminists, and one’s own convictions don’t really count as feminism.

  499. What’s the point of feminism if feminists give a platform and leadership to a man who’s abused and hurt women?

    What’s the point of feminism if survivors are silenced and erased? Because for all of this hope and transcendence and forgiveness and compassion rhetoric, I’m seeing a movement that will be a downright hostile place for survivors if their abusers make the right noises about “changing”.

  500. For whatever reason, Hugo’s victim and her family chose not to prosecute. To a reasonable extent we have to respect that.

    It may not entirely have been their “choice.” Schwyzer said that he lied to the police and convinced them that it was a failed suicide pact. His victim and her family might have wanted to vehemently prosecute him. But because the authorities accepted Schwyzer’s version of events, his victim did not have that option.

  501. Sheelzebub: No, we don’t have to throw Hugo in jail. But we don’t have to give him a platform. We can prioritize women.

    let’s get married and run away together

  502. I haven’t had time to read all 550 comments, but I’ve read quite a few, and all I have to say in conclusion that is Hugo Schwyzer can go eff himself. He slept with his students, he tried to KILL a woman, and he LOOKS like a creepy pervert who hangs out at a strip club and will probably try to strangle one of the dancers. The guy is a monster who should be fired from his job and placed on island with other male rapists so they call just rape each other.

  503. Kristen J.: BUT (oh, you knew there was a but, right?), this section right here (quoted above)…this is describing the mechanism by which privilege is reinforced by everyday people through individual action. There are systemic consequences to protecting people who have abused others. One of those systemic consequences is that women are constantly being asked to forgive privileged abusers…to put it behind them…to let it go…because ze’s really a good person.

    This x100.

    delphyne: One of the things abusers and predators do is groom people around them as friends and allies, so when their crimes come to light a whole lot of people will jump to their defense and say what a great guy they are, and how the accusers are just being mean/vindictive/mad/overreacting.

    Yes. And this kind of grooming can be done from a distance, now, online, in social media. It doesn’t have to be up close and personal.

    Do those of you who believe he’s a changed man also think it’s A-okay for him to have carved money and a name and a career for himself from this ugly, abusive past? Obviously it’s standard to have your feminism wrapped up with your personal experiences, but his experiences are as an abuser and predator committing consequence-free misdeeds. Is it okay with you for him to be capitalizing on a marginalized group, members of whom he’s abused in the past with no repercussions, as his meal ticket? This strikes me as something that feminists, whether they’re his friends or not, should be objecting to. Cause it’s fucked up. And yes, I know it’s tiresomely common to profit off evil past wrongdoings. Because ooh, wickedness so titillating, and don’t be like me kids!, and aren’t I brave and strong to reveal this crime I could have gone to prison for committing?, and there’s decent money and more power being a privileged authority on a marginalized group. But I don’t think feminism should be supporting that shit.

    1. Abuse women, your position of power, others’ trust, 100% get away with it lol
    2. REDEMPTION!!!!1!
    3. Profit

    Really, this is okay? Stamp of approval on this guy, because he says he’s changed?

    I started this thread more or less neutral on whether Hugo Schwyzer should have been brought to Feministe. Clarisse is a blogger who thinks his contributions to feminism are valuable, and my initial issue was that she shut down the discussion (it seemed) because commenters had some serious shit to say about this guy. But after reflecting on everything that’s been said I am very glad Schwyzer will have no place here in the future. And we are not powerless to do more or go farther. Thank you to piny, delphyne, Sheezlebub and others for making me think about it.

  504. When you say that radical feminisms’ hands aren’t exactly clean Sheezlebub, remind us which male predators rad fems have invited to the table, and kept there even after having discovered the harm they’d inflicted on women. Little things like sexually exploiting his female students or trying to kill his ex girlfriend. Remind us which violent sexually predatory people rad fems give succour to.

    The answer is there aren’t any.

    Also, this isn’t just about survivors and PTSD. Schwyzer shouldn’t be in feminism even when there isn’t a single survivor in the room. He has harmed women, he is a predator, he uses feminism as a vehicle for his own career and to wield power over even more young women. He stands against everything we stand for. Feminism is about standing up for the interests of women and girls, not about standing up for creeps like him.

  505. The lesson I think is most striking here is that if I were to have a position of authority, be it a professor with his students or an employer with his employees, and abuse that position I could get some hot NSA sex and my only consequence would be to apologize about it and promise not to do it again.
    I say I but, what I mean is all men, or perhaps more accurately all boys, as men may likely be past the point where they can change careers to become a professor with lots of female college students in the stereotypically “experimental” stage in their lives. Also men may not be as impressionable.
    Not only will I not suffer any consequences from the patriarchy, but I will be totally accepted and forgiven among the MOST POWERFUL AND INFLUENTIAL ACTIVIST FEMINIST DEMOGRAPHIC. That’s an incredible lesson to be teaching young men, that not even feminists care if you abuse women.
    Now you may say you do care, that you don’t intend to show that abusing women has no consequences but, intention isn’t magic. I have engaged with my privilege to some degree, perhaps not as effectively as could be hoped, so I can look at emerging thought patterns that are dangerous, at least some of them anyways, and say no, that is not the lesson, that wasn’t intended and its not okay. But I and most of the young men that I was around in my teenage years would look at the story of Hugo and then the response to him by liberal feminism and say: “WOW! Screw sports, I wish I was smart enough to be a professor.”
    Of course some boys would say:
    “Well I could be, or may even be on track to be, a professor but, I doubt women are ever going to treat me the way they treat Hugo”, and that will be another stone on the path to later increasing misogyny.
    The lesson that those of you who support Hugo are giving to the world is that if you are a rich, attractive, smart, privileged, charismatic(mostly a product of the previous listed privileges) white man you can get away with murder, literally, even among those people who are supposed to be all about protecting.
    Again this may not be your intention, it may not even be the conclusion people would draw with better information, although some people with that better information still apparently feel that way.
    That is the lesson that any male who is aware of Hugo’s existence is learning, and the lesson being learned by those guys who take gender studies classes to try and pick up girls, and those faux feminist hipster dudes, who make have memorized some quotes by Andrea Dworkin or bell hooks, and by guys who go to college with no clue and see Hugo in the halls or class and think, I wonder why everyone loves that guy so much, maybe I should take some of his classes. That is their introduction to feminism, from the perspective of a white upper class man. And that is the lens they are going to keep forever about feminism and about how much work they are expected to do to be praised by feminists and other women.
    I wonder, how many of Hugo’s male students are going to call out sexism when they see it, and abuse of privilege when they see how much Hugo abused and how all he gets is support and admiration. How many of them will become active as allies in feminism and work as activists or post on blogs, even mainstream blogs like this and feministing?
    In fact the treatment of Hugo reminds me of a story maybe here or that I found from a link here about some WoC who worked as consultants for white feminist groups about engaging more WoC to join their groups. When they split up the WoC in the organization and the white women and they asked the white women to think of ways they had been expressing privilege and how it had affected their organization wrt to WoC membership. And it turned into an almost competition among the rich, privileged, white ladies to see who had done the most egregiously racist thing. It was sort of a cathartic confessional and they all told each other. And the women all supported each other with gems like, oh I could never admit I had done that, how brave to reveal your sin to society and crap like that.
    And you see that stuff in this thread and the other. Hugo was so brave to admit that attempted murder and to admit to his school that he slept with all those students and did drugs with him. Of course he wasn’t brave, he damn well knew and expected the support he got, instead of driving people away from him they like him more now for admitting those things.
    And then of course we have the people saying well he was addicted and he thought he was helping his ex when he tried to kill her and “I know a lot of addicts and that is pretty common”, well just because its common to be self and other destructive in that way as an addict doesn’t make it right.

  506. Redemption is not a feminist concept, it is a christian one. There is nothing in feminism that requires us to believe in or even want Schwyzer’s redemption.

    However redemption is one of the reasons that Schwyzer is so keen on marrying christianity to feminism. He wants to be forgiven for what he did, he does not want to be held accountable. It’s actually feminists’ job to hold him accountable.

  507. Megalodon: It may not entirely have been their “choice.” Schwyzer said that he lied to the police and convinced them that it was a failed suicide pact. His victim and her family might have wanted to vehemently prosecute him. But because the authorities accepted Schwyzer’s version of events, his victim did not have that option.

    Mmm, point taken.

  508. delphyne: Redemption is not a feminist concept, it is a christian one. There is nothing in feminism that requires us to believe in or even want Schwyzer’s redemption.

    However redemption is one of the reasons that Schwyzer is so keen on marrying christianity to feminism. He wants to be forgiven for what he did, he does not want to be held accountable. It’s actually feminists’ job to hold him accountable.

    Not sure if you’re addressing me, I know a lot of people have used this word, but I completely agree. It is not a feminist concept. Hence when I speak of redemption and HS, it’s the all caps plus !!!1! kind of redemption.

  509. No delphyne, radical feminists just snickered behind their hands when a sex worker they didn’t like wrote about her assault. And it’s not like rad fems haven’t shut down BFP and BA and other WOC, not to mention trans women, so don’t give me this bullshit that that community is for all women. Yeah, I don’t need allies like you lot. While I’m at it, I’ll remind you and the other rad fems again that engaging in pissing contests and purity tests about who’s more feminist than thou isn’t exactly a way to build up your cred. It’s typical that you and yours come into comments threads to show us How It Should Be Really Done, it’s not like any of you have ever done that before. Fuck right off with that nonsense. I’m not your goddamn serf–and the price for admission to the rad fem club is unbridled and unquestioning admiration and tribute to self-appointed leaders.

    Also, this isn’t just about survivors and PTSD. Schwyzer shouldn’t be in feminism even when there isn’t a single survivor in the room.

    Which is what I said upthread, actually. But you’d have to read what we wrote instead of be so eager to piss all over the comments like typical dickhead troll. Here! Here is what I actually wrote:

    If you want to be an ally, be a fucking ally, don’t make money off of other people’s oppression. I give the stink-eye to professional “allies” who capitalize on their power that white and/or male supremacy affords them, who get speaking gigs and writing gigs and call themselves experts on something they do not experience. These allies are the first one to snap at you when you criticize them, when you point out that they’re relying on women and people of color to do the grunt work while they reap the benefits.

    You want to be an ally? Be a great anti-racist, anti-misogynist, pro-feminist, pro-LGBT, pro-disability awareness and rights advocate at work, in whatever your job is. Bring that to your friends and family and colleagues and fellow congregants or fellow activists. I’d much rather these allies brought this to the forefront within their general activism than make their living off of it. I’d much rather they actually gave a shit rather than use this “expertise” (barf) as a bludgeoning stick against other groups they feel threatened by.

    But no marginalized group is a job opportunity, for fuck’s sake.

    FFS.

    But you cannot divorce this from abuse survivors and rape survivors, as much as you may want to. This is part and parcel of the same dynamic that happens in progressive communities where an abuser is coddled and “forgiven” by the larger community and the survivor is instructed to just suck it up.

  510. I’m generally sympathetic to the idea of redemption, although I never thought of it in a particularly religious way. We’re all flawed, we’ve all done things that are wrong (although not all to the same degree – some acts are more hurtful and damaging than others) and so I think redemption is a component of self-improvement.

    That said, being redeemed doesn’t wipe away what one did. It’s a painful lesson for someone who is truly trying to reform herself or himself, but often one of the consequences of doing something hurtful is that a relationship is wrecked and can’t be fully repaired if at all. Then one has to build new relationships, often in an entirely different context.

  511. Safiya Outlines: Men in feminist spaces, please resist making it all about you. Far too many comment threads here lately are getting derailed by lolz having dudes. In feministland, you won’t, nor should you be, the star of the show.

    Word UP.

  512. honeybadger: What’s the point of feminism if feminists don’t believe people can change?

    To change gender-based systemic injustice.

    delphyne: Remind us which violent sexually predatory people rad fems give succour to.

    Those radical feminists who got together a group to go attack a lesbian bar on the S&M night that my friend regularly attended, and beat the shit out of everyone there who tried to stop them from wrecking the place. Or is it only sexual violence committed by men that counts as violence against women?

    Sandy: I started this thread more or less neutral on whether Hugo Schwyzer should have been brought to Feministe. Clarisse is a blogger who thinks his contributions to feminism are valuable, and my initial issue was that she shut down the discussion (it seemed) because commenters had some serious shit to say about this guy. But after reflecting on everything that’s been said I am very glad Schwyzer will have no place here in the future.

    Agreed. This is exactly my trajectory as well.

  513. I’m a rape and abuse survivor Sheezlebub. I’m saying that this issue is larger than PTSD. No woman should be subject to Schwyzer, no woman’s feminism should require that she share a space with him, whether she’s a survivor or not.

    And yes you’re right that this is the dynamic of the abuser being protected whilst victims are left out in the cold, but this is feminism – some of us recognise male predators and have always understood that politically they have no place in our movement. At the moment we’re stuck with him, because his employers and a whole lot of fellow self-promoters do not want to tell him to get the hell out.

    Not sure about your other claims about rad fems, but like I said, until radical feminists invite male sexual predators into feminism and keep them there, our hands are actually clean in a situation like this.

  514. It’s not an equal thing for to say radfem hands aren’t clean in regards to this issue if the issue is men who have seriously hurt women rising to paid feminist leadership. Your chosen examples have nothing to do with radfems and MEN, and they have nothing to do with abusive MEN trying to exploit feminism and feminists letting them.

    Not one radfem defended Kyle Payne. We checked our netowrks to see how far his disease had spread, found it was a tiny blip, and easily wrote him off while he served his time in jail for sexually abusing an unconscious woman.

    A radfem, Heart, outed Barry Deutsch selling his blog to pornographers after it was built up by the contributions of many feminists. Libfems fought radfems over their right to keep linking to and loving Barry after that pimpy betrayal.

    A radfem, justicewalks, outed Amanda Marcotte’s book image racism. Libfems fought her and gave her a lot of shit but she stuck to it and won the day.

    A radfem, Andrea Dworkin, wrote an article calling Bill Clinton the rapist he is. Libfems defend him despite the women who made accusations but unfortunately didn’t preserve their cumstained dresses, and Jessica Valenti ignored his victims too because the photo opportunity was too career-making to refuse.

    Radfems were onto Obama from the beginning, too.

    Sheezlebub wants the marked difference in feminist application to be incidental instead of an instrumental function of how radicalism and liberalism are applied to feminism. The characterization of delphyne’s observation as a personal, petty pissing contest instead of a politically relevant point worth exploring in a “what happened here and how can we avoid it in the future” way is far off the mark and worse than unhelpful.

  515. More to the point is the fact that his articles SUCK anyway. It often sounds more like mansplaining than feminism. He’s not even a real feminist in his philosophy. And it’s all just philosophy to him, just a mental exercise. When I read his writing, I feel like he’s not really “there.” I think he has some kind of dissociative personality disorder or something, if there is such a thing. He lives inside his head, and he’s all talk. I think he might actually be somewhat sociopathic, because sociopaths are very charming and good at manipulating people. They can live their whole lives that way and make whole careers out of it. I want nothing to do with him. Just looking at his eyes gives me the creeps, and his eyes have ALWAYS given me the creeps. even before I knew about all this. He’s not right.

  516. For the love of Mother Fuck. Every single day, victimized women don’t bother to bring charges because their word is no good when compared to the word of their attcker(s). I didn’t bring charges against my ex-husband after he tried to kill me (I had divorce papers served to him; he broke into my apartment in the middle of the night with the idea of stabbing me to death in my sleep—fortunately for me, I was awake). Why? Because I had no way of proving that I had been abused. I had no way of proving that what happened that night was anything other than “a lover’s spat”. I fought back in order to save my own life—thus, I would have been subject to arrest, too (moreso—he left no marks on my face, but I did on his. Chances are excellent that I would have been seen as the aggressor despite being over half-a-foot-shorter and a hundred pounds less). I’m one of those hot, spicy dago bitches, and you know how wild and crazy those bitches are, right? Hurr, hurr. They like getting slapped around, amirite? Hurr, hurr. Meanwhile, my ex was handsome, charming, and sociopathic. Butter didn’t melt in his mouth. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that I wouldn’t have been believed.

    How could I “know” that? Well, some years later a woman was raped in my community. She was a real estate agent, upper-middle-class, WASP, a pillar of the community. She was raped at gunpoint while showing a house. The State’s Attorney’s office would not bring charges; said it was a “he-said, she-said” despite her wounds (which included vaginal and anal lacerations) and the fact that the man accused had used fake ID to set up the home showing (when the police interviewed him at home, they saw multiple fake IDs on his table as well). The rapist’s story was that he was a hot slut who wanted rough sex. That was good enough for the authorities.

    Not long afterwards, the rapist victimized another woman. He dumped her body in a cornfield. It wasn’t until the semen on that woman’s dead body matched the semen on the real estate agent’s body that charges were brought.

    So. I know my city. If a woman with significantly more power and privilege than me can be dismissed, I knew I didn’t stand a chance in hell. I also know of the double-charges in domestic violence cases—defending yourself can (and usually is) reason for both parties to be arrested where I live. I knew that had I attempted to bring charges against my ex, chances were greater that *I* would have had to defend myself in court for defending myself—-that, or the old “I’ll drop charges if you will” routine. Either way, it would have escalated the situation, making my ex that much angrier. I alrready didn’t have any means of insuring my safety other than trying to sleep as little as possible and be home as little as possible. Quitting my job and leaving town was not an option (abandoning my apprenticeship would have meant abandoning my career, not just a job—it would be like the equivalent of walking away from a scholarship). I had me, myself and I to rely on, period.

    This is the type of calculus women are performing when faced with the “do I press charges or not”. First, you have to convince someone a crime has been committed.

    Why do “feminists” not know this? Even the white, middle-class ones? It’s not like even white middle-class women’s privilege can trump that of their male counterparts. WTF?

  517. Also this isn’t a purity contest, this is about how for years we have had to watch this FUCKER squatting in the centre of feminism, making money from it, making a career and a name for himself from it, aided and abetted by a whole lot of lib fems who refused to examine the fact he was on his fourth marriage, his anti-abortion stance, his feminism/christianity mix, his pro-porn position, his admissions about fucking his students, and so on. Because he promoted their work.

    And they still want to do it. Apparently even trying to murder your ex girlfriend isn’t enough to get you kicked out of lib feminism’s cosy club. Being a rad fem mind you puts you right on the outside of it though.

    You don’t need to be “pure” to know that fucking his students makes a man a scumbag, you just have to use a miniscule bit of commonsense and empathy for women.

  518. La Lubu: This is the type of calculus women are performing when faced with the “do I press charges or not”. First, you have to convince someone a crime has been committed.

    Why do “feminists” not know this? Even the white, middle-class ones? It’s not like even white middle-class women’s privilege can trump that of their male counterparts. WTF?

    Jeez, La Lubu, don’t you know that the American justice system is the best in the world, and the final word on guilt and innocence? Unless, of course, you’re saying that attempted murder is a good reason to imprison a middle-class white guy. Then it’s just too horrifying to contemplate.

  519. delphyne:

    Also this isn’t a purity contest, this is about how for years we have had to watch this FUCKER squatting in the centre of feminism, making money from it, making a career and a name for himself from it, aided and abetted by a whole lot of lib fems who refused to examine the fact he was on his fourth marriage, ….his pro-porn position

    While I agree wholeheartedly that this Hugo guy sounds like a real asshole/douchebag supersized combo gem and I am on board with examining his criminal and questionable behavior/attitudes towards women, what exactly is there to examine about having had multiple marriages and being pro-porn?

  520. delphyne: You don’t need to be “pure” to know that fucking his students makes a man a scumbag, you just have to use a miniscule bit of commonsense and empathy for women.

    And yet instead of coming in here as an ally and fellow feminist, you and yours come in to lecture us about how we’re doin it rong. Like you always do.

  521. La Lubu: Why do “feminists” not know this? Even the white, middle-class ones? It’s not like even white middle-class women’s privilege can trump that of their male counterparts. WTF?

    No shit. What the fuck indeed. Because here’s the thing–not only are supposed feminists getting all “well, she didn’t want to press charges” and completely ignore the fact that HS lied about her to the cops (and that the cops believed the man, imagine that), but they’re ignoring the institutional misogyny that’s in play. It’s like suddenly, it just doesn’t exist! And now we’ve got lectures about forgiveness and change and all of that shit.

    So, I will ask you all again: What do you hope to gain? What kind of feminism will you have when you privilege the voice of a man–and an abuser and exploiter of women, no less–over the voices of women? Why should we give him leadership roles or credibility?

  522. However, what about the other women in his classes? When things like that go on in any kind of work environment, everyone knows about them. Does that not create a hostile educational environment for these other students? Isn’t it likely that they could think that maybe one of the conditions of getting a good grade is sleeping with the prof?

    It’s worth noting that Hugo has recounted an anecdote about a student who came to him in tears offering to have sex with him.

  523. i’m not your ally Sheezlebub and you’ve already said you aren’t mine. Rad fems have been kept firmly out of lib fem land for years. There’s a whole other section of feminism going on these days which has no connection to mainstream feminism because of the cold shoulder that “allies” gave us.

    That’s fine, you get on with your stuff we get on with ours, however my concern is keeping men like this out of feminism. It is sickening he was ever allowed in, when it was so obvious he shouldn’t have been here. If there isn’t going to be any reflection on how this happened, what will people do when the next plausible predator comes along trailing a hundred red flags?

  524. @Boadie Macleod

    you’re right – i just went to his website and there is something very creepy about his eyes in that image. it may just be the way light is falling on his face but, yeesh*.

    —————

    btw, i don’t mean to derail the conversation at this point but just to bring a little more perspective re hugo schwyzer’s character (to the extent that can be inferred from his writing online), and especially for his supporters who still think he is being treated unfairly by the commenters here, this is apparently all one big joke to him. everyone here seriously questioning his actions and accountability just think he’s “the Ginsu Knife Set of Wrongness in Human Form”, and have not “seriously thought about these questions*” in their own lives. (words from his creeptastic blog.)

    and also that he has refused to “stoop” to the level of answering piny, physioproffe and others who have questioned his rather flippant treatment of this entire incident in his own comment sections.

    * super interesting that absolutely no woman-run feminist (liberal, radical or other) website that i’ve ever been on has had a picture that large of themselves on the header, if at all. what a bizarre little creep.

    ** clarisse’s questions, that is.

  525. La Lubu: This is the type of calculus women are performing when faced with the “do I press charges or not”. First, you have to convince someone a crime has been committed.

    Why do “feminists” not know this? Even the white, middle-class ones? It’s not like even white middle-class women’s privilege can trump that of their male counterparts. WTF?

    Yes, exactly this.

  526. Unless, of course, you’re saying that attempted murder is a good reason to imprison a middle-class white guy.

    I’m not sure why people have the impression that Hugo is a middle class white guy, but he is not. He is an upper class, old money white guy.

  527. delphyne:

    Not sure about your other claims about rad fems, but like I said, until radical feminists invite male sexual predators into feminism and keep them there, our hands are actually clean in a situation like this.

    I am not sure the point of this, honestly. Are you trying to play some little game of one upmanship over whose ideology is superior via the fewer evils they allow in the community? Seriously? That’s childish.

  528. Oh, my God. You guys. Can we please, please not have a pissing contest over whose version of feminism is better? I can’t stand some of you, and many of you can’t stand me, but I trust you all a hell of a lot further than Hugo. Please let’s keep our eye on the ball? We all hate rapists, okay?

  529. I’ve changed my mind about five times since this started. It’s easy to forget the breadth of his professional transgressions, but laid out here, damn. Clearly Hugo has abused his professional authority to behave in predatory ways. We can’t force him out of the movement in any official capacity, but we have every right as a feminist community to put his editorializing in that context indefinitely.

  530. Brian: I’m not sure why people have the impression that Hugo is a middle class white guy, but he is not. He is an upper class, old money white guy.

    Had no idea. Thanks for the correction. And, ugh.

  531. Do you think analysis of how the *whole* of the feminist community approaches and deals with male predators is childish? I don’t.

    This isn’t an abstract discussion. Schwyzer really was here. He still is here. He’s still teaching female students and claiming that what he’s doing is feminism. He really did sexually exploit his students, he really did try to kill his ex.

  532. piny: Oh, my God. You guys. Can we please, please not have a pissing contest over whose version of feminism is better? I can’t stand some of you, and many of you can’t stand me, but I trust you all a hell of a lot further than Hugo. Please let’s keep our eye on the ball? We all hate rapists, okay?

    You’re right, and I’m sorry for my part in it.

  533. I am kind of amazed that the guy is still teaching. Even if you don’t care about women, don’t you care about lawsuits?

  534. @poetree re what there is “to examine about having had multiple marriages and being pro-porn”

    i can’t speak for delphyne, but for me it is most certainly relevant to examine four marriages and pro-porn-but-at-the-same-time-anti-abortion views in the context of hugo schwyzer himself.

    for instance, it is fine for the wimminz to have full sexual bodily autonomy when it comes to making content that is pleasing to men i.e. porn (generally speaking) but not when it comes to exercising that same bodily autonomy for something that could potentially hurt hugo schwyzer’s own very special feelings i.e. abortion?

    there is a serious disconnect there.

    also, brian@559 – that is seriously disturbing.

  535. everyone here seriously questioning his actions and accountability just think he’s “the Ginsu Knife Set of Wrongness in Human Form”, and have not “seriously thought about these questions*” in their own lives. (words from his creeptastic blog.)

    Hah, loved that he (purposely) chose to link to a Tumblr entry with very little ensuing discussion, especially when there were much larger and more complex critiques happening across that specific platform.

  536. I’ve read all the comments and all the backstory and it remains amazing that there are women who would argue to continue to support Hugo. Amazing, but understandable in the larger context of what feminism of any flavor is actually about.

    The feminists who prop him up and Hugo himself have been and are playing out the fantasy of the Beauty and the Beast. Girls and women and boys and men are brainwashed from birth to believe that men can be “beasts” and that it is a woman’s job to reform a man who is one. Men like that get huge latitude because reform is always possible. Women are supposed to believe that beneath the beast is a decent human being just waiting to be uncovered by her womanly love. As long as the man gives glimpses of his better self, he’s always the misunderstood beast who just needs to be accepted. This isn’t just a fantasy for women. Men like Hugo learn early and are reinforced countless times to rely on the same myth to give them an out from objectively unforgivable abuses of women. That there are women in this very discussion who consider themselves feminists, yet continue to argue from that fantasy just shows that you have to want to wake up from that fantasy, no one can make you.

  537. The relevance is that Schwyzer supports male supremacist institutions (marriage, pornography, christianity). He’s using feminism to further his own interests.

  538. Listen, not defending the guy, but it’s not that these views are necessarily concurrent, okay? I think he might be pro-choice now. But he wrote this post called, I shit you not, Crying with Rage at Amy Richards, about this woman with the gall to terminate two of the pregnancies that were concurrently tying up her uterus, because triplets are hard, and ever since I’ve basically been omigod shut uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. I think he eventually thought it over, and decided that loving the babies was not sufficient reason to think a woman should be obligated to sustain an unwanted pregnancy. But his emotional involvement in her pregnancy was gross. Soppy and gross.

  539. piny: I am kind of amazed that the guy is still teaching. Even if you don’t care about women, don’t you care about lawsuits?

    One would think, but the redemption narrative has a lot of traction. Unfortunately.

    Me, I think if you feel truly remorseful about the way you’ve treated women, or people of color, or the disabled, or whothefuckever, that you wouldn’t make your living as an “expert” on their oppression.

  540. Agree Sheezlebub.

    If he’s really sorry (and penitent Christian which he claims to be), he’ll close his blog, find another job, and go down to the police station and tell them the true story about what he did instead of the made-up one he came up with all those years ago.

  541. Not to excuse paternalism, but what about the parents of his students? Mine would have been really bothered by the idea.

  542. It’s telling that Hugo’s so important that some of you will continue to privilege his voice over the voices of women. The voices of survivors.

    Hello?

    Also, Hugo is a contentious figure – he scares people, people have a right not to trust him and not want him around (even as I am both surprised and a bit amused by comments here by Fennel – hi, Fennel – addressing feminism as if it were a living entity that can answer back and go, “But of course. We can fix feminism if we don’t hang out with Hugo Schwyzer. Yes – it certainly works like that.”) – but if I don’t believe that his story is shocking, and if I do believe that he can be a force of good (as long as he chooses to do so), is that privileging his voice? Genuine question, not necessarily a rhetorical one.

  543. also, brian@559 – that is seriously disturbing.

    Yeah – at the time, I didn’t think that much of it – when he tells the story, he claims he didn’t go through with it. When I read it, I didn’t know he had slept with his students, so it seemed comparatively innocuous. With more context – it seems more likely that it reflects a bad atmosphere.

  544. Sheelzebub:

    Me, I think if you feel truly remorseful about the way you’ve treated women, or people of color, or the disabled, or whothefuckever, that you wouldn’t make your living as an “expert” on their oppression.

    Also, you wouldn’t be crowing about it to the world. Wait. Is that just me?

  545. Mr Matt @542 – May one presume that your references to “all boys” and “any male” omitted the adjective “straight” (or “straight/bi”)?

  546. okay, i have read all the comments here and I finally caved and went to look at the guy’s website (I wanted to see the googly eyes). While sincerely honoring the rage and pain that many people have expressed here, and the rightful horror about his backstory,

    OH MY GOD THAT WEBSITE IS FUCKING COMEDY GOLD. It looks like it was constructed by The Feminist Onion. Perty blue eyed hunky creepster is sex-positive sensitivity training feminist ally? Also sorta racist?

    HA AHAHAHAHA HA HAHAH AHA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA

    ha ha ha ha hah ha .

    I kind of think all flavors of feminist (for my money, delphyne and sheelzebub both make great points) might be able to agree that if a scary clown parody like HS didn’t exist, we might in our more comic moments be tempted to invent him.

  547. Natalia, I’m seeing HS get a lot more slack than other women have among feminists. I don’t care if he’s a good person now or he’s reformed or whatever. (Though I don’t believe it.) What I care about is that someone who’s been abusive has been elevated to a spokesperson here, and been defended and coddled.

    What message do you think this sends to other survivors? That if their abusers put on a good performance, they’ll be disbelieved and their abusers believed by their supposed feminist allies? That their abusers–who tend to be charming and kind in public and know the right things to say–will get a platform if they say the right things and espouse the right cause? Where does that leave us?

    I cannot tell you how demoralizing that is. How awful to basically see your community–the community of people who are supposed to have your back–give a platform and credibility to someone who took advantage of the institutional power they had and hurt you.

    I do not give a shit if people personally like Hugo and want to hang with him or whatever. But he should not have the credibility and leadership positions that he has within this movement. He’s not a fucking expert on my issues. My concern is the women feminism is supposed to be fighting for. Giving a platform to someone who tried to commit murder-suicide and then used institutional misogyny to get his ass off the hook by lying about the woman to the cops is fucking reprehensible. Insisting that we forgive him and allow him that platform is completely unreasonable.

  548. @piny – thanks for the correction on that. really not up on schwizzbag’s views. how nice that he finally believes women should have a say in the running of their own bodies, though.

  549. Kathleen: OH MY GOD THAT WEBSITE IS FUCKING COMEDY GOLD.

    I actually hadn’t seen the website in ages, since stopped reading him. I guess I can see your view, but I think I would have to be in a dark humour place that day.

    I can’t help but notice this in his books and lectures section, though:

    “Hugo has been lecturing about enthusiastic consent since the 1980s.”

    So am I to understand that the whole “I used to sleep with my students while high” thing was actually in a womens studies class? I had been under the impression he got therapy, got sober, and then had his conversion to both christianity and feminism, which redeemed him, blah blah and so on… (I never really paid much attention to him, so don’t really know.)

    Was he actually teaching the same classes before and after??

  550. what truly pisses me off now is his social media network-whining. he mentions that he was very grateful for supporting e-mail, and people rush to assure him that the backlash he is facing now is what you get “when you put yourself out there”, and that he is magnificently suited to teach young men about the meaning of being an ally.

    so this is what he and his apparent fan base take from the various criticisms of his work, behaviour and treatment of people. this is what a great “ally” looks like who should teach other men* how to be one themselves? and not only does he not seem to be able to reflect on what people have said here over and over again, he seems to still see himself as the actual victim (just as the post about the attempted murder implicitly stated, since he is now the one having to live with this horrible guilt and all…). t’is tragic, indeed…

    how can anyone still defend him, reading and seeing this? what exactly is the line here? why can’t “the line”, for once, be the testimonies of women of colour who report of his discrimination towards them (…and could be believed for a change)? why is attempted murder still not “the line”, since he’s totally filled with remorse (which… he does not seem to be, actually, as people have pointed out – given his interesting dog comparison, for example – and really shouldn’t be the focus this clusterfuck-evaluation anyway, as so many people also said before)?

    you really couldn’t make this shit up. what a great ally, indeed. *off to vomit*

  551. DouglasG: DouglasG 12.27.2011 at 2:12 pm

    Mr Matt @542 – May one presume that your references to “all boys” and “any male” omitted the adjective “straight” (or “straight/bi”)?

    Shit, my bad, yes, I meant that.

  552. @Natalia,

    He can’t be a force for good in a community where his continued presence causes active harm. That’s sort of the point. Where does his desire to “make up” or be a force for good slam into the rights of those he’s harmed. If he wants, he can go be a force for good in a gazillion different places, just not within feminism.

  553. If I had done this horrible thing, and then started on the long road to atoning for it, and then faced an angry and disgusted reaction from a bunch of women I ostensibly respected, I would not be pulling through with a little help from my friends. I would not be thanking people for their support. I would not be treating this as a terrible calamity to befall me, the natural consequence of my reprehensible behavior towards women. Again, these reactions are at minimum totally reasonable. They deserve respect, most of all from this supposedly recovered abuser.

  554. LC: LC 12.27.2011 at 2:31 pm

    accalmie: and that he is magnificently suited to teach young men about the meaning of being an ally.

    As a man… can I slip a no vote in there?

    Seconded. Now we can start a petition.

  555. I am kind of amazed that the guy is still teaching. Even if you don’t care about women, don’t you care about lawsuits?

    Word. The fact that he got tenure when much of this was going on boggles my mind.

    Re: the class issue. Hugo has written extensively about what he calls his uber-WASPy upbringing. (He titled a post the Happy WASP Boy, if I recall correctly.). For years, his family has been locally prominent and part of the “right kind of people”. You cannot make me believe that those factors are irrelevant to how his run ins with the cops have played out. People might not read the social register anymore, but it’s not impotent.

  556. by Fennel – hi, Fennel – addressing feminism as if it were a living entity that can answer back

    well… it seemed worth a try!

  557. piny: I am kind of amazed that the guy is still teaching. Even if you don’t care about women, don’t you care about lawsuits?

    Honestly? Over sexual harassment? Of female students by what I’m told (I have not yet clicked over to his website) is a good-looking male professor? Come on, we all know how a suit like that would go. To say nothing of the fact that since, as far as we know at this point, the sex with students was sex, and not rape (i.e. it was consensual) and the students were of age…he hasn’t actually done anything legally actionable, I think, unless it can be proven that the sex with the student affected her grade. It’s not illegal to sleep with your students; it’s just morally reprehensible. The best chance of a case would be from a student who felt that a classmate who was having sex with him had an unfair advantage over her, and not only would that be a real pain in the ass with very little reward, but I’ve got twenty bucks that says that the plaintiff would be dismissed as “just a jealous woman.”

    As for parents…Pasadena City College is a community college. I strongly doubt the parents of the students who go there have much pull or much financial weight to throw around.

    OK, just been to his website. He’s pretty average looking, I think. He was/is totally benefitting from the aura of power that anyone who performs receives (teaching is very much about performing, after all), and, I bet, the fact that he’s massively better educated, and, from what I’m told, from a massively higher class stratum than his students are.

  558. The feminists who prop him up and Hugo himself have been and are playing out the fantasy of the Beauty and the Beast. Girls and women and boys and men are brainwashed from birth to believe that men can be “beasts” and that it is a woman’s job to reform a man who is one. Men like that get huge latitude because reform is always possible. Women are supposed to believe that beneath the beast is a decent human being just waiting to be uncovered by her womanly love. As long as the man gives glimpses of his better self, he’s always the misunderstood beast who just needs to be accepted. This isn’t just a fantasy for women. Men like Hugo learn early and are reinforced countless times to rely on the same myth to give them an out from objectively unforgivable abuses of women. That there are women in this very discussion who consider themselves feminists, yet continue to argue from that fantasy just shows that you have to want to wake up from that fantasy, no one can make you.

    Yes this, Noanodyne.

  559. Sheezlebub, these are all points well taken – though I don’t believe that anyone among us can speak for all survivors. At the very least, you can count me out of that.

    As piny said upthread (I’m sorry I haven’t responded in full like I meant to, piny, it’s been a long day and I have a long-ass commute at the moment) – for a lot of the people here, it doesn’t matter if Hugo has changed or if he hasn’t. What matters is his position.

    Yet as we have seen – within his community, his contribution has been valued. Even after these latest revelations. What can you do with that? What do you tell a young woman who says, “Well, no, actually, I still want Hugo Schwyzer as my professor”?

    Baby is awake, so I apologize in advance if I’m not around later. It’s very late in Moscow already.

  560. And…when it comes to tenure…I’ve just checked the college’s sexual harassment policy. It specifies that sexual harassment involves unwelcome sexual conduct/speech/etc. So, I don’t think he was even in violation of that, unless the policy used to be stricter.

    Let me hasten to say that this does not make his conduct morally acceptable, let alone feminist, in my view. I’m just answering why he’s still teaching, why he doesn’t fear lawsuits, and how he got tenure.

  561. Ugh, I had heard very little of Hugo Schwyzer, nor did I read the original thread, so I’ve done mostly sitting and reading for this thread. But going to his site made me vomit a bit. Along with the issues that have been mentioned in this thread and others, I have huge problems with his body advocacy. His Healthy is the New Skinny site features only clearfaced, thin women, which is SO damaging. I hate those kinds of projects because they claim to embrace all bodies and STILL exclude fat ones. Furthermore, the project is still invested in the idea of “pretty” and valuing women for their appearance, which is both gross and unsurprising.

    To put the cherry on the sundae, evidently Hugo just loooooves the mess that is the Kabbalah Center. And defends it because appropriation! It’s just awesome fun! Color me shocked.

    So, yeah, just to add to the grossness.

    Why is this guy any authority at all?

  562. That post about this on his own blog is seriously narcissistic. He thinks that anyone criticising his attempted murder of woman has just not been answering Clarisse’s questions about whether people can change…. as if forgiving and forgetting male violence and absolving violenct men of their violence was the purpose of feminism.

    (Also: amswering a ‘yes’ to Clarisse’s first and penultimate questions, as I would be inclined to do as rule, doth not lead to ‘yay, Hugo. Keep up the faux-feminism!’)

    I’ll go and talk to feminism and see whart she says on the matter (it’ll amuse Natalia if nothing else).

    Seriously, though. His post shows that this is all ego-fodder for him, crowing over the fact that women are disturbed by his violent past. Feminist man with bad boy past, wow what a hero.[/ sarcasm]

  563. As a man… can I slip a no vote in there?

    As a man, I certainly don’t want him speaking for me. (‘course, I didn’t choose to be a man, and I don’t particularly want anyone to claim the ability to speak for me on the grounds that I was assigned the gender “man” when I was born. But that’s another discussion.)

  564. Frankly, to whomever upthread thought this was a bad reason to start disliking Hugo: Yeah, I admit happily that the first time I heard of him was when he came out in support of Amanda Marcotte’s racist book cover. I was appalled at the book cover, disgusted by Marcotte’s dismissal of the obvious racism, and completely annoyed at Mr. Dude who took it upon himself to be the self-appointed older brother feminist defending Marcotte from the evil attacks of lesser, jealous feminists.

    So tell me again why that was a bad reason to start disliking him?

  565. Natalia, I’m not claiming to speak for all survivors. But as someone who’s dealt with a flavor of this in the past, it’s extremely hurtful and alienating to see a community defend and give credibility to someone who fucked you over. As a woman, this tells me that even feminists will give aid and comfort to someone who has used his institutional power to get out of punishment for attempted murder. That Hugo is more important that us rank-and-filers because, well, he’s well know, and he supports other prominent feminists, and he says he’s changed and he’s terribly sorry.

    But I also don’t think that men should have positions of leadership in the feminist movement, anymore than I think that White people should have positions of leadership in anti-racism work, etc. However, people differ with me on that, no harm no foul, I get it. But when the spokesperson has actually been abusive and deeply misogynist, and hasn’t actually been held accountable, his (and his fans) blathering on about forgiveness is disingenuous.

    And again–the good he’s done doesn’t amount to anything compared to the harm it does to a lot of women–including the many women who have posted here–to give him credibility and a platform over women who haven’t abused their power. He does not speak for me, I wish he’d stop this shit, and I wish that other feminists would stop giving him a platform. He’s making money off of feminism after benefiting from male supremacy in some horrifying ways. That’s beyond gross. And it’s horrible betrayal on the part of feminists to continue to give someone like that a platform or credibility.

    As I said upthread, it’s a punch to the gut.

  566. I knew Hugo was untrustworthy when he added something to a critical comment I left on his blog a couple of years ago. He added this sentence: “BTW, I love your blog!”

    I did NOT love his blog, and I never use “BTW.” I asked him to remove the ersatz sentence. He didn’t. Creepy, creepy, creepy.

  567. number9: Kristen @527, exactly. And maybe the students he slept with were his “chronological” peers and, yes, maybe not all (or maybe not even any) of them felt specifically pressured/abused/victimized. It is quite possible that some students just wanted some no strings attached sex with a hot prof, and that was that.

    However, what about the other women in his classes? When things like that go on in any kind of work environment, everyone knows about them. Does that not create a hostile educational environment for these other students? Isn’t it likely that they could think that maybe one of the conditions of getting a good grade is sleeping with the prof? Isn’t it likely that they might feel uncomfortable in such an environment? What about the male students in his classes – how are their beliefs about gender, power, and sexuality shaped by witnessing this? And is it possible that they could then re-enact these kinds of potentially abusive power relationships with their fellow students?

    Yes to all that.

    The problem with professor-student relationships isn’t just the potential for exploitation of the power relationship by the professor, it’s also, even in cases where there is no quid pro quo going on with the student, the alteration of the learning environment for all the other students. This is especially so when there is a distributed grade curve; if a student is in a relationship with the professor and gets a high grade, there will a) be a question of whether the student truly earned that grade or received assistance from the professor (whether in the form of outside instruction or biased grading); and b) be a question of whether a student who got a lower grade really deserved that higher grade.

    To give a work-based example, let’s say you have a consensual relationship between an employee and the boss, and that employee is given promotions, raises, better working conditions or other benefits because of that relationship. That means that the employees who are not in the relationship now can’t get the same benefits and thus have their working conditions altered.

    So, while it’s always nice to hear about students who dated their professors and totally didn’t feel exploited, the fact that the student is a consenting adult doesn’t eliminate all the other problems inherent in a student-professor relationship where the professor is grading the student. This is why there’s a focus on the professor’s behavior and not the student’s.

  568. As a finale to the Amanda Marcotte racist book cover debacle, when Seal Press finally realised they’d fucked up and issued an apology, Hugo, along with Ampersand/Barry Deutsch (who sold his feminist web domain to porn) went over to their blog to graciously accept their apology:

    http://sealwomen.blogspot.com/2008/04/public-apology.php

    It was a great reason to start disliking him tinfoil hattie.

  569. Also? If I were just learning about feminism and saw someone like him given a platform and credibility, I’d wonder about the credibility of feminism. I’d wonder if I’d be believed and supported if a man who said and did the right things to ingratiate himself with feminists assaulted me, abused me, or even just acted like a privileged asshat.

    It’s sending quite a message out about these feminists prioritize, and it’s not women. (One or two women claiming they feel he’s just great notwithstanding.)

  570. @Boadie at 539

    Can we please avoid calling for rape as a punishment? No matter how hypothetical or supposedly karmic, that’s some toxic shit right there. It’s also epic nauseating for those of us who are survivors of male-on-male sexual violence.

  571. “Seriously, though. His post shows that this is all ego-fodder for him, crowing over the fact that women are disturbed by his violent past. Feminist man with bad boy past, wow what a hero.[/ sarcasm]”

    fennel, a quote that sums that attitude up so well is this: “I have no problem writing about my past (though it does tend to get me in trouble), but I don’t aspire to be a third-rate serial memoirist.”

    i did a double take reading that “though it does tend to get me in trouble” as in, is this spermbag for real?

    but of course. it’s all part of his rakish, aw-shucks-ain’t-i-just-the-cutest-little-hellraiser charm. schwizzbag.

  572. Li: Can we please avoid calling for rape as a punishment? No matter how hypothetical or supposedly karmic, that’s some toxic shit right there.

    Yes, seconded (though not the first time in this conversation somebody’s had to say this).

    I know most of my comments here have been “seconding” other people’s comments. I’m trying to keep from taking too much air up in here, but am reading the whole thread and appreciating the conversation.

  573. piny: I am kind of amazed that the guy is still teaching. Even if you don’t care about women, don’t you care about lawsuits?

    I’m going to take a wild guess here: the student pool at a community college is much less likely to sue than the student pool at UCLA or Berkeley. And likely for many of the reasons articulated above: given their socioeconomic status, who would believe them?

  574. Sleeping with your students is not simply running afoul of an archaic convention, as zuzu and others have pointed out there is an extraordinary opportunity to exploit a power imbalance for your own benefit. I find it particularly sickening because professors who engage in this behavior are also often the professors who seek to self-aggrandize. By setting themselves up as “experts” somehow more intelligent and knowledgable than their students – particularly in the philosophies where education confers no expertise, they are further heightening this imbalance. Doing it to get laid is vile.

  575. I have just posted this comment on Schwyzer’s blog post:

    Hugo, if you have addressed in the past the question how it is a legitimate component of recovery, atonement, redemption, or whatever, from your past history of abusive and criminal acts against young women for you to continue to surround yourself with young women and place yourself in a position of authority in relation to them and teach them about feminism, could you respond with some links? If not, how about addressing it now?

  576. Sheelzebub: Also? If I were just learning about feminism and saw someone like him given a platform and credibility, I’d wonder about the credibility of feminism. I’d wonder if I’d be believed and supported if a man who said and did the right things to ingratiate himself with feminists assaulted me, abused me, or even just acted like a privileged asshat.

    Like, say, if you were a new attorney at the EEOC, the office charged with overseeing sexual-harassment claims, and your boss sexually harassed you with pubic hairs on Coke cans.

  577. Not that it matters, because I have long disliked Hugo, but he is currently pro-choice and mildly anti-porn. He claims he has/had a porn addiction and was for a while vehemently anti-porn, but has I think calmed his views on porn.

    Which is fine, because we can all dislike him for his racism (“My wife has slightly darker skin than I do and has one Black grandparent! I am not racist!”), his ignoring other feminists, his insistence that changing your name on marriage is not just a compromise that some women choose to make but an actively feminist action, his immense, immense class privilege (“It’s impossible to grow up unless you move far away for university and live in a dorm! A huge loan is worth it! Sure, I only went an hour away and used family money to cover it, but you should change coasts!”), and his complete lack of understanding of how Christianity != feminism and . . . I mean, the reasons to dislike him are legion even if we just look at his professed beliefs, before we even consider his previous actions. His previous stance on abortion is by far the last reason I have to dislike him.

  578. Sheelzebub: It’s telling that Hugo’s so important that some of you will continue to privilege his voice over the voices of women. The voices of survivors. You’re giving quite the message to us. Just know this: the next time an Assange-like case comes up, or a rape case or an abuse case or any kind of case comes up where the man is privileged over the woman, where the woman (and the women who point out how fucked up this is) is derided, dismissed, erased, and blamed, you can look in the mirror if you want to see someone who’s part of the problem.

    QFT.

  579. Boadie MacLeod: More to the point is the fact that his articles SUCK anyway. It often sounds more like mansplaining than feminism. He’s not even a real feminist in his philosophy. And it’s all just philosophy to him, just a mental exercise. When I read his writing, I feel like he’s not really “there.” I think he has some kind of dissociative personality disorder or something, if there is such a thing. He lives inside his head, and he’s all talk. I think he might actually be somewhat sociopathic, because sociopaths are very charming and good at manipulating people. They can live their whole lives that way and make whole careers out of it. I want nothing to do with him. Just looking at his eyes gives me the creeps, and his eyes have ALWAYS given me the creeps. even before I knew about all this. He’s not right.

    In using the phrase “Dissociative Personality Disorder” without actually looking up what dissociation is you’ve basically implied me, and several other lovely people I know are one step away from being sociopaths. I HATE when people use all mental condition terms interchangeably, it’s inaccurate, and it fosters misunderstanding and stereotypes towards disabled people. Dissociation is completely different from antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy). People who dissociate can be as kind caring sympathetic and empathetic as anyone, and I am unaware of any evidence correlating dissociation with abusive behavior.

  580. Mr. Kristen J.: By setting themselves up as “experts” somehow more intelligent and knowledgable than their students – particularly in the philosophies where education confers no expertise

    Mr. Kristen J, I do not want to start another derail, but I do want to note that I take exception to this and consider it an insult. I actually do have greater knowledge and expertise in my discipline than my students do–I’ve studied it professionally, day in and day out, for several years, and they have not. I can’t actually think of an area of knowledge or profession in which it would not be the case that someone who has done that has greater knowledge and expertise than someone who has not. I will not mention this again, so as not to start another derailing, but nor did I want to just let it pass as though years of study and review and practice and professional critique have left me with no more knowledge or expertise than an undergrad.

  581. About his victim not pressing charges…I’m so upset by some of what I have read here I am shaking so bear with me if this jumps around a little bit…

    THAT CHOICE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER. I cannot believe anyone is so either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid as to not be able to see that. Whether she wanted to or not is almost beside the point because THAT CHOICE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER when she was UNCONSCIOUS and hospitalized when her rich, white ex-boyfriend from a socially prominent family LIED TO THE POLICE and told them she had wanted to kill herself. From that point, there’s really almost NO WAY she could have scratched her way back up the wall to the point where she would be truly in control of whether to press charges or not.

    Do you know how that feels? To be hurt and tormented and threatened and abused by someone who has that much of a power advantage? Sadly, many women here probably do know how that feels. But if you don’t, just picture something precious to you being held by a person who is 12 feet tall. They hold it up over your head and taunt you, dangle it down in front of you then yank it away and say well you had your chance why didn’t you grab it?

    To hear supposed feminists making light of this, saying “well if she had cared she would have pressed charges” makes me want to throw up.

    Second, even if he were not rich, white, and advantaged over her in practically every way, have you ever tangled with a charming, narcissistic man who has everyone else in the world fooled, wrapped around his finger? In private he makes your life a living hell, but everyone loves him because he’s such a nice guy, so sweet and honest and clean-living and upstanding! I have NO DOUBT that had she pressed charges, HE WOULD HAVE HAD HER DESTROYED. He would have spared no expense and no excess to make sure she regretted that decision every day of her life. And he still would have gotten off the hook. That’s how his type works and mark my words, she, of all people HAD to know that. She had seen it demonstrated to her time after time. I have no doubt of that.

    WHY THE FUCKING HELL should this have to be spelled out to a bunch of so-called feminists on a so-called feminist blog????

  582. Branwen: WHY THE FUCKING HELL should this have to be spelled out to a bunch of so-called feminists on a so-called feminist blog????

    Right? Oh, a woman who had just been raped and whose wealthy, white, upper-class male savior told everybody that she was suicidal “chose” not to press charges against him for attempted murder once she woke up? Gee, why might that have been? It’s hard to imagine. Maybe we could find some feminists to explain it.

  583. About Christianity and redemption: I know many here have no use for Christianity, and I don’t intend to debate that–it’s a personal choice–but I do want to say that as a Christian feminist I feel Schwyzer is also abusing Christian theological concepts as part of his self-promoting narrative. Doing something as grave as trying to kill another human being and then glibly shrugging off the incident as a “I done bad” anecdote, like letting the dog out of the yard, is not any more acceptable in a Christian framework than it is in a feminist framework. Doing something terrible and then saying “but God forgives us our sins, so you have to forgive me” is inappropriately coercive and relies on “cheap grace” (as opposed to real grace, which Christians believe to be a much more complicated and difficult kind of thing). It really, really is not as simple as doing something bad, confessing it, then going right back to life like nothing happened. Someone who is doing that is not truly repenting, is not fit to be a leader within the community of faith, and, Christians believe, is going to pay a price for it at the level of his soul. Further, using the name of Christ to trick people into buying your “redemption” story when your actions show that you have not truly repented (ie telling the story of your bad actions in a boasting way, continuing to inappropriately act as a leader) can be considered the sin of scandal, which, classical theology holds, is about the worst thing you can do, sin-wise. With scandal, you are essentially leading other people to believe that up is down, and bad is good, by being a bad person and saying it makes you a good Christian. Especially given his leadership roles, it’s a serious, serious wrong.

  584. “He “scares people”? What’s with the imputation of weakness among those that aren’t buying his routine? Y’know, if he can’t be talked about without inserting power dynamics, that’s more than a little revealing. Moral consistency may not be the glamorous position here, but it’s not for the feint of heart, and it lacks honesty and interrogation to suggest otherwise.

    And I find it somewhat astonishing that no one here has pointed out that forgiveness doesn’t actually entail forgetting. Forgiveness is for one’s self- it’s not a gift to other people. Again, there’s a recurring theme of power in all of his defenses and the defenses by others for him. Why I’m asked to be in the position of owing this dude something? Why does it reflect poorly on me if I’m not willing to shut up about some pretty significant history. The Christian position actually isn’t so much that it’s a duty to someone else, but rather that its an exchange- forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. But it doesn’t mean we’re required to enable the pathologies of others. You can forgive someone without validating their bullshit.

  585. samanthab:

    And I find it somewhat astonishing that no one here has pointed out that forgiveness doesn’t actually entail forgetting. Forgiveness is for one’s self- it’s not a gift to other people. Again, there’s a recurring theme of power in all of his defenses and the defenses by others for him. Why I’m asked to be in the position of owing this dude something? Why does it reflect poorly on me if I’m not willing to shut up about some pretty significant history. The Christian position actually isn’t so much that it’s a duty to someone else, but rather that its an exchange- forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. But it doesn’t mean we’re required to enable the pathologies of others. You can forgive someone without validating their bullshit.

    Exactly. While I personally don’t have a dog in the fight as to whether or not to forgive him his utterly fucked up actions, (though I am free to find him a reprehensible human being and find his motives for continuing in his career given his history with fucking his students predatory, which I do) should one of the women he wronged chose to forgive him doesn’t mean she has to turn around and trust him to be around her again. It means she has absolved him of guilt for his past behavior, and that’s it. He does not have carte blanche access to her life, and she doesn’t owe him a damn thing, nor does anyone else who has forgiven someone of a wrongdoing.

  586. delphyne:
    Can we also talk about how Schwyzer has been able to maintain a high profile in feminism for years, in part aided and abetted by libfems whose work he promoted.

    Some of us have always known or guessed what sort of man he was – he fact he’s on his fourth wife, his predatory sexual behaviour against his students, his attempts to stick christianity onto feminism, his anti-abortion stance – all massive reasons as to why he should never had any kind of position or status in feminism.

    Despite all these things, which were *public* knowledge some feminists were prepared to give him a platform and work with him time and again. I really hope there’s some self-examination going on here.

    AGREED.

  587. @annaleigh

    Do you have a link to the essay that reeked of extrovert privilege? I’d be interested in reading it.

  588. piny:
    If I had done this horrible thing, and then started on the long road to atoning for it, and then faced an angry and disgusted reaction from a bunch of women I ostensibly respected, I would not be pulling through with a little help from my friends. I would not be thanking people for their support. I would not be treating this as a terrible calamity to befall me, the natural consequence of my reprehensible behavior towards women. Again, these reactions are at minimum totally reasonable. They deserve respect, most of all from this supposedly recovered abuser.

    YES. Puke-inducing. Everything on his FB page is “poor me, poor me, I’m a victim”

    Sociopaths do that, and narcissists do that.

  589. evil fizz, there’s also a good amount of discussion on Tumblr among WoC about the element of racism going on in this issue that IMHO is kind of being glossed over



    Just a couple that stuck out in my mind

    (sorry if I screwed up any of the links… I’m usually just a lurker)

  590. Branwen:
    About his victim not pressing charges…I’m so upset by some of what I have read here I am shaking so bear with me if this jumps around a little bit…

    THAT CHOICE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER. I cannot believe anyone is so either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid as to not be able to see that. Whether she wanted to or not is almost beside the point because THAT CHOICE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER when she was UNCONSCIOUS and hospitalized when her rich, white ex-boyfriend from a socially prominent family LIED TO THE POLICE and told them she had wanted to kill herself. From that point, there’s really almost NO WAY she could have scratched her way back up the wall to the point where she would be truly in control of whether to press charges or not.

    Do you know how that feels? To be hurt and tormented and threatened and abused by someone who has that much of a power advantage? Sadly, many women here probably do know how that feels. But if you don’t, just picture something precious to you being held by a person who is 12 feet tall. They hold it up over your head and taunt you, dangle it down in front of you then yank it away and say well you had your chance why didn’t you grab it?

    To hear supposed feminists making light of this, saying “well if she had cared she would have pressed charges” makes me want to throw up.

    Second, even if he were not rich, white, and advantaged over her in practically every way, have you ever tangled with a charming, narcissistic man who has everyone else in the world fooled, wrapped around his finger? In private he makes your life a living hell, but everyone loves him because he’s such a nice guy, so sweet and honest and clean-living and upstanding! I have NO DOUBT that had she pressed charges, HE WOULD HAVE HAD HER DESTROYED. He would have spared no expense and no excess to make sure she regretted that decision every day of her life. And he still would have gotten off the hook. That’s how his type works and mark my words, she, of all people HAD to know that. She had seen it demonstrated to her time after time. I have no doubt of that.

    WHY THE FUCKING HELL should this have to be spelled out to a bunch of so-called feminists on a so-called feminist blog????

    I’m crying as I read your comments. I hear you, I have been there, SO MANY TIMES… everything you say is true. I’ve dated, lived and worked with these men you describe. The tormenting, the smug little smirks when they violate yet another boundary… and to watch as they are given another chance, another job, another group of ‘friends’… and you live in fear… D: ((hug if wanted))

  591. tinfoil hattie:
    Feminism isn’t “broken,” unless one decides that women one disagrees with are the “real” feminists, and one’s own convictions don’t really count as feminism.

    lol. try telling a woman of colour that with a straight face.

    Also feminism isn’t an identity or a sign of character and doesn’t even encompass one’s values, it is a social movement–so your second claim in absolutely ridiculous.

  592. No delphyne, radical feminists just snickered behind their hands when a sex worker they didn’t like wrote about her assault.

    Which ones? All radfems? Or just the Officers of the Official RadFem Club?

    Come on. Be honest, and say, “x number of radfems posted the following unfair comments here when such-and-such happened.”

    This whole “I’m a better feminist than YOUUUUU!” argument is tiresome.

  593. Well, Claire N., I don’t think white women are the “bosses” of feminism. So we agree to disagree.

    Also, seconding what EG said. Feminism is part of my identity, and my politics, and my values. So, again you and I are different.

  594. I was also pretty neutral about whether Hugo Schwyzer had changed I was very angry (and I’m writing a post responding to it) about the way Clarisse tried to silence, ignore and shame people who thought that he hadn’t change. I think even if you’re personally OK with an abusive man, you have to understand that other people are not. And I think respecting that women have boundaries around men who have been abusive means not centring them in feminist spaces. But I didn’t care enough about him to figure out what I thought about him personally.

    However, everything about his response to this sends massive red flags. I’ve known a lot of abusive men on the left in my time. And his inability to comprehend why people care about what he has done, and his complete self-centred approach – reminds me of the ones who treated women who stood up to them the worst.

    On his facebook page he says: “The amount of sheer rage I engender both for my past and my present bewilders and disheartens me.”

    If you don’t understand why trying to kill your ex-girlfriend and sleeping with your students makes feminists angry, then you actually don’t understand very much at all. It’s not complicated or confusing. His complete lack of respect for people’s reactions to his attempt to murder his girlfriend is actually incomprehensible to me.

    And on his blog he says that people who think he is the ginsu knives set of wrong in human form haven’t thought about these issues in their own lives and don’t believe people can change. That is a response that isn’t just self-centred – (Chris Clarke writes a good response) it is a response that allows no room for other people’s reactions to exist.

    The thing is – abusing power is really easy to do – you never know that you got the clearer path. Learning not to abuse power over others requires realising that they’re as human as you are and seeing your actions in that light.

  595. @SarahCost, thank you for posting those. I remember Hugo going off on BFP. I don’t think we can divorce male supremacy from white supremacy, as much as we would like to.

  596. tinfoilhattie–did I even say that white women are the bosses are feminism? Are you having a conversation with yourself or what?

    Also the fact that feminism is part of your identity probably explains your knee-jerk reaction to what I said without trying to get clarification.

    EG–feminism can be part of one’s values–but to reduce feminism to that is just wrong. Feminism is primarily a social movement. Feminism is also obviously not immune to the centering of abusers’ redemption and forgiving them. Third wave feminism is the pits.

  597. evil fizz: Hugo has written extensively about what he calls his uber-WASPy upbringing. (He titled a post the Happy WASP Boy, if I recall correctly.). For years, his family has been locally prominent and part of the “right kind of people”. You cannot make me believe that those factors are irrelevant to how his run ins with the cops have played out. People might not read the social register anymore, but it’s not impotent.

    Yes, that’s what the post was called; here’s an excerpt.

    http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/03/okay_i_lied_her.html

    Yes, we’re WASPs. If you want to stereotype one aspect of us, we’re a Brooks Brothers wearing, Bloody Mary drinking, Buick Roadmaster station-wagon driving, fraternity and sorority joining, tennis-playing, mayonnaise and meat loaf eating, Junior League cookbook owning, monogrammed thank-you note writing, Town and Country magazine reading, English horseback riding, debutante ball attending, Social Register listed, pastel polo-shirt or sweater set clad clan. Without apologies.

    (I’ve rebelled against my family in some ways, mostly having to do with fashion. I am the first tattooed man in several centuries of family history. I’d rather wear Diesel, Energie, and Paul Frank than Ralph Lauren, J. Peterman, or Izod Lacoste. But I can still “do it up” WASP style; you should see me in my seersucker suit! My other rebellion, of course, is talking about the family in public.)

    Yes, in our family, babies don’t sleep in their parents’ beds. Yes, kids move away to college when they turn 18. Yes, when I greet most of my male cousins, we shake hands instead of hugging. Yes, we don’t raise our voices at the table. We chew with our mouths closed, keep our hands off the table, and don’t interrupt each other.

    . . . . Where on God’s green earth is it written that the expressive and emotive cultures of the Mediterranean or Latin worlds are healthier than we quieter, more restrained WASPs? I adore my wife’s family in Colombia (we’ll visit them soon), and I am always happy to be among my friends who come from more “colorful” backgrounds. (Mine is one of only half a dozen inter-ethnic marriages in the family.) But that doesn’t mean I’m ashamed of having grown up WASPy, of having been raised in a culture that valued understated elegance, self-restraint, self-reliance and a sturdy Protestant work ethic. . . .

    Next month, I’m going to gather with forty-odd family members for Easter. We’ll eat deviled eggs; we’ll play croquet on the lawn; we’ll wear pink and green and talk Cal football and the stock market and the war; we’ll watch the children hunt for shiny plastic orbs in the grass and we’ll catch up with each other. There won’t be a lot of yelling. No loud music will be played. There will certainly be no dancing. No one will get drunk and fall down. We’ll all be in bed by 11:00PM and up not long after dawn. We’ll be cheerful, courteous, and gentle. We’ll have a wonderful time, all without raising our voices once.

    At the end of the weekend, when I say goodbye to a few of my male family members, I’ll shake their hands warmly, pat them on the shoulder — and no more. And they’ll know I love them and I’ll know they love me and we’ve never once said it, nor are we likely to start. But don’t pity me — I’ll know that I’m treasured, and my family will know I treasure them. Growing up WASP means that you learn that love is often understated, often silent, but no less perceptible and no less powerful as a result! I’ve got a culture of which I am deeply proud, and a family whom I love with every fiber of my being.

    Not that I have anything against WASPs, of course. More power to them. Well, maybe not. It’s just that it all seems so foreign to me. I grew up in New York City, and am quite sure that I never met a WASP (at least, one who admitted it) in my entire life until I was in college.

    As for Schwyzer’s defense of the Kabbalah Centre’s very blatant appropriation of a very specifically Jewish tradition (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704101604576248831427785952.html), and his dismissive attitude towards all the Jewish people who have tried to persuade him that it’s not something he should be supporting, I think it’s revolting. And not so different from his attitude in general. Towards everything.

    Like others who’ve commented, I’m not sure I’d be willing to say that a man should never teach courses on feminism, even though I don’t really like the idea any more than I generally like the idea of a Christian teaching Jewish studies, or a white person teaching African-American studies, or a non-LGBT person teaching courses on queer theory, LGBT studies, etc. But even assuming that appropriate people do exist in all those cases, the idea that Hugo Schwyzer is such a person in the first case strikes me, now that I know what I know (and I had only vaguely ever heard of him before the present situation arose), as completely absurd.

    By the way, there are plenty of colleges and universities now that have zero tolerance policies towards professor-student relationships, at least where the student is currently being taught or otherwise supervised by the professor — regardless of “welcomeness,” consent, etc. It’s simply improper per se, just as it’s improper per se for lawyers to be in a relationship with a current client, a therapist with a patient, and so on. It makes sense to me, and I wish Schwyzer’s institution had had such a policy back when he started, or at least put one into effect now. Just in case, you know.

  598. feminism can be part of one’s values–but to reduce feminism to that is just wrong. Feminism is primarily a social movement. Feminism is also obviously not immune to the centering of abusers’ redemption and forgiving them. Third wave feminism is the pits.

    Oh, yes, I completely agree that reducing feminism to personal values is wrong–but so is saying that one’s values have nothing to do with one’s feminism. I’m not convinced it’s primarily a social movement, though that is obviously a major part of what it is. I think I’d probably say that it is a political ideology that advocates understanding gender as a primary category of oppression and fighting that oppression.

    I’ve never been a big fan of the third wave, either.

    In other news, what happened to the “quote this comment” feature?

  599. EG: Look up the definition of the word ‘encompass’ you will see that it is quite different from your interpretation of ‘nothing to do with’.

  600. I haven’t been to Schwyzer’s website since this thread was opened, and I’m really glad I haven’t, because I probably would have found his response to it all very upsetting, almost to the point of triggering.

    I have had to deal with some dude who had been hassling me on and off for years. (I say hassling, because I would only run into him at parties maybe once or twice a year, for about four year) At some point, after dealing with my consistent and growing rage each time he would sleaze up to me and remind me who he was, he wised up and realized what he was doing wasn’t cool. However, he became infuriated with me when I refused his offer to “be friends” after I forgave him for him being such an asshole all those times. And I am a good reader of people, I do believe he was sincerely sorry about being a dick, I still wanted nothing to do with him, and he would not get it. It was the same shit, wrapped in a nicer package. I had a solid support system as my former roommate who knew the whole story was with me, so I was able to hold my ground and not accept someone I really didn’t trust into my life, but doing that isn’t easy.

    And my experience was very, very mild and not remotely abusive. I can’t imagine what it would feel like, for someone who has suffered at the hands of another, to see their abuser act entitled to forgiveness and trust as if it is a privilege. If Schwyzer is so baffled as to why feminists are infuriated with him, I’m simply baffled as to why he can’t understand that he isn’t entitled to our trust.

  601. feminism can be part of one’s values–but to reduce feminism to that is just wrong. Feminism is primarily a social movement. Feminism is also obviously not immune to the centering of abusers’ redemption and forgiving them. Third wave feminism is the pits.

    Jeez, what a fucking rebel, upholding upper-class WASP values in the teeth of the past few decades of non-WASPs insisting that their families aren’t inherently defective or unhealthy and their cultures are not inherently inferior and they shouldn’t be kept out of institutions of higher learning or any professions or things. Oh, the oppression of the WASPs! Sometimes Jews and Italians make fun of them! Won’t somebody stand up for the old-money, advantaged WASPs?

    There won’t be a lot of yelling. No loud music will be played. There will certainly be no dancing. No one will get drunk and fall down. We’ll all be in bed by 11:00PM and up not long after dawn. We’ll be cheerful, courteous, and gentle. We’ll have a wonderful time, all without raising our voices once.

    Oh, go fuck yourself, Hugo. Obviously, whenever we Jews get together, we constantly scream at each other, blast klezmer music, dance the hora (seriously, WASPs don’t dance?), drink until we puke, stay up to see the sunrise, and sleep ’til noon. We’re slovenly, of course, because we don’t have that Protestant work ethic; you know the one, it’s the one that allows you to make your money by investing in other people’s companies and reaping the benefits of them forcing their newly-arrived Jewish garment workers to work 14-hour-days for starvation wages while cutting corners on safety. Or maybe it’s the one that means you sit on your ass all day while the maid makes up the fire with coals mined by Italian immigrants. Not that one? Oh, does he mean the one that allows you to sit in judgment on whether or not poor people are “deserving” of help? When, precisely, have upper-class WASPs demonstrated this vaunted work ethic, pray tell?

    Also, we’re all morose and rude and miserable. Especially when “rude” is defined by WASP norms of etiquette.

    By the way, there are plenty of colleges and universities now that have zero tolerance policies towards professor-student relationships, at least where the student is currently being taught or otherwise supervised by the professor — regardless of “welcomeness,” consent, etc. It’s simply improper per se, just as it’s improper per se for lawyers to be in a relationship with a current client, a therapist with a patient, and so on.

    Oh, I completely agree! I was just reporting the facts, ma’am.

  602. EG: Look up the definition of the word ‘encompass’ you will see that it is quite different from your interpretation of ‘nothing to do with’.

    I wasn’t rude to you, you know, but I’m happy to start.

    I know what “encompass” means. You don’t seem to know what “doesn’t” means. This is what you wrote: “feminism…doesn’t even encompass one’s values.” That statement means that feminism does not include one’s values. Maybe you’re the one who should start looking shit up.

  603. Obviously, whenever we Jews get together, we constantly scream at each other, blast klezmer music, dance the hora (seriously, WASPs don’t dance?), drink until we puke, stay up to see the sunrise, and sleep ’til noon

    I think you forgot that we also chew with our mouths open, pound our fists on the table, and never let each other finish a sentence. But it’s all OK, because we’re “colorful,” and Hugo enjoys that.

  604. Sheelzebub 12.27.2011 at 8:50 pm

    @SarahCost, thank you for posting those. I remember Hugo going off on BFP. I don’t think we can divorce male supremacy from white supremacy, as much as we would like to.

    Um no. You can’t blame white supremacy on men and exonerate privileged white women, as much as you try to. Caperton or feministe axccusing anybody of racism is shameless hypocrisy. This is just more white feminists using woc for their own purposes, I don’t have a dog in this fight.

  605. I’m pretty sure, knowing Sheelzebub, that what she meant by saying that white supremacy cannot be divorced from male supremacy was that feminists cannot effectively fight patriarchy without fighting racism as well (that is, white feminists can’t fight patriarchy while keeping their white privilege untouched and unquestioned), because the power structures and the ideologies upholding them are intertwined. That was my reading, at least. But perhaps I am misreading that?

  606. I think you forgot that we also chew with our mouths open, pound our fists on the table, and never let each other finish a sentence. But it’s all OK, because we’re “colorful,” and Hugo enjoys that.

    I hear our women are pretty hot, too. Oh, wait, that was a pre-WW2 idea. Now we’re castrating harridans with too much body hair. My mistake.

  607. Wolfa: I was wondering if someone was going to get to that. I’m not fond of Hugo, but I do recall him having some really virulent anti-porn views the few times I glanced at his blog. It’s pretty common for addicts to denounce their addictions and be all: no one should do this again *ever.*

    Florence: Just so we’re clear, you were quoting J who was quoting me. I don’t have your expertise, but I observed my sister’s boyfriend as he went through rehab and regressed from a polite, charming, if somewhat puppyish, young man of 24, to a precoucious, if charming 14 year old boy. Thanks for the insights- I’ll save those links and cruise through them someday.

  608. Um no. You can’t blame white supremacy on men and exonerate privileged white women, as much as you try to.

    I didn’t blame white supremacy on men and exonerate privileged white women. As far as I’m concerned, male supremacy and white supremacy are intertwined. Some feminists would–and have–privileged a white man’s voice over those of women, including the women of color he scolded in the past. A white man who tried to kill his ex girlfriend has been lauded as a great ally. A woman of color posts about being a mother and she’s torn to shreds, and another woman of color who posts in the comments section about her skepticism about feminism is lectured and hectored about her ingratitude. (Seriously.)

    As long as the movement focuses on white middle- and upper-class women, it’s not going to change anything since it won’t challenge white supremacy.

  609. EG: Encompass isn’t synonymous with include either.

    And please cut the passive-aggressive bullshit. Being rude is the least of my worries.

  610. What Natalia wrote at #498 states it more articulately than I, but since I already spent time writing this:

    I have been through several “Schwyzer Scandals” now and the one thing that strikes me each time is the “discovery!” element of the posters, as if they are the first to find out and inform others of his past deeds. This is usually quickly followed up by calls to bring him down, have him arrested, track down people from his past to get “the real story,”, inform his admin, etc.
    I absolutely understand the initial shock and anger at finding out Hugo’s past if you’re not a regular follower, but the only reason anyone knows these things about Hugo is that HE TELLS US! His biggest outer is himself.
    For people to act as thought they have somehow done an archeological dig on his life and pulled up horrific, damning details is silly. I can only imagine how many well-intentioned letter writing campaigns have come through his dean’s office over the years with the response, “Um, yeah, we already know this…We read his blog too.”

    If you read the actual post plus the comments where he originally tells what happened with his ex-girlfriend, the greatest source of anger, remorse and recrimination is from Hugo himself. I think there is nothing anyone here can say that will bring him to further depths of shame than he has already clearly experienced over this. I agree that there can be a certain glibness and exaggerative tone to his writing style, but he is writing to an audience in order to make a larger point. That’s typical of self-disclosure style writing.

    Each of us has to decide when it’s time to move on, but I will say that all of these events happened many years ago, they are well-known to those he works for, there is nothing legally chargeable here, and he remains in his teaching post out of much soul-searching and the encouragement of feminists (some fairly well known) with far more wisdom than he, you or I, that to leave would create more harm than good and that his experience teaches. I imagine it is not easy for him to walk into a classroom knowing that his students know excruciating details of his life and hold him accountable to his history, but that is one piece of his recovery process that he lives daily.

    He’s read much of what has been written and I’m sure he will return with a response to address all this, so I’ll just leave it here:
    The point of his posts is for readers to see the elements of themselves (women AND men) that are or could have been and to learn. I suppose you can certainly stay mired in anger over the details, walk away in disgust without seeing the larger picture, or take away a lesson about yourself. How the former two helps women, I’m not sure. To be fair, I see the largest number of his readers, followers and students doing the latter.
    Clarisse certainly chose an effective figure to begin a powerful discussion.
    What you learn is up to you.

  611. Claire N. 12.27.2011 at 10:44 pm

    EG: Encompass isn’t synonymous with include either.

    And please cut the passive-aggressive bullshit. Being rude is the least of my worries.

    en·com·pass/enˈkəmpəs/
    Verb:

    Surround and have or hold within: “a vast halo encompassing the galaxy”.
    Include comprehensively.

    You’ll have to excuse me but for various reasons tonight I am really not in the mood to hear people misunderstand or misrepresent the English language.

  612. Aw, look at Andrew here to mansplain the situation to the ladies.

    Aren’t you precious?

    EG, tigtog mentioned that the quote this comment feature was having a conniption and would likely be removed.

  613. I was going to go ahead and quote Andrew Pari, but really, all I want to say is that he can fuck right off for that patronizing last paragraph of his post.

  614. I don’t actually have any idea what you are talking about, Claire N. I don’t understand your cryptic comments. If you are interested, please feel free to e-mail me at tinfoilhattie at gmail.com.

    Meanwhile, I apologize.

  615. EG, you are too sensitive! WASP-Man clearly acknowledged he was talking about hawt Columbians like his wife!

    . . . Where on God’s green earth is it written that the expressive and emotive cultures of the Mediterranean or Latin worlds are healthier than we quieter, more restrained WASPs? I adore my wife’s family in Colombia (we’ll visit them soon), and I am always happy to be among my friends who come from more “colorful” backgrounds. (Mine is one of only half a dozen inter-ethnic marriages in the family.)

    And lots of his co-WASPs have half-colorful marriages!

    I suppose you could fit into the “Mediterranean” world, maybe.

  616. Claire N:

    EG: Encompass isn’t synonymous with include either.

    And please cut the passive-aggressive bullshit. Being rude is the least of my worries.

    Oh, that wasn’t passive-aggressive at all; if I had been going for passive-aggressive, I would have written something like “I’m not sure why your tone is so harsh, but I’m going to try to stay civil.” What I wrote was just plain aggressive. Stay tuned, and soon I’ll go for fucking aggressive and condescending. Might even throw in some name-calling, just for the fun.

    And, yes, “encompass” does mean “contain,” or “envelop,” or…”include.” As you told me, you could look it up.

    What did you imagine it meant?

    Andrew:

    I can only imagine how many well-intentioned letter writing campaigns have come through his dean’s office over the years with the response, “Um, yeah, we already know this…We read his blog too.”

    I find it hard to imagine a Dean following every single faculty member’s blog closely. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a professor’s blog these days.

    I suppose you can certainly stay mired in anger over the details, walk away in disgust without seeing the larger picture, or take away a lesson about yourself.

    So a raped young woman who is subsequently almost murdered and then discredited by the man she thought would help her is a “detail,” now? I must tip my hat to Terry Pratchett’s Captain Vimes, then, and note that my personal gallery must be full of very small pictures indeed. What’s the lesson about myself that I should be taking away, pray tell?

    zuzu:

    EG, tigtog mentioned that the quote this comment feature was having a conniption and would likely be removed.

    Thanks, zuzu. I guess I missed that.

  617. Okay, a few thoughts.

    First of all @Donna…WTF? Oh my lordy! I keep wanting to be non-judgemental and all ‘hey, people can change’ but that post that you highlighted is just another nail in the coffin. Way to stereotype, Hugo….’we won’t be falling down drunk and raising our voices’???I am just so totally gobsmacked. It is like the kind of attitude that makes people say ‘oh, hey, here is a revolutionary thought, maybe black people are actually racist to white people’, or ‘hey, you know this whole feminism thing is great but don’t men deserve some attention too? Let’s stop talking about women and talk about how men aren’t all that bad’. Sure Hugo, enjoy your privileged upbringing, but don’t defend it publicly by deriding others. Alternatively, become acquainted with the practice of proofreading .

    I really do not have an issue with people having terrible shit in their past. Many close family members and friends are addicts, or have for whatever reason done things that are placed at varying degrees of unethical, immoral, shocking, whatever (as have I). If i didn’t believe that people can change I would never be able to live with them, or myself either for that matter.

    Neither do I have an issue with people identifying as male also calling themselves a feminist. I love the idea that my brothers can have someone to look up to as they navigate a world that pressures them to align themselves with a dominant and often aggressive masculinity.

    But really none of that is the issue here, for me anyway. As many people have said, there are deeply entrenched social paradigms operating which give this guy a whole heap of social privilege and cultural power. So given that, and given the continual offensive stances this guy has taken over the years right up to the present – abuse of power within sexual relationships, sleeping with and then attempting to murder a woman who has just been raped, alignment with some feminists at the expense of WOC, the blatant pro-choice shaming of a woman who had an abortion – it is just all a bit much. And as was noted upstream (Deepika i think it was), I have never seen a feminist blogger with a self-aggrandizing header and picture even close to what Schwyzer has. There is such a general lack of humility in the way he presents himself and his views.

    Evolve, change, forgive, whatever. Just do it somewhere else.

  618. I suppose you can certainly stay mired in anger over the details, walk away in disgust without seeing the larger picture, or take away a lesson about yourself. How the former two helps women, I’m not sure.

    You should definitely continue to demonstrate your commitment to feminism by calling women angry. That is a totally non-sexist tactic that certainly won’t be noticed by any of the women or pro-feminist men on this thread, none of whom have the capacity to situate your commentary within constant attempts by not only misogynists but racists to construct their critics as angry and aggressive, probably because your initial assessment of our irrationality was an accurate assessment of our broken rage-brains.

  619. Ugh. I don’t call myself a WASP because of crap like that, it is so not the environment I grew up with, although ethnically, being that I’m mostly German, it’s sort of true. And we would make his chilly emotionless family get togethers look like warm lovefests, my family is so freaking stoic. But at least we drink, can get our hands dirty and stay up past 11.

  620. Sigh. And, being consumed by my epic sarcasm face, I reiterated a gender binary. People who are not women or men, considered yourselves retroactively acknowledged in my snarkitude.

  621. If anyone’s still interested in hearing a perspective regarding personal interaction with Hugo… three whole days later my comment about this hasn’t been passed out of the mod queue over at the other blog Clarisse posted her last article on. I’m soooo surprised, given what I’m about to say. A few years ago, I was a regular commenter on Hugo’s blog. He friended me on Facebook despite me never posting with my full name–I guess he looked me up by email address. Then, he left some pretty creepy comments on pictures of mine. So, has he changed? I don’t have the “pleasure” of knowing him in person, but all I know is that I was creeped the hell out. (I was maybe 20 or 21 at the time?) Defriended pretty much immediately. And yes, he was certainly married then. Ew. So, he might be lovely and wonderful and charming in person. Guess what, so was my physically and emotionally abusive ex-boyfriend: that’s why no one believed me at first when I told them he was an abuser. Manipulative people *are* charmers with warm and vibrant personalities; it comes with the territory.

    Also, regarding the whole students sleeping with him business: sure, it might not have been against school policy because everyone consented, but the other students in the class sure as hell didn’t consent. I’d be so pissed if I found out my prof was sleeping with one (or more!) of my classmates. How on earth can you know for sure if things are going to be fair at that point?

  622. Not a feminist and not a woman. Also hate to be all ‘But What about the men?” but Matt’s comment at 541 is a good one. In dealing with the Hugo Situation, what sort of message are you sending to sending to other straight,white guys who look at the money, notoriety, and sex he’s gotten and think “That looks like a pretty sweet gig. And hey, at least I never tried to KILL anybody.”

  623. Just when I thought all this couldn’t possibly get any more nauseating, I read Meredith’s account of her Facebook run in with Mr. Schwyzer. And I was already so queasy from reading Andrew Pari’s contribution to this thread.

  624. Sheelzebub 12.27.2011 at 10:37 pm

    I completely agree with your comment, sorry I missed your point.

    I think my own comment was unclear, I didn’t mean to defend Hugo Schwyzer. I agree with the criticism of him, he seems like a patronising creep.

  625. Wow. . .I ‘m not sure I’ve ever heard someone defend WASP culture, certainly not a supposed “progressive.” What is this, 1955? I would be ashamed if I came from that kind of intergenerational wealth, not proud. I don’t even know what a monogram is.

    So let’s see. Classism. Pro-lifeism. Racism (even old-timey stuff about people from the “Mediterranean.”) Paternalism. Trying to kill someone. Hugo’s really batting 1000.

  626. I read the Happy WASP Boy post. Holy shit. I should have known, the one post of his about forcing introverts to make conversation with complete strangers dealt with dinner parties. Fucking dinner parties! Definitely showing his class privilege there.

    People really need to listen to BFP and every WOC blogger who has called him on this shit.

  627. In dealing with the Hugo Situation, what sort of message are you sending to sending to other straight,white guys who look at the money, notoriety, and sex he’s gotten and think “That looks like a pretty sweet gig. And hey, at least I never tried to KILL anybody.”

    What sort of message? How about that thinking that way is fucked up and bullshit and if these straight white guys are looking at feminism as another way of getting their dicks wet, they can go fuck themselves and leave us alone. I mean…for one thing, I doubt Hugo has made Romney-level money from teaching feminist theory and blogging and such, and “notoriety” is not supposed to be a *good* thing. Sex? I don’t think it’s a common problem that guys who aren’t heavily involved in feminist circles aren’t getting laid enough. And if you want to have sex with feminists, not being a skeezy manipulative prejudiced douchebucket is a big plus.

    My message to those guys would be – if you only care about money and chicks and being a (ugh) “bad boy”, please keep your loser ass away from feminism. We don’t need allies who are nothing but albatrosses, IMO.

  628. Now I’m very confused. My mother is Russian, but likes croquet. Is she still “colorful”? Can someone help me out?

    Also

    “He “scares people”? What’s with the imputation of weakness among those that aren’t buying his routine?

    Is it weakness to point out that someone’s past terrifies you? A former neighbor of mine, upstanding guy by the looks of it, did time for attempted murder. He tried to shoot someone, and didn’t even have the “I was drunk at the time and she was my ex-girlfriend and we had heatbreaking sex” excuse. Running into him all the time legit scared me. Was that coming from a place of weakness or a sense of self-preservation?

  629. “What Natalia wrote at #498 states it more articulately than I, but since I already spent time writing this”

    of course, the silly wimminz and their time spent writing/reading don’t count as much so you just HAD to press post, you spent precious MANTIME writing it

    “I absolutely understand the initial shock and anger at finding out Hugo’s past if you’re not a regular follower”

    presumably because his regular followers have given up the ability to be shocked/angered at anything he does

    “but the only reason anyone knows these things about Hugo is that HE TELLS US! His biggest outer is himself.”

    the trouble i’m having with this one is that there. is. so. MUCH. STUFF. to out. is he to be lauded for carefully and selectively choosing when to “out” himself as an almost-murderer? now that he is safely ensconced in the loving support of his many “regulars”? the fact that you have been through “several Schwyzer scandals” (as you so cleverly put it) and are still a hugo-fanboy tells at least as much about you as it does him.

    “I think there is nothing anyone here can say that will bring him to further depths of shame than he has already clearly experienced over this.”

    yeahhh i think this is part of the problem, not the solution, andrew pari

    “I agree that there can be a certain glibness and exaggerative tone to his writing style, but he is writing to an audience in order to make a larger point.”

    the larger point being: how awesome is hugo schwyzer?! eh? eh? really though andrew, that “glibness” and “exaggerative tone” that you so admire is also known as “throwing women that hugo schwyzer has hurt under the bus for the sake of promoting and shoring up Hugo Schwyzer The Brand TM”

    oh and Li: “probably because your initial assessment of our irrationality was an accurate assessment of our broken rage-brains.” this has been making me roll around laughing uproariously all morning!

    and now i’m done. no more engaging mantroll. apologies to all for my inability to “quote” using xhtml, will go figure it out now and come back a better person for it…

  630. Men who kill women and men who try to kill women don’t belong in feminism. It’s pretty simple.

    People who want to keep an attempted woman-killer in feminism after discovering his crime aren’t feminists and are working against the interests of women. They need to find another topic to pontificate about on the internet and stop using feminism as a platform and a way to get an audience.

    People who welcomed a man in, ignoring all harms he’d already done to women, need to ask themselves what feminism actually means to them what they think it’s for, and self reflect about what they should have done differently, and what values they hold that allowed them to ignore his victims.

    Yes I’m the feminist police, but if you can’t call the police in this situation, when can you call them.

  631. “Hugo has been lecturing about enthusiastic consent since the 1980s.”

    Oh my Goddess. He was having sex with students during the 90’s!!! And he said he was drinking and using drugs at the time too. I can only assume that he was sometimes feeding alcohol and drugs to the students he had sex with. So using his position of authority and giving the woman some pills is how he elicits “enthusiastic consent”?

    This is just disgusting. I think feminists have every reason to be highly suspicious about men’s true motivations at all times. Men are never to be trusted.

  632. “Hugo has been lecturing about enthusiastic consent since the 1980s.”

    Oh my Goddess. He was having sex with students during the 90′s!!!

    And he had sex with a woman who came to him for help after presumably being raped by her drug dealer (though it’s so feminist of him to refer to it as simply having “gotten uglier than expected”), then tried to kill her, in 1998.

  633. “Hugo has been lecturing about enthusiastic consent since the 1980s.”

    Oh my Goddess. He was having sex with students during the 90′s!!!

    And he had sex with a woman who came to him for help after presumably being raped by her drug dealer (though it’s so feminist of him to refer to it as simply having “gotten uglier than expected”), then tried to kill her, in 1998.

    Of course…he was lecturing about enthusiastic consent, not practicing it. Two.Completely.Separate.Issues.

  634. “What you learn is up to you.”

    What I’ve learned is that the stupidest idiots will go to their grave defending abusers because the cognitive dissonance is too much for them.

  635. Each of us has to decide when it’s time to move on, but I will say that all of these events happened many years ago, they are well-known to those he works for, there is nothing legally chargeable here, and he remains in his teaching post out of much soul-searching and the encouragement of feminists (some fairly well known) with far more wisdom than he, you or I, that to leave would create more harm than good and that his experience teaches. I imagine it is not easy for him to walk into a classroom knowing that his students know excruciating details of his life and hold him accountable to his history, but that is one piece of his recovery process that he lives daily.

    How exactly do they hold him accountable? Really, what do they do besides know about his past, and celebrate his honesty? Can you name one negative consequence imposed by his students or his superiors? Can you describe any collaborative dynamic more difficult or painful for Hugo than that of public confessor, which is frankly candy heroin to narcissists?

    Maybe you just haven’t spent enough time with Hugo to become a male feminist adept, but the idea that there’s some hierarchy of “wisdom” among feminists is a profoundly anti-feminist idea. Being a woman gives you plenty of insight into misogyny, and women can trust their feelings of unease and vulnerability. It doesn’t matter that some of Hugo’s best feminist friends think he should continue writing; we don’t take orders from on high. Women have every right to figure these moral questions out for themselves, and they have clearly done so.

    Not just that, but it’s flat-out obscene to speak as though these women have never encountered this kind of man before. Most of us have slept with this type. Most of us have worked with this type. Many of us have been victimized by this type. All of us have encountered this type. Hugo’s situation is abnormal in its situational irony, but he’s not abnormal among men under patriarchy. We don’t need Hugo to serve either as a guide or a moral counterexample. No shortage of either.

    He’s read much of what has been written and I’m sure he will return with a response to address all this, so I’ll just leave it here:

    He has already responded, on his blog, with facile mocking bullshit; he has already responded, from his social-network undisclosed location, to call for support from his wiser friends. He’s had this recovery gig for decades now; does he really have that much difficulty writing yet another apology? He’s not gathering his thoughts. He’s hoping that this will blow over.

    The point of his posts is for readers to see the elements of themselves (women AND men) that are or could have been and to learn. I suppose you can certainly stay mired in anger over the details, walk away in disgust without seeing the larger picture, or take away a lesson about yourself. How the former two helps women, I’m not sure. To be fair, I see the largest number of his readers, followers and students doing the latter.
    Clarisse certainly chose an effective figure to begin a powerful discussion.
    What you learn is up to you.

    Yes! Next week, we’ll interview Ted Haggard about his insights into muscular Christianity. And ass.

    This is exactly why this is shameful. You have just blurred the line between an abuser and his victim: Hugo must be counted among survivors because there’s a little Hugo in all of us. That argument allows Hugo to diminish the severity of his crimes. Can any of us really say we haven’t done similar things?

    Several other commenters have already explained why, as survivors of abuse and sexual violence, they would have benefited from their community walking away in disgust from the perpetrator and not from them. If you can’t figure out why shock and outrage is a feminist reaction to violence against women, then you have no respect for women.

  636. Every.damn.thing. piny said in #682. FFS, talk about no understanding of power dynamics. People with little-to-no-institutional power cannot hold those with greater institutional power “accountable”. Accountability involves consequences, real consequences. Otherwise, the transgressor is the one in the driver’s seat, and is only “accountable” to the extent that he or she wants to be—and no further. That’s not “accountability.”

    Also, the use of false-teaming around here and calling it a “feminist” response is….interesting. The redirecting, the “you’re not perfect, either”, the “we’re all sinners here”—bah. Bullshit.

  637. OK, I’m still livid. Shocking, I know.

    But I will say this: my issue is less with Hugo Schwyzer and more with the women who protect him, demand we forgive him, give him a platform and credibility, and shut out the voices of women and survivors.

    Hugo’s redemption is not my concern. Liberation is. That his redemption appears to the be priority and concern of certain so-called “feminists”–to the point that they will lecture, hector, berate, and shame the women they claim to be fighting for–is quite telling.

    I know no one likes the feminist police, but I will say with a clear conscience that if you prioritize the voice of a man over the voices of women, if you give a man a platform and demand other women overlook his previous attempt to murder his girlfriend, then you are no goddamn feminist. We have seen this countless times in progressive circles–men who hurt women are welcomed, given a platform and credibility. Why the fuck are you so-called feminists doing this?

    Anyone who sticks up for this and shames the women that they are supposed to be fighting alongside with do not speak for me. And know this: you have zero credibility with a large swath of women.

    You’d better think about this, long and hard, before you get up on your fucking podiums and speechify and write your goddamn articles and want us to throw our support behind you. You haven’t shown a lick of support to us–no, you’ve spent time and energy giving support to a man who “confessed” to trying to kill his girlfriend and then lying about her to the cops. And if some of you didn’t know before, you know now. That some of you are still giving him support while remaining silent in the face of the WOMEN you’ve betrayed is telling. Because a lot of the commenters here have seen men who’ve hurt them welcomed back into the fold, and those of us here who haven’t now know that even among feminists, there’s a chance that it could happen. That some feminists would privilege the voice of a man–the voice of a man who tried to kill his girlfriend, no less–and feelings over ours.

    I do not give a shit what HS has to say about this. I stopped reading him ages ago. I give a shit that women who claim to be on my side actually aren’t.

  638. Ms Natalia – [Now I’m very confused. My mother is Russian, but likes croquet. Is she still “colorful”? Can someone help me out?]

    In the spirit of stereotypes about Russian women, I’ll venture a wild generalization that the “colourful” ones play tennis or ice dance, and the “non-colourful” play chess or skate pairs. Croquet could go either way. You do mean real croquet with the tall wickets that are maybe a centimetre or two wider than the balls?

  639. Alison 12.28.2011 at 1:26 am

    “In dealing with the Hugo Situation, what sort of message are you sending to sending to other straight,white guys who look at the money, notoriety, and sex he’s gotten and think “That looks like a pretty sweet gig. And hey, at least I never tried to KILL anybody.””

    “What sort of message? How about that thinking that way is fucked up and bullshit and if these straight white guys are looking at feminism as another way of getting their dicks wet, they can go fuck themselves and leave us alone. I mean…for one thing, I doubt Hugo has made Romney-level money from teaching feminist theory and blogging and such, and “notoriety” is not supposed to be a *good* thing. Sex? I don’t think it’s a common problem that guys who aren’t heavily involved in feminist circles aren’t getting laid enough. And if you want to have sex with feminists, not being a skeezy manipulative prejudiced douchebucket is a big plus.

    My message to those guys would be – if you only care about money and chicks and being a (ugh) “bad boy”, please keep your loser ass away from feminism. We don’t need allies who are nothing but albatrosses, IMO.”

    [quoted text formatted by a moderator for improved attribution – please use the formatting buttons!]

    Which would be why you are supporting Schwizzy? Because that’s who Schwizzy is and what he does and he gets nothing but praise from a whole boatload of feminists. If you aren’t a Schwizzy supporter than that person’s comment wasn’t addressed to you.
    It doesn’t sound like that guy really read what I said because it wasn’t about Hugo’s gig per say or sleeping with a bunch of feminists, it was about the message that you can do the things he did and not have to worry about any sort of backlash. But his comment was specifically addressing supporters of Hugo.

  640. DouglasG is merely responding to my quip about what makes a woman “colorful” in Hugo’s eyes (see WASP essay for further clarification). Apparently, croquet is for non-colourful women. And I do mean real croquet, incidentally. So if there is any blame to appropriate for making jokes on a thread about an attempted murder – I will gladly shoulder it.

  641. I love it when I hear things like you’re only a feminist if you agree with me. So HS may in fact be the devil. He could be the most wrong person in the earth. BUT some very intelligent well read women say “I agree with some things that he says.” And suddenly they get their feminist card taken away?

    Honestly, I’ve never heard of him, until this ruckus started. He has a nasty past which, from what I can tell, he’s never covered up or tried to condone. He was on drugs and alcohol. He’s cleaned himself up and maybe trying to make amends for his past by tossing himself in to a group of people who will never like/listen to him no matter how much sense he makes. Because he’s BAD. And anyone who listens to him is BAD.

    Sorry, that doesn’t fly with me. I’ve read some of his stuff, and some of it I totally think is BS, some of it, I think is really quite good and very spot on. Which just puts him in the same catagory with almost everyone I read more than a few articles of.

    So, I can’t say I like him… but I’m really interested in why those intelligent, well read feminist are giving him ground to speak.

  642. BUT some very intelligent well read women say “I agree with some things that he says.” And suddenly they get their feminist card taken away?

    No, that’s not what they have been saying. They have been saying that we as feminists should support him because he allegedly has some vaulable things to contribute in a visible leadership role in the feminist movement. There was also some “how dare you be so mean to someone who helped my career!!!” type statements going on.

    No one has had their feminism questioned just for saying he says some things they agree with.

    “He’s cleaned himself up and maybe trying to make amends for his past by tossing himself in to a group of people who will never like/listen to him no matter how much sense he makes.”

    What in the world are you even saying? Because he says things on the internet that a lot of people disagree with that’s some kind of act of contrition and self-punishment? As far as I can tell he is surrounded in his life by people who support him unquestioningly and (mostly female) students who are by definition in a subordinate role to him. As far as being disagreed with on the internet, everyone who is a moderately well known blogger is in the same position.

    [quoted text formatted by a moderator for improved attribution – please use the formatting buttons!]

  643. Adaquinn, do you understand anything about feminism? Apparently not.

    Feminism is a women’s movement designed to protect and further the interests of women.

    It is not in the interests of women to have a man who has tried to kill a woman and who has sexually exploited a number more to be given a platform in our politics.

    As a side note Schwyzer (Schwizzy!) has nothing of interest or note to say, he never did. He was only given a high profile because of his lucky ownership of a penis. A female version of Schwizzy would be a nobody.

  644. A female version of Schwizzy would be a nobody.

    A female version of Schwizzy would probably be in prison for attempted murder. How many women have you ever heard of who not only get away with trying to kill their ex-boyfriends, but talk about it publicly without legal consequences?

  645. Jesus H. Christ, Ada. You are quite good at willfully misreading what people write.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass if someone likes HS or not, if they think he’s written some great stuff or not. I also didn’t say that you’re not a feminist if you don’t agree with me, so how about you stop being so fucking disingenuous for once?

    I care that a man who tried to kill his girlfriend and allowed the cops to think it was actually a suicide pact and not attempted murder on his part has been given a platform. That this man’s feelings are defended while the women who have had serious concerns were shut down, scolded about forgiving and their supposed lack of politeness (I saw that thread and it was actually pretty tame, all things considered) and lectured that people can change. That this is part and parcel what we have to deal with in the progressive community, that men who have hurt women and abused women are welcomed back while the women they’ve hurt no longer have a place in the movement if they’re feeling, oh, alienated, since participation means accepting that it’s more important for your fellow activists to feel okay with accepting someone who has hurt women than it is for them to put women first. In any other situation (Julian Assange, Roman Polanski), you’d see the bulk of these feminist leaders condemning that but suddenly now that it’s their buddy it’s okay. Oddly enough, I thought feminists would stick by women, but apparently they’re too busy being apologists for a White man who tried to kill his girlfriend to do that.

    I am not okay with that, and I don’t consider any woman who would give men like this a platform and privilege his voice over the voice of women to be feminists. Sorry if that bothers you so, but some of us are dog-fucking-tired of seeing women being told to suck it up and forgive and put up with shit and we don’t particularly like seeing it in our movements. HS is free to live his life, his job isn’t in any danger, and I sincerely hope he changes for the better. But it is not on me or anyone else in this movement to be okay with him having a platform over women, many of whom have been in his ex-girlfriend’s shoes, many of whom have seen their communities welcome back the man that hurt them and then lecture them on how horrible they are for not forgiving.

    Fuck that noise.

  646. True enough Donna.

    I’d just like to add one more thing. There are a whole lot of radical feminists, who have known about what kind of a man Schwizzy is for years and have been consistently against him because of his obviously male supremacist, misogynistic stances. Some of them can’t post here at Feministe however because they are banned, as they are at most of the other mainstream feminist sites. On the other hand Hugo, attempted woman killer and serial sexual exploiter of young women was able to post even on this thread! Even after we knew about his crime. (Is he banned yet?)

    It was a radical feminist Mayotte, who broadcast this information about his crime. It is radical feminism that provides the politics and understanding to identify male predators of women, and also how to deal with them – liberal feminism, not so much apparently, unless the males they are railing against are republicans.

    If you’re interested, this is how radical feminists viewed Schwyzer *before* this most recent revelation:

    http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/steering-the-sluts-update/
    http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/steering-the-sluts/

    Maybe it’s time to be making some political reassessments, because this *can’t* happen again.

  647. I reiterate that the best thing he could do would be to step down from his position. There isn’t anything he says that could not be said by another person, who does not have his history.

    Also, it seems perfectly reasonable that many women would be offended that his voice gets priority over his female victims (since allowing him the podium to speak necessarily means silencing them).

  648. I’m curious whether in the course of his “advocacy” on behalf of women, he’s discussed what the consequences should be for men who engage in domestic violence or sexual harrassment? Has he said that these men should be allowed to continue to keep their positions of power? Has he said that women should just let those men redeem themselves in whatever way works best for them regardless of the consequences to the women he victimized? That’s the standard he’s arguing should apply to his actions, but I doubt any feminist would still be listening to him if he argued that position more generally.

  649. delphyne @696, your repeated attempts to score points for the moral superiority of radical feminism over all other branches of feminism are quite irreparably damaged by the fact that the front page of the site you just linked to mentions Mary Daly and Germaine Greer in the very first post and then has the following guidelines for participation: “Female-born, women-identified women are welcome to take part. This means that no male-born or male-identified person is given a platform to speak in this space.” I’m thinking it just might have been this kind of anti-trans eliminationist rhetoric that resulted in those bans that you decry.

    Sure, they managed to snuff out Schwyzer as a fake ally. Only allowing some women to speak, after they pass your bullshit test of “true womanhood” isn’t all that feminist in my book either.

  650. It’s not moral superiority, it’s *political* superiority number9, or rather political effectiveness.

    Allowing male sexual predators into feminism and promoting them, even before you knew they tried to kill a woman is a big fucking mistake.

    He’s not a fake ally, he’s a fucking enemy of women and dangerous. Don’t you get that? Well probably not.

  651. Delphyne, I’ve known all I need to know about Hugo for years and I’m pretty sure that, aside from a handful of people defending him, same goes for the rest of folks here. What, exactly, is the goal of your statements about the exact point in time radfems sussed him out, if not to score points and settle scores? My point is that your attempts to proclaim radical feminism politically or morally or what-the-fuck-ever superior to all others are a bit rich when the radfem site you link to proudly advertises its exclusion of transgender people. The website you’re linking is a dangerous enemy of women as well. Don’t you get that?

  652. @Kristin

    I’m curious whether in the course of his “advocacy” on behalf of women, he’s discussed what the consequences should be for men who engage in domestic violence or sexual harrassment? Has he said that these men should be allowed to continue to keep their positions of power? Has he said that women should just let those men redeem themselves in whatever way works best for them regardless of the consequences to the women he victimized? That’s the standard he’s arguing should apply to his actions, but I doubt any feminist would still be listening to him if he argued that position more generally.

    In a nutshell? Yes: http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/06/its_election_da.html

  653. Allowing male sexual predators into feminism

    Under the unchallengeable radical feminist doctrine of radicalhub — where being anti-trans is still considered one of the essential elements of radical feminism — all trans women (including me) are male sexual predators by definition, cannot be feminists, cannot be raped, are never under any circumstances to be referred to with female pronouns, etc., etc. As typified by St. Janice Raymond, one of St. Mary Daly’s disciples, who summarized that particular doctrine as:

    All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves …. Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive

    Believe it or not, there are radical feminists who do post here and have not been banned, who have specifically renounced this sort of filth. You have no business complaining about the banning of anyone who still subscribes to it.

    So don’t you dare come here and crow about the superiority of your branch of feminism to all others by linking to that cesspool of hatred and proud bigotry, where comment threads not only vilify trans women (the good old “male to constructed female” paradigm”) but seriously debate whether the best way to handle the “problem” of men is to alter the genetic code to prevent inherent male aggression, selectively abort male babies, or find midwives who are brave enough to kill male babies at birth. Hey, when you feel that way about men in general, there’s nothing special about correctly identifying Hugo Schwyzer as a predator. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and so on.

  654. the radfem site you link to proudly advertises its exclusion of transgender people.
    Word. And yikes:

    Enter the trans delusion. Men do not really believe that men can become women and women can become men. But they are thoroughly invested in deluding women to this effect. Because if a man can become a woman then there is no such thing as collective female experience and reality. If a man can become a woman it makes women’s collective resistance to male supremacy completely meaningless and nonsensical. Essentially, if male-born people are women too then it defines all women out of existence. And females will have no ability to conceive of ourselves outside of males and male supremacy. Allowing men to define themselves into femaleness destroys our capacity to recreate and re-member what it means to be female.

  655. Jesus, he reads like a cartoon camp counsellor in a Johnson-era public health pamphlet. I’d blocked out just how truly obnoxious and tone-deaf he was. Thomas Friedman creates more well-rounded characters.

    “Oh, Larry, why won’t you ever be an equal partner in decision making?” Lara pouted, toying nervously with the curl of chestnut hair that was constantly falling over her right ear. “I’d undress you with my teeth right here in this artisan brewery, if only you would stop constantly asking me how I feel about every little thing! I know you want to take my emotional temperature, but does it always have to be rectal?” Her upper lip trembled, but I couldn’t tell if she was suppressing angry tears or scornful laughter. I wanted so much to crush her firmly yet gently in my arms, but my annual performance review loomed on the horizon, and I knew from her livejournal that she was the vindictive type.

  656. Oh, God, I already shouted at people for prolonging this. But, look, there were plenty of non-rad-fems who had no patience for this loser long before this came out, okay? And there are a lot of reasons to have problems with at least some radical feminists besides a desire to provide cover for a creepy misogynist asshole. Like the preceding two posts. So, no, I’m not going to reconsider my stance on radfems any time soon.

  657. I would never want to talk to a professor if I knew he blogged about conversations with students under his real name while including a lot of identifying information.

  658. So according to that blog link above he’s been identifying as a “male feminist” since he was 20. So by my count, that would include all the years of sleeping with students and all the marriages and divorces and all the years of abusing women and trying to kill his ex. He was able to live with the cognitive dissonance then–calling himself a feminist while abusing and exploiting women–why should we believe he has changed at all? What does it mean for him to claim “male feminist” if at some point in his life “male feminist” and “enthusiastic consent” included all that abuse and exploitation? Claiming he has been a “male feminist” since he was 20 makes his “redemption” narrative ring false. He didn’t come to feminism after all the bad stuff, he claimed it in the midst of all his worst acts!

  659. Branwen, that was the question I asked above. (And thanks, Q Grrl , for the link). I had always thought (when I bothered to think about Hugo) that the redemption narrative was “discovered christianity and feminism after years of being bad”. Now it seems he has always claimed to be a feminist, he just discovered christianity and his redemption later, and is now doing feminism “right”.

    I guess this explains that weird christianity=feminism aspect to his writing I always found so odd. It’s the part that is more important to his redemption arc, I suppose.

  660. It doesn’t really matter if you change your views on radical feminists Piny. I’m sure we’ll all cope without your approval. The problem is all these lib fems who did not and in some cases still do not make the connection between a male sexually exploiting his students and him having no place in feminism and in fact him needing to be as far away from women as possible. Even when they discover he tried to kill a woman!

    Maybe those connections will be made from now on. But possibly not.

  661. Is Hugo banned from here yet?

    Does Jill have anything to say about the fact that he’s saying this about her on his blog:

    “I’m very grateful for Clarisse, and am sorry that she (and Jill Filipovic of Feministe) have endured so much calumny on my behalf this week.”

    He’s still working those grooming muscles.

  662. There are lots of people who identify as radical feminists who completely disavow all trans-hate such as quoted above, and there are lots of people who identify as not-radical feminists who think Schwyzer is a lying shitheel.

  663. Does Jill have anything to say about the fact that he’s saying this about her on his blog:

    “I’m very grateful for Clarisse, and am sorry that she (and Jill Filipovic of Feministe) have endured so much calumny on my behalf this week.”

    I’m not sure what exactly you want Jill to say. She can’t prevent him from saying what he wants in other places, nor do I think it’s her responsibility to publicly chastise him for showing (superficial bullshit) “remorse” in regard to her. If he wants to say he’s sorry things went this way, whatever we might think of that (i.e., that he’s still a giant douchehound, IMO), that’s his prerogative. I don’t need Jill to yell from the rooftops about how little she wants his remorse, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to imply that she should do so.

    If I’m reading you incorrectly, let me know. But I really am curious what you expect out of Jill.

  664. For crying out loud this is not a “radical” vs “lib” issue. How many people still actually identify themselves as one or the other of those anyhow? It’s really beside the point.

    It would be nice if Jill banned Hugo from commenting here, and it would be even nicer if Jill and the eds of a few other widely-read (and arguably influential) feminist blogs talked with one another and agreed to come out with a unified front against Schwyzer, declaring that they find it inappropriate for him to teach and lead within feminism or speak for “male feminists” as a whole, and that they will not publish his articles, links, or comments any longer.

  665. My first exposure to Hugo Schwyzer was via the post linked to by Q Grrl in #702 — the infamous “but feminism is HAAARD/I want to be a player!” post.

    I became aware of it through Violet Socks’ blog, Reclusive Leftist. She had two posts on it, both of which are worth a read. In the second, Violet discusses Hugo’s comparison of feminism to a dive into a cold, uninviting swimming pool – one in which one needs to surface every now and again for a breath of fresh air.

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2006/06/12/father-hugo-is-at-it-again/

    http://reclusiveleftist.com/2006/06/16/hugo-responds-and-in-the-process-makes-things-worse/

  666. I wrote a really long comment, but I can boil it down to a short one.

    What Clarisse Thorn invited us to do was to forgive Hugo Schwyzer on behalf of all womankind, as if the particular women he harmed were not the only women with any authority to give forgiveness – or else not give it. And until and unless there is forgiveness from the people whom Schwyzer actually harmed, how do any of us dare to forgive him? Except inasmuch as he has harmed us, by harming them?

    But I don’t think there are generalized crimes against women that can be forgiven by women generally. There are particular crimes against particular women; those crimes may be perpetrated by men (or women) who feel free to act abominably because of the sexist, anti-woman society in which we live, but they are nevertheless particular crimes against particular women.

  667. The problem is all these lib fems who did not and in some cases still do not make the connection between a male sexually exploiting his students and him having no place in feminism and in fact him needing to be as far away from women as possible. Even when they discover he tried to kill a woman!

    Maybe those connections will be made from now on. But possibly not.

    No. I’m sorry, but no. There is nothing about being a radical feminist that prevents you from engaging in rape apology. There’s rape apology authored by rad fems using rad fem theory as justification right up there on the thread.

    And there is nothing about being a “liberal feminist,” or whatever dismissive nickname you guys are using these days, that prevents you from condemning rape. You and the women you praise and identify with also have huge blind spots when it comes to protecting women from sexual violence. You and the women you praise and identify with also carry water for the perpetrators of that violence. It’s just a different group of women living with different predators in different circumstances. No feminism, or group of feminists, is immune from patriarchy. And given the number of “lib fem” women who thought Hugo was a skeevy asshole from the very beginning, you really can’t claim superiority as a faction on that score, either.

    And it’s kind of gross to see you get so wrapped up in the superiority of your supposedly theoretically immaculate little circle that you simply must bash “lib fems” and celebrate “rad fems.” If you want to cheerlead so badly, maybe you could find yourself an actual competition?

  668. Yeah, I don’t get the lib fem usage either. I mean, there are people who are liberal feminists – who use the classical liberal theory of rights and liberties to envision a feminist society – but there are plenty of people who aren’t radical feminists who are also not liberal feminists. Like marxist feminists, or womanists, or anarchist feminists, or… you get the picture. I mean, I personally identify as a social democrat, a feminist, and a leftist in that order, but I’m sure it’s different for everybody who comments here.

  669. Whoah, did I miscall that. If you took away staunch support or fanboy-ism from my post, then I didn’t write it well or was misread.

    That said, I wish to sincerely apologize for unintentionally stoking the flames and coming across as a general anti-feminist jerk.

    probably because your initial assessment of our irrationality was an accurate assessment of our broken rage-brains.

    Nice one, Li. You had me rolling with this too.
    Although I don’t think I’m qualified to diagnose BRB (broken rage-brain). At least, it’s not in the DSM.

  670. It would be nice if Jill banned Hugo from commenting here, and it would be even nicer if Jill and the eds of a few other widely-read (and arguably influential) feminist blogs talked with one another and agreed to come out with a unified front against Schwyzer, declaring that they find it inappropriate for him to teach and lead within feminism or speak for “male feminists” as a whole, and that they will not publish his articles, links, or comments any longer.

    I like this idea.

    Andrew, since you’re back–one of the most infuriating things about this whole discussion, for me, has been the conflation of “forgiving (or redeeming or accepting or demonstrating compassion towards or whatever) Hugo Schwyzer” with forgiveness, compassion, and acceptance as general principles. The people who see no value in Hugo’s presence, and no real evidence of his accountability, are not unwilling to grapple with these questions. They just place Hugo firmly on the far side of the line. I am actually very interested in rehabilitation and compassion. I just don’t think Hugo merits any of that assistance from us: I think he’s not really in recovery, that he’s a dry drunk. And I don’t want to be anywhere near him.

  671. ew. ew. EW! EW! EW!

    Did he really actually truly perpetuate the old ‘It’s hard being a Nice Guy ‘cos women just love assholes’ bullshit TO A MALE WOMEN STUDIES STUDENT and the GENERAL PUBLIC via his blog? And compare organising a slutwalk (his participation in which i just can’t even get into or i will almost certainly vomit up my post-xmas candy cane breakfast) to herding sluts, cos women (you know, us sluts) are like cats, a similarity that is so obvious he preempts that other people will, of course, make jokes about adopting a slut?? (No, Hugo, that was just you, dear. Just. You.)

    So far this morning I have read his views on banging one’s students, the hardship of being a male feminist (which of course you can’t do all the time, and no one expects you to cos it is just so gosh darn unnnatural and difficult) and infidelity, in all of which he explicitly states that the truly important thing in learning to treat women as equals and not using your position of authority to sleep with them is how darn good it makes you feel to know that you are a swell person. That is the important thing here. No, he is not self-involved or anything, it is just really really important to recognise that being a male feminist is all about your own redemption rather than just a basic and expected aspect of being a decent human being.

    (Sorry for my gratuitous use of italics and caps lock. I blame it on my blood sugar levels. And people being dickheads. I will try not to eat any candy canes in the hours immediately preceding my next post).

  672. It strikes me that one thing clearly demonstrated by this current dust-up is that a whole lot of people in the greater feminst blogosphere haven’t been reading HS’s blog with any regularity. He said months ago, in public, that he’d decided that it was his perogative to treat his ex-girlfriend (not even his current property, his *former* property) like a sick cat and put her down, and a whole lot of people are surprised to hear it now. Because we haven’t bothered to read his blog in a long time, if ever.

    I guess he’s getting a lot of traffic now… but once everyone’s had a gander at the train wreck, he’ll be done. Then, I predict, he will have another epiphany and convert to born-again MRAhood. And I won’t bother to read him then, either.

  673. I’ve tried to follow this comment thread and while it has taken many directions and side-streets, I have to say I’m a bit shocked at the number of people who feel they are qualified and it is their duty to label Hugo’s character as irredeemable. I believe the original interview was about redemption. Can a person change or be redeemed of past behavior? Hugo offered a very personal example of his attempts at redemption. He never said he was redeemed. Only that he has done what he can to know better and do better, as Maya Angelou would say.

    You may agree or disagree with the idea of redemption, but I would ask what is the point of feminism or humanism if we are not looking for change…even profound change from people who used to be the antithesis of the ideals? Are we just preaching to ourselves? I hope not. Can a person understand, regret and take action against his or her former behavior is the question, and I would think we all hope that is true and the movement hopes that is true or there is no point to it. While Hugo’s actions in his 20’s were horrendous by his own accounts, they took place well over 10 years ago and are not being repeated today. Unless someone here has slept with Hugo when he was your professor or done drugs with him within the past 10 years, I don’t think any of us can say with any factual credibility that he has not changed. Do you forgive him for his past? That’s really not a question for any of us because I don’t think we have that power, even if we’d like to think we do. As has been pointed out, forgiveness is the sole power of anyone he harmed.

    As human beings, we find infinite ways to harm each other, judge others and excuse ourselves, but we all do unimaginable harm and unimaginable good in more ways than we realize. But if we project the label that “all men who have perpetrated are perpetrators forever” and we give no room for change, than we are no different than the stereotyping accusers of women. The only question we’ve been asked is can people change? God, I hope so, or all of us are screwed as humans and we might as well shut down this blog, all civil rights movements and any other attempts to better humanity. And just for full disclosure, I happen to know Hugo and I would defend him any day not based on this article or any article he has written or has been written about him, but based on the behavior I witness in his day-to-day life with friends and family. Like all of us, he is much more than his past and much more than what can be captured in the written word.

  674. There are lots of people who identify as radical feminists who completely disavow all trans-hate such as quoted above,

    I know that there are such individuals (Tinfoil Hattie, who posts here, comes to mind), but please don’t wave away the seriousness of the problem like that. Gleeful and essentially pornographic trans-hatred is still a major feature of most self-identified radical feminist blogs, websites, etc.; the one cited is hardly an outlier. The only notable exception I know of is Twisty’s blog. (And even Twisty is a trans ally in pretty much the same way that Christians awaiting the Apocalypse love Jews; she hardly accepts trans people on their own terms, and believes that they will no longer exist once the feminist utopia arrives. For now, though, she’s about as good as it gets.)

  675. I believe in change but I think there are two different standards for change that I think are applicable here, for me personally at least. I can buy that Hugo can change from a previously dangerous, violently criminal person to a non-criminal, non-violent, non-dangerous functional adult member of society, who has friends and family that can love and accept him. However, that kind of change is not the same thing, as to go from someone who was once a dangerous exploiter of women, to now making a living as a public, self-publicized expert in feminism and a feminist activist/leader in general – this I don’t find reasonable and I don’t have to accept this scenario. I don’t accept him as an authority and or leader in a social justice movement such as feminism. I accept he no longer is a physical danger to himself and to others but the bar is way higher for me, in order to accept him as a leader of on-line feminism – that is too much for me.

  676. Thanks for not reading the thread, JMG, which is full of well-argued comments about how “forgiveness” and “redemption” are not and should not be the priority of feminists trying to protect women from predatory men.

    Seriously, great illustration of how deeply xtian privilege is embedded in U.S. society. I am not xtian, and I reject your moral framework entirely. Quite frankly, I think it sucks. You don’t even express a lick of empathy toward all the women Hugo has abused. You’re just upset that your friend is being criticized.

  677. iiii — you called it first, but I am also expecting just such a turncoat move in short order. The dude’s whole m.o. reminds me of David Horowitz, flash-in-the-an Black Panther who later morphed into a boring disingenuous conservative scold. but who, of course, uses his putative former “radicalism” as a qualification for why he should be taken seriously as the voice of sadder but wiser experience. Expect the same from this guy, for damn sure.

  678. You and the women you praise and identify with also carry water for the perpetrators of that violence. It’s just a different group of women living with different predators in different circumstances.

    Seconded so very hard. Radical feminists give cover to rapists of transwomen; they give cover to bashers of transwomen; I would argue that they give cover to rapists of sex workers by refusing to let those women make their own distinctions between rape and sex-for-money.

    JMG: I don’t give a flying fuck whether or not you like Schwyzer. It’s not my job to care about his change or lack thereof. It’s my job to care about women’s needs and desires. Why should this schmuck take up feminist space and airplay that could otherwise go to a woman who has never tried to murder an ex? The question is not “can people change?” The question is not “can a person understand, regret and take action against his or her former behavior?”

    The question is “Is Hugo Schwyzer worthy of our trust, confidence, and attention?”

    But as you say, sleeping with his students and trying to murder an ex happened, jeez, over ten years ago. I mean, if ten years of not trying to kill a woman doesn’t make up for just one slip, then obviously there is no possibility of redemption for anybody.

  679. Hugo Schwyzer TM: “I’m very grateful for Clarisse, and am sorry that she (and Jill Filipovic of Feministe) have endured so much calumny on my behalf this week.”

    A Dictionary: “calumny:
    1. The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation; slander.
    2. A false and slanderous statement.”

    ————

    as always, it’s about the brand name.

    andrew pari – are you really only concerned with how you’re coming across in this thread as an “ant-feminist jerk”? have you read anything here, in this comment thread, that made sense to you? that made you rethink your original points? no?
    HGTM has taught you well…

    It would be nice if Jill banned Hugo from commenting here, and it would be even nicer if Jill and the eds of a few other widely-read (and arguably influential) feminist blogs talked with one another and agreed to come out with a unified front against Schwyzer, declaring that they find it inappropriate for him to teach and lead within feminism or speak for “male feminists” as a whole, and that they will not publish his articles, links, or comments any longer.

    along with branwen and piny, i alsotoo really like this idea and third it most vigorously.

  680. (And even Twisty is a trans ally in pretty much the same way that Christians awaiting the Apocalypse love Jews; she hardly accepts trans people on their own terms, and believes that they will no longer exist once the feminist utopia arrives. For now, though, she’s about as good as it gets.)

    Um, yeah, I think we can logically conclude that in an egalitarian, post-patriarchal society, “trans” people would not exist because failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes would not lead one to believe that one is in the “wrong body.”

  681. failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes would not lead one to believe that one is in the “wrong body.”

    This is not what makes somebody trans. Plenty of cispeople do not conform to previously existing gender stereotypes without having any dissonance at all about their sex.

  682. Um, yeah, I think we can logically conclude that in an egalitarian, post-patriarchal society, “trans” people would not exist because failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes would not lead one to believe that one is in the “wrong body.”

    “Um, no.” Don’t be such a condescending jerk. Body dysphoria and social dysphoria are not the same things, and in most cases I’m familiar with both have little or nothing to do with “failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes.” It’s a hell of a lot easier even in this society to live as a feminine man than a trans woman. And even in a radical feminist utopia, where any kind of gender expression would be acceptable for anyone (except wearing dresses or makeup, of course), I would still have wanted to be and to be perceived as a woman, and to have a different body. Why don’t you go actually learn something about trans people’s lives before you come here spouting your nonsense, and save it for gender trender or radical hub or another lovely place full of people engaged in their typical “if your life doesn’t fit my theory, then obviously you must be wrong about your life” kind of bullshit.

  683. Wow. Did not even notice the scare quotes. I guess you don’t really exist, Donna. Or should I say “you”?

  684. From Boadie MacLeod’s blog:

    Only FAAB women (female assigned at birth) are allowed to comment on this blog. Why? Because it’s FAABulous!

    it is not true that “transgendered women” are women trapped in male bodies. They are male bodies, ergo, they are male. Scientific studies have already proven this:

    And so on, with reams of similarly valuable thoughts.

  685. it is not true that “transgendered women” are women trapped in male bodies. They are male bodies, ergo, they are male. Scientific studies have already proven this

    Well then, no more need be said! That’s that done and dusted. Here I was, thinking that there was variance among and within various biochemical systems, genetic expression, and neural pathways, some of which we’re beginning to understand, and that all these complex and varying systems would interact with other factors such as development in utero and early experiences to produce a wide range of possible gender expressions and identifications. How foolish and deluded of me. Clearly, bodies are either male or female and that is it, with no further subtlety or nuance needed. Also, drop your pants and produce a birth certificate before commenting.

  686. Also, drop your pants and produce a birth certificate before commenting.

    We’re not running for president, you know.

  687. JMG, that’s a lot of florid distraction from the real point, which is that Schwyzer has never relinquished a position of dominance. He’s not actually advocating for what men ought to do as feminists- support women, counter gender binaries, etc. He’s still telling women and girls what *they* ought to do and what *they* ought to think. When he starts to concede control to women, then, yes, he will have changed. Are you really so naive about the nature of abusive behaviors? All abusers take great talk? They all say they’ve changed. But in the end it always comes back to their need for control over others.

    I forgive plenty of wrongs from others in my life- thanks for your strawman, though! But enabling and forgiving are two different things entirely.

  688. Um, yeah, I think we can logically conclude that in an egalitarian, post-patriarchal society, “trans” people would not exist because failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes would not lead one to believe that one is in the “wrong body.”

    Buzz! Incorrect, sorry not even close, sadly you will not be moving on to the final round but please do enjoy a copy of our home game. (The game btw if you are wondering is Trans People: We Exist Deal With It: The Game, you should play it, you might even learn something.)

  689. Adding to what Samanthab has said, I’d argue that the more we discuss forgiveness (which, as Delphyne pointed out, is not itself a feminist concept – it may have value, but it is by no means intrinsically feminist and is not primarily there to liberate women from male control), the more we retreat into individualism and the more we step away from the political import of the matter.

    What is a man who attempted to murder a woman doing ‘teaching’ feminism to women?
    Why is this man’s voice privileged over those of female survivors (it is, after all, unlikely that we’ll ever hear from his ex on this matter)?
    Why is this man ‘teaching’ feminism – what’s in it for him?
    Shouldn’t alarm bells ring when we realise that the ‘feminism’ he ‘teaches’ is pro-prostitution and proporn?

    Personal forgiveness has nothing to do with this. that is between each person and their conscience. feminism is not individualism, but about the liberation of women as a group.

  690. [It’s a hell of a lot easier even in this society to live as a feminine man than a trans woman.]

    Speaking from the FM side of that comparison, it is, and it shouldn’t be.

  691. I think the discussion about whether trans inclusion is a feminist priority is about as morally bankrupt as the discussion about whether Hugo Schwyzer’s sorry balls are a feminist priority. But since it’s started already:

    Um, yeah, I think we can logically conclude that in an egalitarian, post-patriarchal society, “trans” people would not exist because failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes would not lead one to believe that one is in the “wrong body.”

    That argument is based on a cissexist vision of what “trans” covers. It’s cissexist to define trans people in the negative, even in hypothetical terms. It would be as well to say that only trans people will exist, when there are no borders. But as other commenters have said, you’re also assuming a definition of “trans”–victimized by gender stereotypes–that was acknowledged to be inadequate even when it was enforced.

    But it’s also fiercely irrelevant. No one exists in the future. Trans people exist in the present, and deserve acknowledgement in the present tense. Any feminism that refuses to treat trans women as women living now is engaging in both misogyny and rape apology. There is no excuse.

    And way to refute the scratch a radfem uncover a rich seam of transphobia stereotype. I’m totally reconsidering my jaded attitude over here.

  692. Um, yeah, I think we can logically conclude that in an egalitarian, post-patriarchal society, “trans” people would not exist because failure to conform to previously existing gender stereotypes would not lead one to believe that one is in the “wrong body.”

    FFS.

  693. I believe the original interview was about redemption. Can a person change or be redeemed of past behavior? Hugo offered a very personal example of his attempts at redemption.

    The original interview was about accountability; he never spoke about how he would have murdered a woman if she didn’t get lucky; he’s never been held accountable. Could it be that YOU didn’t understand the point of the article since it seems to have flown over your head that Hugo HASN’T ever been held accountable for her actions?

    Only that he has done what he can to know better and do better, as Maya Angelou would say.

    There is so much irony in you quoting a woman of color to defend Hugo, that I don’t even.

    As human beings, we find infinite ways to harm each other, judge others and excuse ourselves, but we all do unimaginable harm and unimaginable good in more ways than we realize.

    Oh, like that time I tried to murder someone, told the police she was batshit crazy and wanted to kill herself, and then went on to profit off the story?

    No wait, you mean not forgetting that someone was murderous. Yeah, I can definitely see how much harm I’VE caused. I’m such a bitch.

    —-

    Props to everyone with the patience to take on trans* hatred. I couldn’t do a better job, but I agree with everything you guys are saying.

  694. I really like the part where radical feminists, after insisting that they have political superiority in resisting violent men, proceed to derail a discussion about a violent man with some casual transphobia. This discussion is not about how trans* women are fake, a temporary burden, really actually men, or any other fun iteration of cissupremacy 101.

    And yes, I’m going to put responsibility for the derail 100% on those spouting cissexist bullshit. If you can’t resist the urge for one goddamn discussion about, I don’t know, Hugo Schwyzer and perpetrators of violence against women then you aren’t nearly as opposed to men’s violence against women as you claim.

  695. You know, I don’t want to continue the derail–but as far as trans* issues go, I think it’s gross and smacks of the same treatment we get from certain lefty men when a group of women come in here and use a serious issue to start a goddamn pissing contest. Also, the trans women (or, you know, women) that have been derided here have had my back far more consistently than the radfems who slag them off. What I’ve gotten from a lot of radfems is sneers about how I’m a “fun feminist” (now a “lib fem”), how I think porn is so awesome and how I love me the patriarchy.

  696. I’m one more long-time reader who took CT’s giving space (and, staggeringly, praise) to Hugo Schwyzer as a loud and determined anti-feminist statement at least on the part of that author and hoped it didn’t reflect the attitudes of everyone at Feministe.

    I’m still not sure what the story is, though. When you’ve sold your site built up by a lot of feminists to pornographers, “Oops, I won’t do that again,” isn’t remotely adequate. “Oops, we won’t give space to that one particular misogynist criminal in the future,” would not be a remotely adequate response even if it were proffered, and as far as I can tell, not even that much has been offered. As of this thread, the criminal in question was still being given space here.

    So what’s the story? What sort of place is Feministe currently? A lot of us are waiting to see.

  697. Piny nails it in #744.

    I’m a recovering radfem, which I think most old timers know. I think all of it should be debunked. The only original thing that Mary Daly ever wrote were her transphobic pieces; the rest of her writing is straight up cribbing from Paulo Friere. I used to be impressed with her “insights” and then nearly puked when I put 2 and 2 together. The sheer racism upon which radfem politics is built is a mindfuck. I wish I had recognized this earlier in my life.

  698. I’m still not sure what the story is, though. When you’ve sold your site built up by a lot of feminists to pornographers, “Oops, I won’t do that again,” isn’t remotely adequate.

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  699. Adding to what Samanthab has said, I’d argue that the more we discuss forgiveness (which, as Delphyne pointed out, is not itself a feminist concept – it may have value, but it is by no means intrinsically feminist and is not primarily there to liberate women from male control), the more we retreat into individualism and the more we step away from the political import of the matter.

    What is a man who attempted to murder a woman doing ‘teaching’ feminism to women?
    Why is this man’s voice privileged over those of female survivors (it is, after all, unlikely that we’ll ever hear from his ex on this matter)?
    Why is this man ‘teaching’ feminism – what’s in it for him?
    Shouldn’t alarm bells ring when we realise that the ‘feminism’ he ‘teaches’ is pro-prostitution and proporn?

    Personal forgiveness has nothing to do with this. that is between each person and their conscience. feminism is not individualism, but about the liberation of women as a group.

  700. But if we project the label that “all men who have perpetrated are perpetrators forever” and we give no room for change, than we are no different than the stereotyping accusers of women. The only question we’ve been asked is can people change? God, I hope so, or all of us are screwed as humans and we might as well shut down this blog, all civil rights movements and any other attempts to better humanity.

    Nobody is saying Hugo can’t change, though a lot of people are saying we’re not convinced Hugo has changed.

    Apart from which, the false equivalence here is bullshit. Yes, it’s true that everyone has done something sexist in their life. Probably many things. We can all do better. At the same time, the guy who says “Yeah, I slept with my students, and tried to murder my girlfriend, but I’ve reformed” should always be viewed with more skepticism than the guy who says “Yeah, I used to worry about false rape reports, but having learned more about it, I realise it’s not a significant concern.”, because degree matters, and those two things are not equivalent.

  701. I’m one more long-time reader who took CT’s giving space (and, staggeringly, praise) to Hugo Schwyzer as a loud and determined anti-feminist statement at least on the part of that author and hoped it didn’t reflect the attitudes of everyone at Feministe.

    One more? I think you mean ‘one.’ 750 comments, most of them unfavorable towards the decision to post the HS interview, and ONLY YOU read it as a “loud and determined anti-feminist statement.” Clearly you are using this editorial lapse in judgement as a weapon to beat Feministe with.

  702. Active promotion of a criminal with a lengthy track record of misogyny is a loud and determined anti-feminist statement. That’s not beating anyone or anything with a stick — it’s a simple statement of calling something what it is.

    I’m perfectly willing to buy that it is not representative of what Feministe currently is, but the only way for me to know that is through actions taken. So far the only thing I know for sure is that as of this thread, HS was still being given space here. That’s hardly encouraging of the notion that this was a fluke that won’t be repeated.

  703. DonnaL, please don’t decide for me what type of feminist I am. I will tell you: I am the type of feminist who works to end the oppression of women.

  704. There’s rape apology authored by rad fems using rad fem theory as justification right up there on the thread.

    What in the hell are you talking about Piny? You’re just making this up as you go along.

    You and the women you praise and identify with also carry water for the perpetrators of that violence. It’s just a different group of women living with different predators in different circumstances.

    More bullshit. Thinking men can’t become women has nothing to do with violence. It’s a setting of a boundary that says that just because a man wants it doesn’t make it right or real. Bit like holding out against Schywzer. He felt entitled to his entry to women’s space and women’s politics too.

    Name one liberal feminist who took a stand against Schwyzer, because I never saw any of them do it. What I actually saw was people inviting him in, working with him, promoting him, giving him a platform, as Feministe did only last week

    If we’re talking about accountability where’s the accountability for that? And all your “look over there – transphobia!” isn’t going to hide what actually happened.

  705. More bullshit. Thinking men can’t become women has nothing to do with violence. It’s a setting of a boundary that says that just because a man wants it doesn’t make it right or real. Bit like holding out against Schywzer. He felt entitled to his entry to women’s space and women’s politics too.

    Trans* women are not men. Misgendering trans* women is violence. Connecting the category of trans* women with an attempted murderer is obscene and excuses violence against trans* women by framing transition as inherently violent and transphobic violence perpetrated by cis women as self-defense. Fuck. That. And fuck you.

  706. What in the hell are you talking about Piny? You’re just making this up as you go along.

    I’m talking about this:

    All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves …. Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive

    and this:

    Enter the trans delusion. Men do not really believe that men can become women and women can become men. But they are thoroughly invested in deluding women to this effect. Because if a man can become a woman then there is no such thing as collective female experience and reality. If a man can become a woman it makes women’s collective resistance to male supremacy completely meaningless and nonsensical. Essentially, if male-born people are women too then it defines all women out of existence. And females will have no ability to conceive of ourselves outside of males and male supremacy. Allowing men to define themselves into femaleness destroys our capacity to recreate and re-member what it means to be female.

    That is rape apology. So is this:

    Bit like holding out against Schywzer. He felt entitled to his entry to women’s space and women’s politics too.

    You are obscuring the rape of women and the institutional oppressions that perpetuate it; you are repeating the excuses that rapists use to justify rape with impunity; you are denying women any acknowledgement of the violence that they have survived and indeed their vulnerability to that violence. You are engaging in rape apology, and so are many radfems.

    Name one liberal feminist who took a stand against Schwyzer, because I never saw any of them do it. What I actually saw was people inviting him in, working with him, promoting him, giving him a platform, as Feministe did only last week

    What about all the commenters who immediately showed up on the thread to talk about how disgusted they were? Do they not count? And the women who showed up on the subsequent thread? And all the people on tumblr who said the same thing on their blogs? And all the women who have hated Hugo and his bullshit for years? All the commenters who ripped him to shreds the last time he showed up on Feministe to practice his special blend of Hugocentric feminism?

    Or are you moving the goalposts from “liberal feminists” to, what, the four blogs you have in mind?

  707. Good grief…That last comment was so vile I don’t even know where to start. How can you possibly compare trans women to Hugo? This reminds me that regardless of the contributions of radfems, I’ll never be able to stomach the hatefulness to learn from them.

  708. Misgendering trans* women is violence.

    Expanding on my own point: Misgendering trans* women is on an individual level psychological violence and on a collective level both psychological and epistemic violence. You are, as of making the claim that trans* women are simply men trying to steal cis women’s identities, personally perpetrating violence against women. Such a claim has exactly everything to do with violence, because not only does it comprise violence in and of itself, it moreover excuses and legitimises those forms of cissupremicist physical and sexual violence which attempt to “reveal” trans* people’s “true” genders.

  709. @752: Nobody is saying Hugo can’t change, though a lot of people are saying we’re not convinced Hugo has changed.

    Exactly. And, just a question that’s been bugging me: Why on earth are some of us so eager to hand over the label of “feminism expert” to men? Especially problematic men? It’s just nutty. Is it just the Hollywood tendency? A good redemption story or something? Cripes.

    HH @754: So far the only thing I know for sure is that as of this thread, HS was still being given space here. That’s hardly encouraging of the notion that this was a fluke that won’t be repeated.

    He’s given space to teach women’s studies AND MAKE MONEY AT IT. Good lord, talk about a guy who brings his disease into his recovery.

    No wonder he thinks he’s pro-feminist. Look what it’s done for him! Take away his cookies and he’ll head straight for MRA territory.

  710. “Misgendering trans* women is violence.”

    Well there we go then. No wonder it’s not possible to recognise actual male harm to women and our bodies, in the form of real sexual exploitation and it turns out real attempted murder. No wonder it’s hard to spot a predator.

    Because describing someone as the sex their body is, is violence. it’s all the same!

    What were you saying about the efficacy of liberal feminism?

  711. “You are obscuring the rape of women and the institutional oppressions that perpetuate it; you are repeating the excuses that rapists use to justify rape with impunity; you are denying women any acknowledgement of the violence that they have survived and indeed their vulnerability to that violence. You are engaging in rape apology, and so are many radfems.”

    Actually you did that Piny. You didn’t recognise Hugo’s sexual exploitation of his female students for what it was. Neither did a whole lot of other lib fems/thirdwavers. It took the attempted murder before you could see the kind of guy he was.

    Nice bit of projection and mental gymnastics though.

  712. I’m a radical feminist and this is seriously embarrassing. I’ve been right there with the rest criticizing feministe as a “fun fem” site, but now here are a bunch of feministe readers angry about a lot of the same things radical feminists get angry about. Rather than argue over who was paying attention to the issue first, shouldn’t we take this opportunity to work together? This is not the time to be arguing over the labels “lib fem” and “rad fem” (does it matter if someone understandably doesn’t want to use the “rad fem” label, if we’re working for the same goals?) and it is certainly not the time to be attacking trans women. Some of the most insightful comments on this thread have been from DonnaL, and yet apparently she’s not supposed to be part of our feminist movement.

    Despite all the derails, I think this thread shows momentum among feminists of all stripes towards centering women and granting more space on mainstream feminist sites to women from the margins, especially women of color, instead of to men like HS who have decided that labeling themselves progressive gives them the right to deny their own racism and sexism. It is damaging to the feminist movement that someone like HS is allowed to be a major leader both because of his current behavior (he continues to refuse to listen to women’s critiques of him and, even when he is trying to be a good feminist, aligns himself with the most openly racist parts of the feminist movement) and because of the example that sets about how we deal with violence against women (that there are no consequences, not even the mildest social reproof, and that a simple apology deserves not only forgiveness but celebration).

    This would be a great time to actually take action and make a statement that shows we take gendered violence seriously and value inclusiveness towards marginalized women over inclusiveness towards men who refuse to listen to those women. I like this idea:

    It would be nice if Jill banned Hugo from commenting here, and it would be even nicer if Jill and the eds of a few other widely-read (and arguably influential) feminist blogs talked with one another and agreed to come out with a unified front against Schwyzer, declaring that they find it inappropriate for him to teach and lead within feminism or speak for “male feminists” as a whole, and that they will not publish his articles, links, or comments any longer.

    So let’s get it together, guys. I want a radical feminism that actually gets things done, not one that derails attempts to get things done into pointless in-fighting. If we really are the brand of feminism that cares about women the most, we should be capable of getting along with other women.

  713. I’m not having the discussion about whether trans* women are really women. We had that discussion a few decades ago now, they are. Fucking catch up already.

    I will, however, direct you to the “Sex=/=Gender” part of, I don’t know, any feminism 101 ever, since you appear to be confusing those two terms.

  714. Actually you did that Piny. You didn’t recognise Hugo’s sexual exploitation of his female students for what it was. Neither did a whole lot of other lib fems/thirdwavers. It took the attempted murder before you could see the kind of guy he was.

    Excuse me? I said that I was shocked that he had actually tried to kill someone. I never said that his conduct towards his female students was anything but abusive and reprehensible, or that he was not a dangerous person. You’re completely misrepresenting both my words here and my past contact with Hugo.

    And you still haven’t explained why, in a thread containing multiple references to Hugo’s attacks on the wrong kind of women, including a few fairly prominent feminist bloggers and writers, you feel safe saying that “no” “liberal feminists” ever had a problem with the guy before last week.

    And again, when you compared a group of rape survivors to a rapist, you engaged in rape apology. You’re just doing it to a different group of women.

    Misgendering trans women is rape apology. You are obscuring the oppression they live with as women, oppression that is characterized by an enormous amount of sexual violence and sexual abuse with impunity. You don’t think it’s a coincidence, do you, that police departments across the country think that trans women are by definition prostitutes and sex criminals? You are giving aid and comfort to rapists. You are harming survivors. You just can’t see them, can’t understand what you’re doing. Your specific brand of feminism hasn’t given you the tools to do that.

  715. I’ll refer you to Rad Fem 101 Li, gender isn’t real, thus trans attachment to it is a mistake. Gender is a social hierarchy designed to place men above women. Feminism is about getting rid of gender, not reinforcing it.

    Hugo is pro-trans though. One of the reasons why he’s been kept in the club all this time, despite all his other anti-feminist positions and his sexual exploitation of his students.

  716. JFC delphyne, do you even know what transphobia is? You seriously need to read a good Trans 101 list before you dig yourself in even deeper (if that’s even possible at this point). But let me put one point in bold so that maybe you won’t miss it: trans women are not men. Full stop. Nor do men “become” women. Trans women ARE WOMEN, whether or not they’ve made any physical changes. THEY ARE NOT MEN. They’re falsely assigned to the category “male” because of our society’s fucked up notions of gender and sex (which includes the false assumption that physical reproductive organs are an accurate gauge of internal gender identity) and the need to assign people to socially-enforced categories in a far too restrictive binary system whose main purpose is social control.

    It’s cissexist bullshit and arrogant beyond belief to claim (as you implicitly do in your men “becoming” women statement) that you know someone’s gender better than they do, and they are liars if they say differently, simply because to you what someone’s got between their legs is far more important in determining their gender than that person’s own experience of their life and identity. Do you really want to prop up a kyriarchal system of social control that’s always been deeply entangled with the oppression of women throughout history – i.e. the biology-is-all gender binary? Do you really want to lend support to the voices who, by asserting that a trans woman is “really” a man in women’s clothes and therefore (in this BS worldview) is inherently ridiculous, continue to position everything associated with women as inherently inferior and who in this way prop up the current patriarchal, sexist framework that harms all women and that feminists are fighting against ? These things aren’t unconnected, however much your cis privilege might blind you to that fact.

    I mean, for fuck’s sake.

    That’s the end of my engagement with this derail. Sorry to contribute to it, but I couldn’t let a blatant expression of privileged cissexist bullshit go unchallenged.

    Back on topic: reading this thread has been very thought-provoking for me. I wasn’t familiar with HS before all of this, so the original article (which I only skimmed once in reading the main page) didn’t stand out as problematic to me, but now I can see where people are coming from. The issue of how forgiveness and redemption work and play out within a movement like feminism is of great interest to me, and I do think that men can be feminists, but I definitely agree that allowing HS to be held up as a feminist leader is all kinds of fucked up, even if he sincerely has changed. Also the points about the negative impact of his relationships with his students on the other students, regardless of consent within the relationship, are spot on.

    Oh, and as regards delphyne @756:
    What I actually saw was people inviting him in, working with him, promoting him, giving him a platform, as Feministe did only last week.

    Way to TOTALLY IGNORE the many non-radfem voices here, in this very thread, offering the SAME GODDAMN CRITIQUE you are. Way to totally ignore the POST YOU’RE COMMENTING ON, in fact. Are you reading that selectively, that you think there’s nobody here engaging in criticism of the HS post, or do you just feel the need that strongly to assert your superiority as a radfem over all other kinds of feminists? Nevermind, don’t answer that.

    Piny, Q Grrl, Sheelzebub: word to everything you say.

    (FYI, I’m not the same j. who has already posted – this is my first comment on this thread)

  717. Good fucking lord, delphyne. You are repugnant.

    Is there some kind of Feministe Moderator Batsignal we can send up? Because this has gone beyond derail and into offensive and disgusting transphobic bigotry.

    (NOT meaning any slight to the mods, I know they are all busy with IRL. Just hoping one has the time to check in here soon. Because FUCK.)

  718. I’ll refer you to Rad Fem 101 Li, gender isn’t real, thus trans attachment to it is a mistake. Gender is a social hierarchy designed to place men above women.

    This is total bullshit. Social constructions are real, the way they form and are formed by people’s experiences and identities are real. This is leaving aside, of course, all the interesting ways that environment interacts with biology. Are you going to claim that race isn’t “real,” too, because it’s a social construction? Further, hierarchy is not inherent in the notion of difference, and it’s the difference that causes the divide that transpeople transition over.

  719. Wait, gender isn’t real, but you think that referring to trans* women as men (both of which refer to gender, not sex) is about referring to the sex their body is? Which type of sex, by the way? Phenotypic sex? Gonadal sex? Genital sex? Chromosonal? Endochrinal? Reproductive capacity? You know, while we’re on the subject.

    Cos, you know, if gender isn’t real, and trans* women aren’t really women (and here let’s indicate the fact that ‘real’ and arguments from reality/against reality are highly problematic and next to meaningless when referring to social phenomena), then no women are really women, unless you think that gender (which, as we’ve covered, isn’t real) can be picked up by looking at someone’s sex characteristics.

    In which case, I’d like to start ruling as non-women people who have had mastectomies, people who have had hysterectomies, people on the pill, people who remove their body hair, people who are any form of intersex, people who take HRT, infertile people, people who have experience genital cutting, and a whole bunch of others, since they have some variation from the naturally female in at least one of the categories listed above.

    But no, it seems that having some kind of variation from a diverse set of sex criteria only disqualifies you from womanhood if you’re trans*. Funny that.

  720. Not only that, as a woman who was raised by a second wave feminist I have seen how ‘man hating feminism’ can be what holds us back from the advances we try so hard to achieve. We cannot exclude half of the population and men like Hugo (men who are flawed, and have made the mistakes many men make but have learned from them) can only stand to help us become more relatable to that half of the world.

    In other news, black is white, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Film at eleven.

  721. I didn’t say anything about trans in my posts. I linked to the RadFemHub which is the one feminist blog that has publicly been out against Hugo Schwyzer and has given real feminist reasons why.

    But because feminism to lib fems now means whatever men/trans want, what was being said on that, their assessment of Schwyzer was ignored in favour of shouts of transphobia.

    Once again Feministe gave a platform to Schwyzer just a few days ago. It took attempted murder before they finally decided to address what he is actually about. That’s a real problem.

  722. It’s cissexist bullshit and arrogant beyond belief to claim (as you implicitly do in your men “becoming” women statement) that you know someone’s gender better than they do, and they are liars if they say differently

    But that’s the point J. In my opinion, Delphyne isn’t confused. Her brand of radical feminism isn’t even a movement if it doesn’t get to define other people’s experiences for them. It’s vanguardist to the core. Delphyne speaks for ALL women. Whether they want her to or not. She knows what being a woman is, and what it isn’t. And she knows what’s GOOD for all women, whether or not they agree.

    I don’t think it’s so much that she has a pathological hatred of trans people in particular (as disgusting as her statements on that topic are). I think it’s more that virulent transphobia is mandatory piece of the puzzle if she is going to uphold her Neo-Victorian conception of who women are, and why her privileged group knows the Truth that will save them.

  723. I didn’t say anything about trans in my posts. I linked to the RadFemHub which is the one feminist blog that has publicly been out against Hugo Schwyzer and has given real feminist reasons why.

    Yes, and then a bunch of commenters were like, Jesus, they’re really transphobic, how disgusting, and then you defended their transphobia, and then you said transphobic things yourself, like for example when you equated trans women with a misogynist abuser?

  724. And again, please stop confusing “the feminist blogosphere” with your own myopic vision of it. You’re showing your ass.

  725. Where are the lib fem blogs who came out against Schwyzer when it was revealed that he had sexually exploited his students? Where were they Piny? You’re claiming they exist. They weren’t anywhere, because they were too busy working with him and even giving him a platform.

    I can’t believe your brass neck railing at me, when you admitted on this thread that it hadn’t even occurred to you that Schwyzer fucking over his students might make him a bit less of a good guy than he was telling everybody he was. Have you woken up yet?

  726. But because feminism to lib fems now means whatever men/trans want…

    Men/trans? Seriously, I’m not sure by stomach has sufficient contents to express my disgust at this shit. Fucking stop it please.

  727. Alison 12.29.2011 at 1:02 pm

    Good fucking lord, delphyne. You are repugnant.

    Is there some kind of Feministe Moderator Batsignal we can send up? Because this has gone beyond derail and into offensive and disgusting transphobic bigotry.

    (NOT meaning any slight to the mods, I know they are all busy with IRL. Just hoping one has the time to check in here soon. Because FUCK.)

    Serrrrriously. Seconded. Whole thing’s run its course besides.

  728. Anyhow, I’d forgotten the golden rule that lib fems’ real visceral hatred is reserved for rad fems, not for men who sexually exploit women or even try to kill them.

    I don’t think Hugo’s presence on this thread caused repugnance or vomiting, but a radical feminist who doesn’t think that men are women most certainly does.

    Have fun with your useless politics. They’re doing serious damage to women.

  729. Can someone PLEASE step in and deal with Delphyne? She is beyond the pale, here, and has been for a while.

    Also, one thing to remember about feminists, Delphyne, (lib feminists, do they even exist?) outside of those of us who choose to give ourselves a specific “user’s guide,”are not a monolith. You can’t just say “All lib feminists did this!” and have it be true.

    PS. First off, don’t even THINK of lumping me into a supporter of Schwyzer, or assume my politics simply because I think you are full of shit.

    Second, much love to the transfolk who are putting up with the abusive words here. You deserve better.

  730. Where are the lib fem blogs who came out against Schwyzer when it was revealed that he had sexually exploited his students? Where were they Piny? You’re claiming they exist. They weren’t anywhere, because they were too busy working with him and even giving him a platform.

    Again, I’m going to point you to the multiple references on this thread to women who hated him and had no patience for him and his bullshit long before this. I’ll give you a hint: they were the women he attacked. They were the women who could never think of him as a benign presence.

    And you know, if you want your next radfem conversion caravan to succeed, all of you, you might want to develop an acquaintance with other feminists on the internet beyond the four mainstream blogs you’re obsessed with. It would make you sound slightly less out of touch.

    I can’t believe your brass neck railing at me, when you admitted on this thread that it hadn’t even occurred to you that Schwyzer fucking over his students might make him a bit less of a good guy than he was telling everybody he was. Have you woken up yet?

    No, that’s a fucking lie, and fuck you for accusing me of covering for this man. I said that I didn’t realize he was (but for the grace of God and the intervention of the police) a murderer. I also said that I thought he was repugnant, and that his treatment of his students was repugnant. I did not trust him, or excuse his abuse. I just didn’t realize he had actually attempted to kill anyone.

  731. I don’t think Hugo’s presence on this thread caused repugnance or vomiting, but a radical feminist who doesn’t think that men are women most certainly does.

    Hugo hasn’t been on this thread, first of all. He commented once to say he wouldn’t be commenting. There have been dozens of comments excoriating his non-response to all of this, as well his comments over at his blog, and hundreds of comments eviscerating his behavior and personality in general. Will you take a breath, please, and maybe think about how ludicrous it is to accuse women of engaging in rape apology on an 800+ comment thread about how this abusive man’s presence is intolerable and how excusing his behavior is also intolerable?

  732. Actually delphyne, at least four people on this thread used “vomit” in describing their reaction to Hugo in their comments. See comments 587, 602, 707 and 723. There’s a use of “nauseating” to describe Hugo’s behaviour at 670, “sickening” at 138, 559 (you!) and 618, and “sickens me” at 369.

    Have fun with your factually incorrect arguments? They’re doing serious damage to your credibility.

  733. Delphyne: you were much cuter when you were posting at Feminist Critics. Is that where you practiced your fence-post-pissing?

  734. “What we’ve got here, is a failure to communicate.”

    “Real” feminist? *blink* Whatever. If you get a “real” feminist cookie, will you go sit down and let the grown folks talk?

    The only people I’ve encountered who reduce the word “liberal” or “liberation” to “lib” are reactionaries—and that’s been my assumption about so-called “radical” feminism/ists for….ever. Between the racism (and total ignorance of racial power dynamics and issues and/or the lives/experiences of women of color), the cissexism, the gender essentialism, the classism, the neo-colonialism, the co-optation of lesbianism (straight women as “political” lesbians, meaning “lesbians” who don’t have sex or find women sexy), the denigration of mothers (or for that matter, straight women who reject celibacy and separatism), the sex negativity….let’s just say it doesn’t have anything to offer.

  735. You know, I used to believe there were radical feminists out there today who weren’t completely transphobic and vile about it, but this thread is increasingly convincing me of the contrary. I don’t know why or when radical feminism became obsessed with trans women as horrible thieves of femininity (or whatever it is) but it makes me sad, because there are so many radfem books from the 70s that are deeply meaningful to me – Kate Millet, Susan Brownmiller, even Shulamith Firestone. And now…

    I mean, feminism for me has been about expanding my ability for compassion, about breaking down the sexist, patriarchal boundaries in my mind that categorize certain women as worthy of punishment and unworthy of love and friendship. How can people who call themselves feminists see women who are subject, because they are trans, to horrific violence, and say, I do not care about your pain; indeed I want you to suffer. How can you do that?

  736. Delphyne, it’s time to stop. There aren’t words for the kind of harmful ideologies you’re promoting right now, and this isn’t the place to promote them.

  737. Anyhow, I’d forgotten the golden rule that lib fems’ real visceral hatred is reserved for rad fems, not for men who sexually exploit women or even try to kill them.

    Oh, cry more. Guess what? It is actually possible to feel disgust for MORE THAN ONE PERSON/GROUP AT A TIME. I am simultaneously repulsed and offended by men who abuse, rape and attempt to kill women AND ALSO by the portion of radfems who spew the kind of nasty hateful transphobic bile you’ve slopped all over this comment thread. Imagine that! The existence of awful abusive men does not give you license to be a hateful fuckbucket and when you get called on it, scream and stomp your feet about BUT WHAT ABOUT THESE BAD MEN WHY DON’T YOU HATE THEM STOP SAYING MEAN STUFF ABOUT ME BEING A GIANT BIGOT.

    Ugggggghhhhhh for the love of crap, just STOP and LEAVE. Please. If you honestly think we all hate you and we’re all totally wrong and we’re just AWFUL AWFUL people, then just GO.

  738. It’s very disheartening to me that Delphyne is permitted to spew her disgusting transphobia here as if it were still 1980 or 1990, when anyone who started posting about how there’s no such thing as homosexuality and lesbians are delusional because obviously the vagina was designed for a penis, or about how lesbianism is understandable now because patriarchy, but once men and women are truly equal there will be no reason for lesbianism anymore because every woman will be able to have sex with men as nature intended without being subordinated, would be banned immediately. I realize that Feministe isn’t designed to be a safe space like Shakesville (where Doctress Julia was recently and thankfully banned as soon as she came on complaining bitterly about how nobody can take issue with transgenderism anymore without being called transphobic, and besides sex is a fact that can never be changed, yada yada), but I thought that there were at least some limits.

    Delphyne, in addition to your being a repulsive bigot who refuses to recognize that her idiotic theories affect and harm real people’s lives, I think you’re a coward. When I called you out on your posting links to that awful website, and pointed out that under its unchallengeable doctrine I’m necessarily a male predator who’s trying to be allowed into feminism, you completely ignored my post even as you were responding to other people. But today, when I wasn’t around, you felt free to let the real Delphyne out. So if you’re not a coward, why don’t you tell me directly to my face “Donna, you’re not only a man but you’re a male predator and a rapist by virtue of trying to acquire a woman’s body and a disgusting artificial vagina and invade women’s spaces, and you’re in the same category as Hugo Schwyzer.” And then please point to all the things I’ve said here in the last few months (with special attention to the “she always knew what she was” thread) and explain how they support your viewpoint, and exactly how I’ve hurt women and feminism by my presence here, and, in fact, by my very life and existence and my pathetic attempt to put on “woman-face,” as you people love to put it.

    Actually, don’t! Not that I don’t know that you and your sort believe all that. Of course if you met me in real life you’d never say those things to my face either, because, of course, you’d see me as a woman, which I am. Contrary to the belief I’ve actually seen you awful people expound upon, trans women (and their genitals) don’t actually give off the equivalent of the foetor judaicus (Jewish stench) which medieval Christians believed emanates from Jews.

    By the way, I haven’t engaged with Delphyne’s nonsense substantively, because in general I refuse to debate the validity of my identity and existence, any more than any other woman should have to. (Not that it would really do any good with someone like her, because the only consistent principle in her kind of rhetoric is that definitions and categories and goalposts can always change, so long as they’re drawn in a way that excludes trans women from the categories of woman and female, and makes XX chromosomes — which I’m sure Delphyne wouldn’t actually recognize or understand or be able to describe if they bit her — the be-all and end-all of everything.)

    Besides, I may talk a good game about all this and act like it doesn’t hurt to read this sort of abuse, but of course it hurts. A lot. And I’ll never in a million years understand why people like Delphyne care so much about this, and what exactly I’ve done to deserve their hate and ridicule and their characterization of me and others like me as rapists and predators, when all I’ve ever wanted to do since I was a small child is to be and live as myself, and not bother anybody, and the same is true of every other trans woman I’ve ever known, at whatever stage in their lives they realized who they were or should be. How does that possibly hurt anybody, and how have I hurt women or feminism or anybody else?

    And what does someone like Delphyne hope to achieve anyway by coming here and bragging about how superior radical feminists are to all the so-called “lib fems” (a term I honestly never even heard until this thread), and then expressing her trans hatred? She obviously isn’t going to change the mind of anyone who’s already decided to accept trans people, and does she really think that her sort of rhetoric is going to persuade someone who’s undecided about trans people to go over to the side of hatred and contempt? I sometimes wonder if people like Delphyne are so bitter because they realize that theirs is a dwindling breed, and will eventually be consigned to the ash heap of history.

    I’m sorry for the stream of consciousness incoherence of this comment.

  739. Donna, thank you for sharing your words with us even through the pain. I read no incoherence at all, just a real and honest person opening her heart.

  740. As Delphyne said:

    There are a whole lot of radical feminists, who have known about what kind of a man Schwizzy is for years and have been consistently against him because of his obviously male supremacist, misogynistic stances. Some of them can’t post here at Feministe however because they are banned, as they are at most of the other mainstream feminist sites.

    Hmmm. I must say it gives me a lot of pleasure that earlier Delphyne was complaining about how her friends had been banned from Feministe, and now she too is banned from Feministe. Delphyne, go fuck yourself while reading Mary Daly and fantasizing about breaking into the cemetery, digging up her corpse, and pleasuring yourself with her skeleton.

  741. Delphyne, go fuck yourself while reading Mary Daly and fantasizing about breaking into the cemetery, digging up her corpse, and pleasuring yourself with her skeleton.

    Wow – using sexual imagery to humiliate a woman? I suggest it is you, LotusBen, who should go fuck yourself.

    I fail to see why Delphyne should be banned when this abusive crap is allowed.

  742. Donna, you shouldn’t have ever felt the need to engage with Delphyne directly, and now I’m glad you won’t have to worry about it at all. She was wretched, and I’m glad no one here has to put up with her nastiness anymore.

  743. Ben, although I believe your heart is in the right place, I think you very much need to learn to examine your flights of fancy before you post them, and realize that there’s such a thing as going too far no matter what direction you’re going in. Do you really want to give fodder to those who would point here and say that feministe gives haven to necrophilic pornographers?

  744. Ben, although I believe your heart is in the right place, I think you very much need to learn to examine your flights of fancy before you post them, and realize that there’s such a thing as going too far no matter what direction you’re going in.

    Sorry, you’re right Donna. I retract what I said. I mean, you think I need to examine this tendency here; imagine the trouble I’ve gotten into over it, say, talking about my douchebag boss at work.

  745. P.S. I’m really, really sorry you had to put up with all that bigoted hatred. It did make me very angry.

  746. Donna, bravo and thank you. I’m sorry you had to read such hate, but you expressed yourself beautifully. Caperton, thank you + 1 million for getting rid of delphyne. There’s something unspeakably repugnant in conflating trans women – who have a fucking ridiculously high chance of being raped – with actual rapists.

    (Also, I just caught a possibly abieist? moment in my use of “blind” above – not sure about it, but if it’s not ok then I apologize.)

  747. J – I’ve taken to using “blinkered” instead of “blind”. Not ableist, and it has the added bonus of meaning that their comprehension has been intentionally restricted.

  748. Wow – using sexual imagery to humiliate a woman? I suggest it is you, LotusBen, who should go fuck yourself.

    Yeah, you’re right, given the context it probably was misogynistic. I shouldn’t have said it. I made a similarly graphic and insulting statement on here about Sam Brownback 3 weeks ago and no one had a problem with it, so I decided to roll the dice this time. But yeah, it was dumb.

    BTW I have no problem with any person (woman or otherwise) having any sort of consensual sexual kink. Again, I apologize.

    But I’m still very happy Delphyne got banned.

  749. Uh ok…sorry to wrench the thread abruptly back on topic, but if we’re going to go with that idea of feminist blog eds getting together and coming out against Schwyzer? Might want to start with Jezebel because this went up today over there and what the actual fuck?

    http://jezebel.com/5871822/the-right-way-to-talk-to-young-girls-about-beauty

    I am sick to my stomach. A man who tried to kill a woman and who gloats about exploiting young women sexually from his position of authority is telling me how to talk to my daughters? Shame on him (he has no shame) and shame on Jezebel for continuing to give him a platform.

  750. BTW I have no problem with any person (woman or otherwise) having any sort of consensual sexual kink. Again, I apologize.

    I have no interest in your views on ‘kink.’

    But I’m still very happy Delphyne got banned.

    I’m not.

  751. More on the Jezebel thing…reading down the comments, it looks like a regular (Gregory Butler) got warned and had his thread removed when he raised an objection to Hugo continuing to post there:

    http://jezebel.com/offtopic/forum?comment=45570508

    Is it a coincidence that Butler is a man of color and Hugo is white, and that Butler is in hot water just for voicing protest about an editorial decision, while Hugo gets to keep pontificating despite attempted murder?

  752. Then go write a blog post about awful Feministe is for not allowing radfems to come in and express their hatred for trans people, deny our very existence and compare us to male abusive would be murderers.

  753. Branwen I have a feeling your comment will fall largely on deaf ears, more than 800 posts in and counting this has turned into a radfem v. libfem cyber showdown and its no longer “us” against misogynists/racist assholes.

    But yes, you’ll see a LOT of POC silenced on sites like that when any of us dare to speak up, out and against a white person whether in comments or as it relates to a topic (unless that person has been dubbed as “the enemy” and even then you better watch what you say or get banned).

  754. Poetree, I was really hoping this time would be the exception to that pattern, I mean the rad vs lib thing is so old and tired, it was old and tired when I first ventured into online feminist discussions in the late 90s, and it has only gotten nastier and more pointless since. But I fear you are probably right. :\

  755. I’m pretty sure from Jezabel’s point of view, controversy = hits and so they will be happy to have him there.

    I also see that in the moved thread the party line now seems to be “he didn’t get away with anything, the woman, her family, and the DA forgave him and decided not to press charges.”

  756. Ugh, Jezebel. I still check it daily but usually end up reading maybe two or three posts, and pretty much always ignore the comments. I love (where love = hate) how the commenter who brought up Hugo’s repulsive behavior was “warned” and the comment moved to “off-topic”. Yeah, it’s so offtopic to mention that an article’s author’s character should completely undermine anything he fucking says in the article. If someone from PETA wrote a post about the exploitation of women and someone in the comments mentioned all of PETA’s advertising featuring naked women, often characterized as animals, would that also be “off topic”? But Jessica Coen has shown herself numerous times to be full of shit when it comes to moderating, so sadly I’m not even surprised.

  757. Deepika 12.27.2011 at 1:55 pm

    @poetree re what there is “to examine about having had multiple marriages and being pro-porn”

    i can’t speak for delphyne, but for me it is most certainly relevant to examine four marriages and pro-porn-but-at-the-same-time-anti-abortion views in the context of hugo schwyzer himself.

    I get it, everything in context, but it seemed as though she was creating a list where in context to this man or even in stand alone one by one, these things would give grounds for examination and I wanted to know why.

    for instance, it is fine for the wimminz to have full sexual bodily autonomy when it comes to making content that is pleasing to men i.e. porn (generally speaking) but not when it comes to exercising that same bodily autonomy for something that could potentially hurt hugo schwyzer’s own very special feelings i.e. abortion?

    there is a serious disconnect there.

    Oh no doubt about it! I think we can agree that any anti-abortion stance from anyone deserves examination and in most cases condemnation. I just don’t like the idea that having had multiple marriages or being pro-porn is inherently “unfeminist.”

  758. Hugo and Jezebel are actually a perfect fit for each other both are “feminist” for the purpose of making money and fame only

  759. nastier and more pointless

    Branwen, please stop with the false equivalency. It may all be tiresome and pointless to you, but there’s very much a “point” for trans people and their allies to confront the sort of bigoted trans-hating rhetoric that Delphyne promulgated here, after people called her on her attempt to exploit the Schwyzer situation by touting “rad fem supremacy.”

    I’m not.

    What’s the matter, Polyarchis? Delphyne’s banning deprived you of the opportunity to enjoy a little more good old-fashioned trans-bashing? I’d recommend some websites you could visit where you could find plenty more, but I suspect you’re already quite familiar with them.

    The big difference, of course, between Ben and Delphyne in this conduct was that Ben made one offensive comment which he immediately retracted and apologized for as soon as people called him on it. Delphyne just upped the ante more every time anyone called her on her garbage.

  760. nastier and more pointless

    Branwen, please stop with the false equivalency. It may all be tiresome and pointless to you, but there’s very much a “point” for trans people and their allies to confront the sort of bigoted trans-hating rhetoric that Delphyne promulgated here, after people called her on her attempt to exploit the Schwyzer situation by touting “rad fem supremacy.”

    I’m not.

    What’s the matter, Polyarchis? Delphyne’s banning deprived you of the opportunity to enjoy a little more good old-fashioned trans-bashing? I’d recommend some websites you could visit where you could find plenty more, but I suspect you’re already quite familiar with them.

    The big difference, of course, between Ben and Delphyne in this context was that Ben made one offensive comment which he immediately retracted and apologized for as soon as people called him on it. Delphyne just upped the ante more every time anyone called her on her garbage.

  761. I sometimes wonder if people like Delphyne are so bitter because they realize that theirs is a dwindling breed, and will eventually be consigned to the ash heap of history.

    This, yes. DonnaL, as always, <3's to you.

    So now that the vomitflow of bigotry has stopped for a bit…

    if Jill and the eds of a few other widely-read (and arguably influential) feminist blogs talked with one another and agreed to come out with a unified front against Schwyzer, declaring that they find it inappropriate for him to teach and lead within feminism or speak for “male feminists” as a whole, and that they will not publish his articles, links, or comments any longer.

    I too like this idea, if a decent number of feminist bloggers would be willing to commit to it.

  762. Hmm, we still have nothing about banning the dude who tried to murder a woman. Banning others, yes, but magically he’s still too special to Feministe, apparently.

  763. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around this one:

    Spewing hateful bigoted rhetoric: Banned.

    Spewing hateful bigoted rhetoric and attempted murder of a woman: Apparently not banned.

    The object lesson would appear to be Feministe is in favor of dudes who try to murder women?

  764. Yes, Helen. As evidenced by this very post, Feministe is, in fact, in favor of dudes who try to murder women. We’ve been e-mailing him several times a day to try and get a response, either in the form of a comment or an actual guest post, and we sent a fruit basket, and Jill stopped by his house a couple of times while she was out on the West Coast, because we’re so much in favor of him.

    Hugo has not been banned because Hugo has not tried to leave a comment here. Banning him would have about the same effect as telling him he’s not allowed to come to my house. (Which he isn’t.)

  765. He left a comment in this thread. Why is it so important to hold the door open for him to comment here when he wants? What is that about?

  766. Good question from Helen Huntingdon. Ban Hugo. Why not? He’s despicable.

    Also: Lead the way! Let Jezebel know you’re not okay with their post.

  767. Uh he commented in this very thread. Ban him. It obviously isn’t difficult to ban people for whatever reason, as others have been banned (for obvious good reasons) just in the last day or so. Why not ban him? It’s not the strongest message, but it’s a stronger message than NOT banning him.

    If you won’t, I want to know why. REALLY why, not “he isn’t here this instant.” Because he did so post in this thread, so I am not buying that explanation at all.

  768. Hmm, we still have nothing about banning the dude who tried to murder a woman. Banning others, yes, but magically he’s still too special to Feministe, apparently.

    Who has been banned? I’ve been reading this blog from Loch Lurksville long before I started posting and can’t remember anyone being banned for their personal crimes.

  769. Caperton (and others) What is your opinion of the idea that feminist blogs should show a united front against Schwizer. I don’t just mean saying “Well he said he won’t comment here”, I mean actually clearing coming out against him?

  770. The question about banning Hugo is a good one. I wouldn’t think Feministe mods are complete sell-outs if they don’t, because Hugo is a major personality in the online feminist world, an apparently respected professor, and a personal friend of various guest bloggers, so I can see that as repellent as it is to have Hugo taking a leadership position, it would be against the grain to ban him, just in that everyone has been letting him get away with so much for so long. But that’s also exactly why it would a good pro-active step to show what direction Feministe is going to go in.

  771. Well there is always the personal response. Whenever he publishes or comments in a feminist space we can link back to a few of these discussions (perhaps not this one without a big freaking trigger warning for the trans hate).

  772. I think one way or another, the leadership here needs to make a statement. Yes we are banning him and taking a stand against him, or no we are not (and here’s why). Those of us for whom this is a huge issue of trust and accountability need to know where we stand with Feministe.

  773. That’s a good way of putting it, Branwen.
    Kristen J. –maybe link to this thread with a warning not to bother reading past the first few hundred comments? I don’t think many people would want to read it all anyway… This has taken up most of my day and I haven’t even been commenting much.

    Incidentally, I just read his Jezebel piece and its awful. He decides to explain why a couple of women, including one who wrote a whole book on the subject, are wrong about how to raise girls. (Not that all women do a great job raising girls, it’s just he’s incredibly condescending and is again using his position as a “male feminist” to scold misguided feminist women instead of to help enlighten other men.)

  774. I think one way or another, the leadership here needs to make a statement. Yes we are banning him and taking a stand against him, or no we are not (and here’s why). Those of us for whom this is a huge issue of trust and accountability need to know where we stand with Feministe.

    Again, I think that Caperton’s statement was pretty definitive. I have never seen anyone banned from this sit for comments or action made outside of this site. If he came on here to defend himself or argue that what he did was OK, then a ban would be in order- also he seems to have agreed to a self-imposed ban (comment #72) so the point seems to be moot. It seems that some people are getting perverse pleasure at making the moderators of this blog jump through hoops.

    And now…time for bed (not lazy, just in a different timezone)

  775. I’m nobody, just an occasional reader/lurker here, but I imagine that Hugo and his acolytes are laughing their pathetic little pricks off as we feminists (radical, liberal and otherwise) form our usual circular firing squad.

    Would it be so fucking hard for us to present a united front against a predator who ought to have no place as a spokesman for feminism? This should be a no-brainer. Why is it so difficult?

  776. If it doesn’t matter either way, why not ban him? If it makes no difference, why is it so important NOT to ban him?

    Right now you’re telling us all that it is very important to Feministe not to ban him, no matter how much misogyny he spreads or what crimes he has committed. That speaks volumes.

  777. What Nell said but especially:

    “Would it be so fucking hard for us to present a united front against a predator who ought to have no place as a spokesman for feminism? This should be a no-brainer. Why is it so difficult?”

    Really, why IS it so important to not ban him? Isn’t it more important to send a very strong message to all the women he has hurt–victims of his violence, victims of his abuse of power, those who have experienced racism or other bias from him or through his writing–that we do not tolerate him and that this will be one place where women will NOT have to listen to his pontificating or see him held up as a legitimate feminist voice?

  778. Having followed along with this thread as it’s developed, most of what I’ve wanted to say has been said with thoughtful eloquence in response to some pretty vile prevarications. As to the issue of forgiveness/redemption and the narrative built up around it regarding ourboyhugo:
    The victim is unquestionably the only woman who can “forgive” and I suppose personally “redeem” mr. (using mr to refer to hugoboy: as used by bfp upthread cause it’s fucking apt and I dig it). However, even if she did forgive AND redeem him on a personal level, that in no way binds or compels me or any person to find him trustworthy, respectable, or acceptable to share spaces with. It may add weight to my decision making process, then again, it very well may not.
    Regardless, the onus in this situation (or any other) is not born by the victim to forgive or not forgive. Nor is it borne by any other woman and to assert otherwise is anti-feminist by it’s definition. The onus is on mr, via his present and future actions, to attain the redemptions and transformations he’s constantly jawing about. And since this is necessarily a retrospective evaluation, his (in)actions can only be accurately assessed decades into the future – in hindsight, not now using an non-existent foresight that mr himself wants to narrate (read: construct wholecloth). That’s not accountability – that’s gamesmanship of the lowest caliber.
    Repentant actions taken, even within a xtian-centered redemption narrative, are meant to be done for the sake of one’s own penance, development, enlightenment, and healing not as demand for a quid pro quo forgiveness (regaining access to entitlements) nor are they respectable when performed and recited in a pro forma manner with little more feeling than checking off an inventory list.
    The last time I checked, no matter one’s ethos or personalized/contextualized/culture-based definition of redemption/rehabilitation – they were action words –they required actions/manifestations in the corporeal realms to have any meaning. Redemption & rehabilitation are not meant to stand as some finish line that you declare as you’re running the race and then cross in joyous declaration and bask in the admiration of friend and foe alike. NO sir mr.
    Beyond that – I declare fuckery on this entire framework (see: kanly) for many reasons others have already stated, but chiefly because it allows the PERPETRATOR TO HAVE ALL THE POWER! 1)They decide the level of offending they will engage in, 2) then they set the price, if any, they are willing to pay to “redeem” it, 3) and then whine & exhort those around them to honor the paid in full stamp they wave around on the invoice of their miss deeds. Rinse and Repeat. No sir, mr. that doesn’t pass the stink test by a long shot.

    The utter contempt and disrespect for not only the victim(s), but of social mores is blatant. It reduces human beings to mere pawns on a chess board in the hands of mr, and those of his sorry ilk, to be manipulated, exploited, and most disturbingly, sacrificed. The calculus for this decision making model invariably incorporates a relativist and ordinal valuation system with mr as the king at the tippy top’o’the list, with all below to be used for their maximum tactical advantage and then disposed of when it gets him where he wants to go.

    Propose a reworked theory of chess to an avid player in the game that focuses on equalizing the value of all the pieces on the board with that of the King, and they will laugh you out of the room – in doing that you would destroy the game by making it moot – if a pawn were as valuable as a king, then the zero sum game of chess as we currently understand it could no longer logically obtain. You broke chess!
    At this point I would feel comfortable with a preliminary conclusion that mr. would similarly laugh me out of the room were he to actually understand wtf feminism actually seeks to accomplish via ANY of its permutations along a much broader spectrum than most are comfortable stipulating exists. Would he allow for the relative devaluation of the king’s worth within the construct of the game? – sure I can stipulate his beneficence as a white night. Would he support a reconstruction that absolutely decentralizes the king, eliminates the zero sum framework, and makes pawns as valuable as kings – and therefore unsacrificeable? (or conversely marks kings equally likely for sacrificial consideration?). Again I would feel comfortable stating that he would not. You broke LIFE!!!!
    And here’s why.
    Within my arguably strained chess metaphor –mr. could have easily made moves and employed strategies that would have reinforced his assertions that he does indeed seek to raise the value of all non-male/non-white/non-socio-economically elites (throwing it in for free cause we all know he’s a class-ist asshat) to EQUAL that of the king.
    Instead he does the fairy-tale equivalent of the boykings that don commoner costumes and go slum it in the villages for whatever reason – to get a good peasant wife, to find a friend, to steal the wisdom from a crone, to have a lark before they have to ‘grow-up’ and be ‘serious’ or they wont get vested with the full course of their entitlements and powers, etc ad infinitum.

    Read mr’s narratives [but you should consult a doctor before engaging in strenuous activity of this sort] – the badboy to goodman journey is cheesily archetypal in a very xtian tradition as has been called out cogently by posters upthread. Yet he and his supporters see no disconnect with feminism when they chastise and hector the commentariat here and elsewhere for not accepting the religious/philosophical/moral colonialism he foists upon us by he insisting that he be judged EXCLUSIVELY by the standards and rules he has constructed and reserves the right to adjust to suit his needs.
    [I read a lot and enjoyed the meatiness of his father’s work on Kantian philosophies during my undergraduate studies, and I must say even the unkindest critic of the elder Schwyzer’s work would recognize his son’s utter bastardization and manipulative misuse of those narratives/philosophies, but I can certainly see he’s appropriated just enough language, reasoning, philosophical rhythm to establish a patina of legitimacy for his narratives.]

    His academic history and professional existence — from which he draws his ‘legitimate’ voice as a professor of gender/women studies and uses as a foundation upon which to establish academic (read: elite) credibility, is then traded upon to solidify his identity as a male feminist and theorist in online & meatspace feminism. Why does this matter? (to me) Because all this builds social capital which is then traded by moral entrepreneurs to further the endeavors/issues/attitudes/definitions they are seeking to normalize within a society. That’s what we feminists do when feminism becomes more than what we are and think and becomes directed (in)action, as I understand it of course – not saying there is any way to do it – only that doing something collectively is part of it. Of course we aren’t the only agenda that employs moral entrepreneurship and it’s use has no good/bad value in and of itself (in theory anyways) – generally speaking, it’s to be judged in practice. (see: Howard Becker for original conceptualization – I like Mary de Young’s -Deviance and Social Control as a baseline for how it plays out in applied theories)

    mr seeks to normalize something…his media presence exists to market it and sell it, so it’s there for y’all to see and purchase. He presents his product for sale in the marketplace of ideas and that’s where it must be vetted. Which is exactly what is happening and is what mr and his fanpersons don’t like…for example – any product with questionable safety issues certainly doesn’t want to be tested and written up by consumer reports.

    The Glaring ISSUE for me is his presence in an academic environment where he purports to pass on academically derived and sourced knowledge and grants grades used to give or deny students academic credentials. I oppose his existence as a women’s studies professor because he lacks the proper credentials to be one…period. That in combination with his abominable breach of trust and power and his continued insistence that he belongs in dominant positions over the very women he has victimized marks him as an unsuitable professor for this and host of other disciplines. His insistence on keeping his classroom fiefdom and access to his preferred prey is undoubtedly predatory and anti-feminist by my reckoning. Who ARE these amazing feminists that insisted he stay in the classroom despite his abuse of women and lack of academic preparation?

    mr wants to be a Media Personality of every and any sort? – no problem. However should he An Academic Feminist presenting himself with the specialized knowledge that entitles him call himself a creator and imparter of knowledge on the topic of feminism or gender studies, his own highly personalized anecdata notwithstanding, and with the full force of credibility granted by his position at a state institution of higher education??? – yeah fuck no – and here’s why.

    I went looking for basic info on mr. regarding his academic credentials because frankly I was fucking appalled at the way he refuses to annonymize the subjects of his posts, or take basic precautions, when even the most basic training in any social science or any social justice focused work, whether in or out of academic settings, focuses on the protection of human participants – particularly the protection of their identities. The attempted murder post and the post about an ex-wife being a lesbian spring to mind and there are many others (he assures readers the HERCULEAN amount of work to find out who one of his wives was protects her identity *gag*).

    Also there is a pretty extensive narrative and ethos running through academic circles – the ‘osophies’ and ‘ologies’ in general and women/gender/sexuality studies in particular, as well as just about every social justice movement, that disavows the appropriation of the stories of victimized, vulnerable, marginalized, or exploited persons/populations, which foreclose mr.’s storytelling method as anything even remotely approaching ethical/non-exploitive attempted feminism.
    http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html. This link is a wonderful resource on the issue of speaking for others and how it is oppressive rather than educational or liberating and is certainly at odds with the ethics of non-appropriative feminism.
    mr.’s narratives are violative of his victims – and he re-offends against them via his appropriation of their experiences. [the women whose life experiences he describes in a wide variety of his posts, those stories belong to those women and he steals them and resells them to suit his interests – pecuniary and otherwise].

    There are ethical ways to center yourself and your reactions to the experiences of others when doing social justice work and theory, yet he fails miserably at every level – most notably because he does not even pretend to try. Therefore I was dying to know what school of thought? within what discipline? and what degree granting institution? could possibly be informing his position. Ha! Interestingly I found that mr-brags-a lot about every detail to the point of gagging overwhelmingly only refers in feminist spaces to his academic credentials as a Bachelors degree and a PhD – and names no discipline under which this feminist perspective was constructed under. Do a google search and go on his websites, his wikipedia page, his press releases and he consistently refers to the titles he holds (Bacc & PhD), but not the disciplines in which he holds them.
    This felt uncharacteristic of mr and set off my spidey sense, considering his use of his education and professorship as his foundational base for feminist cred in general and intellectual gravitas on the matters of feminism, sex/sexuality, gender etc in particular. This is salient particularly in light of the fact that he freely admits the overwhelming majority of his personal anecdata casts him in the role victimizer/oppressor of women, both individually and as a class.
    He implies constantly and is accepted at his word that his academic feminism, his critical reading, thought, and analysis and interaction with other feminists serve now as a super trustworthy meta-filter through which all his troubling hugoboyness and his xtian ethos based thoughts must pass before he takes, advocates, or evaluates action(s). I call BULLSHIT. And here’s why.
    He’s credentialed sufficient to teach something, but it sure as fuck ain’t women’s studies. After a few more clicks I finally found references to his education which I link and excerpt below. After reading his personal history, as told by mr himself, taking a gander at his academic credentials, and seeing for the dearth of theory that is recognizably feminist under any construct in his writings–decide for yourself if he should be in a classroom setting teaching within any discipline focused on feminism/gender/sexuality studies.

    mr sez:<blockquote. “Second quick point: dissertations in gender studies are never about how one "feels". If you want to find out what most dissertations in the field are written about, I suggest you go here and type in women's studies or gender studies. Not a lot of fluff will come up — but a lot of world-class scholarship will!”[none of it mr’s! he didn’t do a dissertation on gender studies – no critical feminist lens was intersected with his work either]

    ”Of course, I don’t have a doctoral degree in gender studies. Indeed, my Ph.D. is in English Medieval History, with an emphasis on ecclesiastical and political affairs. Here’s the link to the abstract of my doctoral dissertation at UCLA: Arms and the Bishop: the Anglo-Scottish War and the Northeastern Episcopate, 1296-1357. Hint, folks: it’s not a page turner. But if you like lengthy footnotes in Latin and Norman French, you’re in luck. (I’m not sure I can read Norman French anymore, but in the early to mid-90s, I sure had to learn how. Anyhow, the first 24 pages are online — read away!)”

    [I’m fascinated how his passion for gender studies just couldn’t claw it’s way in to any part of his analysis in the culmination of his academic work…hmmm…in a ‘terminal’ *gag* degree no less]

    “As early as my sophomore year of college, I had become interested in doing a degree in Women’s Studies. I had come into Berkeley as a history major, but once I took my first class on gender, I was hooked. I’ll confess, however, that I allowed myself to be talked out of having women’s studies be anything more than a pastime”.

    [ahhh of course his pastime should grant him a classroom where he teaches women’s studies themed courses over another professor who is actually credentialed…hmmmm…but there’s that confession that make everything alright!]

    “Family and friends, knowing of my desire to teach, told me that a degree in Women’s Studies wouldn’t be taken seriously, using some of the same criticisms that the Stand Your Ground fellows used. I argued with them, knowing from my own experience that courses in gender studies were often more demanding in terms of work load than those in more conservative and conventional fields. (This is true in my own classes: ask any of my students who take my Women’s History course, and they’ll tell you it’s much more work than my Western Civ surveys.)”

    [I’ve never had a professor who identified as a feminist that taught any class, including gasp physics and math, that didn’t still bring a feminist lens to the work….hmmmm shouldn’t the western civ class work be weighty what with all that necessary feminist unpacking of patriarchy’s hijacking of history as a construction, how we define civilization/etc?]

    “Like most college students, I did want to be taken seriously as a scholar. And though I knew damned well that gender studies was just as demanding as the courses I was taking in church history, I decided to make medieval religious history my primary area of undergraduate interest. (In honor of my father’s heritage, I also picked up a minor in German literature. Nothing like stumbling through Schiller in the original, right?)
    When I started grad school at UCLA in 1989, I was still fascinated with contemporary gender studies. To the bewilderment of my advisers, I took some women’s studies courses along with my classes in paleography, medieval Latin, and the like. I initially hoped to have women’s studies be one of my minor fields for my doctorate; at UCLA, one needed expertise in three “minor fields” outside of one dissertation area. My adviser, however, recommended against any formal association with women’s studies at all; “It doesn’t relate to your real work”, he said. I listened to him, I’m sorry to say, and thus completed my three minor fields in: [so 3 minor fields outside of his area of concentration, none of them gender study based, none of them apply an explicitly feminist lens to the work and neither does his concentration]”
    1. Early Modern European Economic History. (Ask me about proto-industrialization in 17th century Flanders!)
    2. The early medieval German church (I’ve forgotten all those bloody Ottos, but I can still get through the investiture conflict in my sleep.)
    3. Medieval English philosophy, particularly Ockham and Duns Scotus. (My adviser in this area was one of the first women ordained to the Anglican priesthood, the marvelous Marilyn Adams, now at Yale. Often, say after a surprisingly interesting discussion of the views of Duns Scotus on the conception of Mary, we turned to contemporary gender issues and the church. She always had great cookies in her office).
    “Bottom line: the “public face” of my grad work had damn all to do with contemporary gender issues. And yet, even as I was researching that exhausting dissertation, I was doing most of my outside reading in women’s studies. The gap between my real interests and my actual work was tremendous, and it was largely a consequence of my own lack of courage. I didn’t stand up to those who dismissed my interest in women’s studies until it was far too late to change the course of my graduate career.”

    http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/i_confess_i_did.html
    So the outside reading done in isolation whilst completing an exhausting dissertation on a topic that he did not even tangentially link to gender studies and servicing the requirements of expertise in 3 more areas of study that do not have feminism nor gender studies intersected with them, suffices to grant him a college classroom teaching any women’s studies classes? How is this possible? I suppose he could trade on his media image and count that as professional experience and teach classes the way adjunct professors without graduate degrees do at colleges based on the wealth of knowledge granted by their real world work experiences.
    But wait – the overwhelming majority mr’s real world experience is as a victimizer and abuser not as an activist in a feminist centered social justice movement (spare me the cite to this years slutwalk –it would have to pre-date his hiring to teach) nor has he claimed any real life academic, mainstream, or underground feminist or group of feminists as his mentors.
    In fact he has disavowed knowledge of major current works, themes and theorists in feminism, [see his disgracefully and putridly unfeminist treatment of WOC theorists and activists ad infinitum] and proudly proclaims as valid his glaring ignorance of their contributions and those of all manner of feminists and allies. His pathetic attempt to utterly marginalize these women with his excremental argument about ‘zeitgeist’ being an acceptable response to being called out on said ignorance/appropriation and the constant refusal to recognize the value of that work even after he was liberated from tyrannical ignorance left me agog.
    That he then found it unproblematic to have that same work appropriated and monetized by elite people of non-color who are members of non-marginalized, non-vulnerable/exploited populations is just one very telling example of his real “contributions” to feminist discourses.
    Where are his scholarly papers on gender/feminist/sexuality themed issues? Someone care to link his ssrn or anything else, we can read his peer reviewed journal articles on gender/feminism?
    Are these things needed to establish the validity of any or every feminist theorist? Nope, no academic/elite, credentials required in feminism at all. But they are needed to establish the validity of a PROFESSOR IN AN ACADEMIC SETTING that grants credentials based on grades received in an academic setting premised on pedagogical validity and not the navel gazing of an elite asshat and based on his outside hobby reading, media schmoozatunities, and bad boy behaviors.
    Funnily in an article a few years later he fills out his academic credentials a bit more

    At the age of 18, Schwyzer started attending University of California Berkeley where he received his Bachelor’s degree in history and German literature. He then went on to earn his Master’s and PhD at UCLA in Medieval Church History, Women’s Studies, Scholastic Philosophy and Theology http://www.pcccourier.com/features/a-look-back-with-professor-hugo-schwyzer-1.2422314

    [Uhhhm really did they list all that on his diploma too? Funny how in the first article and on that website which is I believe 2005 his feminist rhetoric is muted]
    By 2009 he’s padded his propaganda line to include this catchall list…really now we list every individual class we’ve taken when declaring the area or discipline our degree is in? must be some billboard sized diplomas given out in Cali. By his own admissions he took at best a handful of classes – and did some outside reading on his own time during an exhausting graduate school process and dissertation whilst maintaining the badboy lifestyle he trades on so profitably now. He produced no WORK and was judged by no standard in order to be found even proficient much less expert in his claimed field of knowledge.

    His redemption narrative is xtian to the core and his history is classically patriarchal and paternalistic, using his status as a non-female member of several privileged/elite groups in his exploitation and abuse of women. Where and when exactly did he acquire feminist enlightenment, much less cred, outside of his very own echo chamber? Since when does a person gain “expertise” in a subject founded on critical analysis by ensuring that their analysis and learning process is subject to no known rigorous review or criticism/affirmation by knowledgeable/experienced peers? [this standard is applicable in and out of academia]
    Confessing his “sins” against womankind in the ways he does smacks more of perpetrators fondling mementos of their crimes to relive the thrills of abusing female victims and lessening the anxiety caused by sublimating urges to offend, than any real cathartic transformative revelation of his process of growth and enlightenment. Further, the tone and quality of the hectoring he and his fanboys/grrls subject commentariat to when they put forth feminist centered critiques of his work that do not align with the cookies he wants or stay within the bounds of disagreement he’s pre-authorized – shows an absolute absence of intellectual curiosity, honesty or even a passing familiarity with some core concepts of feminism, social justice, or ethics.

    Oh and his xtianess is not new, and see Ophelia Benson’s most excellent post http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/12/people-can-be-so-ineffable/ illustrating how he clearly privileges and centers xtian values and philosophies and is the real meta-filter through which his feminism must first pass.
    His presence in the classroom under the auspices of feminism is vulgar and offensive to the extreme and robs a qualified women’s studies professor of employment and defrauds the students that pay to take that class.

  779. My understanding of Twisty’s position vis-a-vis trans-people after the revolution and overthrow of patriarchy isn’t that they as people would be obliterated or eliminated, but rather that their relationship towards gender would no longer be remarkable or emotionally laden, and would be considered simply part of the normal range of human variation.

  780. Donna, I’ve been off-line most of the day, but I too wanted to say how sorry I am that you and the other transwomen on this thread have had to hear this tired hateful bullshit yet again. I found your post beautifully written, as your comments always are, thoughtful, and deeply moving. You have done nothing to people like delphyne, but you are somebody who does not fit into their flattened, simplistic understanding of how people work; if they were to accept you, they would have to re-evaluate their core assumptions and make them more nuanced and complex. That is the threat you pose; your existence might make them think harder than they’re used to. Anyway. I’m sorry, and I am grateful that you bring your insights and analyses to Feministe.

    Thanks to Caperton to the banning.

  781. This is probably pointless a hundred comments later, but to respond to Deepika:

    andrew pari – are you really only concerned with how you’re coming across in this thread as an “ant-feminist jerk”? have you read anything here, in this comment thread, that made sense to you? that made you rethink your original points? no? HGTM has taught you well…

    I have read through the entire thread, yes, though I skipped through anything that wasn’t really on point (the MI debate, the lib/rad/trans debate) about Hugo’s stance & value in feminism due to his past behavior.
    Much of the anger makes perfect sense to me. I really do get it. I see how utterly frustrating and painful it is to see a man with his past remain (and be accepted and valued by feminists) in the various positions he holds.
    I do continue to think about my own personal decision here, as a man who strongly believes in feminist values and the continued movement towards truly equal footing.
    I struggle with the idea of simply agreeing that he needs to be sidelined because I wonder what the general thought and position would be: 1)if it had been a male friend in the apartment that night, in the exact same scenario otherwise, 2) if he were a woman who committed the same level of transgression.
    The first question is NOT to make this “what about the menz” but to think about how much this really has to do with his feminist principles, however you may agree/disagree, and how much has to do with him having been a horribly flawed person who could possibly have killed anyone in the state he was in that night.

    My position may also be weakened in some eyes because, as a therapist, I believe very strongly in the value and reality of people making deep and significant changes that cause them to see the person they were as a different human being.

    I also am very wary of emotionally-charged demands to do pretty much anything. Having been excoriated myself for taking precisely equal stances on issues in both feminist and MRA forums, I know the heat that rises from taking a moderate view amongst extreme viewpoints.

    Can someone have Hugo’s history and contribute something of value in his given area of study/expertise? Yes, I absolutely think so.

    Does anyone have to listen? No, absolutely not.

    Should he be banned from Feministe? Absolutely not for me to say. That’s a decision I respectfully leave to the women who run this site.

    Also, I don’t know what HGTM means. Harvard Graduate…something? I didn’t go to Harvard.

    I’ll tell you one thing though. Regardless of the response to this post, I won’t be telling anyone to “fuck right off.”

  782. Except Caperton and EVERYONE ELSE

    You do. Be as sarcastic ( and frankly rude) as you wanna be but that entire long winded apology means nothing if you don’t ” ban ” him. If you don’t emphatically say this is wrong what he did and is doing is WRONG. Your using your flowery hem and haw words on him , and your sarcastic venom to women asking a VERY REAL QUESTION.

    WHile trying to duck out with an OH but he’s not allowed in my house.

    Women who have been assaulted and traumatized are asking you why you won’ say it ” It’s not at all ok for him to be centered, we do NOT care more about his healing process than yours.”

    To which you ARE SAYING

    ” um we’re sorry now that you are angry . And it shouldn’t be done HERE but we won’t condemn it but don’t point it out or we’ll be snappy”

    Because when you tell someone they aren’t welcome in your house . YOU ARE SAYING SOMETHING about how you will treat them and what they bring , how you feel about their actions and history . And don’t insult folks intelligence in hopes that they won’t notice that even in a SYMBOLIC gesture you WON’T do that to him

  783. I struggle with the idea of simply agreeing that he needs to be sidelined because I wonder what the general thought and position would be: 1)if it had been a male friend in the apartment that night, in the exact same scenario otherwise, 2) if he were a woman who committed the same level of transgression.
    The first question is NOT to make this “what about the menz” but to think about how much this really has to do with his feminist principles, however you may agree/disagree, and how much has to do with him having been a horribly flawed person who could possibly have killed anyone in the state he was in that night.

    Andrew, as has been pointed out repeatedly during this thread, murder/suicides are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women. They aren’t just a result of being a horribly flawed person, because that trend indicates that there is specifically an element of gendered violence and sexist entitlement involved in murder/suicides, and yes, that goes to Hugo’s feminist principles (which, in 1998, he already professed to hold). It is disingenuous to present hypotheticals that elide the gendered nature of what happened.

  784. Donna L, I’m so sorry and sad that you had to deal with that vile, hateful bullshit – and amazed and awed by the grace and wisdom with which you did so.

    Thank you for the ban, Caperton.

    As to Hugo, I think it’s pretty telling that he’s posting to Jez in the midst of all this. You’d think he’d stay low for a bit, whether out of self-preservation, or to reevaluate his participation in feminist spaces (if he really was reformed).

  785. Needing to take some time to reflect and just listen was exactly the reason he gave for not responding to comments at his place, but apparently taking time to reflect just means not having to answer to a bunch of angry feminists, not that he shouldn’t just go right on telling women how we’re doing feminism wrong (which is what he does in the Jez post). What’s worse, in the very comment about how he needed to take time to just listen, he also said he wouldn’t be reading comments. Apparently “just listening” means listening to his friends, the “accountability team” who won’t hold him accountable any more than he’s comfortable with.

  786. Claire K. 12.29.2011 at 10:58 pm

    Needing to take some time to reflect and just listen was exactly the reason he gave for not responding to comments at his place, but apparently taking time to reflect just means not having to answer to a bunch of angry feminists, not that he shouldn’t just go right on telling women how we’re doing feminism wrong (which is what he does in the Jez post). What’s worse, in the very comment about how he needed to take time to just listen, he also said he wouldn’t be reading comments. Apparently “just listening” means listening to his friends, the “accountability team” who won’t hold him accountable any more than he’s comfortable with.

    But really, who expected Schwizzy to do any different? Its pretty clear where he is at and where he will stay.

  787. My understanding of Twisty’s position vis-a-vis trans-people after the revolution and overthrow of patriarchy isn’t that they as people would be obliterated or eliminated

    For goodness’ sake. I really didn’t want to be drawn back into this, but do you really, seriously believe that I don’t realize that, or that it’s necessary for you to explain to me that when she (and most others like her) speak about the future disappearance of trans people they aren’t talking about public hangings and guillotines?

    but rather that their relationship towards gender would no longer be remarkable or emotionally laden, and would be considered simply part of the normal range of human variation.

    You’re leaving out, of course, the parts about how nobody would ever need or want to change their body anymore, either.

  788. Branwe-

    I see your thread at Jezebel got dissappeared, as well as Gregory Butler’s. Literally silencing the voices of women (and allies) in favor of a man with such an … interesting past.

  789. I’ve read every single comment (even the transphobic bile, unfortunately), and something confusing just occured to me. At the beginning of this post, Caperton mentions “they” (presumably, some of the staff) “don’t see Feministe as an appropriate venue for the rehabilitation of a figure with Schwyzer’s history (and, for that matter, present).”

    To me, that sounds like he’s banned, both as an interviewee/guest blogger and as a commenter. But subsequent follow-ups in this thread suggest that’s not the case. I want to give Feministe the benefit of a doubt, but I agree that clarity would be appreciated.

  790. As for the subject at hand that isn’t full of transphobic fail…

    I don’t think that feminism is an impoverished culture with a deficit of proud female voices raised in its defense and celebration. I don’t think that we’re desperate.

    So why we should be so eager for a man with Schwyzer’s past (and, frankly, mansplaining present) to be present in our ranks? We don’t need his validation, we don’t need his backup, and I for one sure as shit do not want or need his male voice drowning out the voices of women for whom the kyriarchy is an every day force.

    I don’t need or want Schwyzer. I think shunning him for his actions – violating professorial ethics by sleeping with students, shouting down women of color, mansplaining as fast and hard as he can, and, not least, attempting to murder a woman who trusted him – is quite appropriate. Not only do I think it’s appropriate, I think it’s necessary – I see nothing to make me think that Hugo has altered the worldview that allows him to justify these things, and I see a great deal to make me think that I don’t want him trying to tell us how to “do feminism right”.

    Being a feminist does not make it my job to give cookies and asspats to men who claim the title feminist. Being a feminist does not require me to bestow forgiveness and benevolence towards a man who makes my every instinct scream “get AWAY”. And being a feminist does not require me to shut up and sit down when a “feminist” man is talking, especially when he needs challenging in the authority he’s claimed.

    I’m not Beauty, and Hugo isn’t the Beast, and I am not going to flutter around him and say “you poor poor dear, you’re redeemed, you’ve changed” – because, honey, it ain’t my job.

    It’s not the job of any woman here, either.

    Ban him, if only to make the point that this shit isn’t okay.

    Thanks.

  791. Ha ha ha ha ha – I am in BIIIIIIIG trouble! Not only were my anti-Hugo comments at Jezebel moved to the “off-topic” commenting Hall of Shame, but I was also SUSPENDED FOR A WEEK ZOMG.

    How will I EVER tell my parents? They will ground me, for sure!

  792. The one time I looked there, I couldn’t find a comments thread. Did they get rid of it, or are they just more efficient at hiding them since they updated the website all those months ago, and I decided it was too ugly and never went back?

  793. Someone upthread said that twisty was a trans ally. Boadie posted a quote from Twisty and got her ass handed to her. Phisio was trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

    Violence against women is pretty old and tired too. Still, we do persist on objecting to it.

  794. @muckrackingISwomen’swork: really thoughtful, informative post. I don’t know how I missed it earlier. Maybe it was in moderation and just got out? If so, I hope other people will read it and that all your insights and work don’t go to waste (it’s at 846, long but totally worth reading). I used to read Hugo’s blog (ironically, his was the first feminist blog I ever stumbled across) and I remembered hearing something about how he regretted not having done his PhD in Women’s Studies, and something else about how some feminists thought a woman should have been hired for his job, but I never really put two and two together. So what he didn’t mention is that quite apart from all the thorny questions about whether men should teach feminism, about how much weight to give lived experience versus academic training, he just isn’t qualified even in the purely academic sense. This actually comes as a relief to me. As a student of feminism and lesbian studies, I felt defensive when I saw some people suggesting academic training in fields related to social justice has no value, but at the same time I wondered how much good that training does if someone like HS can go through it and emerge with all their biases intact. So, while I still know I need to be careful to avoid presenting knowledge that comes out of elitist power structures as superior to the realities of people’s lives, at least now I feel comforted that HS isn’t really an example of what Women’s Studies PhD programs produce.

    This bit was excellent:

    of course his pastime should grant him a classroom where he teaches women’s studies themed courses over another professor who is actually credentialed

    Again, until you pointed it out I wouldn’t have made the connection between Hugo’s not having a PhD in anything feminism-related, despite using his supposed academic expertise as the reason he doesn’t have to listen to women’s lived experiences, and a very patriarchal (and racist and classist) tradition in which those who can afford to do something as a hobby are the ones worth listening to, rather than the activists who are oppressed themselves and have no choice but to throw their all into the struggle against their oppression.

  795. Ah, forgot something else (sorry to double post).

    The other thing your post made me think about for the first time was that Hugo’s educational background is not only not in Women’s Studies but is in fact in religion. Given that he also found it appropriate to write about his faith trumping his politics when he was supposed to be writing about history as an academic (http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/12/people-can-be-so-ineffable/ –I’m scared to try the link function) it’s clear that his particular brand of Christianity is the foundation for both his political and academic work. Thinking about his position as a prof not just in terms of his history of abuse, or the politics of men teaching feminism, but in terms of basic academic issues also makes me wonder about his teaching style. I remember from when I used to read his blog that he often had his own students commenting, and that he prided himself on also functioning as a sort of therapist or guidance counselor for his students, during which guidance he instructed them on how to live their lives according to his feminist standards. Taken together, what all of this suggests is that he’s taking on a position much more similar to a sort of evangelical religious leader than to a professor, and I really doubt that he could be acquainting his students with a variety of feminist theorists, according to rigorous academic standards, while also trying to bring them to salvation (by which I mean not necessarily a religious conversion, but an attempt to step in and fix their lives through his brand of feminism in a way very much modeled on the practices of his brand of Christianity). Without insinuating that he is still sleeping with students, I do think this demonstrates in milder form the same arrogance and the same overstepping of boundaries that marked his earlier abuses.

    Again, great comment from muckrackingISwomen’swork at 846. I hope others will read and respond to it.

  796. Woah, yep, muckrakingISwomen’swork at 846 is pretty damn excellent and deserves a read.

    Wow, yeah, I agree…that was fantastic work, Muckraking.

    M’s response Re: Women’s Studies programs

    When we first moved and he was looking for a new teaching position, there were a number of places where he perceived that the administration was specifically seeking men to join those departments. It might have something to do with the derth of positions in Ethics, but he got the impression that they were trying to “diversify” the program. (That word was used, but he’s not sure if it was aimed at his gender or race.)

    Does anyone know *why* there would be such a demand for men in women’s studies programs?

  797. mr.’s narratives are violative of his victims – and he re-offends against them via his appropriation of their experiences. [the women whose life experiences he describes in a wide variety of his posts, those stories belong to those women and he steals them and resells them to suit his interests – pecuniary and otherwise].

    This so perfectly articulates a major issue with a huge amount of his posts.

    Also, Claire.K, i think you might be on to something there with the wannabe spiritual leader connection.

  798. I have to say, something amazing came from all this for me. I have struggled deeply with the concept of forgiveness. I have lived a life full of emotional abuse from a significant portion of people I’ve known and I have always felt the overwhelming need to forgive them, regardless of the damage they had done and even after they’ve left my life. I have always felt that forgiving made me better, that to not forgive was wrong somehow. To this day I still struggle with this. Recently I’ve been longing to not forgive, I’ve wanted nothing more then to declare that no I won’t forgive my abusers, but I couldn’t do it, no matter how much I didn’t want to I always ended up forgiving in some form or another, because I felt it made me a bad/vindictive person if i didn’t. Reading these few threads and taking in a ton of what y’all have been saying has really helped me understand that I am well within my rights to not forgive, that it is ok for me to say no fuck that I don’t want to, the guilt of being unable to fully forgive has been significantly abated as I no longer feel as completely compelled to do so. I have been hurt by people and many of them don’t deserve/haven’t earned my forgiveness and though my propensity forgiving will always be a part of my general character, I can for the first time sad with confidence that I don’t forgive all my abusers and that I don’t have to forgive them today, tomorrow or 10 years from now if I don’t want to and that is so empowering for me.

    So Thank you, seriously.

  799. As for Hugo I think this from 2004 says a lot about him and why his continued active involvement as a leadership figure in feminism is abhorrent

    http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/4862.html

    There will be times when this leads us into coalition with liberals. But there will be times when we are far, far apart. The Christian left must be faithful to Christ first, not secular dogma. Where our agendas and our understandings coincide, so much the better. But at times, we will stand with our Christian brethren on the right of the political spectrum, not out of sectarian loyalty but out of a sense that, as Carter said,”discerning God’s will and doing it is prior to everything else.”

    It is no easy thing to claim to have discerned God’s will. No wise Christian tries to do it alone. We do it in the light of (thanks Wesley) Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience; above all we do it prayerfully, humbly, and together

  800. @Lara Emily Foley

    Re: Your thoughts on forgiveness

    *Applaud!*

    Re: Hugo and his divining of God’s will

    *vomit*

  801. @846, I’ll join the chorus in saying brava.

    @Lara Emily Foley, I think the problem here is that the notion of forgiveness is getting completely distorted by Hugo and friends. I’ve been abused and I’ve been raped, and I actually think forgiveness is crucial to the sense of personal peace that I’ve gained over time. Forgiveness isn’t about being friends with or cheerleaders for abusers. It SHOULD be about (and this is a secular quote:) “letting go of attachment to one’s wounds.” When you let anger at someone else eat at your psyche, they will always have control over you. I put myself back in the driver’s seat when I acknowledged that these abusers are living miserable existences, and that I can walk the fuck away from it and find joy that they never can. It doesn’t mean I don’t still think those people aren’t horrendous; it means I think they fucking pay a price for it as people who perpetuate their tortured existences. And that I believe they have an infinitely happier life than they ever will. Forgiveness to me means saying that someone wronged me, but that wrong doesn’t have a hold over me.

  802. I’ve read every single comment (even the transphobic bile, unfortunately), and something confusing just occured to me. At the beginning of this post, Caperton mentions “they” (presumably, some of the staff) “don’t see Feministe as an appropriate venue for the rehabilitation of a figure with Schwyzer’s history (and, for that matter, present).”

    To me, that sounds like he’s banned, both as an interviewee/guest blogger and as a commenter. But subsequent follow-ups in this thread suggest that’s not the case. I want to give Feministe the benefit of a doubt, but I agree that clarity would be appreciated.

    Jasmin, for the moment it’s looking like the text you quoted, and the rain of sarcasm from one of the authors in response to the very real question of why Hugo is not banned, is all just so much sophistry meant to distract us from noticing that Feministe is absolutely committed to keeping the door open for Hugo to comment as he pleases at a very minimum.

    Perhaps Hugo’s fond notion isn’t far off the mark that this is just another shitstorm the important people are waiting for the unimportant people to get tired of.

  803. @Andrew pari
    Ok, I’ll bite on this. What if HS’s attempted murder victim were a man instead of a woman? Would it make that act any less criminal? No.

    But if it were a man, would the feminist community judge his credibility as a professional feminist differently? Possibly.

    (This in no way should decontextualize the attempted murder from HS’s other behavior involving women. That’s all part of the picture, too.)

    To me, the biggest issue that’s been uncovered has less to do with redemption in general, and more to do with specifically how (and how much) credibility HS should be given within feminism. I will studiously avoid giving an opinion on that – but I think we’re seeing that process rapidly play itself out.

    Also, there will be no justice until Sheelzebub is President. ; )

  804. 1)if it had been a male friend in the apartment that night, in the exact same scenario otherwise, 2) if he were a woman who committed the same level of transgression.

    Do you really not see why it’s relevant that a man tried to murder a woman who he told police was crazy (thus limiting any power she had against said man) then profited off of feminism for the next ten-odd years? You’re trying to see how you would feel if this situation were completely devoid of context? Seriously, how is it more important to test your feelings on whether you’d feel the same way if Hugo were a woman than, say, if Hugo NEVER TRIED TO MURDER SOMEONE.

    But sure, if your flawed mental exercise helps you justify whatever gymnastics you need to perform, have at it.

  805. Jasmin, for the moment it’s looking like the text you quoted, and the rain of sarcasm from one of the authors in response to the very real question of why Hugo is not banned, is all just so much sophistry meant to distract us from noticing that Feministe is absolutely committed to keeping the door open for Hugo to comment as he pleases at a very minimum.

    Perhaps Hugo’s fond notion isn’t far off the mark that this is just another shitstorm the important people are waiting for the unimportant people to get tired of.

    Look, I get that it’s annoying not to have a full decision from the feministe crew yet, but let’s not project that a lack of decision so far means that they aren’t going to do anything. Developing consensus responses takes time, and it’s not exactly an un-busy time of year. Since Hugo is not in fact currently commenting here, there’s no particular urgency in the feministe crew cutting short whatever decision making or collective process they’re going through at the moment. Just as we needed discussion time to work through this stuff, the bloggers need time to figure out their response.

  806. I’m not so horrified by the idea of Hugo commenting here in this thread, because I think the commenters would immediately eat his face. This is hostile and defended territory now. That’s why he’s not already here, having the calm and reasonable discussion that he wants to have. Like other commenters, I suspect that’s what he’s doing: waiting for all of this to blow over so he can publish his usual wet-eyed post-(almost)-mortem, and position himself as the enlightened one apart from all those hysterical vindictive bitches. I’d be very glad of the opportunity to shake that narrative, but he’s smart enough not to let that happen.

    I also understand that he’s been good as banned. He’s actually been treated with more open hostility than is normal. Usually, when Feministe decides that someone is not welcome or safe, they just get a mod note to the effect that they’re not welcome. Caperton wrote a post about how Hugo was unwelcome, and then opened up a thread so that everyone could say terrible things about him. That was the right thing to do.

    Still, though, guys, you need to make this official and total. Ban Hugo, and make that clear.

  807. Li, if that had been the response to us asking the question — that with holiday travel and commitments reaching consensus takes time but further action will be forthcoming — then naturally it would hold out the possibility that were true, unlikely though it seems. (But we’d be back to Hugo is OMG SO VERY VITAL TO FEMINISTE, since banning in general does not take this enormous consensus.)

    But that wasn’t the response when we asked. The response was a pile of sarcasm, implying the question wasn’t even worthy of consideration.

    So either Hugo is so monumentally important to Feministe that the question of why he is not banned is not worthy of anything beyond sarcastic dismissal, or Hugo is so monumentally important to Feministe that there must be some sort of unusual conclave to discuss even the possibility of banning him. Either way, Hugo is centered in Feministe’s concerns, apparently. You know who isn’t? Women voices of their own who have been targeted by criminals like him.

  808. Do you really not see why it’s relevant that a man tried to murder a woman who he told police was crazy (thus limiting any power she had against said man) then profited off of feminism for the next ten-odd years? You’re trying to see how you would feel if this situation were completely devoid of context? Seriously, how is it more important to test your feelings on whether you’d feel the same way if Hugo were a woman than, say, if Hugo NEVER TRIED TO MURDER SOMEONE.

    But sure, if your flawed mental exercise helps you justify whatever gymnastics you need to perform, have at it.

    It’s not just the gender of the two people involved, either, it’s that this woman was his ex/girlfriend. You can’t make this a “male friend,” because it all happened in the context of intimate violence–which is the context in which a lot of violence against women occurs. Murder suicides aren’t just something men do to women. They’re something that men do to their girlfriends and spouses.

  809. It’s not just the gender of the two people involved, either, it’s that this woman was his ex/girlfriend. You can’t make this a “male friend,” because it all happened in the context of intimate violence–which is the context in which a lot of violence against women occurs. Murder suicides aren’t just something men do to women. They’re something that men do to their girlfriends and spouses.

    It’s also irritatingly heterosexist to use “friend” as the mannish equivalent when Hugo isn’t straight. Not only is obnoxious hypothetical obnoxious, it’s also needlessly extra obnoxious in using someone other than an intimate partner for the gender switch.

  810. Helen, your question wasn’t worthy of consideration. “Are you in favor of dudes who try to murder women?” isn’t a real question, and it received a sarcastic answer.

    The question of Schwyzer’s presence here is a good one, though, and it’s one the staff bloggers have been discussing at length since the subject came up. We’ve agreed that, as a matter of policy, we won’t be linking to him, giving him any positive coverage, or welcoming any contributions from him in the future–period. He’s also been placed on permanent moderation, so should he for whatever reason think he’s welcome to come back and comment on any subject, those comments won’t hit land.

    The hesitance to ban Schwyzer completely, though, has less to do with him and more to do with Feministe as an entity. To my knowledge, in the entire history of the blog, no one has ever been preemptively banned from Feministe. Schwyzer would be the only person in the entire world, ever, to receive such recognition. And when you’re making a sweeping policy change like that, the implications go beyond just one commenter–that says something about Schwyzer, his position relative to the rest of the world, the people he’s hurt, and also everyone of any gender, thought process, political persuasion, and personal history who hasn’t been preemptively banned, and their positions in the world, and the people they’ve hurt. It’s not that we’re at all interested in hearing what he has to say or that we feel he should be able to say it here. It’s that the implications of that action go far beyond “we’re sending a message that Schwyzer isn’t welcome here,” and it’s not a move we’re undertaking lightly.

  811. andrew pari – we are in different time zones, hence the delay in my reply to you.

    Having been excoriated myself for taking precisely equal stances on issues in both feminist and MRA forums, I know the heat that rises from taking a moderate view amongst extreme viewpoints.

    you are equating feminists and mras, on a feminist website. you are saying that we are “emotionally-charged” and therefore unreliable, and that the concerns and anger being expressed here are “extreme viewpoints”. you are also presenting yourself as a “moderate” voice.
    on all points you are incorrect, paternalistic and patronizing. after this comment i will no longer engage with you (at least not respectfully) if you don’t cut this shit out, because it’s clear that you are, in fact, very bad at reading/comprehending and in fact are very good at being the little mouth on the ass of hugo schwyzer.

    Can someone have Hugo’s history and contribute something of value in his given area of study/expertise? Yes, I absolutely think so.

    this is debatable to anyone that is not you, andrew dancing-on-the-point-of-trolldom pari. see comments above for details on this.

    That’s a decision I respectfully leave to the women who run this site.

    how kind of you. the rest of us kind of took it as a given that the women who RUN THIS SITE will decide whether to ban him or not.

    I’ll tell you one thing though. Regardless of the response to this post, I won’t be telling anyone to “fuck right off.”

    excuse me? i don’t believe i’ve said this to you so i don’t see the relevance of this in a reponse to me. unless you think all the commenters at feministe are the same, like some hydra-headed “harridan” from the depths of gynocentric mythology, in which case you can head right back up schwyzer’s ineffable bum and stay there.

  812. Like other commenters, I suspect that’s what he’s doing: waiting for all of this to blow over so he can publish his usual wet-eyed post-(almost)-mortem, and position himself as the enlightened one apart from all those hysterical vindictive bitches.

    That is exactly what he is doing on his Facebook page. (When he posted “My goodness, it doesn’t stop. The amount of sheer rage I engender both for my past and my present bewilders and disheartens me.”) After he linked to this post, he was holding comment court with his “accountability team” while they mostly praised and reassured him that everyone on Feministe is being ridiculous. One guy said,

    I am still thinking about this, and consider it outrageous. Feminism is a matter of belief and identity; some would call it a faith. It’s not something you can be discommunicated from, no matter what one feministe says.”

    I thought the term was “excommunicated.” Building up the martyr cred, I guess.

    Then Amanda Marcotte chipped in her support,

    Meh, the comments section there is a swarm of holier-than-thou sorts. Give ’em a couple decades of being human and they may rethink their positions. The bloggers are mostly great, tho.

    Give them a couple decades and they will inevitably attempt to murder other people? Well, okay.

  813. Hey, Caperton, I appreciate the explanation, but I think you’re way overthinking this. I don’t really see the difference between sticking someone in permamod and saying that they’re just banned, honestly. I certainly wouldn’t see any difference if it were done to me. And I don’t think it’s pre-emptive. He already commented on the thread to justify his response to all of this, and may come back. (Although, again, I doubt he’d show his face in a venue where he’d meet significant hostility.)

    I also don’t understand why you can’t deal with banning as each case presents itself. Hugo doesn’t have to be special, just the point where a political evolution and a policy implementation happen to meet. It doesn’t mean that you’re being inconsistent just because no other prominent recovered abusers and professional feminist lighthouses have shown up yet. Or because you haven’t pre-emptively banned anyone publicly way worse. There isn’t that much overlap between “professional feminists with high credibility and exposure who want to hang out at Feministe” and “creepy misogynists.” I don’t remember a similar case since, say, Kyle Payne. That was a few years ago, and he didn’t come here.

    I just don’t see why it’s such a big issue.

  814. Helen, your question wasn’t worthy of consideration. “Are you in favor of dudes who try to murder women?” isn’t a real question, and it received a sarcastic answer.

    Nice try, but anyone who reads the thread can see that’s not what happened. Here’s what I actually did say:

    I’m still trying to wrap my mind around this one:

    Spewing hateful bigoted rhetoric: Banned.

    Spewing hateful bigoted rhetoric and attempted murder of a woman: Apparently not banned.

    The object lesson would appear to be Feministe is in favor of dudes who try to murder women?

    The question was of the message you were trying to send, and it was absolutely serious. You were the one who decided to devolve to sarcasm all on your own and simply dismiss the question.

    And if you weren’t just brushing us off, why not answer what other women were also asking at the time — why not ban Hugo? You didn’t. All we got was the pile of sarcastic dismissal. It’s not okay.

    To my knowledge, in the entire history of the blog, no one has ever been preemptively banned from Feministe.

    But it doesn’t sound like some sweeping new precedent is actually needed. You posted that he is not welcome. He commented anyway. Are you seriously claiming that banning someone who continues to comment after they have been told they are unwelcome is entirely unprecedented in the history of Feministe?

  815. Now, now. No need to correct anyone’s spelling.

    I am still thinking about this, and consider it outrageous. Feminism is a matter of belief and identity; some would call it a faith. It’s not something you can be discommunicated from, no matter what one feministe says.”

    Jesus. Okay, first of all, this isn’t like that episode of Star Trek where Worf loses his name. It’s a fucking blog. I mean, good for Feministe, but…it’s fucking Feministe. But that aside, why doesn’t Feministe have the right to decide this question for itself, and have that decision respected? Why should the people here accept the judgment of people on other sites? And that aside, nobody is saying that Hugo doesn’t get to be a feminist. He can have as personal a relationship with justice as he can have with the divine. He just doesn’t get to be a figurehead anymore. On this website. Poor discluded baby.

    Meh, the comments section there is a swarm of holier-than-thou sorts. Give ‘em a couple decades of being human and they may rethink their positions. The bloggers are mostly great, tho.

    Fuck you, Amanda Marcotte. Maybe after you’ve lived a little longer yourself, you’ll understand why so many women aren’t forgiving. But what am I saying? This isn’t about misguided principles. This is about your own online career. Can’t scorch those bridges too badly.

  816. I do get why this is a big issue. I think censorship is always -and should be – a big issue to those who publish their work in a large forum such as this. I had been wondering if a ban had ever happened before that was not based on comments made within Feministe, because it didn’t seem in keeping with what I have seen on here (or the policies on most blogs I read). So it is a big deal to set a new precedent in censorship, and I imagine that is the issue here rather than not wanting to annoy a prominent figure in the feminist community (which, ew, it pains me to connect that description to Schwyzer).

    But, of course, it is also important to consider the views of those within the blog’s community, but I have been reading this blog for a while and it always seems that the community on this site are generally accorded a very high level of respect.

    There are also some very good reasons for wanting to take a stance against someone who seems to have a whole lot of privilege allowing him to evade any real need to answer for his inconsistencies and offences. It is not an enviable position for the staff to be in, and it would be remiss of them to take it lightly so I am happy to hang back and see what happens.

  817. Fuck you, Amanda Marcotte.

    I believe you mean, “I respectfully disagree with Amanda Marcotte’s opinion.”

    /sarcasm

  818. I think I’d understand that better if he weren’t being effectively banned anyway–if the policy were, okay, we’ll decide whether to approve his comments, fine. But if they’re definitely going into the lightless permamod depths, never to be published here no matter what…there’s no difference in terms of censorship.

  819. Hmmm….good point piny. I don’t really know enough about the technicalities of blogging. Perhaps the permanent mod-thing is until a final decision is made. Either way, my indignation on this whole thing is definitely directed at Schwyzer, his publishers, his employers, etc. than the women who have acknowledged and apologised any offence that may have been given to their readers and taken on board what everyone has had to say.

    I mean, its the holidays, and they are stuck moderating an 800+ comment thread. Go make some snow angels, yeah?

  820. (The snow angels comment is to be generally applied, ‘cos I am stuck in the southern hemisphere and I’m super jealous of ready access to snow)

  821. Aboat: I don’t see how they can make snow angels- there’s no snow up here, and And there hasn’t been for a month. I’m in one of the-supposedly, snowiest states, so if there’s no snow here, there probaly isn’t any snow anywhere else.

  822. The hesitance to ban Schwyzer completely, though, has less to do with him and more to do with Feministe as an entity. To my knowledge, in the entire history of the blog, no one has ever been preemptively banned from Feministe. Schwyzer would be the only person in the entire world, ever, to receive such recognition.

    I imagine, though, that banning someone who has attempted to murder a woman may be one of the safest “pre-emptive” (not really) bannings Feministe could ever perform.

  823. Hugo should be banned. It ain’t rocket science. It isn’t even censorship.

    I am with Helen. Why is it even a question? Because the message is, not even the actions HS committed are repulsive enough to get him banned from feministe. This isn’t really an issue that has huge implications for feministe and its policies, at all. Are the blog owners seriously concerned about setting a precedent about pre-emptive banning?

    Or is Amanda Marcotte right: we commenters are just a bunch of judgmental, holier-than-thou women, while the “bloggers are mostly great” (i.e., don’t worry, Hugo, ol’ pal – the bloggers are on OUR side – wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more) and once we pesky commenters get bored, the blog will go back to being cool?

    Hell, at this point, I’d ban Amanda, too, were it my blog.

  824. Piny, since you know how these things work here, is there a difference between how Hugo was dealt with and what happened to delphyne? Just using her as an example of someone else who was shown the door here recently, not making a comparison between the two situations. Is she on permamod or banned? Is there a difference? Because if feministe policy of dealing with all people who aren’t welcome here is to say “please do not comment here (and, by the way, if you do, you are on permamod, so no one will see it,” then I’m very much satisfied with the outcome of this, as described by Caperton. But if there’s a next level of bannination, so to speak, I think they need to rethink their approach and go there.

    And I actually can emphasize with their reasoning here. I grew up in the Soviet Union, and historically they used to be big on kicking people out of “the movement” preemptively based on failing real or imagined ideological or personal/family history purity tests. So I’m sensitive to situations where someone is asked to go; I get the reluctance. Still, I think in this circumstance, it is very much called for and, really, it’s just one blog and I don’t think it would really set a precedent, as Caperton fears.

    And, seriously, fuck Amanda Marcotte. I guess scepticism doesn’t extend to questioning bullshit redemption myths of her buddies.

  825. Hell, at this point, I’d ban Amanda, too, were it my blog.

    I suspect that not wanting to go down a road like this probably has something to do with the mods’ caution…

  826. I don’t really see an issue with setting a precedent for banning a person who outright admits he’s a murderer. (that he’s a failure at it is largely irrelevant)

    What’s the worry? That murderers and rapists won’t have free speech?

  827. What’s the worry? That murderers and rapists won’t have free speech?

    Not even that, since no one is proposing to shut down Hugo’s right to his own blog. The worry appears to be that murderers and rapists won’t have free advertising on Feministe.

  828. Piny, since you know how these things work here, is there a difference between how Hugo was dealt with and what happened to delphyne? Just using her as an example of someone else who was shown the door here recently, not making a comparison between the two situations. Is she on permamod or banned? Is there a difference?

    There’s a difference, but I can’t tell you which one has been used in the case of delphyne, since to a non-mod their outcome is observably the same if their comments aren’t approved.

    Permamodding someone means that their comments will always go to a mod for approval (unlike most other commenters, who will generally only go to mods if they’re first time commenters or their comment contains a bunch of links and is flagged as potential spam or whatever. Banning someone means that their comments won’t go to the mod queue in the first place.

    Bear in mind that both of these things require that person maintaining stable email and/or IP addresses: if Hugo were to set up a new gmail account and comment from his college’s library he’d be flagged only as a first time commenter (which is, obviously, one of the reasons first time comments go to mod).

  829. Eh…I see the point. The policy says you’ll be banned (essentially) for being super abusive in the comments. Lot’s of generalized assholes (ahem…Scott Adams) have commented without being super abusive and have not been banned. So from a principled position, I can see where this would require some consideration in terms of how to modify the commenting policy. Just going Old Policy + Hugo seems kind of arbitrary.

    I’ve been thinking on it off and on this morning and I haven’t come up with anything useful yet though. As they say bad facts make bad law. So unless bigger brains can formulate a rationale we’re probably stuck with arbitrary.

  830. Hey! I tried killing someone but it’s OK, really!! I won’t do it again, on Jebus honor! I feel super bad about it. I swear. Oh and all those women I took sexual advantage of? yeah, my bad. But I promise, pinkie swear I won’t do it to all the women I have surrounding me now! Don’t you have Jebus in your heart??

    Nope. Still bullshit.

  831. I’ve been thinking on it off and on this morning and I haven’t come up with anything useful yet though. As they say bad facts make bad law. So unless bigger brains can formulate a rationale we’re probably stuck with arbitrary.

    I think a lot of the problem actually stems from the kinds of abusiveness Hugo generally engages in, which aren’t necessarily abusive in immediately visible ways. I mean, this thread has clearly documented how he constantly centers himself, appropriates sexism and indeed specific instances of abuse he has perpetrated to be about his own suffering and redemption, how he white-knights, how he frames criticism as irrational, how he speaks over women of colour etc. Those kinds of abuse are specifically designed to be as invisible as possible, and they’re furthermore couched in the terms of feminism to make them especially invisible on sites like this. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that when Hugo makes apparently benign comments they frequently fit into what is actually on closer examination a pattern of abuse, and that’s a problem.

    I think that’s where for me where justification for banning Hugo should come from. The fact that while his comments and even previous behaviours taken individually might not trigger the comment policy as it stands, taken as a whole they are deeply sexist and manipulative, and even the ones that aren’t egregiously so still form part of that pattern. I think it’s legitimate to draw a conclusion from a pattern of behaviour. It’s been done before on this site (repeated off-topicness or derails for instance), it’s just that Hugo is smarter at disguising it.

  832. Li — thanks for eloquently connecting the dots between this thread and the fantastic one about a month ago regarding gaslighting!

  833. Also, like, the other thing is that if the comments policy can’t deal with this, then maybe it’s actually time to re-jig it. Which, you know, OH GOD THE WORK to develop a policy that more effectively handles predators and their behaviour, but wevs.

  834. Exactly my point, wrane. How much of a stand are the owners of the blog willing to take?

    I’m hard-core. No men who have tried to kill a woman, and exploited and abused other women in countless ways, while speaking as “a feminist” and instructing women how to behave, what our experiences are, and what those experiences mean to all women everywhere.

    Also no bloggers who defend men like Hugo while sneeringly dismissing hundreds of women who object to his being given a platform in feminism.

    The owners of feministe do indeed have a big and public decision to make: Are they advocating for women and feminism, or not? I would imagine the stance they take will affect the future of this blog in a big way.

  835. I found quite a quote from Hugo on this very blog in a post about Kyle Payne

    Oh, that’s horrifying. And of course, it makes me shudder — not only for Kyle’s victims, however many there may be, but also because of the way in which it perpetuates the stereotype that men who work for gender justice (especially around issues of sexual violence, pornography, and so forth) are all “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

    I know I’m inclined to moralistic self-righteousness (that’s redundant) when I talk on my blog every five minutes about the importance of “matching one’s language and one’s life.” I sure could stand to find a more winsome and less prissy way of saying this stuff. But I’m so pedantic about it because I know how much credibility matters, above all for men in the movement. Our private lives must match up with our public pronouncements, and when someone like Kyle pulls something like this, he not only hurts the very real woman he assaulted (and who knows how many else), he not only hurts the children involved in the pornography, he hurts everyone who believes that men too have a vital role to play in ending sexual violence.

  836. I think that’s where for me where justification for banning Hugo should come from. The fact that while his comments and even previous behaviours taken individually might not trigger the comment policy as it stands, taken as a whole they are deeply sexist and manipulative, and even the ones that aren’t egregiously so still form part of that pattern. I think it’s legitimate to draw a conclusion from a pattern of behaviour. It’s been done before on this site (repeated off-topicness or derails for instance), it’s just that Hugo is smarter at disguising it.

    Seconded. Also, since it seems there might be hesitation on the part of some or all of the Feministe mods/bloggers about just going ahead and saying “No Hugo, no more”, I’d ask: why not? I mean…as others have pointed out, there are plenty of voices out there speaking to the same issues in far better ways, with far less bullshit, and who, y’know, haven;t committed heinous crimes and don’t trigger the fuck out of readers and so on and so forth. Rather than focus on “why ban him” I’d ask “Why not? What would be lost without him here? What would the blog as a specific or feminism in general lose were his input to be suddenly gone?”

    If there’s really a strong desire to invite male voices, which I am not intrinsically opposed to, there are even many other men within feminist circles who would make much better additions to the conversations – men with better character and of better quality, IMO. But I really just keep thinking that in the big picture, we – meaning, we who read Feministe and other blogs, and we as women/feminists/womanists in general – are just not going to experience any detrimental effects from NOT reading Hugo’s smarmy, egotistical, triggering writings…but many of us will (and have, as clear here) experience detrimental effects from his inclusion.

    So really, it shouldn’t be about “convince the mods why he should be ousted”. It should be “convince the readers why he shouldn’t be”. And with something better than “Oh gee, that’s a big thing to do.” No. It’s really not.

  837. If there’s really a strong desire to invite male voices, which I am not intrinsically opposed to, there are even many other men within feminist circles who would make much better additions to the conversations – men with better character and of better quality, IMO.

    Also: Feministe doesn’t really need to give space to Hugo, or even invite other men in, to ensure the presence of men’s voices. We’re already here.

  838. I found quite a quote from Hugo on this very blog in a post about Kyle Payne

    Oh, my God, I remember that! And he was doing it elsewhere, too, posting about how this made him deeply sad as a Male Feminist. And I think my brain made a pinging noise and I posted a long all-caps rant that was basically like NOT ABOUT YOU NOT ABOUT YOU NOTABOUTYOU.

  839. Also: Feministe doesn’t really need to give space to Hugo, or even invite other men in, to ensure the presence of men’s voices. We’re already here.

    True of course, but I meant more in a guest blogger/interviewee sense.

  840. Good point, Alison, especially since he has his own public platform and his supporters can easily find him there. It was mentioned upthread that not every staff member was consulted about this piece (namely, Clarisse), and I understand why Caperton might not want to highlight divided staff opinions on the subject of banning Hugo.

    At this point, I don’t expect absolvers of Schwyzer to change their minds about him. Some people in this thread have done excellent work pointing out the hypocrisy in rhetoric (I compared Schwyzer to Chris Brown yesterday, since I don’t see the difference between being remorseful yet not legally accountable and being legally accountable with no remorse), but this is privilege in action, and that’s when shit gets real.

  841. I have been a long time Lurker here. I left when when all women are mamas post shattered the community. I personally don’t believe that all women are mamas because it designates our role in society as breeder only and we have no value outside of ability to breed. I also strongly believe that children don’t have a right to be everywhere and there should and aught to be children free zones, so adults can be comfortable. That whole thread made my head spin and stopped visiting here for a long time afterwards – Including taking it out of my book marks.

    I am close to completing MS in Mental Health Counseling — I have studied the DSM-IV_TR and within the next year there will be a dramatic change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – I hope to study Feminist Therapy (Yes there are Feminist Therapists out there) for an independent study – but have read many text and talked to many Feminist Therapist out there.

    The basic premise of Feminist Therapy is that the client and the therapist are equal, in the therapy process the client has the ability to navigate her/his own therapy process. Feminist Therapist recognize the issues with the DSM including gender bias and politicization of the DSM and understand that many of the diagnose in the DSM flawed.

    Now what does all this have the do with Hugo? There is a lot of discussion with the diagnoses Narcissistic Personality Disorder – Some one way up there in the list said that most people with NPD aren’t diagnosed with this disorder unless it is comorbid with another disorder – It is usually comorbid with other personality disorders or substance abuse. It is usually diagnosed in men (50 – 75%)

    As noted above many people who have NPD don’t admit to it, and if they do, after therapy for the comorbid disorder they believe that they no longer have the condition.

    The part of this disorder — according to the criteria in the DSM –

    1) They have a grandiose sense of self-importance
    2) Believes that he or she is special
    3) has fantasies of having special powers and unlimited wealth
    4) requires excessive admiration
    5) has sense of entitlement
    6) takes advantage of others
    7) lacks empathy
    8) envious of others
    9) shows arrogant

    Not all the criteria need to be met.

    This is not about ableism –

    I do believe that just because a person has a mental illness doesn’t absolve them of poor, bad, or egregious behavior. I also believe that just because someone is an addict doesn’t make what they do under the influence less wrong.

    I also take a very different understanding of what it means to forgive. I don’t believe that forgiveness is “owed” to anyone, nor should it be granted because it’s asked for. Sometimes in our society we have this notion that forgiving is part of the healing process. I disagree with that,.

    I think Forgiveness is a way for the abuser to have undue power over the victim. It shames the victim for not having healed enough, for not being able to contain hurt feelings, etc..

    Healing is about being able to move on with your life, being able to live and feel connected to the world again. It shouldn’t have to be about making the abuser feel better about what they did.

    I don’t like Hugo – I don’t think has the creditials to teach women’s studies, having a PHD in Midevil politics reminds me of Warren Farrell who calls himself a Doctor and has a PHD not in Counseling or even men’s studies (vomit) but rather in political science.

    The fail part of the Hugo debate is not who can be a feminist, not about forgiveness, not about who is right or who is wrong.

    It’s about how can a man who has attempted to murder a women, who has never paid for his crime, never felt remorse for his attempted murder.

    I have read his explanations – he is blaming the drugs – The drugs didn’t make him do it, and if he was so high and so out of touch to do something that he would never be able to do with out them – then how could he remember in such detail what he did and the actions right after – Not to mention if he was that high on illegal drugs he would have had the police escort him to jail.

    His story doesn’t add up to me. It doesn’t ring true, we aren’t getting the full story, and the story that we are getting is full of holes like good Swiss Cheese.

    He doesn’t understand that because of his privilege of being a man who could afford to get a PHD in Medieval what ever it was…who had the right connection — possibly in the police and or the university, to not have this investigated more thoroughly.

    He complains that her family won’t forgive him, but tells a tale about she is happy and married and living else where? These two things don’t seem to match. Or his view is somewhat boasted because of his need to show this as a redemption story of a Christian/Feminist?

    Yes, Hugo has a right to heal, move on, be who he wants to be, but his journey is his journey, it doesn’t meant that we don’t have a right to examine what he has done, it doesn’t mean that we have to except his explanation of the facts.

    Kayla — said as a rape victim that she feels safe with him, and that we should trust her because she was a rape victim. The problem with this, is that everyone has a right to their own feelings. I would not feel comfortable with this man teaching me or other women (or men for that matter) I should be able to have the right to decide what I feel, and how I act on those feelings. Kayla can be comfortable with Hugo, as is her right to be, but shouldn’t say everyone should feel safe with him.

    Hugo also has another problem for me. I don’t think it’s Hot to date someone in a teaching authority. It give permission with people who have NPD to excuse their bad behavior and put the blame on their victim – Well she was asking for it? She was hot for it — What happens if the Hot professor/assistant now decided that he wants to do it again, and you don’t want to – He tells a friend, or your grade is suddenly downgraded. Or what if the sex with the hot professor that you like and you get a grade that you shouldn’t have deserved (better) You didn’t ask for it but you got in anway. It doesn’t matter if that assistant or professor is “close” in age or not, it will creep into other spaces where it shouldn’t.

    I also have to say I am completely freaked out by the notion, that just because their are no other known acts of abuse/attempted murder/criminal behavior, that he isn’t an attempted murderer?

    Hugo has profited off of his act of attempted murder of a women, he has never paid for his crime, has never had to answer for what he has done. Instead of being placed in jail or probation. He uses his story, well after he established his self in a community, to place him self in a position of authority to increase his “expertise” in order to make money by teaching, lecturing (mansplaning to women what they need to do), and selling books.

    (Being a professional Feminist isn’t the problem – but making money off of something that you can no longer be held accountable for is)

    Back to lurking

  842. If it were up to me, I’d say ban Hugo. I mean it seems to be what Feministe readers as a whole want. You could even do a little reader poll on the matter if you want to be sure.

    Every situation is different and specific. There’s always an exception. This Hugo thing is unlike any other situation; I don’t know why you would have to completely revise your comment policy or anything because of this. You won’t need to hire private investigators to find the IP address of every attempted murderer in the country and preemptively ban them, for instance. Banning Hugo would be a response to who he specifically is as a person, his specific role in feminism, Feministe readership’s specific opinions of him, and how this entire brouhaha specifically unfolded.

    I think that’s a good message: “There was this skeezy male feminist who we already knew had been anti-choice, had been dismissive and racist to WOC, had a history of abusing his authority as a feminist professor and sleeping with students. Then we found out he had tried to murder an ex-girlfriend in cold blood. The wide majority of Feministe readers were appalled, some of them were triggered and suffered greatly because it brought up memories of their own abusers who had gotten off scot free. We opened up a comment thread to discuss the matter, and after 900+ comments it became clear that our readers were completely disgusted with Hugo Schwyzer and everything about him and wanted us to ban him. Therefore, we decided that in this particular situation, banning Mr. Schwyzer would benefit our community and feminism in general more than harm it.”

    There. My two cents anyway.

  843. There was this skeezy male feminist who we already knew had been anti-choice, had been dismissive and racist to WOC, had a history of abusing his authority as a feminist professor and sleeping with students.

    Some feminists were appalled by “just” these few transgressions!

  844. Yeah I have been appalled by the guy since I first heard of him (I think around 2002) the difference is this time, what has come to light about him is I guess so extreme other people are actually listening when I say “uh do we really think this guy should be teaching feminism to other people??” Every time he’d say or do something else, I’d think “surely, this time people will see the full picture and ditch his ass.” But make no mistake, many of us have been disgusted for a good, long time–we’d just given up any hope of being heard out about it, I think. That possibility is still out there for me, if Feministe doesn’t take decisive action and he keeps blogging at Jezebel. Ugh.

  845. As a point of clarification, Clarisse is not a staff blogger. (Neither am I, even though when I post it lists me as a moderator.)

  846. Wow Branwen. I’m relatively new to the feminist blogosphere and didn’t know much about Schwyzer prior to a week ago. That sounds really frustrating to have been able to see through his act for ten years but have no one listen to you. Hopefully, this is the time things have reached critical mass, and you will finally be vindicated. But yeah, I think it’s probably wise not to hold your breath.

  847. [It’s also irritatingly heterosexist to use “friend” as the mannish equivalent when Hugo isn’t straight. Not only is obnoxious hypothetical obnoxious, it’s also needlessly extra obnoxious in using someone other than an intimate partner for the gender switch.]

    Exactly. And, given that he’s also taught Queer Studies, that should have been brought into Mr Pari’s hypothetical mix as well.

  848. A belated thanks for your all caps rant, piny. I have (unfortunately) read quite a few articles by this guy over the past few days, and the amount of times the effect on women of whatever issue is treated by doing a midsentence -aside- followed by a ‘but let’s get to the important business of how this affects men and ME ME ME’ is mind-numbing.

    Maybe instead of banning him the moderators can work out a program whereby everytime Hugo tries to comment his screen becomes stuck on the gaslighting post?

  849. Maybe instead of banning him the moderators can work out a program whereby everytime Hugo tries to comment his screen becomes stuck on the gaslighting post?

    I loled. I don’t necessarily agree its textbook gaslighting so much as self-centered pretension, but I don’t think we’ve had a recent “whiny dickhead” post, so I’m willing to compromise.

  850. he’s also taught Queer Studies

    Really? He certainly does like to teach subjects about which he knows little or nothing, doesn’t he? What’s next, courses on critical race studies? “The Jewish Experience on the Lower East Side, 1880-1920”? Poverty in the U.S.A.? Probably not that much more absurd than his teaching what he teaches now.

  851. I just wonder if he thinks this will all blow over, and frankly, I don’t think we should let it, not for a while. I would presume he has a brain and knows not to return here, he is obviously safe at Jezebel and most likely Pandagon, if Marcotte has said what folk has said she said. I don’t frequent any other feminist websites regularly besides Feministe, at what other places might Schwyzer find a voice, or welcome? What do we tell them?

  852. I think highlighting the ‘sheer rage’ of the commenters and allowing people to depict us as angry feminists who are so irrational that we are the whole reason people are turned off feminism is gaslighting. As was the whole ‘irrationally angry WOC bloggers’ defense of Marcotte. (But if we can find a ‘whiny dickhead’ post that would work just well)

    As a side note, I just want to be clear that I don’t normally get into defaming people I have never met on the internet as a general hobby, and i don’t think the near 1000 comments on this thread are indicative of Schwyzer’s inherent important to our lives. But, like a lot of others on this thread, as a victim of DV, sexual assault, and the charming range of miscellaneous patriarchal power differentials that force me to deal with crap everyday that upper/middle class white guys NEVER have to deal with or even really think about, I am kinda pissed that a guy with a history and present so offensive and extensive that we actually needed a thread this long even to process it is still in action and is being supported. Re-discovering feminism has been so important to regaining my sense of self and my rights while recovering from extensive IPV, and I have just been in awe the last year or two of the incredibly intelligent, articulate, compassionate and inspiring women who are working to shape a movement that could allow women like me to be free from violence, discrimination, victim-blaming and patronizing power structures.

    So take Hugo’s book deals and giant bloody website header and let one of them have it, FFS.

  853. Really? He certainly does like to teach subjects about which he knows little or nothing, doesn’t he? What’s next, courses on critical race studies?

    I really do wonder what he teaches in his courses, actually. Is it academic/theory-focused? That seems unlikely given his writing. Is it some sort of discussion class about living in the 21st century, with discussion of lived experience? Is it just him telling stories about how bad he used to be, but he’s better now? I suppose there’s a curriculum somewhere on the web…

  854. I just wonder if he thinks this will all blow over,

    I assume he does. I’m not sure what can be told. Clearly bringing up the past is “punishing him for stuff he’s already admitted” and therefore off topic, and questioning his credentials is “policing feminism”, and disagreeing with him is “you’re entitled to your opinion.”

    He’s a made man these days, and “a controversial figure”. Honestly, as long as he doesn’t do something current to piss off any of the people running those places, they will keep publishing him, I expect.

  855. How many victims are watching this guy get defended and losing hope? How many women are looking for feminism and seeing that one of the biggest websites there is refuse to ban this guy for trying to kill his ex? Everything he write seems to carry a subtle whiff of, “I got away with this. I was bad. I could be bad again.” I wouldn’t be surprised if he went full-on MRA if feminists kept the pressure on.

  856. Yes, Ben, he was firmly in his pro-life phase when I first encountered him, as a guest on Barry Deutsch’s blog. (And Barry is another story for another time.) The two “gentlemen” would hold forth at some length with their “civil disagreement” over the particulars of exactly what rights women ought to be allowed to have. Meanwhile, women whose style was more direct, or who were pushed and/or triggered to the point of rage in all these nice, civil “theoretical” discussions about rape, etc, were demonized and in some cases outright banned.

  857. Ok, another radfem here. Can I just say that, for the sake of feminism, I’m not going to get into trans* wars. That’s not relevant to the matter in hand and I don’t understand why it was brought into this thread via a link posted to notatate historic unease about HS and his dubious practices. But, hey. Whatever stripe of feminism you identify with, HS has admitted to doing what *people* abhor most – betrayal of trust.
    When you read what he writes it’s obvious the man is a misogynistic woman abuser – everyone here can see that. Yet he holds himself up as some kind of “feminist authority”. He’s taking the piss out of anyone gullible enough to believe his sanctimonious preachings so that he can continue to do what he’s always done – betray people; women, mostly.
    I say bring him down. Ban him from here, most definitely, and discredit his name at every opportunity. Demonstrate that Feministe actually *is* a women centred blog and, in the name of feminism, think of his victims.

  858. [Really? He certainly does like to teach subjects about which he knows little or nothing, doesn’t he?]

    I recalled seeing posts of his about his class’ reactions to various political setbacks. To be accurate, I just went and checked for a more exact description, and found his three most recent applicable posts, from November 2009. Two of the opening sentences are:

    “I’ve finished putting together my reading list for History 24F, my survey course in American Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered history.” and

    “I’ve taught gay and lesbian American history at Pasadena City College since 2001.”

  859. I see Branwen. That sounds awful. It reminds me of one of the things about Schwyzer’s presentation that bothers me the most, personally. He seems to project this image of “oh I’m rational. I’m calm and collected. Just a nice, unassuming guy. Why could anyone get angry with me? I know, I know–it’s inevitable, just the price I pay for doing what I do. Oh well, I’ll just keep moseying along.”

    I got sucked into the 12 step movement for a while and I saw a lot of people there like this. Anger, also known as “resentment” is considered to be a “character defect,” and you’re supposed to pray to your Higher Power to make it go away. As a result, it seemed like all the veterans in that fucking place were passive aggressive as hell. They had worked the program for so long they were supposed to have risen above their resentments. I ran into people who claimed “never” to get angry anymore. Of course, anger is a natural human emotion and it has to get out somehow. I tried to be open and communicate honestly with these people, and sometimes that involved expressing anger. Whenever I did though, even as I was being non-abusive and diplomatic, the topic immediately shifted to how fucked up I was since I was angry at all, and what we were going to do about it to fix it. Thank God I got out of there.

    So I see that in Schwyzer, and it makes sense because he is a longtime 12-stepper. He’s a “nice guy” who doesn’t get angry. And he has nothing but passive aggressive condemnation for the women who get angry at him, even when they are completely appropriate about it.

  860. i have just caught up with this shitstorm and am *disgusted.*

    first off, clarisse’s article on role/reboot was one of the most manipulative essays i’ve ever read. to follow bfp’s wonderful comments, *part* of critiquing the prison model is 1) supporting and NOT shaming women who want their rapists or abusers in jail and 2) communities actually holding rapists and abusers accountable for their actions in a meaningful way. What fucked up world is this where “accountability” can mean that an abuser and attempted murderer actually benefits professionally from a performance of accountability in the form of some shit redemption narrative? from my experience with abusers, it is an abuser’s wet dream to be able to be abusive and then be enabled and patted on the back for crying about how he’s “changed.” and yeah – women of color have been writing about combatting violence against women in a context where the state benefits from gendered violence for awhile now.

    hugo should be banned. i cosign what an overwhelming amount of people here say.

  861. Yeah, banned from here, definitely. My question is, how much further online? Me, personally, I would like for him to have zero online credibility, or as close to it as manageable. I just don’t have the personal weight behind it to do so myself.

  862. Presuming that he does get shut down here, perhaps it would be useful to have a list of sites where he is a common presence. From that list you could attempt to start a discussion there, in the case of feministing you would probably make a post in the community blog section, about the validity of Schwizzy’s authority in feminism. Given that a lot of people were unaware of Hugo’s history here its probable that they aren’t at other places also. Even if a concerted effort to make sure people are aware doesn’t result in a lot of bans from prominent blogs at least the regular non professional or blogger or w/e people will be aware of it, and maybe some people that are a more well known part of the commenters on those sites could push a ban for him there.
    The only downside of trying is having to spend the time and there are lots of upsides.

  863. Yeah, Amp’s still at it with his post about how he might just have to vote for Ron Paul because, hey, there might be a war with Iran—and he doesn’t need to worry about abortion, does he?

    Schwyzer’s whole mindset is that he’s so reasonable and logical and evolved, unlike the rest of us, which brings to mind the whole stereotype of women as unreasonable. Back then we didn’t talk about triggers. Amp and Schwyzer both argued that women just had to suck it up while they learned about debating with MRAs, so tough shit, ladies. The boys had more important things to do than, you know, listen to mere women. They still aren’t listening. I don’t think they ever will. Why do they have to? If the major feminist sites won’t ban him, then nobody will.

  864. How many victims are watching this guy get defended and losing hope?

    I met a girl once who had some, ahem, personal interaction w HS as a student of PCC. I would say based on what she said about her complete silencing by those who defend him as “changed” because “he’s repented” that the term “losing hope” is wrong. “Completely destroyed” is more like it. Not by HS, but by the apologists. By fellow students. By the fauxulty who turned their heads so as not to see. By those like the young women upthread who say things like “I’ve met him and he was great w me.”. (Hint: I’ve met a LOT of rapists and murderers in my time. Most were very nice to me and I felt safe with them. I WAS safe with them because they needed my help. That didn’t make them NOT murderers and rapists of others). They felt and feel victimized by the self-appointed mouthpieces of feminism and minority rights.

    If the editors here and his defenders really cared about those women, they could find them and actually ask the, how they feel. They would not like the answer.

    I used to work a lot with abuse victims. In too many cases, the negative effects of the silencing and apologists and the forced forgiveness crowd were so much worse than the original abuse.

  865. I’m not surprised. I suspect that Schwyzer isn’t the issue at all; what is is the guilt or doubt that the apologists feel about either themselves or someone they know. They’re very wrapped up solely in the addiction part of the narrative, as if addiction isn’t a personality changer but a personality intensifier. What comes out when you’re high is what’s there already, just amplified.

  866. I got sucked into the 12 step movement for a while and I saw a lot of people there like this. Anger, also known as “resentment” is considered to be a “character defect,” and you’re supposed to pray to your Higher Power to make it go away. As a result, it seemed like all the veterans in that fucking place were passive aggressive as hell.

    Yeesh, no wonder Schwyzer loves the MRAs so much. They’re his anger proxies.

    A yoga teacher, who seemed aware enough that I expected him to know better, startled me a few months ago by saying that anger/rage are really just ways of punishing oneself. After giving him a perplexed stare for a moment, I said that was a statement that could only be made by someone who had lived an extraordinarily comfortable life.

    At least that guy really wanted to learn something. He asked me to explain, and I said that I wasn’t sure I could, that anyone who would make such a statement was so out of touch with reality that I wasn’t sure how to bridge the gap. He asked me to try, so I gave some examples from my own life of bigotry I have to put up with on a regular basis. Then I pointed out that I am one of the most comfortably-circumstanced, educationally-privileged women in the history of the human species, and yet I’m still faced with everything I described and more. He got the idea, and said that obviously there is a place for rage after all. I told him I agreed with him that there is too much misdirected rage in the world, but I also think there’s a dire shortage of rage over matters worthy of rage.

    Schwyzer doesn’t want anything to do with rage over things worthy of rage, as his behavior has consistently shown over many years. But that boy really loves himself some rage. He obsesses over it and washes himself in it, by using MRAs as his source of supply.

  867. I don’t frequent any other feminist websites regularly besides Feministe, at what other places might Schwyzer find a voice, or welcome?

    Obviously he’s quite popular at pandagon, where Ms. Marcotte refers to him as “Hugo” and reverently notes his thinking on slutwalk as well as, hilariously, this. It’s pretty notable that Marcotte hasn’t commented on any of this current brouhaha, neither defending nor condemning Schwyzer (she wasn’t nearly so silent when it came to Assange, as others have noted).

    That kind of self-interested bystanderism is exactly why Feministe really should be proactive and ban him–not only to distance themselves from his past, present, and ongoing behavior, but also to draw an unambiguous line between Feministe and those like Marcotte who ignore him when he’s problematic and use him when he’s expedient. I mean seriously, when it comes to being an ally to women, to WOC, to survivors, to thinking people of the world, I don’t see why you’d need a committee meeting to do anything other than agree it’s a good idea. Symbolic or not, it means something. It’s not an act that is at all sufficient to begin to address the amount of work feminists have before us to undo the male privilege in our movement, the white privilege in our movement, the class privilege in our movement, the cis privilege in our movement, the het privilege in our movement, but it’s something that should have happened already and it’s dismaying it hasn’t.

  868. I met a girl once who had some, ahem, personal interaction w HS as a student of PCC. I would say based on what she said about her complete silencing by those who defend him as “changed” because “he’s repented” that the term “losing hope” is wrong. “Completely destroyed” is more like it. Not by HS, but by the apologists. By fellow students. By the fauxulty who turned their heads so as not to see. By those like the young women upthread who say things like “I’ve met him and he was great w me.”.

    Just quoting this for truth (I believe this makes me self-righteous). And to remind any silencing apologists exactly what they’re doing to suvivors–and to women. Thanks a lot, sisters.

    I cannot imagine how awful it would be for the woman he tried to kill to stumble upon his post about what he did to her, where it was about his redemption and his feelings and she was just so much macguffin in his atonement story To know that he used her yet again, this time to garner more attention for himself, and that everyone rushed to his side with a platterful of hankies because he was being so “honest” and so “brave.”

    If I was the woman he tried to kill, the one he lied about and painted as suicidal when I wasn’t, and I saw these so-called feminists rushing to his side and condemning anyone who who was critical of him, I’d think this movement wasn’t really for women, just a clique of women and the men who hoodwinked them. I’m not her and I’m feeling that way about these supposed leaders.

  869. Ok, another radfem here. Can I just say that, for the sake of feminism, I’m not going to get into trans* wars. That’s not relevant to the matter in hand and I don’t understand why it was brought into this thread via a link posted to notatate historic unease about HS and his dubious practices.

    If you actually read the thread, it should have been pretty clear how radical feminism’s transphobia problem became relevant. To wit, a radical feminist poster decided to scold all “liberal feminists” for protecting an abuser and accused folks of rape apology, and said that was a problem that radical feminism does not have. This was debunked by pointing out that radical feminist transphobia serves as apologia for the abuse of and violence against trans women, and that the way trans women in particular, and trans people generally are described in the instances quoted above are in fact, violent uses of language.

    But hey, awesome that you’re not going to get into talking about “trans wars,” except of course to wave off the idea that violence against trans women, specifically, could be relevant to a discussion of violence against women generally.

  870. you know, there is something that has been niggling at me about this whole hugo schwyzer thing.

    and i finally got it. i don’t trust his instincts. his instincts are all wrong. so when he is called to act or respond at the drop of a hat, he will do so in a deeply anti-woman way. for hugo schwyzer it’s still such an intellectual activity that his gut response is all wrong, and that is one of the major reasons why i wouldn’t trust a person like that to be centered/a leader in a movement that’s all about putting women first-for-once.

    (a small example: a post i remember by schwizzy talking about how often dudely mcbro undergrads use exaggerative, glib analogies to violence i.e. beating beaten up or injured by their women counterparts “don’t punch me for saying this” kind of thing in order to silence or tamp down the women’s ideas, critiques, criticisms. kind of like bringing a ginsu set of knives into the whole thing right off the bat, is it not?)

    anyway, minor point. just had to share cuz sharing is caring …

  871. Shelly @ 944 –

    I met a girl once who had some, ahem, personal interaction w HS as a student of PCC. I would say based on what she said about her complete silencing by those who defend him as “changed” because “he’s repented” that the term “losing hope” is wrong. “Completely destroyed” is more like it. Not by HS, but by the apologists. By fellow students. By the fauxulty who turned their heads so as not to see. By those like the young women upthread who say things like “I’ve met him and he was great w me.”.

    This, exactly, has been troubling me since the beginning — and by that, I mean the beginning of my interactions with HS and Feminists who like and defend him and so on, going back to 2006 or 2007. Particularly once I found out about the racial and economic makeup of many of his classes.

    If, by chance, the students felt the same skeeviness, or had the same type of interactions with him (particularly as women of color, in his treatment of them), or had a reason through his behavior to feel a wrongness, and did not feel this vaunted change that so many speak of… who are they going to tell? The same college faculty and staff that put the cat right back among the pigeons in the first place? The Nice White Lady Feminists (or any other Nice People) who visit and gush over what a wonderful, engaging teacher he is, and think the class is lucky to have him?

    I don’t really care whether or not symbolic gestures like banning him are made–as far as I can see, it will make little or no difference in his life or in his work (particularly if he has the backup of major professional Feminists who will gladly label his detractors as jealous or unreasonable, holier-than-thou, people who just want to destroy his career, blah blah blah.) He will have little incentive to change, should he want to or need to, because… as it seems to have been throughout his life… there are few consequences for *not* changing. Because, throughout the years (long before the famous 2008 White Knighting), most of his attacks on, dismissive attitudes toward and attempts to intimidate using white male supremacy in relation to women of color have been in the service of white Feminism in general and some white Feminists in particular, he has endured no consequences in white Feminism for that. When something is just simply wrapped up and labeled a “flame war” or an “internet scandal”, it’s easily brushed off and thus no deeper meaning need be sought by those who this sort of thing benefits.

    Anyway, I worry about the students. Not, so much, about his preying on them sexually again because I imagine that, if anything, his “accountability team” is watching out for that. (I don’t know what the student mentioned above went through, so this is not a disbelieving of that if it was a sexual advance.) I am not sure how to explain my worry, but I think it has something to do with the use of power (which, even as a community college professor, HS has in abundance, particularly when you factor in his social standing, economic status, whiteness, support system, so on, relative to that of many of his students.)

    Dead is dead, of course, but his attempted murder of his girlfriend was all the more frightening to me because he didn’t do it in the midst of a rage, or because of jealously or money or all the reasons people kill each other; he did it because he had power and control over her (as she was completely passed out) and he felt it time for her to die. It was better for her to die. And that it should be up to him to make her dead. Whether she wanted to be or not.

    That same use of power and control is manifest in his sleeping with his students, regardless of if they were the same age as him. And in other factors of his life. So (to me, in my observations) it seems that some of the behavior has stopped, but I am not convinced that there has been a real, fundamental deep-rooted change that would preclude this use of power and control being manifest in other ways. Less obvious ways. Ways that young women (and men) may not be able to point to specifically, or to provide “proof” for, or to even get someone to listen to them about… because not only do people not believe people of color, women of color especially, as a default, but HS is very practiced at being the nice, reasonable, knowledgeable, incorruptible white person who has the key to dealing with those “colorful”, excitable, ignorant “other” folks. He seemed, in fact, a little surprised and at a loss when that crap didn’t work on women of color he encountered online. Women who were not dependent on him for a grade, for the most part had no idea who he was, were more grounded in their knowledge of race and intersections and all sorts of things that he may (or, from his words, more likely not) be sort of teaching his students.

    As with many situations, he/she is “nice to me, good for me, useful to my career” has absolutely no bearing on how this person is with anyone else.

  872. He is allowed to teach LGBT studies? Okay – I get it he Pasadena City College is a Two year Associate Degree only college which has lower standards than a PhD to teach, however you must have (according to several sources) a Master’s Degree within that academic field. So a PHD in Medieval Studies doesn’t give him the right to teach a class in Women or Gender Studies. Someone bent the rules for him. He wouldn’t have been able to teach it if they weren’t. I went to look to see what classes that he is teaching and he is not listed as teaching any, but social science not a specific one. Although he has office hours he doesn’t have any classes.

    Also — He is not a professor or even and adjunct professor but an instructor, which baffles me because he would need at least an AA/AS and 6 years of experience in the field — Though this is speculation because they have taken their minum requirements off the website — Which is interesting.

    The reason why this interests me is because I have tried to apply for a Adjunct Professor position with a MEd that was close in nature to the course I would teach and although it was close in nautre it was not a Master’s Degree in that field.

    So this tells me that Hugo and PCC has a lot of explaining to do.

    Although, in my distant past I took a class with someone who said that they had a PHD in criminal Justice but never ever took a college class. City/Community/ Colleges at times might not have the people for slots so they fill them with who ever wants them. Not all community or city colleges do this.

    This is very interesting indeed.

  873. If, by chance, the students felt the same skeeviness, or had the same type of interactions with him (particularly as women of color, in his treatment of them), or had a reason through his behavior to feel a wrongness, and did not feel this vaunted change that so many speak of… who are they going to tell? The same college faculty and staff that put the cat right back among the pigeons in the first place? The Nice White Lady Feminists (or any other Nice People) who visit and gush over what a wonderful, engaging teacher he is, and think the class is lucky to have him?

    THIS. (actually, the whole comment can be bolded for the truth, but also this:)

    Dead is dead, of course, but his attempted murder of his girlfriend was all the more frightening to me because he didn’t do it in the midst of a rage, or because of jealously or money or all the reasons people kill each other; he did it because he had power and control over her (as she was completely passed out) and he felt it time for her to die. It was better for her to die. And that it should be up to him to make her dead. Whether she wanted to be or not.

    I think it’s worth mentioning that in no way, shape or form has he ever been accountable for this crime. He used his power to insure her voice would not be heard in order to protect himself. This woman now has “suicidal” as a part of her medical record. Has he even made a sincere effort to clear her medical record? To make it clear that she was not suicidal, but that he was homicidal—and that any mention of suicide or a “suicide pact” should be expunged from her medical record? What impact has it had on this woman’s personal and professional life to be wrongly labeled, and perhaps wrongly medicated?

    He has not been accountable. Ever. Accountability comes with consequences. No consequences? Then there’s no accountability. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

  874. Hugo’s problem with feminism is that his approach to it is essentially narcissistic: it’s about him. It’s not about women; it’s about him. When it’s not about his career or connections, it’s about his insights and his personal evolution. If he ever writes a memoir, it’ll be Feminism: One Man’s Journey. Look at the Kyle Payne thing: he honestly thought first of all the male and male-identified feminists who would suffer as a result of this smirch on their collective character. His politics are off because his perspective is off. They inform and damage each other.

  875. for what it’s worth. I don’t see any reason to ban him from commenting. (though I do support the choice to stop linking to him or having him guest blog)

    Some people don’t trust him at all and want zero interaction with him. of course, that’s a completely valid response. Some people will be his uncritical cheerleaders, and that I do disagree with. However, there are people in the middle who, while critical of him, are open to interacting with him.

    There could be one or many reasons for this. When people say and do bad things, there is hope that they can learn better. I know I’ve learned better. Now, people can be skeptical of their desire to change and not want to engage. that’s totally fine. But some people will be willing to keep trying and, I think that’s perfectly okay too. In the long run, it might help make things better.

    But also, many feminists do find value in things he writes. He isn’t 100% bad (no one is). I don’t read him. But, I know many people who do. And I know I’ve been fine with some of the things of his I have stumbled on (not the attempted murder post). So, I’m sure some of his comments would be terrible, some would be interesting, some would be smart, and some would be meh. That’s pretty typical right? I mena, there are lots of commenters here who are consistently spot on, imo. But, I think most of us have our good and bad moments.

    Commenting is not a position of authority. Therefore, he’ll just be one voice in a crowd that can be accepted, rejected, ignored or appreciated, as people like.

    If he comes in saying terrible things , then yes let’s ban him.

    In the end though, I respect what the moderators here decide. I don’t think there is one perfect solution here and it’s not my blog.

  876. “Hint: I’ve met a LOT of rapists and murderers in my time. Most were very nice to me and I felt safe with them. I WAS safe with them because they needed my help. That didn’t make them NOT murderers and rapists of others”

    I’ve experienced this too. It’s so scary. It’s so so so so so so so so so so scary how kind and genuinely good people who have done terrible things, and who may be capable of doing them again… can seem. Or even scarier, may genuinely have a lot of genuine good in them.

    Witnessing that is the most confusing devastating thing I have ever seen in my life.

  877. My Mom’s thrid husband had Anti-social personality disorder – Her abused us and was polite and even kind to others. I have people come up to me even to this day saying what a nice man he was, when I tell him that he was an abuse a-hole – they don’t believe me, can’t believe me because he was so nice.

  878. Because, throughout the years (long before the famous 2008 White Knighting), most of his attacks on, dismissive attitudes toward and attempts to intimidate using white male supremacy in relation to women of color have been in the service of white Feminism in general and some white Feminists in particular, he has endured no consequences in white Feminism for that.

    This is really worth remembering. Though Hugo has also been dismissive and condescending towards women in general, his responses to women of color in particular have been both the worst example of his arrogance and framed as a defense of white feminists. And white feminists were fine with that, which is why he’s been able to get away with it.

    Thinking about what other commenters (especially Li) have been saying about Hugo and anger: it does seem that Hugo’s success at avoiding being held accountable has been due in large part to his ability not to show anger, and it is of course the most privileged who are the least likely to have to resort to anger. Deepika mentioned that ironically one of Hugo’s posts is actually about how men try to silence women by implying that women’s anger, even if it’s only expressed in words, is too much to handle. I think that’s part of the reason the Feministe crew is having a hard time deciding whether to ban him: he may be racist and sexist, but he is just so darn polite. In addition to that, though, there’s the problem that Feministe’s moderation policy is mostly set up to deal with people who are making vicious comments about an individual. Targeting an individual person with too much vitriol or with nasty speculations about their personal life is more likely to get you banned, while general mansplaining will get you laughed out before the banhammer drops. That’s usually not a problem, but the Hugo case reveals a loophole, which is that calling out and refusing to tolerate an abuser can easily seem like unfair targeting of an individual (which is why Clarisse thought it was reasonable to shut down the original thread), while subtly hinting that all those women who are angry at you are a bunch of overwrought hysterics (Hugo’s usual MO) is neither too openly vicious nor unfairly singling out an individual. I don’t know what to do about this problem, but I wanted to join in with others pointing it out.

    Banning Hugo here won’t do much to him, but the blogosphere is an important part of his career and persona. If feminist blogs weren’t linking to him, quoting him, and helping promote him, I doubt he would be getting so many speaking gigs or doing things like taking charge of Slutwalk LA (which was a really creepy situation). So it’s worth at least taking a step in the direction of shutting him out of Internet Feminism.

  879. He has not been accountable. Ever. Accountability comes with consequences. No consequences? Then there’s no accountability. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

    Exactly, La Lubu.

    I also feel that, because of the somewhat poisonous fog often deliberately thrown up to surround any critique by women of color of various white Feminists (female or their male supporters), particularly in the attempt to position WOC like Black Amazon or bfp as simply being hateful or antagonistic or whatever the poison is these days, I should state that I am harping of his treatment of WOC not because I am jealous or offended (though he was offensive) or anything like that.

    I, and others, keep bringing it up because it is important, or at least it should be, and especially important in the matter of his being “changed” and an accepted (by some) face of male Feminism and all that. When I encountered him first I had no idea *who* he was… but I recognized immediately *what* he was, as did others. Nothing I’ve seen since then has caused me to change my mind, and hearing the entirety (so far) of his history and background has actually reinforced it.

  880. while subtly hinting that all those women who are angry at you are a bunch of overwrought hysterics

    Or “immature” (as seen in the reply Megalodon noted: “Meh, the comments section there is a swarm of holier-than-thou sorts. Give ‘em a couple decades of being human and they may rethink their positions. The bloggers are mostly great, tho.”). It’s worth noting that within both the contexts of white supremacy and sexism that maturity is seen as the province of the white and male, and one of the performances of this “maturity” is the silencing of anger—even if one is one the receiving end of injustice, the expression of anger gets one marked as “immature”. This holds even if the person accusing one of immaturity is far younger and has endured far fewer challenges in life.

    So. The templates are still operational in the background. Enduring injustice is mature. Refusing injustice is not mature.

  881. If you’re really unsure of whether or not to ban him, consider what was said earlier about the young woman learning about feminism through watching this matter unfold. Some of us don’t have access to a gender studies class. Some of us don’t have access to a large library of feminist work but through providence we have an internet connection. If we want to explore feminism, we do it through websites and blogs. The mainstream blogs, for all their flaws, are the intro for some of us. That’s how we learn what to read, what the principles, what the lingo is and for many of us it’s that first glimpse of scholarly feminism that leads to learning about anti-racism, disability activism, class issues and other things a lot of you take for granted as stuff you learn at college.

    It’s not just how this moment in time looks to the new feminist. Hugo’s probably absolutely certain this will blow over and things will go back to normal. The main blogs will go back to lauding Hugo Schwyzer, featuring his posts, linking his posts, generally touting him as the Feminist Man, with no context to what he’s done in the past. So young women will come to regard him as an authority, and not only will they potentially come under his power, they will actually come to believe the horsepocky he spews.

    We’re talking about is it right to allow him a position of power over young women where he works. We can’t do much about that, but we can work to make sure he’s not so prominent on search engine results when it comes to looking for a feminist mentor.

    I Know I’m not one of your regulars, but I urge those of you in charge of Feministe to make Hugo Schwyzer your first-ever pre-emptive ban. Disavow him, stop linking him and encourage your fellow feminist websites to stop as well. Do this for the newly initiated feminists who are looking to sites like these to introduce them to the activist community, PLEASE.

  882. Helen, that’s interesting you mentioned the yoga teacher because I’ve also frequented a lot of New Age/Buddhist/meditation circles and noticed some of the same attitudes toward anger. And yeah, being angry isn’t always fun. But IMO it’s a natural and inevitable part of being human, so it’s best to understand it, and as you said, direct it to something productive. Anger can really be a powerful motivator for positive change, both on the individual and the social level.

    And yeah, Hugo doesn’t really seem to understand that. I really haven’t read that many of his articles (thank God), but I did read one talking about MRAs, and you’re right that he seemed to almost revel in their hatefulness.

  883. The “anger should not exist” notion ALWAYS servers the powerful at the expense of those they have privilege over.

    As others have pointed out, the more privilege you have, the less reason you have to be angry. It’s easy to talk about anger not having value when you don’t have a lot to be angry about.

    Insisting that anger is a character flaw is a huge weapon in domestic violence. Somehow, whatever your response to abuse, you’re not supposed to get angry — anger means you have a problem managing your emotions. That means that as long as your abuser can harass you into some sort of anger, he gets the moral high ground. You don’t get to complain, because, hey, he’s not the angry one.

    In escaping my abusive ex, I went briefly to a therapist who dealt in such matters. For weeks the poor woman tried to keep a straight face while I insisted I had an anger problem. She put an end to that by having me list each incidence of anger, and it became clear in short order that I wasn’t remotely an angry person; I was a quite mellow person with an vicious abuser not yet cut fully out of my life. Get rid of the abuser, and the “anger problem” vanishes. Funny how that works. Her one piece of advice was that I had the reverse of an anger problem — instead of getting angry too much, I was not getting angry enough. If I got angry enough, I wouldn’t have been trying to tolerate my abuser’s presence.

  884. It is kind of funny in a creepy way how Hugo loves to wallow in MRA anger, isn’t it? He seems to get off on it because he thinks anger is so forbidden. He’s taken it to the place where Christians used to take sexuality — it’s dirty and wrong so you should pretend you are untouched by it, but people like Hugo secretly go after extra dirty and wrong forms to wallow in, the more harmful the better since it’s all wrong anyway. His love of the MRAs has a heavily salacious tinge.

  885. Claire K

    Banning Hugo here won’t do much to him, but the blogosphere is an important part of his career and persona. If feminist blogs weren’t linking to him, quoting him, and helping promote him, I doubt he would be getting so many speaking gigs or doing things like taking charge of Slutwalk LA (which was a really creepy situation). So it’s worth at least taking a step in the direction of shutting him out of Internet Feminism.

    Yes, sorry. I think I may have sounded a little dismissive of those that feel this is a good solution or at least will send a message, and for that I apologize. I think it could indeed help send a message, but mostly only if it is something (that, and the not linking, promoting, so on) that is agreed upon and done by what are considered the major Feminist sites. But will have less effect if only done by Feministe.

  886. CPP: yes, he did that. There’s a good post on it here: http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/steering-the-sluts-update/ I thought about linking to it earlier (this particular post is free of trans-hate and I think the comments are too) but wasn’t sure if that would be insensitive/inappropriate. For those who don’t want to click the link, the highlights are:
    Hugo again compares women to dogs, joking about “adopt-a-slut.”

    He writes, “You’ve heard of herding cats? Planning for Slutwalk LA feels like herding sluts. In the best and most responsible way.”

    He deflects criticism that the Slutwalk is not inclusive of women of color through the old, ‘Well, uh, we do have a WoC involved, so there.’

    He whines and threatens legal action against people who call him a rapist.

    ———————

    I still have some ethical reservations about posting this. I don’t want to link to a sight that is so hateful towards trans people, but the creepiness the linked post notes is worth talking about and I don’t want to just steal the author’s work in collecting and analyzing that information. I’m sorry if I made the wrong call here.

    And in the spirit of weird-things-from-HS’s-social-media, a bizarre (possibly triggering) exchange from the Facebook thread in which Hugo complains that he doesn’t know why everyone’s mad at him and his accountability team rushes in to assure him he hasn’t done anything wrong:

    HS’s friend: “Did I miss something there? She did want to be there with you, didn’t she? Of course this doesn’t excuse your insanity at the time, [but] if one says “I want you,” and then passes out, isn’t that implied consent, regardless of why the person passes out? Thankfully, I’ve never had to become acquainted with any laws on sexual assault.”

    HS: ” Read the post, Michael. It’s not about the sex. It’s about the gas.”

    Am I reading this wrong, or does he really not have a problem with his friend assuming that he had knocked a woman out and raped her, and that doing so would be perfectly legal and morally okay?

  887. Ah, forgot to mention all the information above is from the Twitter and Facebook accounts HS uses as part of his public and professional persona. Neither I nor the blogger who wrote the post I linked to are stalking him.

  888. Hey, can we all just take a moment to silently appreciate Hugo Schwyzer’s incisive, courageous reply to that commenter who totally just said that it was probably cool to have sex with an unconscious woman as long as she expressed interest in you before passing out? Clearly, not just a handsome male-feminist face.

  889. Sorry, cross-posted.

    I mean, oh, God, I don’t want to hear what he has to say, but how is it that the umpteen women commenting on this whole fucking thing are doing an infinitely better job of commenting on the anti-/feminist aspects of all of it than the man himself? How can there be people in his circle who are still completely fucking clueless about the most basic aspects of consent, e.g. the impossibility thereof for women who have passed out? What the hell?

  890. I would like to point out that according to PCC he is not a professor – he is an instructor which needs

    less

    credentials to teach 100 to 200 level classes – Also the department he is affiliated with isn’t the women’s studies department it’s the history department. It’s not even the sociology department nor is it the psychology department where man women’s studies classes may be found.

    PCC is a 2 year college where one goes to get an associates degree.

    Also I followed his link to his LinkedIn page and he only lists his BA not his PhD — Why is that? If one was a professional, professor then wouldn’t he want to list his PhD? Something is not right about it.. Yet, it took some digging to find out that his PhD is in English Medieval Ecclesiastical History — How does that qualify him to teach women’s studies (which is not a “department” nor a degree that is offered at PCC) – The History Department does have one class about women in history — does that qualify as women studies?

    His explanation that he was hired because of “diversity” doesn’t seem true.

  891. Am I reading this wrong, or does he really not have a problem with his friend assuming that he had knocked a woman out and raped her, and that doing so would be perfectly legal and morally okay?

    Yeah, that answer is an interesting example. I get that “It’s about the gas” is basically referring to the fact that people are not accusing him of non-consensual sex. But not offering any rebuttal to the idea that someone inviting you over and then passing out counts as consent? (Haven’t read the whole thread. If he circles back and points out that’s a problem, one could choose to be generous and say he was dashing off a quick first reply to tell the person to focus on the important issue.)

    His explanation that he was hired because of “diversity” doesn’t seem true.

    Is that his explanation? I could see it making sense in that if he *offered* to teach such a class, saying a woman’s studies/feminism course – even as not part of any particular program – would be important to add diversity to the curriculum or somesuch.

  892. Yeah Helen, I feel angry toward all the abusers out there just hearing you talk about this. The hypocrisy and mental gymnastics of them is pretty astounding. And trying to shame you after you’ve expressed anger is just another form of abuse, pure emotional manipulation. Good thing you talked to that therapist, and she helped you realize you weren’t the one with the problem.

    From what I’ve observed and experienced, people who are mistreated or abused always feel anger. Too often, however, it’s directed inward. I think the experience of shame is really inward anger, and the reason so many abuse victims feel ashamed of themselves is because they believe they are causing the abuse, and it is not OK to direct their anger outward to the abuser. That’s why it’s so liberating to realize the actual cause of the abuse is the abuser, and direct that anger outward, where it belongs.

    I second the opinion about Schwyzer’s creepy fascination with other’s anger and how taboo he thinks it is.

  893. Wow, imagine having to answer to an “accountability team” where at least one of the members is perfectly fine with the idea of raping a woman who has passed out, so long as she said “I want you” before losing consciousness! They must hold him to some strict standards of accountability, there!

  894. He threatens (on the Twitter screenshot in the link) to sue anyone who calls him a rapist. Some people in this discussion and others related to the recent interview have referred to him as an attempted murderer and a predator. Is he going to be actually suing the people who have said that?

  895. Taken from here

    As for taking away work from women, that’s a very real issue to consider. When I was hired full-time in 1994, after a year of teaching as an adjunct, I was hired to teach a variety of different subjects. Community colleges need generalists, and I made it clear when I was hired that I was ready and eager to teach courses in Western Civilization, British History, the History of Religion, and Women’s Studies. I was not hired solely to teach women’s history, but to teach virtually anything and everything. When I did start teaching women’s history, my appointment divided my four more senior female colleagues who also taught women’s studies courses. All four were self-described feminists, but two were pleased that I’d be tackling the task, and two offered versions of the same criticisms FCM offers. Though women had composed a majority of my hiring committee, two of my colleagues thought my job should have gone to a woman, and were incensed that a man was hired to do this work. I heard the “you took this job away from a better-qualified woman” remark more than once.

    In the Spring there is only one course in the history department that focus on women it’s

    WOMEN IN AMERICAN SOCIETY — and Hugo is teaching it– Although this might be considered under the umbrella of women’s studies – it’s in the History Department and wouldn’t be a class on sociology and psychology which women’s studies normally fall under. He is also teaching another History class Called HISTORY OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION TO 1715

    According to the Women’s Studies associations list of active Women’s studies Programs PCC doesn’t have one. I have looked on the PCC website and they don’t have a women’s studies or gender studies department.

    The program for me is that this man is pretending to be professor of women’s studies when he is an Instructor of History for PCC – PCC offers no degree program or major concentration in women’s studies, only offering two classes that would relate to women in the spring – So again, HS has exaggerated his credentials

    His explaination sounds like white male privileged complaining about those uppity women. This is suspect because I don’t believe that he was hired because he was going to teach women’s studies but rather History, which he has the credentials for. I also searched the internet and found that he didn’t “teach” a course on Beauty but rather a workshop – this is far different from it being a course.

    Again, there is a huge difference being a tenured professor (which according to PCC he isn’t) and an Instructor (which he is) — PCC has also took down the requirements — each college is difference– for professors and instructors…

  896. I would like to point out that according to PCC he is not a professor – he is an instructor which needs less credentials to teach 100 to 200 level classes

    This is interesting, given that he claims to be a professor on the front page of his website. So he puts lies about his resume front and center.

    It’s impossible for anyone with actual academic credibility not to burst out laughing on looking at his website. There’s that “LOOK AT MEEEEEEEE” banner picture, the fact that the most prominent link is “book Hugo” like he’s some sort of trained dog act, the utter lack of any kind of academic CV or list of peer-reviewed publications — where you might expect to find something like a list of selected publications, what you get is a list of crap he’ll speak about for money, starting with “Hugo is an exciting, dynamic lecturer…” Um, no, if you were worth hearing as an academic (a privileged white one at least), you wouldn’t ever, ever puff yourself in such ridiculous language. You’d just put your work out there and let people come to you.

    Has anyone checked out the “contact” page on his website? It’s particularly sad and funny — just a whole lot of repetitions of, “Please book me! Um, please? Is anyone out there? Please?” Why would anyone want to pay someone to speak who has nothing of substance to say?

  897. I also wanted to add those colleges and universities that have a degree in women studies offer courses like this:

    Notice all of the course numbers start with a WoST

    WoSt 100 – Women and Society
    WoSt 110 – Women in Global Perspectives
    WoSt 120G – Women and Men in Families
    WoSt 150 – Women, Culture and Identity
    WoSt 200 – Twentieth Century Women Writers
    WoSt G205 – Women and Adventure
    WoSt G210 – Gender and the Body
    WoSt 220 – Women and the Media
    WoSt 225 – Latinas in the U.S
    WoSt 240 – Educating Women
    WoSt L243 – Rethinking the Family
    WoSt 250 – Women and Aging
    WoSt L255 – Women in Russia
    WoSt 260 – Women’s Health Care
    WoSt 265 – Food and Feminism

  898. Well the old “slap them with a frivolous lawsuit I know I will lose, but can afford, to tap out their energy and funds and shut them up” tactic *is* a favorite of privileged white dudes who feel they should always be in control of everything.

  899. The only academic article he’s written that I could find is one entitled “Northern Bishops and the Anglo-Scottish War in the Reign of Edward II,” which he originally gave as a paper at the “Thirteenth Century Conference” in England in 1997. Maybe that counts as LGBT Studies?

  900. I can google scholar him — and see what I come up with. — Also wanted to say as well. That PCC offers no classes on Feminism — at all in the spring in the summer I also checked to see if he has any of his syllabi post and he has none.

    I also noticed on his LinkedIn page it doesn’t mention anything about his Phd but rather his BA… Interesting.

    Most professor need to have some type of peer review publication — I have a friend who just got tenure and she said it was very hard to do, and she has presented papers and have written in scholarly journels. She reminds me all the time my writing is crap LOL —

  901. I just found a citation to Hugo’s work —

    [CITATION] Arms and the bishop: the Anglo-Scottish War and the northern episcopate, 1296-1357
    HB Schwyzer – 1999 – University of California, Los Angeles

    which means that he might have received his Phd (or not) sometime in 2000 ???? — So when he was hired on to PCC in 1994 he only had a BA. This is really interesting. So, He might not have been qualified for the position back then that’s why he is only an instructor — I wonder if he did receive his PhD…

  902. The only academic article he’s written that I could find is one entitled “Northern Bishops and the Anglo-Scottish War in the Reign of Edward II,” which he originally gave as a paper at the “Thirteenth Century Conference” in England in 1997. Maybe that counts as LGBT Studies?

    Shit, I had better academic credentials than that before I finished my bachelor’s degree.

  903. I’m almost starting to feel sorry for Hugo. . .everything that’s coming to light to reveal what an incompetent, unqualified buffoon he is. I mean, let the man eke out a mediocre existence as a hanger on at a community college in peace, all right?

    Wait. I guess he still is a smarmy, racist, classist, narcissistic, sexually harrassing, attempted murderer.

    Carry on.

  904. Those northern bishops were a queer lot.

    It was actually a reference to Edward II (see the homophobic portrayal of him in Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, the story of how he was murdered, etc.) But you may be right about the northern bishops; I’ve never known one myself.

  905. Look. I’m the last to say you have to have academic credentials to speak about feminism, but isn’t a huge part of his schtick, “I’m paid for this as an academic professional, and you’re not?” Or am I mistaken in that impression?

  906. I wonder if he’s ABD or not even that. Someone who has an account or is near an academic library can look him up on ProQuest. If he graduated, his dissertation should be on file. Hard to believe he got through a history Ph.d. and umpteen years of teaching and only has one published paper to his name.

  907. Or “immature” (as seen in the reply Megalodon noted: “Meh, the comments section there is a swarm of holier-than-thou sorts. Give ‘em a couple decades of being human and they may rethink their positions. The bloggers are mostly great, tho.”). It’s worth noting that within both the contexts of white supremacy and sexism that maturity is seen as the province of the white and male, and one of the performances of this “maturity” is the silencing of anger—even if one is one the receiving end of injustice, the expression of anger gets one marked as “immature”.

    Also worth noting that White Lady Feminist Blogger Marcotte does not consider women “human.” At lest not the women commenting here about very real experiences of abuse at the hands of men.

    The fact that HS is threatening to “sue” anyone who calls him a rapist would be a big joke if it weren’t so sick. “Don’t you dare call me a rapist! I tried to KILL someone, not RAPE her!”

  908. Look. I’m the last to say you have to have academic credentials to speak about feminism, but isn’t a huge part of his schtick, “I’m paid for this as an academic professional, and you’re not?” Or am I mistaken in that impression?

    It is. Now I wonder if he is considering himself qualified because he’s taken a lot of women’s studies and/or women’s history classes. In which case I’m a trained psychologist, because I’ve taken a lot of psychology classes, even making it as far as research methods.

  909. Look. I’m the last to say you have to have academic credentials to speak about feminism, but isn’t a huge part of his schtick, “I’m paid for this as an academic professional, and you’re not?” Or am I mistaken in that impression?

    Exactly.

  910. It’s in ProQuest and his dissertation is dated 1999 —

    He list his VITA the following

    BA History – 1989
    MA – History 1991 (Why doesn’t he mention this??)
    90-91 Research Assistant (Center of Medieval and Ren
    91-93 Teaching assistant
    1993 – 1999 Instructor at PCC

    So he didn’t lie in his Vita

    But there is not about women or LGBT concerns in the dissertation. I scan through it, but didn’t read it.

  911. I know a lot of women who could teach a women’s studies class that have no academic background – but Hugo goes around stating that he is a professor of women’s studies and that is what makes him important.

  912. a man who hasn’t completed high school has a greater earning potential than a woman with a bachelor’s degree.

    so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a man was given this job, when he wasn’t qualified for it, and many women were.

  913. Does it count towards his academic CV in Women’s Studies that he ghost-wrote Beauty Disrupted, the memoir of the actress and model Carre Otis, about her struggle with anorexia, her marriage to Mickey Rourke, etc.? The book begins as follows (trigger warning for creepiness, given that Schwyzer ghost-wrote the passage from the viewpoint of a “sexy” 16-year old runaway, and the beginning has, I think, a quasi-pornographic tone to it):

    http://books.google.com/books?id=2fDm8b8TPJkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22carre+otis%22+beauty+disrupted&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ML7_TtrtBoPX0QHymPm-Ag&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22carre%20otis%22%20beauty%20disrupted&f=false

    I could feel my sixteen-year old breasts bouncing against the cool, soft silk cami I was wearing, the whiskey I’d just downed burning in my throat, and my knees nearly buckling with every step I took down the rickety tabletops lined up to form a makeshift runway. . . . My face was flushed with the realization that I was too young for men to be leering at my body, too young to be in this godforsaken bar. This runway was no place for anybody, even a runaway scraping to get by.

    And so on.

  914. Donna, thanks for bringing that in and proving that yes, it does just get worse and worse the more of his writing we dig up. ew.

  915. [The only academic article he’s written that I could find is one entitled “Northern Bishops and the Anglo-Scottish War in the Reign of Edward II,” which he originally gave as a paper at the “Thirteenth Century Conference” in England in 1997. Maybe that counts as LGBT Studies?]

    Well, one can’t do much better than Edward II in that regard. I wonder if that was the war during which E2’s beloved Gaveston, unable to force the enemy into confrontation, complained that there was nowhere so empty of Scottish troops as Scotland.

  916. *waves* Hi, I rarely ever comment, mostly just read. But I’d like to comment on the academic “credentials” of HS that WitchWolf so kindly provided. I’m a PhD student so I’d like to offer thoughts on HS and his potential credibility in academia, such as it might be.

    First: he got hired as an instructor around the same time that he got his MA in History, which is NOT the same as a tenure track professor, not nearly. Loads of people with Master’s follow this job track, and are by no means ever considered experts in the field. You can teach on the instructor level at a community college with a Master’s, but you have to have a certain number of graduate credit hours (usually 18 semester hours) in your field to do so. So, if you have 18 credit hours of History then you can get hired as a History instructor at a community college. That does NOT make you a professor, and definitely not a Professor in, say, Sociology, when your Master’s is in History. Not even close. Professor is an actual job title that is only given to people who have PhDs and plenty of peer-reviewed publications and established track records in securing funding and doing original research. Sorry, fucking your students and committing attempted murder doesn’t count for any of those things.

    Second, concerning his publications: presenting at one professional conference in your entire academic career is, well, fucking pitiful. That’s why he’s still an instructor. I’m a second year doctoral student in my field and I had papers in two conferences THIS FALL alone. That’s pretty average for my field. And conferences papers do NOT carry the same weight professionally as having actual peer-reviewed publications. If he were the real deal Rock Star Dr. Feminist Dude that he claims that he is, he’d be publishing one or more peer-reviewed papers in professional academic journals A YEAR.

    So, in summation: he’s NOT a Women’s Studies Professor. He’s not a fucking professor of ANYTHING. He’s an instructor of History at a community college. Nothing wrong with that, there’s plenty of people who do a lot of good teaching in those venues. But he’s CLEARLY inflating his academic credentials, which are really a joke. That alone ought to raise red flags, nevermind that dubious history of his where he did little oopsies like trying to kill his girlfriend and fucking his students.

    And oh, yeah, I’m a survivor of DV, lost custody of my son to my abusive ex, am still fighting to get him back, so yeah. HS raises all kinds of not-reformed narcissistic abuser flags to me. I feel zero desire to inhabit any space with him ever, or with anyone who’d excuse him.

  917. WitchWolf: If he got the MA on the way to a PhD, it’d be normal not to list it. He has written that his dissertation had nothing to do with gender issues, which were a “pastime” for him while he was doing his PhD work. A cursory search of the databases and journals my university subscribes to (which is a lot, since they have more money than they know what to do with) suggests that he has published an article or two and a book review in the field of his dissertation (this is not a lot by the standards of an academic hoping for tenure and professorship, but normal enough for an instructor at a community college). As far as I can tell, he has done no academic work whatsoever in women’s studies, gender studies, gay and lesbian studies, queer theory, or anything else even remotely related to gender and sexuality, which makes sense because he does not have the training to do that kind of work. I don’t want to pick on him for having a low academic output. It’s fine if someone with a PhD wants to focus on teaching at the community college level instead of entering into the soul-sucking rat race for tenure at a cushy university. The problem is that he uses his position as an academic to dismiss objections from laywomen. He suggests that they’re just basing their criticisms on lived experience, and that his academic training trumps that, or at least has a possibility of trumping that. When in fact he has no academic training in this field, so his waving around of his PhD –the acquiring of which involved no studying of feminist theory– amounts to an assertion of white, upper-class, male privilege. He’s essentially saying, “My personal ponderings and hobbyist readings are worth more than your personal ponderings and hobbyist readings because I’m a rich white guy who went through the rich white guy system and came out of it with a PhD.” He’s even devaluing PhDs in Women’s Studies by implying that the actual work you do in a PhD program is irrelevant, as long as you get those letters after your name. My poking around also revealed that some nonacademic publications are citing Hugo as an academic expert, making a big deal out of the PhD and the teaching position, without mentioning that he’s an academic expert in an entirely unrelated field.

  918. I’m new to this site and to feminism in general, and I really appreciate this discussion. I dug around to see what I could find on Hugo and this is worth a look. I guess he got his PHD from UCLA in 1999.

  919. Claire K. — Yes, an MA on the way to PhD is a norm. I am not arguing that — I am not even saying that’s a bad thing. I am not even disputing the fact that he has only one published academic work – I have found nothing listing other articles that he had helped write or wrote (in his own name). I have noticed that he has given talks on Women’s Studies and is specified as an academic expert, as you say, and that’s the point that I am trying to make.

    It’s that he has no degree or academic work with in the field yet he is positioned as a professor of Women’s Studies (which he only teaches a women in history course at a 2 year college — nothing more) and an academic feminist.

    For me he telling all us wiminzs folk that we better listen to him because he is a man with a hobby and his hobby out weighs any women who may have a degree in (or no degree) in Women’s Study – that his experience as a womanizing a-hole, who has a Master’s in attempted murder, knows more about women that we could ever. Not to mention he is important because he walks around with half naked women declaring themselves sluts in his name, while he is dressed in a suit and tie, while of course watching over the women in his care while edumacting the press on women’s issues.

    So yeah, I don’t give a flying fuck what his degree is in — But his degree smells privledge…

  920. You claim on the front page of your Web site to be a “professor”, but according to the Pasadena City College Web site you are an “instructor”. And as far as I can tell, Pasadena City College does distinguish between professors and instructors in their academic ranks. Can you please explain why you are misrepresenting your academic rank on your Web site?

    I just posted this comment on Schwyzer’s blogge.

  921. The problem is that he uses his position as an academic to dismiss objections from laywomen. He suggests that they’re just basing their criticisms on lived experience, and that his academic training trumps that, or at least has a possibility of trumping that. When in fact he has no academic training in this field, so his waving around of his PhD –the acquiring of which involved no studying of feminist theory– amounts to an assertion of white, upper-class, male privilege. He’s essentially saying, “My personal ponderings and hobbyist readings are worth more than your personal ponderings and hobbyist readings because I’m a rich white guy who went through the rich white guy system and came out of it with a PhD.”

    Yes. And this is not just something he does now and then, it’s his whole shtick. Look at his last two guest columns on Jezebel. One was telling us women (including some female experts he referenced) that we just don’t understand the right way to relate to the beauty myth and raise our daughters with good self-esteem. The other was informing us that we are all having more anal sex and why that is and why it’s wrong. That one of course opened the floodgates of sexual TMI in the comments, which I think is his real motivation for addressing the subject. But at any rate, those are representative examples; this is what he ALWAYS DOES. He positions himself as the expert, telling us silly little ladies things about ourselves we are apparently too stupid and naive to figure out on our own, telling us over and over again “feminism: ur doin it wrong.”

  922. Claire K – LOL didn’t take it that way — Just did more agreeing.

    Comrade PhysioProf — On Noz you are going to be a green meanie! 🙂

  923. Yeesh, that dinner-party thing really is steeped in extrovert privilege and a lot of sheer ignorance.

    I’m guessing Hugo doesn’t understand that the behavior he describes isn’t actually upper class or “polite society” behavior, but an ignorant imitation thereof. Seating people next to total strangers at dinner parties is a boorish thing to do. Determining the placement at a dinner table is a holdover from a time when an introduction between strangers was a relatively serious matter, and not performed without careful consideration of whether both parties wanted to be introduced.

    In such a situation, your dinner partner might be someone you don’t know well, but you would probably have already met them and have a fair amount of information about each other that could be used for conversation. There might be times when you would be asked to a party to meet people newly arrived to the area, but there again would be some substantial negotiation ahead of time ensuring that those involved would want to meet each other, and by the time everyone got to the dinner table, they would know a fair bit about each other.

    The goal in arranging seating placement isn’t to force unwanted introductions, but to consider who each of your guests might truly enjoy sitting next to.

  924. Wow — Dinner placement — That’s huge – Great, wonderful. Forcing introverts into uncomfortable situations – I guess now he is a therapist as well?

    But honestly I don’t care if he is privileged, a pretender feminist, arrogant a-hole, tool, creep, sleezeoid from the planet man – Because he has bragged about getting away with attempting to murder a women because HE chose it was TIME for HER to DIE, cannot speak for women, not matter if he had an Epiphany or went through a transformation. I doubt his Epiphany because he did so after he called his attorney, after he made sure that he didn’t have to pay for his crime. I do feel for his daughter, but her father did attempt to kill a women, and this is a great lesson in learning about true accountability, and true transformation. It’s a lesson that will hurt like hell, and she will have to pay for his transgression with his absence, and I can feel for her, and I can hope her well, but just because he has a daughter doesn’t make him immune to facing justice –

    I wonder how many of the women who cry “What about his daughter” care anything about the millions of others who have been convicted of a hideous crime.. What about the Green River Killer – He had a son, does that mean he gets a get out of jail free card — — No Hugo isn’t as bad as the Green River Killer, but I use the Green River Killer as an example because he thought like Hugo when he attempted to murder a women, the Green River Killer rejected women, didn’t like to be control by a women, he rejected the notion that women had choice and the ability to make decisions on their own, much like the attitude of a man claiming to have attempted to murder a women, and to use his “student’s as sex toys. What better way to show his daughter that he has redeemed himself by going through the justice system, by going to therapy, buy real transformation, by raising her to believe that she is a human with the ability to make choices, to have a life that she deems fit, to not be objectified by men.

    His ideas of beauty make me sick – because they are what feminist should be fighting against, the idea that a women should be proud of what society believes as beauty. Beauty should be not what others things, but what a women feels about her self.

    Sorry to rant– but he makes me sick.

    He has never taken responsibility for his actions, and because of his background and bravada

  925. And, after all the courses he’d taught, he still insisted as recently as five years ago that “boy-girl-boy-girl” seating “is always best”?

  926. Schwyzer has responded on his blogge to my question that at Pasadena City College, there is no actual distinction in faculty rank between those called “instructors” and those called “professors”, and that he is therefore permitted to refer to himself as “professor”. Interestingly, in explaining this he linked to a blogge post of his from a number of years ago in which he asserted that he has “always loathed titles”.

    I posted this follow-up comment:

    If you’ve “always loathed titles” like you claim in that blogge post you linked, then why do you have “PROFESSOR” in a large typeface in all-caps near the top of your Web site home page? The only words any bigger than that on your home page are “HUGO SCHWYZER”.

    One might reasonably conclude without knowing more that your claim to humility is suspect. Have you consulted with your “accountability team” concerning this potential issue of self-aggrandizement?

  927. PCC is the only place of which I’m personally aware, then, that does not make this distinction. And it’s passingly strange, as you pointed out, PhysioProf, that he feels the need to make use of the title with the greater cultural prestige when he also claims to loathe titles.

  928. PCC is the only place of which I’m personally aware, then, that does not make this distinction.

    The directory certainly makes it seem like the titles are not willy-nilly. And of course, here are the policies – around page 50 of the faculty handbook, it outlines that new hires are instructors, who can apply to be promoted to various professor ranks (assistant, associate, full). They’re definitely different. I can’t find anything forbidding non-professors (such as Hugo) from calling themselves professors, so it may be true that he’s not forbidden from calling himself a professor, just as he’s not forbidden from calling himself an expert, the Queen of Sheba, or God Almighty. Just that Pasadena City College doesn’t recognise him as any of those things.

  929. The faculty handbook does state the following, which would appear to bureaucratically justify Schwyzer’s referring to himself as “professor”:

    “All faculty members holding one of the professional ranks will be addressed uniformly as professor.”

  930. That seems to give him the right to require students to address him as professor, in the classroom setting (I assume he asks to be addressed differently when he’s fucking them but hey, everybody’s got their kinks), but I’m still disturbed by the way he’s appropriating a title that carries a certain expectation, culturally, to justify positioning himself above the rest of us little people.

    I mean, I know in my own experience of academia, that the title Professor carries with it the unspoken understanding that this individual is an expert who’s creating/uncovering/contributing new knowledge and understanding within his field. He’s working in academia so I find it difficult to believe that he’s not aware of this cultural baggage, and so this, to me, is more evidence that he hasn’t atoned for jack-shit. Toom Tabard indeed.

  931. There is no such thing as implied consent. If there was any doubt about him, that’s the nail in the coffin.

  932. Accept that is not correct — They do have distinctions and they do have professors – He is not even an adjunct – Again he is lying.

    There are distinctions — this is what I gather from their site – they don’t have the PDF up of requirements — However going through the list of employees these are the titles that I have pulled from a list.

    Professor Emeritus (LOL he could have envy– I am surprised that he doesn’t deem himself this title)
    Professor
    Associate Professor
    Assistant Professor
    Adjunct Assistant Professor
    Teacher Coordinator/Asst Prof
    Adjunct Faculty
    Adjunct Noncredit Faculty
    Instructor
    Hourly Lecturer

    Just to put it in prospective – He has the creditials to teach at a community college for history…

    Out of the min requirements hand book to teach Women’s Studies — He doesn’t have this — Since there is no women’s studies at PCC this isn’t the problem

    Women’s Studies Master’s in women’s studies OR
    the equivalent OR see interdisciplinary studies. Yes

    He is partially right — in the Union Contract there is no specification of Professor and instructor – But — there are different levels. For instance someone who teaches hair tech — might not be called a professor.

    So he is wrong, yet again.

  933. After finding the faculty handbook they do have classifications –

    As I thought:

    Professor Emeritus (retired professor needs board approval)
    Professor (14 years teaching, 4 at Associate Professor level and shown growth as an Associate professor)
    Associate Professor – (7 years of teaching + tenure)
    Assistant professor – Tenure required
    Lecturer or Instructor (Non tenure required and are the lowest on the food chain)

  934. The classism in that post is more aggressive and unabashed than what you usually see outside of far right enclaves. I mean there is a ton of classism on the left, but people usually are wily enough to try to make excuses for it or disguise it somehow. The bit about how people of various classes ride in cars was about the most offensive and ridiculous thing of its nature I have seen a supposed educated adult deliver with a straight face in quite a while. “Our kind of people” really?

    Just as the Marcotte/Schwyzer incident goes a long way towards demonstrating why women of color often feel neglected and ignored in mainstream feminist discussion, that self-identified feminist women chimed right in and sang along with Schwyzer’s classism and ableism in that post linked above should fill in the blanks as to why the movement has a reputation for also being elitist and intolerant of people with disabilities. Nice to know that only snobby upper class white women count, as usual the pretty ones who go to dinner parties and sparkle or what the fuck ever, the rest of us are fair game to be written up with about as much kindness, accuracy, and nuance as the Geico caveman. And no one will say a word in our defense until it’s much too late.

  935. The bit about how people of various classes ride in cars

    The way Schwyzer portrays his grandmother, she sounds like such a horrifying stereotype that a screenplay with that kind of character in it would be rejected as being too absurd even for Hollywood, unless she were portrayed as an outright villain. The thing is, it’s clear to me that he actually admires her. Upholding standards and all that sort of thing.

    One wonders where Jews, people of color, etc. are supposed to sit in cars and at dinner parties under Grandmother Schwyzer’s theories of etiquette. I think we all know the answer to that one.

  936. “I’m an amateur paleontologist,” Gingrich said. “I spend a lot of time looking at the Earth’s temperature for a very long time. I’m a lot harder to convince than just looking at a computer model.”

    I immediately thought of Hugo when I read this this morning.

  937. I thought that blog post about the dinner parties was pretty funny in a bizarre and chilling sort of way. I mean, I honestly wasn’t even aware that there WERE “parties” with assigned seating anymore. I associate the practice with like a Jane Austen novel or something. I mean, at like a $10,000/a plate fundraiser banquet, yeah, I figured there was probably assigned seating there. But at a birthday party for your wife’s friend? Truly strange. Or maybe I’m just low class or out of touch.

  938. Nah, LotusBen, there are basically two purposes for arranging table placement at the sort of occasion described (a private party with a bunch of people who all know the guest of honor but many of whom are strangers to each other):

    1. You’ve decided to go formal/retro for the whole thing, with invitations that give the theme away so that people know what’s coming and accept or decline according to their comfort with what is proposed.

    2. You’re trying to show off by incorporating such features into entirely the wrong type of gathering.

    For the party described, it was made clear that the invitations didn’t spell out what was coming, but people found out and didn’t like the fact that they would be in a forced-introduction scenario. But Hugo and his wife went ahead with the “placement” exercise anyway. At that point the only reason to do that knowing it makes your guests uncomfortable is that you think it scores you some kind of points in social superiority or something.

    Part of hosting a gathering is dealing with it when when what you planned doesn’t quite work. You may do your best to anticipate what will work well, and then find that your guests simply don’t follow your expectations. Getting upset doesn’t help. Figuring out how to make the occasion enjoyable as it evolves does.

  939. And of course, the entire dinner party dissolved into little cliques, as the guest of honor’s friends from work, from her school days, and her family members stayed among themselves without showing the slightest willingness to mingle and mix. Worst of all, most of the couples seemed positively joined at the hip, utterly unwilling to move away from the safety net represented by their husband, wife, or lover.

    OH NOES! People were enjoying themselves! And not in the way that Schwyzer’s grandmother wanted them to! What are things coming to in these ill-mannered days?!

    I have only ever dealt with seating cards and charts on a few occasions: weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, and one graduation party, all of which had over fifty people, at least, in which case I’m in favor of seating plans because they help prevent chaos.

    As for that riding in cars and sitting at dinner-party nonsense…I see nothing enviable or admirable about practices regarding the seating of couples established by a class of people who married for property and reputation reasons rather than love. Fuck ’em. I’ll hang out with whomever I want at a party.

  940. I like your points Helen. I mean the purpose of a party is for people to enjoy themselves, right? Whether there’s a seating plan or not should reflect what actually leads to people enjoying themselves, and what the people attending (not just the organizers) actually want. Hugo seems to think that the role of a party planner is to dictate and control people’s experiences, rather than helping people have the sort of experience they actually want. To the long list of wonderful things that can be said about Schwyzer I guess we can add “party planning martinet.”

    Fuck ‘em. I’ll hang out with whomever I want at a party.

    *shakes head*

    Tsk tsk, young lady. Have you forgotten your manners? Well, I suppose I should be grateful you at least wrote “whomever” rather than “whoever.” Still, that was terribly crass.

  941. Well, I suppose I should be grateful you at least wrote “whomever” rather than “whoever.” Still, that was terribly crass.

    Well, you know us Jews. Pushy and vulgar, but damn smart!

  942. I’ve just caught up with all the posts since I posted my tome (sorry about the length..typed it on my mini and didn’t realize it was THAT long!)

    I love that this comment thread has helped to leach some of the poisonous energies generated by the original post and the closing of the comment thread. Watching the comments develop even further I’m really liking the ideas several folks have put forth of a kind of digital consciousness raising.

    Fighting his disinformation and false constructions with the bright light of truth and exposure feels vitally important if we are to devalue the currency of mr’s voice/narratives in the marketplace of ideas. I very much like the idea of having the fight against mr’s legitimacy as a prominent feminist taken on by a diverse, diffused and de-centralized community effort.

    That way everyone can participate at the level they feel most comfortable in – from just reading and witnessing to full on confrontation with mr and his fanpersons at various blogs etc.

    If you are comfortable with confrontation – go for it -challenge mr and his contingent everywhere and every time you encounter their rubbish. If that’s not your bag, cut and past and quote for truth (with attribution) the comment’s of others that resonate with you.
    If an online presence is not comfortable for you, then simply discuss it with friends and loved ones in person, on facebook etc.

    I feel that mr has co-opted feminism, feminists and women to create his image; therefore I co-sign the ideas stated upthread and in the comments in Maia’s wonderful response post to Clarisse. We should co-opt mr’s image and use it to suit our needs – namely to cast him as an object lesson of what NOT to be. From academic or feminist theory takedowns all the way to pure caricature, and everything in between. As someone mentioned earlier, mr’s name should get the “santorum” treatment.

    For you techies out there – an internet meme featuring mr – ala the pepper spraying cop crossed with the Ryan Gosling manarchist style with that creepy pic of mr from his website and some “hey girl….” statements would be awesome-o to see.

    I’m working on a brief paragraph that will state why his appropriation of the voices and stories of others (particularly survivors and the survivors of HIS abuse) and his attempts to silence and discredit WOC, is unethical and invalid within any social justice movement, as well as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    I will explain how his PRESENT behaviors prove he has not left his offending/exploitation/abuse in the past, but in fact proves he continues to re-offend in the present with these actions of violence against women. When I get it the way I want it, I plan to post it to every comment section of every post he takes on in the future where he steals a woman’s voice, as well as necroposting to his old threads.

    In regards to my post on his academic credentials this tidbit also surfaced in my wanderings. So apparently back in 2008 someone called mr’s school (PCC) and complained about him based on the contents of his blog posts.

    I wasn’t troubled by fear for my job, because I do know that tenure is darn-near inviolate, and unless I lapse into manifest incompetence or rob a bank, I’m untouchable. But jeez, if I didn’t have the seniority I do, I would have felt very uncomfortable today. And honestly, I’m a little bit sad. I know I have annoyed a variety of people, but until today, had no idea that anyone would go to the lengths of writing a letter (backed up with more than one phone call to the vice-president) in order to get me terminated.

    Sooo he has tenure without even being an assistant prof? how exactly does that work? Curiouser and curiouser….

  943. That is a revolting bit about him knowing the HR head and having Tenure —

    Yes, sigh, he can have tenure because he has been an instructor for over 4 years. So in other words he had tenure when he supposedly slept with his students, taught drunk, attempted to kill his girlfriend —

    I do think that something else is going on here — and it’s privilege —

    I don’t think he will ever become Associate/Assistant Professor because of his past.

    I smell something rotten in his tenure and his continued employment – Just because he has tenure doesn’t mean he can’t get fired for sexual harassment – in fact there was a tenured full professor that I had to take a class from (technically it’s his wife’s class but they “co” teach it) that was canned from his position for sexually harassing a grad student. Didn’t stop him from teaching, and he is one of the worst, horrible, mean-spirited, jerks, that I have had the displeasure of knowing (in my graduate career!) and was the reason I thought about dropping the program I was taking. There is a petition trying to get him removed from this program as well, but since he doesn’t officially teach it, his wife does, it’s hard to get him removed.

    It’s not impossible for him to get fired — It’s just difficult for him to get canned.

  944. The blog post muckraking linked to is classic Schwyzer: full of false humilty, a gee-shucks down home persona firing passive-aggressive shots at his ‘enemies’, and seemingly totally clueless about how he’s coming off. The administrator “can’t remember what the complaint was about”? How convenient…and how careless and frankly unprofessional the colleague seems in his cavalier report. A threat of violence? No, not in the complaint, but Schwyzer makes the leap, branding the complainer ‘unstable’ along the way. Ugh. Of course he’s allowed to blog, and I’ll have to tolerate him at Jezebel, but this guy is a hack. Perhaps he’s already devaluing his own currency in the marketplace of ideas?

  945. http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2012/01/04/a-response/

    Hugo apparently went through a dictionary and pulled out all the words for sorry I got caught, threw them in there, and neglected to realize that telling, not showing, is the gold standard. He’s sorry he got caught. He’s not sorry for one damned thing he did.

    He spends every post writing a Penthouse Letter about himself. His love for himself is such that his relationship with any single other person means he’s in a threesome—himself, his ego, and that human partner.

  946. [Mod note: Big TRIGGER WARNING on this one for sexual abuse]

    I have to say that I am glad that this publication has acted.

    Mr Schwyzer has operated very odd standards for some time, and they have been most troubling. On 21 November he saw fit to dismiss evidence of Children Subject to Sexual Abuse and Rape. An odd thing given Penn State and Mr Sandusky, which Mr Schwyzer also wrote about and wanted men to embrace pornography.

    On 24 November Mr Schwyzer was asked to address his errors, and he has been asked again many times to do so – publicly and privately. He has chosen not to.

    Mr Schwyzer even tweeted the following.

    “Most dishonest thing I’ve see at @goodmenproject: “Women Rape Boys Too” http://ht.ly/7ACy3 Conflates rape stats with other abuse stats(1)
    from Los Angeles, CA
    7:43 PM – 21 Nov 11 via web”

    http://twitter.com/#!/hugoschwyzer/status/138704156809637888

    Here are some quotations from the report that Mr Schwyzer said was being conflated and which he so quickly dismissed.

    “My dad comes into my room, pulls his clothes down, takes out ‘sausage’ and rubs it against me. I don’t like it.” (Girl, aged seven)

    “My dad has been raping me and my sister. My mum died when I was four. I feel bad when he is abusing me.” (Girl, aged 10)

    “My mum’s boyfriend is beating me up. He is living with us for three months. He wants me to put my penis in his mouth. He is making me wear mum’s clothes and makeup. If I refuse, he is hitting me with a slipper.” (Boy, aged 14)

    “My mum tried to rape me last night. I am upset. My mum came in from the pub drunk, asked me to take my clothes off and tried to put a rubber thing inside me. My mum is drinking a lot since Dad had broken up with her. Mum is in the pub now. I have not talked to her since last night.” (Boy, aged 11)

    “I am physically and sexually abused at home by Mum. It is been happening since I was two years old. I feel sad.” (Girl, aged 12)

    “I have been living with my nan since I was 12. Nan forced me to have sex with her last night and I don’t want to do this. I have nowhere else to live.” (Boy, aged 17)

    “My stepmum is sticking her fingers up my bum and other places just in front of my mum. This has been happening for a year. My mum is also doing the same thing. She asks me to have a bath with her and touches me in wrong places. My stepmum takes drugs and I see her once a month.” (Girl, aged six)

    From “Children talking to ChildLine about sexual abuse” – 2009

    Out of the Mouths Of Babes – so who is conflating what?

    As a Professor of Gender Studies, one would expect him to know that dismissing Sexual Abuse – Violence – Rape of any person is not acceptable and most un-feminist.

  947. Poor white men, having to face being mildly mistrusted by some people.

    Snort! The poor dears DO have such a difficult time of it, don’t they.

    Hi, there, familiar screen names. I imagine you’re as unsurprised by this as I.

    I’m sorry to see women disagreeing so much about who’s to blame for giving HS or any other freaky bigot shelter that they’re forgetting who to target. Of course it’s terribly annoying to those of us who can smell his rotting soul a mile away that this chartalan has been using women and feminism to line his pocketbook. But – SSDD, y’all – HE is using THEM. Why focus on how long any woman was used by him, feminist or not, no matter her ideology or palatability?

    Put an end to his nonsense going forward, starting today, by making his business on the backs of women impossible to conduct. Make amends for taking him seriously, if you have in the past (that requires more than not linking to him, it requires denouncing him).

    I think this calls for a neighborhood watch. Should you notice this suspicious person crawling around, looking for women to attach himself to (and later claim credit for “herding”), sound the alarm. Embarrass him. Don’t limit yourselves to his attempted murder, either. Evaluate exactly why this man is so intent on dominating women’s issues and women’s discussions (and women themselves) and notice how totally incapacitated and powerless he becomes when his stream of women’s time and attention is disrupted.

    Enough with the feeding frenzy. Pry this remora off, contain him, and keep swimming, women.

  948. I missed the shitstorm regarding the discussion. Perhaps it shouldn’t have been shut down – I wasn’t there to see it. I do believe that sometimes discussions *should* be shut down for emotional reasons.

    But what I see here is an apology for publishing the interview in the first place – an interview where Clarisse specifically says she often disagrees with him and that Hugo has a disturbing past. I see an apology for Clarisse’s actions, which I totally don’t get. Again, I did not participate in or even see the comment discussion. Then Clarisse posted that she believes his efforts at redemption are real and that his efforts to be a strong feminist thinker are real. That *she* believes it. So what the fuck are ya’ll apologizing for?

Comments are currently closed.