Meeting Him Where He’s At? Or Letting the Dude Off Too Easy.
Published by McBoing June 9th, 2006 in Advice, Dudes, FeminismAfter reading Hugo’s post on a young man who “isn’t ready” to embrace a pro-feminist ideology, I thought one thing. Okay, two things:
1) Hugo Schwyzer is an apologist tool.
2) Ol’ boy who complains that feminism can’t get him laid hasn’t met the right girls. There are plenty of feminist women in the college atmosphere, he just has to give up the shallow girls to remember them. And, doubtfully, they may indeed lay him, but first it requires him to see them as people instead of fancy masturbatory tools.
It is a complicated relationship, I know. Tools all around.
However, Hugo’s back-pattingly patronizing tone was way too much to handle, in which case, I’ll give the young man the advice he should have gotten.
I’m really struggling with whether or not I want to be a feminist man. I get that injustice and inequality exist, but at the same time, I don’t know why I have to get involved in this now, when I’m so young.
Well for one thing, it’s the right thing to do. Regardless of how you fret about how to get your dick wet, you have to remember that a worm is a worm is a worm, and a worm wonders things like “why should I wonder about half the populations’ rights when I ought to be worrying about getting my dick wet?”
The thing is, Pete continued, I don’t think girls want feminist guys! You know that whole thing where girls aren’t into nice guys but would rather have bad boys? It’s like they say they want one thing, but in reality they want another. If I want to meet girls and have fun, I have a lot more success when I don’t try and be pro-feminist. I mean, why should I be more feminist than the women around me?
In other words, Pete, you’d rather operate from false binaries than find partners that challenge your person and your intellect. In other words, as I mentioned above, you’re more worried about dipping the phallus into a fancy meatbox than worrying about moral philosophy, which includes ditching your friends that care more about celebrity ongoings than people and which ruffled skirt best shows off the funjunk for people who are, if as you present yourself is correct, are concerned with human rights and equality. If perhaps you wished to go that route, you’d stop asking shallow questions to ingratiate your professor for a grade and either pursue people who are on your level or ditch the facade and go for the pussy already.
My favorite give and take from the Hugo chronicles?
Why shouldn’t I wait to be a pro-feminist man until I’m older, when women will appreciate it? Why shouldn’t I be a player now, and have my fun?
I laughed gently, and reminded Pete of Augustine’s famous plea: “Give me continence, Lord, but not yet!” Pete got it, and chuckled too.
Because “players” are stupid. And any woman worth your time will look over a “player” for the earnest guy with a sense of humor. Because any woman worth your time will value herself enough to not be a plaything for a player and perhaps hook up with a guy she actually likes and values, and you, Pete, will actually get something out of that relationship other than laid. It’s called a win-win situation, and you, Pete, might win if you get into the groove and out of the game. Women may be competitive creatures, but they don’t want to play a part if they’re the prize and not active players. If you learned anything from your women’s studies classes, Hugo may have taught you that. It’s called “agency.” Crazy, I know.
I don’t know how much Pete got out of our conversation, but when he left, he said “Hugo, thanks. I know I’m going to be a pro-feminist — soon. But not just yet.” I laughed and told him “One day at a time, buddy, one day at a time.”
One day at a time. Like Pete’s is an addiction to pussy and not a full-fledged denial of women’s personhood. Whatever, Hugo, but don’t delude yourself that this is just an acknowledgement “for him to be where he was.”
I acknowledged the legitimacy of his feelings. I also encouraged him to think differently, be braver, and push himself forward “one day at a time.” To borrow a phrase from AA, a journey towards feminism is “progress not perfection.”
Hugo, sweetums, this isn’t AA, and this isn’t silly or something to be laughed about on your blog. You’ve just legitimized a guy’s feeling about boinking hott chicks away from an egalitarian relationship after he asked you for advice. It ain’t funny, and it ain’t cute. As a man who values himself as a feminist man among men, and a person who believes himself to be able to consolidate his Christianity with his feminism, Hugo has managed to both devalue women in a romantic and/or sexual realtionship for the favor of a student who would rather dry hump a chick at a frat party than, who knows? take her out for coffee? bother with philosophical conversation?
Player or feminist? For fuck’s sake, Hugo, pick a side.
Considering Hugo’s definite lack of pro-player-…ness?, I think the answer actually is the former. As a molder of young minds (hee hee), he’s gotta work with the clay he’s presented with. From long experience, and we all know about this at one level or another, patriarchal males considering giving up their privilege are pretty skittish. One loud noise (you’re gonna have to give up the ENTITLEMENT!) and it’s a stampede back to the comfortably wide-open spaces of anti-feminism.
That’s a value-neutral assessment; I wish it was as easy as getting the morons to see reason, but it just rarely works that way. Hugo’s wrap-up was, indeed, altogether too facile, but I think he did his best.
I agree that the way I wrote the post left it open to misinterpretation. The key thing I would like to stress is that unlike a great many folks who commented, I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING. I work, in the trenches, to try and bring young men who are profoundly hostile to anything that smells of feminism to a greater accountabilty in their lives. If I confront these guys, they’ll walk away with nothing at all but an even bigger chip on their shoulders; an incremental approach that encourages small changes is the one way that I have found that really works.
Feminism 101: Men have more authority on academic subjects than women by virtue of being male.
Lame. I get where you’re coming from, Hugo, but your answer is still a cop-out. Pete is the stereotypical “nice guy” and you let him off the hook.
Hugo- I gots no problems with the substance of most of your advice most of the time, but Pete was doing a classic “Nice Guy” manuever, and that shit can’t slide. Instead of calling him out on it, you gave him the benifit of the doubt based on your own experience as a young pro-feminist guy. Pete here is clearly not a pro-feminist yet, and it doesn’t sound like he’s going to spend the next 20 years soul-searching and studying the way you did. He doesn’t seem to be in any danger of becoming too wimpy. He wants his pussy now, and he thinks he can do this and then, when it’s convenient, like say when his daughter’s old enough to get fucked, switch to non-sexist feminist guy. Which is bullshit, and you should call him out on it.
Pete’s clearly a man’s man. Has some friends, probably plays a sport or is in a frat, whatever. I’ll bet he can handle critisism from his non-feminist theory teachers, his bosses or his coaches, but when it’s about feminism, suddenly he needs to be handled with the kid gloves lest he get skittish and run away. Maybe he can expect that sort of treatment from one ultra-understanding Christian male feminist, but he’d not likely to ever encounter that again. What he is going to get is women like Amanda or Bitch, Phd, who will straight out tell him that they did not get into feminism to coddle men who claim to be sympathetic.
Now, I’m not saying you have to be as harsh as McBoing was in his post, or as heartless as I would have been if he’d asked me. But you shouldn’t have coated your advice in so much sugar.
unlike a great many folks who commented, I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING.
Right. And the rest of us are just feminists in our spare time.
Now, see, there you go, Hugo. You’re the last chance to sharpen this young pro-feminist crayon before he’s unleashed upon a harsh harsh world. You’ve got to give him some static or else he’ll crumble like bleu cheese the first time he encounters his own BitchPhD. The girls aren’t going to give an inch, here. There’s too much stuff to do to slow down for every guy who would be a feminist if only we were nicer and not so scary an bitchy.
I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING.
Yes, don’t think that isn’t galling in and of itself.
You didn’t talk up the actual benefits of being a feminist man who isn’t confined by patriarchal standards of masculinity, you didn’t mention that male feminists make better lovers than patriarchal assholes, you didn’t mention that he’ll probably end up hurting a woman he likes because of all the patriarchal crap that he won’t be able to get rid of until he accepts that Patriarchy, despite its privelages, is a bad thing and needs to be shrugged off.
You talked about nothing but the downsides of being a feminist, about how you were a terrible feminist when you were his age, and basically painted feminism as this sackcloth & ashes penance that mature men eventually (after they’ve gotten the asshollery “out of their system” with a few rapes here and there and by treatment the women in his life like subhuman cattle) have to accept to be good people.
And, if you’ll excuse the internet psychietrickery, I think that was more for your ego’s sake than peter’s, you come off an aweful lot like you raelly like this idea of being a poor struggling feminist man who labors on, fighting for this noblest of causes, despite having renounced patriarchal privelage, which was so hard, and is always so tempting to drop.
But you’re strong! You won’t give into temptation, you’re angel, broody and messianic in nature, the man-pire with a soul.
You basically come off like you’ve got a buddah you need killing hugo, whether that’s an accurate assessment or me overanalysing you is for you to decide.
But the way you failed to convince peter that treating women like human beings was a good thing shows that you’ve got alot of room for improvement and I’d think seriously about which guy in that room you were justifying feminism for, because if you’re going to continue fighting in the trenchs for feminism, you better find out PDQ why you were unable to convince peter of the moral and personal benefits of being a feminist.
Oh, come on, gals. Us men are STOOPID and IRRATIONAL and we have to have all criticism fed to us in infinitesimal increments, otherwise we start sulking and committing acts of domestic violence and joining drum circles.
I mean, what would have happened if Hugo had asked something like “Are you looking for a woman with whom you have a humane, equal, sexually-oriented friendship, or are you looking to get laid? Because people prefer to be with people who like their whole person, as opposed to people who just want one thing from them whether it’s sex or to borrow their power tools”?
Confronted with RADICAL FEMINIST PROPAGANDA like that, Pete would probably have socked Hugo in the face on his way to go buy a mail order bride!
You women don’t have to deal with feminist issues on a day-to-day basis like Hugo does. You shouldn’t worry your pretty little heads about it.
And you, McBoing: why the radical feminist man act? Trying to get yourself laid?
No, he won’t crumble. Because, in fact, I also teach for a living, and I deal with anti-feminist young men all the time. Even sometimes when I’m not in the classroom! What with, you know, being a feminist even when I’m not being paid for it and all. Young men aren’t such hothouse flowers that you can’t just laugh at them when they say silly things and point out that not all girls think alike. And that if what they want is a relationship, then they should treat girls like people. And if what they want is pussy, then yeah, they can treat be a “player” and treat girls like things, and the girls will treat them like players, instead of people. Usually they’ll laugh at themselves when you point out how silly the dichotomy they’re setting up is, and actually most young men do really want to be treated like human beings. Part of which, imho, involves telling them the truth instead of treating them like they need to be spoon-fed.
It’s really not all that complicated.
Chris-McBoing and Marc got a contest going to see which edgy, punkass pro-feminst posts get who the most women’s panties FedExed to whom. Then they’re going to make panty-capes and wear them to taunt Hugo, but he’s going to have to act like he doesn’t care to avoid making his wife angry*. Childish, really, but what can you expect from men?
*Kidding, Hugo. And Hugo’s wife.
Kyso, frankly I don’t do capes. They are terribly unstylish.
You’d so wear a cape ironically. Maybe with a tube top. Are you man enough to wear a tube top?
what about pantyquilts though? Those are cool.
Chris-McBoing and Marc got a contest going to see which edgy, punkass pro-feminst posts get who the most women’s panties FedExed to whom
That’s just so, SO juvenile.
Prioriity mail is much more economical.
After tangling with a man on my blog today who was bound and determined to say that feminists are anti-sex despite all evidence to the contrary, I’m disinclined to say it’s the tone of the person confronting the sexist wanna be pro-feminist that’s the issue. It’s whether or not the young man is ready to grow up or not.
There’s something very turtleneck-wearing church youth minister about that exchange that makes me glad I installed a chemical eyewash in my bathroom.
I haven’t worn a turtleneck since about 1988.
Amanda, that’s really what I wish would have happened: “Grow up, Pete.”
Mentors can’t excuse the bad behaviors and philosophies of their mentees just because to do so is an uncomfortable confrontation.
Now that he has decided to put off his decision about treating half the population as though they were human, whats next? Does he consult his mentor on the cost benefit analysis of being a racist, perhaps a serial killer. Maybe he needs some advice about the advantages to be found in deciding to be a decent human being. Since being a feminist is too much work at this time, perhaps his future lies in human trafficing. Asshat.
“2) Ol’ boy who complains that feminism can’t get him laid hasn’t met the right girls. There are plenty of feminist women in the college atmosphere, he just has to give up the shallow girls to remember them. And, doubtfully, they may indeed lay him, but first it requires him to see them as people instead of fancy masturbatory tools.”
Wait a minute–being a feminist guy IS a strategy for getting laid? It’s just a strategy for getting laid by the right women, and getting to feel righteous about it afterwards? Thanks for straightening everything out, McBoing!
I’m sorry, but what is Hugo guilty of here, exactly? Not playing up the benefits of feminism enough for the kid? Admitting that sometimes being a feminist man is pretty fucking hard? I’m not sure what is so controversial about that–being a feminist period is pretty fucking hard.
I’m guessing that a kid who’s taken a couple of classes from Hugo is familiar with the moral reasoning behind feminism, and please do forgive Hugo for not just standing there and reciting it at him again. What is so shocking about responding to what the person was actually saying (”Man, feminism seems really hard and isn’t helping me get laid!”) by addressing the concerns raised (”Yeah, it is really hard, and yeah, it doesn’t–but it doesn’t necessarily hurt either, assuming you manage to avoid becoming a prat.”) instead of chewing him out for his moral fallibility? Sure, it isn’t quite as satisfying as a smack upside the head, but honey works better than vinegar. Yes, the kid walked away unconvinced, but what’s new about that? Persuasion fails all the damn time, and I really don’t think your suggestions would have worked any better, McBoing.
Hugo, for God’s sake, you’re over 30 and you have a PhD. You do not have to be defensive about ever having worn a turtleneck. Leave the sartorial snobbery to those who do ridiculous things like “Random 10″s. Sorry, Padre, it’s true, that practice is dumber than ketchup on pizza.
Yes, the kid walked away unconvinced, but what’s new about that?
Of course he walked away unconvinced. He was told, “Yeah, being a feminist isn’t that much fun, but you know, women are people too and all that, and, maybe getting laid isn’t the only thing you should be worrying about, heh heh heh.” Hell, I’m not a self-centered jackass college boy, and I’d blow that shit off too. When you say things like “I get that injustice and inequality exist, but at the same time, I don’t know why I have to get involved in this now, when I’m so young,” you have a serious head-up-your-ass problem that isn’t going to be solved with a hearty pat on the shoulder. The kid might become a feminist later, when he grows up and starts realizing that any girl worth knowing isn’t going to be sucking up any of his “player” shit, and that yeah, he really was kind of a jackass in college. But it isn’t going to be because he was given advice like this.
Well part of the problem with the advice is that the being a feminist has absolutely jack crap to do with getting laid.
I mean, can you imagine anybody saying to Hugo: “I get that the democrats have good ideas, but being a democrat is hard, and it’s not helping me get laid. Shouldn’t I wait to be a democrat until I’m older?”
The whole concept is retarded.
Look, there’s a tool for young men like this: It’s called hypocrisy.
Why can’t this kid go to the rallies and read the literature and write editorials and do all those feminist things, and still be a giant asswipe when he interacts with women on the personal level? The two aren’t mutually exclusive, or even really inter-related.
If he does this, one of two things will happen:
1.Da bitches will love him and line up to suck on his toes. If this happens then he’s getting laid and promoting feminist causes. Win-win.
2.Women will hate his guts, in which case we see that there’s no reason to be an dickhead, and feminism will, in fact, help you get laid.
It’s not the gentle tone of the advice that bothers me; I actually think it was perfectly fine.
What bothers me is that the completely moronic concept that reading a Gloria Steinem book will be like coating yourself in high-strength pussy-repelant was alowed to pass completely unchallenged.
Maybe Pete and I have different interpretations of what it means to be “pro-feminist” but I don’t see why his one night fuck buddy would ever need to know how much money he’s donated to NOW.
I don’t think the kid’s idea of being a feminist involves going to rallies and donating to NOW so much as being some kind of pussy-whipped cringing loser whose back girls will use as a launching pad to leap into the arms of the nearest dick-swinging asshole. In other words, he probably doesn’t know any actual girls or guys all that well.
“I agree that the way I wrote the post left it open to misinterpretation. The key thing I would like to stress is that unlike a great many folks who commented, I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING. I work, in the trenches, to try and bring young men who are profoundly hostile to anything that smells of feminism to a greater accountabilty in their lives. If I confront these guys, they’ll walk away with nothing at all but an even bigger chip on their shoulders; an incremental approach that encourages small changes is the one way that I have found that really works.”
See, I might believe that - if that was what you fuckin’ said in the first place.
I may not do this “for a living” but I am quite awarre that “incremental” approaches are sometimes useful - I too have a brain and actually deal with non-feminists upon occasion. But I’m not so much of a tool to pretend that I’m doing anything other than making small compromises for the greater good…and I don’t continue the facade any longer than I must.
Oh, and, what Dr. B said - times infinity.
The “nice guy/bad boy” discussion is a perennial favorite. I’m always interested in the variety of perespectives.
I would like to make one suggestion that, I think, would help the conversation. Every single time a guy says “You know, women say they want one thing and then consistently opt for another,” said guy is ruthlessly smacked down as though he had said “Women are merely the receptacles for my spooge.”
OK, so maybe his understanding of gender politics is not as finely attuned as yours. But rather than eat the guy up, why not offer something that will help him understand how the world really works?
I think the smackdowns are counter-productive- why would a guy that is obviously committed to understanding feminism and to treating women with dignity and equality bother to stick around and learn more when he is just gonna get shit on?
This isn’t about “getting laid.” it’s about meeting women in the real world and finding that everything you were taught to and tried to be as a progressive is wrong. Nice = weak. I’ve seen it over and over and over. And then when you question this equation, you are smacked down yet again for having the audacity to question the matriarchy.
OK, so maybe his understanding of gender politics is not as finely attuned as yours. But rather than eat the guy up, why not offer something that will help him understand how the world really works?
Smacking him down is a time-honored way to tell someone he’s wrong.
This isn’t about “getting laid.” it’s about meeting women in the real world and finding that everything you were taught to and tried to be as a progressive is wrong. Nice = weak. I’ve seen it over and over and over. And then when you question this equation, you are smacked down yet again for having the audacity to question the matriarchy.
You know what’s even worse than not getting laid in your early twenties? Being a good person (as opposed to a nice guy), having a life full of rewarding relationships with women as a partial result — some of them sexual — and then finding out that that means you’re some sort of nonprogressive asshole because clueless guys like nikkos conflate “nice” with “weak” with “progressive.”
Wait, that’s not worse. Because who cares what guys like kikkos think about sexual politics?
Nikkos, since you posted the same thing over at Pandagon, I’ll post the same thing here that I said to you there:
Nikkos, when is it up to me or any other woman to “nurture” these entitled twits? Hello, Pete’s fellow college feminist women (you know, the ones he wants to fuck) aren’t exactly being coddled when they fuck up.
And you know what? If the only reason why you’re into feminism is to pick up chicks, I’d rather you stay the fuck out of the movement and away from me. These guys can back when they get a visit from the clue fairy. But it’s not anyone’s job to “teach” a grown man that one should treat women like human beings because we are, after all, human beings. I’m not his fucking mommy.
When I was twenty and fucked up WRT race or class (or feminism), no one nurtured me, saying that golly I meant well and could be a wonderful commodity to the movement if only we’d invest the time and tiptoe around my fee-fee’s. Guess what–I lived. I came around because it made sense to me, I bothered to learn about the issues, and I didn’t assume that the fucking world should stop for me. If the privileged make their support for a cause conditional on the nuturing they get from those who have less privilege, they can fuck off and die. People have other priorities, like fighting for their rights, instead of applying ice packs to some random twit’s bruised ego.
Just for the sake of excessive cross-posting, I posted this in response to Piny’s linking to this thread on Feministe:
I taught a mens studies class to college-aged men. I don’t know how you could teach about rape and sexism to this demographic without being confrontational. We spend a class discussing the definition of rape (showing clips from both the accused and deliverance - the latter was particularly useful help the men’s empathy).
After we “discussed” personal opinions about rape, I told them what legal and academic definitions were. I can’t imagine how I could have taken an “incremental” approach to explaining to a man that date rape did indeed exist and was wrong (and illegal). It seemed like a time sucker when there was so much material to cover, but it was important to me that this issue above others was understood.
I found the confrontation helped build respect from the men - I found they were adverse to patronizing and condescending manipulation. I didn’t expect any of them to agree with me - or like me, but I’m happy to say that by the end of the class everyone was on board with rape - even the most priveledged and (sincerely) ignorant.
Does anyone else get the impression that this “Pete” guy can’t get laid for various reasons, and is just using his theoretical feminism as an excuse?
unlike a great many folks who commented, I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING.
And unlike those of us who are actually female, you don’t have to live with the results. Bitch, PLEASE. Talk about both hypocrisy AND condescension!
This actually makes me much angrier than the original post did; a person who makes mistakes is human, but a person who brushes off having a mistake pointed out to him by making an ad hominem attack is just an asshole.
I’m not defending anyone here but this:
I mean, why should I be more feminist than the women around me?
…does have a bit of truth in it. Your average young college hottie who wants to party does not necessarily evoke thoughts of feminism.
I like smart, strong, independent women. (That’s why i married one.) But it is not surprising to me that a young college age kid might ask this question.
I suspect we agree on what the answer to his question is: because it’s the right thing to do. Doesn’t mean you can’t party, too!
Michael, why do you think your average college age woman cares less than a college age man about her own rights? I’d start over and look past jerking off to “Girls Gone Wild” videos to figure out what college “hotties” are thinking.
And it’s interesting to me that the only acceptable young women for a Sensitive Feminist Young Man to date are beer-soaked “hotties” with no brains.
There are people who think that the Democrats have good ideas? There are people who think that the Democrats have ideas?
I’ll never understand American politics.
That aside as someone who has works quite a lot with people my age or younger I do find that sometimes non-direct comments are really effective (anytime someone uses the word ‘gay’ as an insult I say “dude, you kissed a girl, that’s so gay” - which gets the point across pretty directly, but doesn’t make anyone particularly defensive)
But I think that the problem with what Hugo said wasn’t that it was non-confrontational, but what he actually said. To me the message was the problem, not the way he delivered it.
Your average young college hottie who wants to party does not necessarily evoke thoughts of feminism.
Not if you can get past tired stereotypes of young college hotties. One can indeed party and have fun without being a moron or wanting to be treated like a sex object.
But luckily for the hotties, they tend to have enough guys to pick from that they actually like who aren’t whiny losers to look twice in “Pete”’s direction.
Celine said: “And unlike those of us who are actually female, you don’t have to live with the results. Bitch, PLEASE. Talk about both hypocrisy AND condescension!”
I am not a professional feminist advocate. Are you? Do you spend your days thinking about how best to educate people about feminism, about how to effectively communicate what being a feminist is and why it is worthwhile? Is this your vocation? If not, then what is so terribly offensive about pointing out that his professional experience might give him more insight on how to put young men on the right path than you or I?
Do you not see, heresiarch, the blatant contradiction in the very question you ask?
Hmm, no. Unless you are referring to the “contradiction” of telling a feminist woman that a feminist man might know better how to get people to be feminist, in which case I acknowledge the…counterintuitiveness of my argument, but deny its contradictory. Or did you have something else in mind?
Well, this sucks.
On the one hand, Hugo’s comments on this matter have been incredibly stupid. That he made them doesn’t bother me; everybody says stupid things from time to time. I do it more often than most. That’s why we have this wonderful concept called an apology. What bothers me–shades of Trent Lott’s Thurmond comments here–is his unwillingness to recognize he said something stupid, admit he was wrong, and apologize for it. That’s what I did when I responded to bizarre attacks on a feminist blogger’s looks by describing her as pretty–which seemed like the natural thing to do thing to say until I later realized that it validated the original basis of the criticism, namely the whole idea that women, no matter what they try to accomplish in life, are always on some giant cosmic hotornot.com database. Okay. I got that. I apologized for my mistake. Two days later, I read a blog entry from Hugo castigating men for making that mistake, and realized that he was either a good feminist or he was willing to parrot people who were. His failure to apologize here makes him look like he was just being a cocky know-it-all–saying what he said so that he could appear better, more enlightened, than other men. The feminist equivalent to men who go around saying “Wonderful Tonight” is their favorite Eric Clapton song when they don’t really mean it.
On the other hand, Hugo was the only male feminist blogger I really liked. He’s the only male on my top 10 feminist blogs list. If even he’s too tied up in his male entitlement–”I live in the trenches,” natch–to take feminist criticisms of himself seriously, then I don’t know what male feminist blogger I’m supposed to look up to. So I hope he does the right thing, apologizes for his comments, and maybe explains to Pete that looking at women as potential objects for sexual gratification isn’t such a swell idea in general. As a feminist and a Christian, Hugo has at least two reasons to counsel a young man that he shouldn’t organize his life and beliefs around what might be most likely to get him laid.
I mean, sure, sometimes it does feel like the men who have the most sexual “success” with women are those who have no respect for women as people, who make inappropriate comments, who come across as aggressive and predatory. That’s a legitimate feeling for a young man to have, and I can understand why Hugo might want to treat that feeling with compassion–but don’t mistake it for a legitimate idea, because it isn’t. It’s an incredibly stupid idea, and it will lead Pete down a very dark and lonely road paved with bitterness and misogyny and the feeling that all women want is to be treated like shit. Nothing good will come of that. One male feminist to another, Hugo: He’s obviously willing to listen to you or he never would have asked for your advice, so show him a better way.
Cheers,
TH
Why is it so important for you fascists that everybody things like you?
Hugo may do this “for a living” but we live it.
Can you imagine a white african-american-studies professor saying something similar in the same fucking tone to a group of african-american bloggers?
It’s one thing to simply argue that his method works, it’s another to claim after the fact that he didn’t really see eye to eye with Pete after all - it was just a strategy, see? - and then in the same breath claim superiority rather than simply argue the method based on it’s own merit.
Now see, this is what Hugo *is* doing. He thinks he can do both, and he is making *tons* of men like this with his *radical* teaching. So ingenious don’t you think?
A whole slew of *trolls*.
I sware to god, the first post I ever seen of either Hugo’s or Freeman’s isn’t a *learning* feminist but both posers. They are trolls period, just to incite the community.
But well, that’s my opinion.
Mickle, I’m sure that even Hugo would be aghast if a white academic were so blatantly racist. But it doesn’t even register to him, or to his defenders apparently, that what he has done is equivalent in its arrogance.
Claiming that academic or professional feminist experience somehow puts you in a position of knowing more/better than “ordinary” women is anti-feminist in and of itself, even if it’s coming from a woman. Coming from a man, no matter how pro-feminist he claims to be, it’s outright unacceptable.
Of course it’s acceptable, Crys T! Who cares! He’s a MAY-YUN! Yeah, I’m kickin it Ten Commandments-style.
But let’s be straight here, people. I and many other women do the “pro-feminist” thing FOR A LIVING, as well. I have a vagina. I date. I fuck. I live in the world. I’m in law school. I work alongside male lawyers. And I’m constantly educating men on how they are and are not to behave and treat me. Don’t interrupt me. Don’t pressure me. Don’t assume you can or can’t fuck me based on how you feel or what you say. Don’t assume I will or won’t fuck you based on how you feel or what you say. Don’t patronize me. Don’t belittle me. Don’t forget I’m a human being just like you, even though–horrors!–I have a VULVA.
But of course that doesn’t matter, does it, this woman’s work. I guess being a feminist is like cleaning the toilet–when a woman does it full-time, it’s something to be denigrated, but when a man does it part-time, he deserves a medal.
Well, hoorah. No fucking thank you.
Or did you have something else in mind?
If he’s so skilled in communicating feminism, why is it he can’t seem to do so without feminists getting royally pissed off at him?
I write about feminism fairly often, and in a rather didactic tone at times, and while feminist women often disagree with me I rarely get reamed the way Hugo does. Wouldn’t a skilled professional communicator get reamed less often than a schlub like myself, who doesn’t do feminism “for a living”?
Crys T said: “Mickle, I’m sure that even Hugo would be aghast if a white academic were so blatantly racist. But it doesn’t even register to him, or to his defenders apparently, that what he has done is equivalent in its arrogance.
Claiming that academic or professional feminist experience somehow puts you in a position of knowing more/better than “ordinary” women is anti-feminist in and of itself, even if it’s coming from a woman. Coming from a man, no matter how pro-feminist he claims to be, it’s outright unacceptable.”
Speaking a someone busy defending Hugo, believe me, it registers. When I read his “FOR A LIVING” comment, I winced. He could not have phrased that more patronizingly. But patronizing does not equal wrong.
Academic or professional experience DOES put someone in a position of knowing more/better than other people. That is the point. It means they know more/better about the academic and professional aspects of whatever it is that they specialize in. I don’t really think it’s a strange idea that an economic sociologist might know more about being poor than an actual poor person. Certainly they don’t know what it feels like–their knowledge of poverty is academic. But within their sphere, their knowledge is better.
Being female does not automatically endow one with a flawless knowledge of feminism. CWA has certainly proved that. It follows that all feminism is a process of learning, and it is quite possible for a man to further along that path than a woman. Are there areas of feminism that are forever outside of his reach? Of course–he will never know what it is like to be a woman, to be forced to deal with patriarchal bullshit everyday. By the same token, no woman will ever know what it is like to be a feminist man, forced to deal with patriarchal bullshit everyday. A feminist man, then, quite likely is better able to understand another man who is in the process of becoming a feminist, because he has been there.
Hugo works trying to reach out to young men every day. I think that he has probably a lot more experience and insight on how to do so than you or I. When he says, “If I confront these guys, they’ll walk away with nothing at all but an even bigger chip on their shoulders,” I am inclined to think that he is speaking from experience. There is a difference, an important difference, between an environmentalist and a professional environmentalist advocate. Believing the message and understanding the best strategies for conveying it are two entirely different things. Hugo spends his time working on how best to convey the message of feminism to young men–not exactly the most receptive crowd.
This is, by the way, something liberals consistently fail to understand, that being right isn’t enough: you also have to be able to convince people that you are right, and that requires very different skills. It really doesn’t work to smack them upside the head until they get it.
P.S. I know it might be hard to believe, but I’m not saying that no one should criticize Hugo and that he can do no wrong. Personally I think he could have been tougher on Pete too. All I am advocating is that you engage him critically and rationally. and don’t immediately assume that if he handles a situation differently than you would it means he’s been faking his feminism all along. Everyone has something to learn, but they aren’t going to learn it if you are screaming it in their face, spittle flying.
heresiarch writes:
This is, by the way, something liberals consistently fail to understand, that being right isn’t enough: you also have to be able to convince people that you are right, and that requires very different skills. It really doesn’t work to smack them upside the head until they get it.
It also doesn’t really work to patronize them and blow them off. If Hugo made a vigorous argument in favor of his position, one that acknowledged how it must have looked, then fine, that would have been an acceptable alternative to an apology. At least he would have recognized the legitimacy of the criticism. But blowing off his critics because he’s a Big Male Academic Who Knows More exploits exactly the kind of privilege he claims to be an expert at dismantling.
I feel terrible criticizing Hugo, because after posting my last message I read his blog and realized he is going through an awful lot right now. And maybe that played a role in all this. But if he seriously considers himself a feminist, he really needs to reevaluate how willing he is to dismiss the legitimate criticisms of women, whether he entirely agrees with those criticisms or not.
I don’t automatically roll over when a feminist says something just because it’s a feminist saying it–I have had very vigorous arguments with many feminists. But if a fellow feminist–a named feminist, someone I have a history with–makes a valid critique of something I’ve said or done, I at least try to have the decency to take the complaint seriously.
You can’t be a feminist if you believe that your privilege as a male academic means that you can safely dismiss the life experiences of women. Hugo’s behavior here makes a strong and compelling argument that men should not be teaching women’s studies or assuming leadership roles in feminist organizations, because if they get rankled they will revert right back to their old chauvinist habits. And that’s a shame, because I happen to believe that men can do these things. I just wish I had more evidence to support that hypothesis.
Cheers,
TH,
who serves as Public and Community Outreach Chair for the Jackson, Mississippi chapter of NOW,
and, having seen this, is more grateful than ever that the women leading this group were willing to overlook his gender in giving him that position.
When he says, “If I confront these guys, they’ll walk away with nothing at all but an even bigger chip on their shoulders,” I am inclined to think that he is speaking from experience.
but he’s just weilding a false dichotomy to invalidate his critics, he says that there’s more to being a feminist man than being either a whimp or a jerk, yet repeatedly affirms this idea that you’re either gonna be so incredibly mean to a man taht they’ll swear off feminism for life or you’ll do waht hugo did, which is being so whimpy in your feminism that you do nothing but confirm his beliefs in the negative aspects of feminism, to the poitn where he is turned away from feminism anyway, because all the patriarchal myths he’s been taught have been confirmed by an actual feminist, who must know waht he’s talking about.
You can be forceful and challenge a person’s false beliefs, while also not scaring them off, it is possible.
As long as you’re willing to actually risk disagreeing and be confrontational with other men that is, which I guess must be a scarey thing, after all, it’s one thing to challenge patriarchy in your head, and quite another to challenge patriarchy in front of other men, the loss of homosocial status alone must be a terrible thing to have to endure.
Probably about as scarey as coming out is for homosexuals.
If he’s so skilled in communicating feminism, why is it he can’t seem to do so without feminists getting royally pissed off at him?
I write about feminism fairly often, and in a rather didactic tone at times, and while feminist women often disagree with me I rarely get reamed the way Hugo does. Wouldn’t a skilled professional communicator get reamed less often than a schlub like myself, who doesn’t do feminism “for a living”?
And if so many women and feminists find his feminism as presented to downy straight dudes abhorrent, is it really all that feminist?
I’m not a woman, but….
Things that I find annoying:
1) The comment that started the battle here and the attitude it seems to represent.
2) A tendency towards essentialism; my objections should be self-explanatory.
3) The way that so very many of his “what I think about what women/feminists think” (see his reply to Pete and a post that’s a short scroll down his blog) start with, “some random woman said this to me once, and I find it very insightful and poignant.” If someone did that to me wrt trans issues, I would probably start to find it obnoxious really quickly. There’s no consensus among women; it certainly doesn’t betray itself in off-the-cuff utterances by unnamed individuals.
4) Some things I haven’t figured out how to articulate.
Why you _don’t_ piss me off:
1) You agree with me.
2) But seriously, though: while you seem very opinionated, you don’t seem as defensive.
3) You have never, ever used your experience with these discussions as proof that you should be listened to, or that you know better.
4) When I encounter you, you seem to be engaged with actual feminist writers in a position to respond to your response.
5) This could very well be a personal quirk, but I’ll take a sarcastic, potty-mouthed bastard over a polite civility type any day of the week.
Michael, why do you think your average college age woman cares less than a college age man about her own rights? I’d start over and look past jerking off to “Girls Gone Wild” videos to figure out what college “hotties” are thinking.
I DON’T think college age girls care less about their rights. That doesn’t mean that they are all overly aware or active in feminist issues. It is completely legal for women to not be feminist activists. Some of them at that age want to dress up pretty and date hot guys. That’s OK, isn’t it? If it’s OK for women to not be feminist activists is it also possibly OK for men not to be feminist activists? I think a lot of people who agree completely with gender equality do not describe themselves as feminists.
I’d like to use the race analogy, too: let’s say I’m a white dude in college and I hang out with a bunch of black people. Let’s say that my black friends are not particularly activists when it comes to race issues. Said white dude might be forgiven for thinking — my black friends aren’t overly active about race issues and it probably effects them every day so maybe I shouldn’t feel bad if I’m not overly active in race issues.
No one in the above paragraph is a racist, they are just college kids having fun and not necessarily super aware or active in race issues. I suspect this is common. Hell, it’s even a good thing when minorities can forget about being minorities for a while.
If Peter or whatever is in fact hanging out with women for which feminist issues are not particularly important at this stage in their life, can he be forgiven for asking the question he asked? It doesn’t mean he is a misogynist or something. Just like not working on race issues doesn’t make me a racist, not working on feminist issues does not make me a sexist.
Heresiarch: I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you on certain points. Being an academic MAY (and, speaking as an academic, I have to stress that “may”–I’ve known far too many clueless academics not to) allow you to know more about THEORY. It does not and never will mean that you know more about the day-to-day, real-life, practical aspects of your subject (speaking from a social science/social psychology angle–other types of fields may vary, what do I know?).
My specialty is minority languages. I know a hell of a lot more theory regarding the politics, attitudes, etc. etc. than most (but by no means all) speakers of minority languages. What I do NOT know and, most importantly, WOULD NEVER IN MY LIFE EVER MAKE THE CLAIM OF KNOWING is what it truly means to be someone whose language is minority or minoritised. I would simply never be that stupid. And would certainly never ever EVER counter criticisms made by genuine speakers of those languages with “well, ya know, I’m doing REAL WORK in this field, so nyah!”
To assume that because you’ve read a few (or even a shitload) of books and articles, and taught a few (or even a shitload) of classes on a topic that you know more or better than the very people who make up the group your work revolves around is the height of arrogance.
And no, every woman is not an expert on “feminism” or “feminist theory”, but I’d like to point out that most of the women who are criticising Hugo are active feminists ourselves. Not only do we know the theory as well or possibly better than he does, we’ve got the practical side down: we live it 24/7–we’ve got no choice, there’s no way of escaping it even if we wanted. And that is something that can Hugo never, ever do.
How DARE he assume a position of “expertise” in front of us? And how dare any of you try to support him in doing so? He fucked up, and badly.
I don’t know what male feminist blogger I’m supposed to look up to.
You might try this man.
It is completely legal for women to not be feminist activists. Some of them at that age want to dress up pretty and date hot guys.
Why in the hell should anyone have to choose between being pretty and dating hot guys and being a feminist? What the hell do you think feminists do, go around bleating Gloria Steinem at everyone they see? If some clueless guy flaunts his feminist cred to try to pick up girls, then yeah, he’s going to figure out pretty quickly that “being a feminist” just reveals him as the insincere jackass he is.
That first line was a quote from Tom Head, by the way.
Academic or professional experience DOES put someone in a position of knowing more/better than other people.
No, it doesn’t. Trust me. One might hope this to be the case but it sadly often isn’t.
Besides, any academic or professional who actually does know “more/better than other people” should damn well be able to argue their methods based on their merit rather than taking the cop-out of “but….but….I’m a professional - you need to listen to what I say!” Especially someone whose profession is teaching.
That fact that Hugo has so far pretty much taken the cop-out screams “I know I’m wrong but I’m scared to admit it” to me.
Unless Hugo does extensive follow-up studies regarding how these young men treat the women around them afterwards - in ways that include women’s voices and not just young men’s - his stories are just as anecdotal as mine. And I’ve yet to convince any guy (who didn’t already do so) to treat me as if he thought I was human without a hell of a lot of shouting - or at least getting up in his face and being really bitchy and calling bullshit quite often. I have, otoh, dealt with plenty of guys who think that they are “nice” or above feminist reproach because of one or two simple “nice” things they do for women. Guys like Pete. In my experience, such men tend to overlook the obvious - that they in particular piss me off - and instead think that I don’t like men in general. Rather like how Pete and Hugo seem to think a large number of women prefer “bad boys” to “nice guys” like them simply because they are “bad” rather than because a particular “bad boy” happens to be hotter, an easier lay, or more interesting to hang out with than they are.
Hugo says he had trouble challenging Pete’s attitude because he was the same way at that age. Which sounds kinda like a parent who did drugs not feeling like they have the moral authority to forbid their teens from doing so to me. Which is not only always bullshit (the fact that one’s parents are less than perfect does not make their mistakes any less of mistakes) but one would hope a 20 year-old would be mostly over that particular style of short-term selfish logic. If Pete isn’t, he’s got bigger issues than just deciding which he wants more: pussy or a clean consience. Which would also mean that Hugo did Pete an extreme disservice by not challenging the underlying narrow-minded selfishness of his decision making process.
I’m thinking people get the idea that being wishy-washy “works” on these guys because they aren’t stomping off declaring that feminists are all evil bitches.
I generally really like Hugo’s blog and appreciate what he’s trying to do.
That said:
The problem about the whole nice guys thing that niggles me every time it comes up is this: it shunts responsibility back on women as a homogenous group, and traps everyone.
Frankly, every time I’ve had trouble with dating in my life, my reaction hasn’t been to make sweeping statements about “men”. ( Certainly, there is a female culture like that: look at any women’s mag. That, to me, is the other side of the patriarchy. )
“Men” don’t all have one way of relating.
My reaction has always been to look first to myself - my behaviour, my expectations, and where I’m selling myself short. Generally, I’ve raised my expectations both of myself and of my potential partners; I’ve examined my own criteria for selection. There does tend to be trends in who we pick to woo.
In my experience, my guy friends who pick women who pick jerks tend to ignore female friends as “one of the guys”: in other words, they divide the world into ‘women they are friends with’ and ‘women they’d like to sleep with’. When I was younger, I heard a LOT of this crap. I would always call the guys on it; sometimes rudely, sometimes with compassion, depending on the guy - but I would leave feminism out of it. My rights as a person are way more important than a 20-something’s bullshit internalized psychodrama of who he’d like to fuck, and I’m not going to legitimize his angst by giving him permission to use “feminism” as a player in that drama.
Anyway, if I was getting bad reactions from other people, self-analysis would be the first step, not the last. The great benefit to Pete in this is that he learns he’s in the driver’s seat - he is both responsible, and able to change, the way he relates in a way that’s more beneficial.
In this, I am disappointed with Hugo’s reaction.
Feminism doesn’t even have to enter into it. Women certainly don’t have to, as a group. This is between Pete and Pete, and to drag the rest of us into his psychodrama is unfair.
Or, as I read somewhere: “The reward for not being a jerk is not being a jerk. Getting laid is an entirely seperate issue.”
I’m quite surprised to see this attitude of “academic = knows better than relevant layperson” attitude coming from hugo, because I generally only encounter it amongst people who are very new to their field of study. Mine is Religious Studies, and I’ve seriously lost count of the number of times I’ve seen an eager new student lecture an actual Christian/Jew/Muslim/Scientologist/whatever they studied this semester on what they ACTUALLY believe and why.
It doesn’t work that way. We might know the specifics of where and when beliefs became part of the theological lexicon, we might have spent hours debating the relevant comparitive theology, and we may have studied the texts til we can recite them in our sleep, but once it gets into the realm of actual belief and practice of a religion by those people who adhere to it, our theoretical knowledge is simply that… theoretical.
Frankly, it’s fairly insulting to think that your theoretical knowledge trumps someone else’s actually-living-it-knowledge.
But then, I’m not one for coddling privileged males at all, whether they’re expressing an interest in feminism or not. Good for them. They should be. When they actually get around to growing up and recognising that they don’t deserve a cookie just for expressing an interest, I might consider them worth encouraging.
Most of the criticisms that people have been bringing up recently, like Tom Head’s, Crys T’s and Mickle’s, are fair. I agree with some, disagree with others, but all of them are questions worth asking. They are, I’d like to note, a far cry from the vicious attacks that characterized this thread for the first half. I don’t think Hugo can do no wrong–I think he can, and, in this case, has done so. But discussing what he has done wrong is an entirely different effort than issuing blanket indictments of everything he has ever done.
Chris Clarke said: “If he’s so skilled in communicating feminism, why is it he can’t seem to do so without feminists getting royally pissed off at him?”
Everyone misspeaks from time to time. His “FOR A LIVING” comment could be interpreted as chauvinistic, but it could also be interpreted as simply overly defensive. It is his life’s work that is being criticized here, and rather viciously. I’m not claiming it wasn’t a dumb thing to say–it’s just not necessarily a sexist thing to say. As for why he hasn’t returned to clarify, well, apparently he’s a little distracted right now.
Tom Head said: “You can’t be a feminist if you believe that your privilege as a male academic means that you can safely dismiss the life experiences of women.”
A lot of people here are dismissing the value of his life experiences as a feminist man. Why is it so difficult to imagine that a feminist man might have some insights into how to convince another man to become a feminist, insights that a woman couldn’t have? I think this whole thread is in itself an argument for the potential value of Hugo’s non-confrontational strategy. If you are uncomprising and confrontational, then the person you are arguing with is going to respond confrontationally. This is especially true with young men. If you make it a discussion rather than an argument, then their reaction shifts from wanting to prove you wrong to trying to understand your position.
Crys T said: “What I do NOT know and, most importantly, WOULD NEVER IN MY LIFE EVER MAKE THE CLAIM OF KNOWING is what it truly means to be someone whose language is minority or minoritised.”
He never made that kind of claim. He made a specific claim that he thought he was better at convincing young men to adopt feminism. He essentially has two credentials to back this up: 1) He has himself gone through the same transition he is attempting to guide these men through and 2) Doing this is the focus of his intellectual time and effort. The second can certainly be matched and exceeded by many women. But what woman can contest the first? In a way, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse Hugo of: you are arguing that your knowledge of feminism is more relevant than his. In this (quite specific) context, I think you are wrong.
Mickle said: “No, it doesn’t. Trust me. One might hope this to be the case but it sadly often isn’t.”
I’m really not terribly sympathetic to the “experts really don’t know what they are doing” argument. It smacks of anti-intellectualism. Twenty professors full of shit doesn’t change the value of one professor who isn’t.
“That fact that Hugo has so far pretty much taken the cop-out screams “I know I’m wrong but I’m scared to admit it” to me.”
Go read Hugo’s post I linked above. He plans on responding, but life is interfering.
hexy said: “Frankly, it’s fairly insulting to think that your theoretical knowledge trumps someone else’s actually-living-it-knowledge.”
Theoretical knowledge is different than experiential knowledge. Neither is a substitute for the other. Their relative usefullness varies with the situation. If you don’t believe me, then go fly in an airplane with wings designed by pilots rather than aeronautics scientists. I’m sure the pilots’ flying experience will more than compensate for their lack of “theoretical” knowledge.
heresiarch, thanks for your post. I certainly have no desire to crucify Hugo; on his worst day, he’s probably a better feminist than most male progressives are on their best.
The danger of being a male women’s studies professor, and someone whose blog focuses on feminism, is that people expect you to take seriously the perspectives of women. He could honestly apologize. He could honestly disagree and stand his ground. But to dismiss these perspectives out of hand, simply because he’s a women’s studies professor and claims authority figure status, strikes me as an appeal to privilege. It reminds me very much of Kos’ glib dismissal of the “sanctimonious women’s studies set.” Coming from an average male progressive, it would be typical. Coming from me, it would be embarrassing. Coming from Hugo, it’s tragic.
Cheers,
TH
See, you’re annoying me a bit here, heresiarch, because I, and I believe some other commentors here, don’t care about his non-confrontational style.
What I do care about is the fact that he left the central premise unchallenged, in spite of the fact that it is profoundly stupid. And I say this as a man only 2 years Pete’s senior. It’s stupid enough that it should be easy enough to challenge, even in a non-controversial way.
Even a simple, “Is it possible there’s more to being feminist then how you interact with women on a personal level?” would challenge his assumption.
Secondly,
Well, yeah, it actually IS kind of a strange idea, hinging on how you define the phrase “know more about being poor”.
Roughly speaking, there are two kinds of knowledge; learned and experiential. Any given discipline will have a mix of the two, in different proportions. Mathematics is entirely learned; Anthropology, on the other hand, is mostly experiential, and is the discipline I always think of when I hear people say things like this.
Consider an anthropologist who studies the city of Borpo. One day, he meets a man from Borpo and the following conversation takes place:
Anthropologist: It is well known that Borpians observe a strict vegetarian diet.
Borpian: This is not true; Many of us myself included, eat meat.
Anthropologist: Look, I’ve spent years studying your culture. I do it for a living. I think I know what I’m talking about.
Does the anthropologists retort make a lick of sense? No, it really doesn’t.
Similarly, an economic sociologist only knows more about being poor then poor people in the sense that some of his discipline involves a learning element, or, more specifically, that his discipline involves sampling a wider scope of poor and rich people then any given lifetime does.
To put it another way, he may no more about WHY I became poor then I do, but he doesn’t know more about what I do now that I am poor.
I don’t know if that makes sense, but my point is this; The more of an experiential basis your discipline has, the more cautious you must be about asserting your superior knowledge. A mathematician can throw his credentials around all the live-long day, but a feminist needs to be a lot more careful.
“Everyone misspeaks from time to time. His ‘FOR A LIVING’ comment could be interpreted as chauvinistic, but it could also be interpreted as simply overly defensive. It is his life’s work that is being criticized here, and rather viciously. I’m not claiming it wasn’t a dumb thing to say–it’s just not necessarily a sexist thing to say.”
You don’t have to MEAN to be sexist to be sexist. You don’t have to MEAN to say sexist things to say sexist things.
Once again, if it were a white African-American studies professor reacting to black criticism with “I do this FOR A LIVING,” would we think of the ensuing criticism as “vicious”? Or “well-founded”?
What Christopher said. Hugo could very well have challenged the young man’s beliefs in a non-aggressive, non-confrontational way. But he didn’t. He made it look as if feminism really IS dreary and dull–the end of hot sex and fun, and that it’s perfectly okay to “put it off” till later in life.
It’s not okay. Above, someone compared being feminist/pro-feminist to being an anti-racist activist. Wrong. “Anti-racist activist” is to “feminist activist” as “anti-racist” is to “feminist.” No one is suggesting that this young man should be a feminist/pro-feminist ACTIVIST, merely that he should not be sexist. I doubt even Hugo’s most loyal defenders would say it was okay for a white person to say, “You know, it’s just too damn fun being racist–I think I’ll put off becoming anti-racist till the fun wears off.” That is an attitude that is simply unacceptable. And so is being sexist because it’s “fun.”
Get the message, all of you who are defending Hugo (and it wouldn’t hurt Hugo to get his head round this, either–for real, this time): Women are human beings, and it IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to think we are not or behave as if we are not.
Tom Head: No argument. I am not defending Hugo’s behavior. He’s handled this situation very badly. I’m just saying that maybe we shouldn’t take “acting like an asshole” for “insincere feminist with no legitimate position.”
Christopher said: “I don’t know if that makes sense, but my point is this; The more of an experiential basis your discipline has, the more cautious you must be about asserting your superior knowledge. A mathematician can throw his credentials around all the live-long day, but a feminist needs to be a lot more careful.”
Good point. Though let me say, I’m really not confused about the value of experiential knowledge versus academic knowledge. Your example sentence could easily be inverted: Borpian: “All Borpians are vegetarian!” Anthro: “Actually, there is a small sub-population in the East-most district who eat meat.” Borpian: “Every Borpian I have ever met is a vegetarian, and I’ve lived here my whole life! I know better than you, outsider!” If, however, I wanted to find the best restaurant in town, I’d doubtlessly ask the local–unless the anthropologist was a culinary anthropoligist. The relationship between the two is far too complex to simply say one is better than the other. They are mostly just different.
Mary said: “You don’t have to MEAN to be sexist to be sexist. You don’t have to MEAN to say sexist things to say sexist things.”
This sounds like you are arguing that any time a male invokes privilege, he is invoking patriarchal privilege. That it is impossible that Hugo was simply being an elitist rather than a patriarchist. Is this what you are claiming?
Crys T said: “Hugo could very well have challenged the young man’s beliefs in a non-aggressive, non-confrontational way. But he didn’t. He made it look as if feminism really IS dreary and dull–the end of hot sex and fun, and that it’s perfectly okay to “put it off” till later in life.”
This is demonstrably not what Hugo said. He said “there’s more to life as a man than choosing between being a wimp or a jerk!” and “Pro-feminism is not about turning men into eager and attentive servants or rescuing knights in shining armor. It’s possible to learn to renounce male privilege while retaining a strong, bold, sense of oneself.” In other words, he said that feminism was not the alternative to being a confident and attractive person. In other words, he challenged the basis of Pete’s argument. He did. It’s right there. Somewhat buried among his tangential musings, but it is undeniably there.
heresiarch, you’re right here:
And I thought about addressing this in my post but I decided not to because I didn’t want to dilute the message to avoid putting anyone off. Hugo actually had quite a few good things to say, but he also employed Pete’s false binaries to explain What Women Want.
I was willing to forgive and forget and let bloggones be bloggones until I was told that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I don’t get paid to work with young men.
Which, incidentally, I do.
That it is impossible that Hugo was simply being an elitist rather than a patriarchist.
It is however a patriarchal privelage for a guy to use elitism to shut down his critics.
In a patriarchal society the only letters that go before a woman’s name and give her opinion on some matters any sort of weight are M, R and S.
he challenged the basis of Pete’s argument.
He didn’t actually, no matter how valid what hugo said was, it had nothing to do with pete’s basic assertion that women don’t like feminist guys, as proven by hugo’s displaying of RealDoll Jackie, the self-loathing strawfeminist, who says that she wanted to marry a pro-feminist man someday, but until then, she was going to have her fun with men she referred to as “dangerous assholes who turn me on.”
He then whips out, of all things, augustine, thus connecting not being a feminist with having fun and feminism with chaste whimpy asexuality in pete’s non-theologically minded mind. Hugo meant to connect pete’s attitude towards feminism with a sinner’s attitude towards christian salvation, unfortunately pete wasn’t thinking in biblical terms, if he was even likely to remember the full context of the quote in the first place.
That is were he lost pete, for pete then paraphrases the augstine quote back at hugo as he leaves, to which hugo replies with a reference to addiction rehab, which generally involves the AA (or whatever) members foregoing the drug or behavior in question forever more, which in this case would require sexual celibacy for life.
So pete comes in with the notion that feminist guys don’t get pussy, and that there was no real higher moral obligation to be a feminist, and pete leaves with the same notions.
I wouldn’t call that “challenging” pete’s arguement personally.
Exactly: what Hugo did was give lip service to the Party Line, while simultaneously giving support to all those negative ideas that Pete walked in the door with.
The little between-us-guys knowing chuckle at the very when he tells Pete it’s a-OK to keep treating women as subhuman fuckholes, just so long as “one day” Pete’ll change his tactics completely undermines any impact that his previous lecture on what pro-feminism is/isn’t might have had.
heresiarch writes:
No argument. I am not defending Hugo’s behavior. He’s handled this situation very badly. I’m just saying that maybe we shouldn’t take “acting like an asshole” for “insincere feminist with no legitimate position.”
Point taken. And really, anyone who thinks that men ever completely leave sexism behind is being optimistic. It’s a chronic disease with no cure. You treat the symptoms, and they will recur. If you don’t say sexist things, you will think sexist things. Ditto racism and whites. Ditto heterosexism and straights. You can’t just scrub this stuff off; it poisons us down to the bone.
Of course, Hugo isn’t treating this symptom very well right now. I hope that, when his life settles down, he recognizes what he did wrong, what he did wronger when people pointed out what he did wrong, and moves ahead.
I’ve generally liked Hugo’s blog in the past, but I notice an elitist tone in it from time to time. Remembering how badly Hugo screwed up in this case will actually make his blog a lot more readable for me, because I will recognize that his criticisms of other men’s honest mistakes are not to be taken too seriously. What was it the itinerant preacher once said? “Judge not, lest ye be judged”?
If Hugo weren’t Hugo, Hugo would be very hard on Hugo right now. But at least he’s no Kos.
Cheers,
TH
heresiarch: “This sounds like you are arguing that any time a male invokes privilege, he is invoking patriarchal privilege. That it is impossible that Hugo was simply being an elitist rather than a patriarchist. Is this what you are claiming?”
What I am claiming is that Hugo didn’t have to mean for “FOR A LIVING” to be sexist for it to be so. Your dichotomy between “elitist” and “sexist” is a false one; in case you hadn’t noticed, he’s using his “elitism” to belittle WOMEN and FEMINISTS. That is sexist.
Theoretical knowledge is different than experiential knowledge. Neither is a substitute for the other. Their relative usefullness varies with the situation. If you don’t believe me, then go fly in an airplane with wings designed by pilots rather than aeronautics scientists. I’m sure the pilots’ flying experience will more than compensate for their lack of “theoretical” knowledge.
Faulty metaphor. Firstly, I never said that theoretical knowledge was not important, I just said it didn’t and doesn’t trump practical experience. Being in an anthropological field of study myself, I’m well aware of the importance and value of that theoretical study and perspective. In fact, I’m quite a fan.
Secondly, there is a big difference between science/design and anthropological study, and there’s a big difference between the two types of relevant theoretical knowledge. With that metaphor, you imply that women (the pilots) need guidance from women’s studies professors (the engineers) or feminism (the plane) just won’t fly.
Sorry, I spend a lot of my time in academia reading metaphors. I’m not the best person to throw a hastily assembled example at.
McBoing said: “Hugo actually had quite a few good things to say, but he also employed Pete’s false binaries to explain What Women Want.”
I’ve thought from the beginning that the real issue with Hugo’s post is his unquestioning embrace of the Woman Who Just Loves Bad Boys stereotype. Whether his exchange with Pete was properly challenging to Pete’s burgeoning feminism or being a pushover is, frankly, a muddy swamp of opinion and personal preference. There’s just not enough detail in his post to make a compelling argument either way.
Your magnanimity is somewhat tarnished by the fact that your attacking post kind of came BEFORE his assholesque response.
R. Mildred said: “In a patriarchal society the only letters that go before a woman’s name and give her opinion on some matters any sort of weight are M, R and S.”
I guess we must not be living in a patriarchal society then because I’ve seen many women’s opinions given weight because of the letters D and R.
“it had nothing to do with pete’s basic assertion that women don’t like feminist guys,”
*ahem* “What I did suggest to Pete was that he consider the possibility that what was really attractive to women wasn’t necessarily the “bad boy”, but the confident man. One of the worst stereotypes of pro-feminist men — one that may have a small grain of truth — is that many pro-feminist guys are timid.”
Tom Head: “And really, anyone who thinks that men ever completely leave sexism behind is being optimistic.”
Let’s be fair: anyone who thinks that ANYONE ever completely leaves behind sexism is being optimistic. Sexism is far too deeply imbedded in our culture and media and society for anyone to get completely free of it. Even those who spend their lives fighting against it are still reacting to it. Once affected, no one can be unaffected.
Mary said: “in case you hadn’t noticed, he’s using his “elitism” to belittle WOMEN and FEMINISTS. That is sexist.”
So you are claiming that any time a woman or a feminist is belittled it is sexist? What if she was black, and they used racial slurs? Would that still be sexist? What if she was simply wrong, caught making a stupid statement about Borpian cuisine perhaps, and thus was soundly mocked? Would that still be sexist, just because she is a woman, or a feminist?
Look, Hugo didn’t just say, “Psh, you clowns don’t know what you are talking about.” He gave reasons why he thought you don’t know what you are talking about. Those reasons related to issues of experience and knowledge, not to gender. Reading sexism into it is entirely unfounded. Not wrong, I note–I have no idea what his intent was–but clearly baseless.
hexy: You know what? We don’t actually disagree at all about the relative value of theoretical knowledge versus practical knowledge. We both think they both have their place. I’ve already said this here and here. In fact, the first time, I even addressed the comment specifically to you. Why are we still arguing about this? Secondly, that metaphor wasn’t meant to be read as an analogy to anything beyond the relative utility of theory and practice. Of course it doesn’t make any sense if you apply it to the Hugo situation.
Hugo doesn’t describe himself as feminist, but as pro-feminist. The idea is that, as a man, he cannot be a feminist, but can only support feminists; feminism is women’s work, and he’s just offering his help. This is an approach that reinforces gender essentialism. It’s all about gallantly coming to the aid of those alien, unknowable others over there, and not about questioning the entire system of sexism. So from Hugo’s perspective, it’s difficult to argue that Pete shouldn’t be sexist if it helps him have sex, since there’s no particular reason why Pete shouldn’t be sexist to begin with. Hugo’s advice, on how to be the kind of man attractive to women, continues his endorsement of gender roles. Hugo just wants nicer gender roles.
Questioning the entire notion of gender roles, and the mutually reinforcing misery of gender roles, is apparently beyond Hugo.
Your magnanimity is somewhat tarnished by the fact that your attacking post kind of came BEFORE his assholesque response.
Ah, yes, but before me, there was his comment thread.
Foolish Owl, there’s a lot of wisdom in what you said. To pick up on one aspect, I have largely stayed out of the debate about whether men ought to self-identify as feminists. Feminist women are split, and some guys I respect a lot (not least Chris Clarke and Punkass) are on the “nay” side. I’ve never been entirely persuaded by that thinking. I have always thought that feminism is most simply defined as opposition to patriarchy, and I call myself a feminist because I oppose patriarchy. I understand that patriarchy is a terribly oppressive system for women and a relative advantage to men, and that I’ve received the privilege of that my whole life. But it’s only a relative advantage, not an absolute one: life will be better in post-patriarchy for women than it is now, of course, but even men will be better off as free people in a better world than as the oppressors in an oppressive one. Finally, I think that the term “pro-feminist” can instill in some guys a sense that it is not their ox being gored in the fight against patriarchy.
I have finally responded at my blog.
FoolishOwl writes:
Hugo doesn’t describe himself as feminist, but as pro-feminist. The idea is that