After 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.
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, 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.
I agree, though I wouldn’t necessarily single Hugo out on this point (he describes himself as a “pro-feminist,” but I haven’t heard him say–as some men have–that no man should call himself a feminist). It really irritates me when men describe themselves as “pro-feminists,” or refuse to describe themselves as feminists unless they use the qualifier “male.” Sometimes I describe myself as a “male” feminist, but only in contexts where my gender is directly relevant–e.g. “Male feminists such as myself never actually have to confront the issue of becoming pregnant, but…” I am very careful not to use “male feminist” as a label.
Now, it’s true that one female feminist in 50 (and one male feminist in 2) might say that you’re not supposed to call yourself a feminist if you’re a man. But if you disagree, don’t patronize them by using the “MALE feminist” or “PRO-feminist” label; if you feel like a feminist, call yourself a damn feminist. Stand up for yourself. That’s what feminists–of any gender–do.
The danger of “pro-feminist”–of “allies” language in general, really–is that it paints us as the Belgians, the French, the English, the Benevolent Colonists, when it’s the job of feminists to get down off our parapets and march side-by-side. Not behind, boys, because this is our fight, too. Side by side. We’ve all got a dog in this hunt, and those of us who are male should jump in with both feet and stop acting like friggin’ tourists. Much as I would like to pretend that my motives are purely altruistic, I am probably a feminist because I am working for my own liberation from institutional sexism. This isn’t about charity for me. This is about saving my soul. And I don’t mean my guilty white boy conscience. I mean the essence of who I am.
Cheers,
TH
“Would that still be sexist, just because she is a woman, or a feminist?”
Get real. The guy was flat-out telling us that HE knew best, because he “does this for a living.” Telling that to a group of feminist women IS FUCKING SEXISM. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes.
FoolishOwl said: “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.”
Say what? Now that, that is stupid. He can’t really think that, can he? Being a feminist has nothing to do with what you’ve got in your pants–it’s what’s in your head that matters. That’s the whole bloody point of feminism. God, I’ve been wondering why he keeps using the word “pro-feminist” instead of “feminist,” but I would never have guessed it was because of something that boneheaded.
I’m with Tom–we’ve all got a stake in this. Pretending like men are simply passive observors in the struggle against patriarchy is counter-productive and naive. Counter-productive because you are giving men a free out, letting them think that it’s not their fight and they can safely not care. Naive because patriarchy is never going to be seriously challenged with only slightly more than half the population in the fight. Everyone has to be involved–there’s no exceptions for the privileged in this draft.
Heresiarch, exactly. Hugo’s a classic liberal academic wanker. It’s no small point that he “does this for a living.” Academics are under enormous pressure to moderate their opinions to be acceptable to the right. Forthrightly expressing radical ideas means enduring threats to your career and your livelihood. It’s much easier to accomodate to the demands of the institution. Hugo does this with gusto. He’s not willing to say anything that would even risk a negative student evaluation.
FoolishOwl said: “Hugo’s a classic liberal academic wanker. It’s no small point that he “does this for a living.””
See, and again you’ve lost me. I don’t see Hugo’s advocacy of “pro-feminism” as evidence that Hugo is insincere and just faking it for the paycheck. I see it as an indication that his understanding of feminism is less than perfect.
I’m not interested in discussing anyone’s failings as a feminist if the end goal is to toss them out of the movement. The goal should always be to move everyone in the discussion, including the person who is at fault, to a better understanding of feminism.
I think we’re on the same page in this respect, heresiarch. I’ve made too many mistakes myself to want to throw somebody who is still actively and sincerely engaged in the discussion out of the movement.
Cheers,
TH
heresiarch, I’m with you. Consider this a venting of long-term frustration with a guy who seems to ride the fence far too often for comfort. As I see it, eventually he’s going to have to pick a side. If he is as he writes, I have no doubts that he’ll do the right thing. In the meantime, I am still irritated.
[...] Our story so far: Hugo wrote a post detailing the advice on feminism he gave to a student, and a bunch of people objected, including me. In my post I wrote: Apparently Hugo’s approach is to acknowledge that feminism is indeed difficult and unpleasant — he compares it to AA — but nonetheless a noble undertaking that should be attempted once you’re through having fun in life and feel ready for the hairshirt (or turtleneck). This doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that perhaps one reason Hugo’s young charges are less than enthused about feminism is because their role model is a turtleneck-wearing youth minister who likens feminism to AA. [...]
McBoing, I was going to ask what you meant by riding the fence. Then I saw this post.
Let me sum things up for you:
1. Antifeminist named “perplexed” shows up on the forum and bashes feminism as anti-male. Cites, among other things, feminists “lying” about domestic violence statistics.
2. I call perplexed to the carpet.
3. perplexed offers citations.
4. I demand them.
5. perplexed posts a lengthy series of “studies” claiming to document that men are the real victims of domestic violence.
6. Hugo decrees that domestic violence is an “aged debate” and that anyone arguing with perplexed’s most recent post will have their contributions deleted from the thread. Does not take any position on domestic violence. I can understand that the posts were off-topic and need to be deleted. I do not understand why he didn’t delete perplexed’s earlier posts to nip this problem in the bud.
I’ve challenged him on this, and he may backtrack by deleting perplexed’s claims (as I’ve requested), but I see exactly what you mean about “riding the fence.” He seems to be very concerned–as he was in the “Pete” post, as he is in his regular and exuberant statements of what a devout Christian he is, as he is in his title-page statement that he has a “consistent life ethic”–that nobody get the impression that he’s one of “those” feminists. That being the case, he shouldn’t complain if few people do.
Cheers,
TH
Man, you are hard to get through to. I’m NOT saying they have to choose, I am saying that some people DO choose. Can you get your head around that? Some women do not choose to be feminists at every stage in their lives and that is OK. I absolutely despise this false dichotomy of either you are a feminist or you are a misogynist. Some women are not feminists. Some men are not feminists. This does not make them rapists or womanizers. Some people just choose a more neutral form of view on gender equality that falls short of the man-hating agenda of extreme feminists.