I can’t make this stuff up.
The Atlantic has just published an article regarding the exile of Hugo Schwyzer from the feminist camp. America’s most vocal male feminist ally has just been kicked to the curb by the feminists who he so worshiped. Schwyzer has made a career of writing articles that have promoted a self-emasculating viewpoint in favor of promoting feminist ideas. Until recently, he wrote a series of articles on the Good Men Project, politely telling men how horrible they were and particularly telling the world that “the answer to men’s rights was more feminism.”
According to the article, Schwyzer’s excommunication came about partially from his admission of past indiscretions with female college students and a recounting of his attempted murder/suicide that led to his eventually becoming a born again feminist. He discussed that part of his past during an interview of him by sex-positive columnist, Clarisse Thorn. The gang at Feministe took special exception to him and his past during the interview and it went south from there, with Thorn having to eventually close commenting on the article.
What I wonder is why Schwyzer’s past indiscretions are an issue now? Schwyzer has never lied or covered up this facet of his past. Countless critics of his work (including myself) have always called him out on this fact. When other men/MRM advocates voiced observations concerning Schwyzer’s past, they were simply scoffed at and ignored, but now that feminists are presenting these issues, there is suddenly a major problem with him being a feminist ally. Schwyzer’s hubris, which he shares with other noted male feminist allies like Jackson Katz, Tony Porter, Byron Hurt, and David Futrelle is that they were victims of individually “tragic” pasts and they present those personal problems, tragic pasts and the subsequent issues they presented the women in their lives as being endemic of all men.
After some research, the other factor behind the “hate Hugo campaign” is being driven by a response/smear article written by Flavia Dzodan of Tigerbeatdown in reply to his Jezebel article about facials. The “jizz” article is some of the most inane shit I have ever read (even for Hugo), but it is not truly offensive to feminism as he is trying to (in his own deluded and twisted manner) describe the reasoning behind something that only some (not many) guys do so women can understand it.
But before the Tigerbeatdown article, we have one article criticizing his approach to feminism calling him a “paternalistic feminist” and calling attention to his particular spin on feminism (especially his language when he was quoted as saying that he was “herding sluts” while working at a Slutwalk). With this new movement to exile Hugo from femdom, we now see Schwyzer being declared a “male abuser,” we see a facebook page devoted to a feminist condemnation of Schwyzer as a voice for feminism, and other feminist blogs (like this one here) in full support of silencing poor Hugo and other men in general from being voices for feminism.
By the way; does anyone remember the smackdown that Good Men Project CEO Tom Matlack received at the end of last year at the hands of Amanda Marcotte, Kate Harding, Jenn Ponzer, Hugo, and others? When Matlack began asking questions about being male and feminine condemnation of those male traits, certain feminists (including good old Hugo) felt that he was out of line for asking those questions openly. Because of this and his having a subsequent article for the GMP (criticizing Matlack and the chirpstory about that whole discussion) called into question by editor, Lisa Hickey; Hugo resigned from the website as a contributing writer. In fact, he was the first of the GMP feminist cadre to do so (openly and publicly).
In short; Schwyzer has been everything that a good male feminist ally should be; self-emasculating, willing to openly admit to his overtly male flaws, humble toward his female overseers, and stalwartly supportive of everything feminist. Hugo did everything that feminism told him to do as a male ally and then even preached the gospel of feminism to the rafters and tried to get as many men to convert to his new-found faith as possible.
And like a used tampon, he has now been thrown into the trash as the disgusting thing that many feminists feel that most men are.
Thus my message to all male feminist allies who are reading this.
My lambasting aside, Schwyzer’s actual crime was trying (and mostly failing IMHO) to bring a male context (mostly his own) to feminine and feminist issues. According to Flavia from Tigerbeatdown as related in the source article from the Atlantic:
[Schwyzer] “systematically presents feminist issues, but his proposed ‘solutions’ to the problems he posits almost always involve the feelings, status, and outcomes for men.”
If good old Hugo Schwyzer isn’t safe from being condemned for his maleness by feminists, then who is? Schwyzer didn’t actually do anything wrong other than try to explain to his feminists why some men get off on facials, but he’s now being trotted out as evidence that most feminist male allies should just sit back and shut up. Perhaps, you all should review why you feel a need to so valiantly defend a movement that does not value you for what you are and is so ready to discard you.
And if you feel that you are a special little snowflake of a male feminist ally and that your female feminist allies wouldn’t do it to you; step outside your door, look under that feminist campaign bus and talk to good old uncle Hugo about his feelings on the subject. He might still be there, clinging to the undercarriage; hoping for forgiveness and redemption….