Hugo Schwyzer sees a world where men can be better, happier and different by including women’s voices in the telling of stories about men.
This article is a response to “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue” by Tom Matlack.
Is goodness something to which we all aspire together, or is it something men get to define for themselves without input from half the human race? That’s the question raised by Tom Matlack’s “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue,” and it reminds me of why it was I needed to resign from my position as a contributing editor at GMP last December.
Tom and I are both recovering alcoholics, and in our writing, we each often mention our transformative experiences through Twelve Step programs. In his latest essay, Tom mentions the vital importance of what are often called “men’s stags,” recovery meetings that women may not attend. (There are “women’s stags” as well, of course.) He writes that the men in these rooms “taught me to aspire to a completely different kind of goodness than I had ever contemplated.” None of what he learned, he writes, could have taken place if there were women present. While Tom welcomes women commenters, writers, and even editors and publishers at GMP, he wants the site to recapture the uniquely raw honesty that comes when men focus on telling the truth to each other.
There’s more to recovery, however, than going to meetings. As any newcomer quickly learns, staying sober requires working the steps. And those steps famously include compiling a “fearless and searching moral inventory” as well as making direct amends to all the people we’ve harmed. Of course, addicts are often unaware of the harm they’ve caused until the people they’ve hurt confront them; it’s not possible to make amends unless you know who it is whom you’ve hurt. That’s true on an individual level – but also on a societal one as well. In a culture in which men have done tremendous collective harm to women, that means that men’s successful recovery (whether from addiction or from the toxic straitjacket of traditional masculinity) is contingent on making amends to the women we’ve harmed. And how can we know what amends to make unless we’re willing to be confronted by those whom we’ve hurt?
Tom wants the Good Men Project to be a place where men can come together to share stories, to, as he puts it, “have a discussion of manhood in men’s own words” rather than “feminist critique.” He sees that critique as a distraction, an obstacle to men doing the important work of discussing masculinity. What Tom doesn’t consider is that feminism itself is a lens that allows everyone – men and women alike – to see issues of sex and gender more clearly.
When I was first going to AA meetings in Los Angeles, I was asked to read A New Pair of Glasses, a powerful and personal commentary on the Twelve Steps by a legend in Southern California sobriety circles. The book was invaluable, and the title is instructive. Just as the tools of the program gave me a new outlook on my identity and behavior, feminism give me a radically different perspective on my masculinity. Only when I put on the “feminist glasses” could I see the ways in which my acculturation as a man had limited my potential.
Tom concludes his essay with his vision for the future of the Good Men Project. He wants it to be a space where “men can have their own stories of struggle for goodness that can be shared man-to-man in a way that changes the teller and the listener alike quite apart from what a woman or a feminist might say about that story.” It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen to spin.
There’s an old saying in Twelve Step programs: “If you want what you’ve never had, you’ll have to do what you’ve never done.” Men have spent a long time privileging the voices of other men; there’s nothing novel about creating a space in which women’s perspectives are seen as an unwelcome distraction. If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us guys” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations.
My developer is trying to persuade me to move to .net from PHP.
I have always disliked the idea because of the costs.
But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using WordPress on a number of websites for about a year and am concerned about switching to another platform.
I have heard good things about blogengine.net.
Is there a way I can transfer all my wordpress posts into it?
Any help would be really appreciated!
You know, I read one of the pieces that Hugo wrote in Jezebel “Why we still think men are obsessed with sex.” Or rather, I stopped reading it after it opened with “men are dogs.” I’m not really sure that I can take his criticism seriously given the way he treats men as a group in his other writing; I’m also not so certain that it’s feminism that has given him this viewpoint. I might be wrong though.
I suspect it is a combination of his own guilt for the douchbag things he’s done in his past, and the fact feminism gives him an out, by blaming it on his male parts, rather than anything to do with him. Just a theory though. And yeah, I see him as an Uncle Ruckus of the white man.
I think something just hit me. Maybe it’s me but there seems to be, when it comes to helping men, there is a presumption. Some baseline assumption that is treated more like undeniable fact and from this assumption it is concluded that it is an absolute necessity for men to be inclusive of women’s voices when it comes to helping men work on their goodness. And that presumption seems to be that men have gotten to where they are today with absolutely zero interaction and influence with/from women. As if the reason men are as bad off as they today… Read more »
Hugo, I completely agree that feminism is central to being a good man.Yet, I think that a new form of feminism must evolve where we allow men to speak their voices unfettered by those who would preemptively deny their validity. I don’t think you agree with the assessment I am implying but I think that is because you have tried so hard to be liked and accepted and to be a good man to women that you have failed to see how that has limited your ability to authentically be in touch with your own voice. Too often feminism has… Read more »
” However we need to re envision a feminism where men are actively involved in questioning societies gender morals.”
The question I and many others have is, why must it be a “feminism”? You’ve acknowledged some of the issues with current feminisms, and I can’t see how creating another one, that is indistinguishable from those that already exist, and does nothing to address the problems of the current, nor prevent a bleed of the current into the new, will change any of that?
I don’t think I understand you. Why can’t it be feminism? I am not implying that feminism must be everything that is men’s issues. Feminism can and must be a part of it. But only a part of it. Men’s rights, the currently bogey man of political consciousness, is also another important piece of the puzzle. Most people in the men’s rights movement don’t have much a problem with women both analyzing society and working to change it because after all it is there goal to change how women think.
Feminism can and must be a part of it.
I think a part of of it “Why must feminism be a part of it?”
I’m all for “can be a part of it” but I think people question the “must be a part of it”.
Well, really, it begins with, feminism can’t even make up it’s own mind about what it is. Due to the feminism is good and pure, except when parts of it are not since it’s not a monolith debacle makes one wonder what part of feminism “must be a part”, and does that include the man hating gynocentrism portion? And if feminism can’t even get it’s own house sorted, what makes it believe it is “entitled” to demand a seat in others houses too? Then of course, the why of it is asked, why “must” feminism be part of it?
If you create something like that – a feminism where men are actively involved in questioning societies gender morals – I wonder if you could call such a movement ‘feminism’.
Probably not…. because such a movement has nothing to do with feminism anymore.
I am not surprised to see Hugo back after a while – we all know Hugo had serious problems somewhere else during the last months – with an article about ‘No Gurlz Allowed sign to the clubhouse door’. However he presumes wrong, the GMP is open for any comment, regardless if from feminists or from MRAs. There is no biased moderation going on within the GMP. About Hugo’s idea ‘including women’s voices in the telling of stories about men’ let me point out, that this has been always the case with the GMP. Unlike feminist forums, the GMP has never… Read more »
I find this article quite troubling. It essentially boils down to “men are evil and must change to be good” with a nice dash of “such change should and must be focused on what women want.”
It’s not that men shouldn’t listen to women, or that doing so is a bad thing, but it’s no more or less important than men learning to listen to themselve and other men, especially so considering that (at least when it comes to gender) men’s voices aren’t exactly the privileged ones.
It’s like the whole FSU argument again. Men can have their own spaces only if it’s under the supervision of women otherwise they’ll be a bunch on misogynist pigs.
Sorry, it’s SFU referring to the mens center.
Oh for goodness….the Men’s Centre thing wasn’t about being “under the supervision of women.” It was about the Women’s Centre saying they wouldn’t support a Men’s Centre that perpetuated mainstream traditional views of masculinity.
“Although the women’s centre’s coordinator declined to be interviewed, skepticism of the concept is evident in the centre’s FAQs. “Where is the men’s centre?” says a line atop that section of its website. “The simple answer is that the men’s centre is everywhere else,” it reads, before a paragraph that explains the justification for the women’s centre. Canadian society is “a man’s world,” female voices are oppressed in classes, and women feel threatened by drunken males at night, it reads. The website lists support for the idea of a “male allies project” that would “bring self-identified men together to talk… Read more »
And some of whom were saying a men’s center wasn’t needed, in fact their website says a mens center is everywhere else in society. I hereby create a men’s meeting to meet a the ladies toilets in order to test the theory of a men’s center being everywhere else in society apart from the SFU women’s center 😛 Their official stance seems a bit odd though, but there was quite a bit of resistance to creating a men’s center by people at that Uni, I believe even some of the SFUWC members flat out didn’t want a SFUMC. Is it… Read more »
Keep defending it heather, but you’re only hurting yourself. If you can’t see the discrimination and misandry in that, why should we believe you see it in the more subtle locations?
I think part of the problem is that Heather is exclusively looking at the women’s center statement after it became controversial. They realized that one argument was that SFU had a women’s center and another was the male suicide rates. They would seem discriminatory and monstrous if they didn’t care about men killing themselves so released a more conciliatory statement. Feminism is a political movement and being pro-male suicide was bad politics. Like I said to Archy concerning that feminist group arguing against banning MGC because it would distract from the horrors of FGC, there is a gap between the… Read more »
It was about the Women’s Centre saying they wouldn’t support a Men’s Centre that perpetuated mainstream traditional views of masculinity.
It’s the part where some of them and others jumped straight to presuming that said Men’s Centre was a hive of traditional views of masculinity, before it was even built. And there was definitely some “why didn’t they consult us” vibe in there too.
Actually, I’d have to disagree there, they made it pretty clear they were completely opposed to a men’s center that didn’t espouse their own (negative and pretty hateful) view of masculinity. They didn’t want a safe space so much as an indoctrination space. That’s purely going on what they said with no reading between the lines.
Well that was a misleading title. When will Hugo start writing articles again and stop projecting himself? If I read one more article with him waaahing and whining about his own problems….. I guess he just isn’t the kind of guy I can relate to, which I guess is weird on here! Tom- I didn’t agree 100% with yours but it was a very articulate argument you put forward, and not one I’ve heard before, congratulations on making me think! Personally I welcome a male only space, and I don’t think that is in any way going to detract from… Read more »
Hugo’s discourse is flawed because it’s based on a “this OR that” stance. Like he’s right, OR Tom he’s right. Of course, both positions have value, instead. Assuming a “this OR that” stance is an old fallacy, because it excludes multiple possibilities; it’s, basically, rigid and blind. Besides, Hugo’s position reeks of double standard. He affirms that men NEED the feminist point of view to become good men. Obviously, he doesn’t think the opposite (feminists need men’s point of view) is true. Feminists (and women in general) would react rabidly to men telling them that men should define “good women”… Read more »
I agree whole-heartedly with this article.
This piece represents possibly the greatest barrier between Dr. Schwyzer and the majority of men: the vast majority of men are not, nor have they have been, addicts. When looking at Dr. Schwyzer’s analysis, it is literally someone who sees the world through the lens of addiction. It’s all there: the ignorance of harm caused, the desire for escapism, the long standing refusal to listen to others. Dr. Schwyzer believes that he is describing men, writ large, but at most he is describing a small subset: addicts. Most of us do not struggle with addiction. Most of us have no… Read more »
I couldn’t agree more- you put it far more succintley than I did!
Well then, look who showed up just in time for another shakeup.
Sorry Hugo, the experience and definition of what makes a man is not up to women, and certainly not your chosen ideology.
Why does it scare so many people here to hear that a man wants to decide for himself what makes a man? Oh, wait. We all know the answer don’t we?
Exactly, DLZ. When Hugo declares the core requirements for men to be “good,” it’s entirely reasonable to ask whose standards of goodness are being used. His? Sorry, not interested.
Men have no need to meet someone else’s standards of goodness–not Hugo’s, not feminists’, not even women’s in general. Goodness is something we define for ourselves.
“Is goodness something to which we all aspire together, or is it something men get to define for themselves without input from half the human race? ” Feminists do not make up half the human race. And given feminists have been defining what a good man is based on their own self interests, and incedentaly deeming that any non-feminist male (and some feminist males, as you and Tom both well know) fails to meet that standard of “good”. “That’s the question raised by Tom Matlack’s “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue,”” Not in the article I… Read more »
So i am being told i cant see clearly because i am a man, nice try. I agree in hearing the outside opinion. I always believe it is necessary to really complete a process, but you cant always rely on it because it in itself is coming also from a flawed biased *Human* point of view. Take a look at and major video game company, they deal with this on a daily basis multiplied by millions and is always taken with a grain of salt. If we truly want a complete idea from the other side of the gender river… Read more »
I have yet to come across a women who understood the basics of me as a man. But I get the feeling that a lot of women think they understand us. I on the other hand don’t pretend to understand any women I know (or don’t know). Until I find one that actually gets us, I’ll stick to small talk.
This discussion reminds me of what happened on MaleSuvivor’s forums several years ago. MaleSurvivor is a website for men who experienced sexual abuse. There are several forums for men and boys to share their stories and talk about the various issues and problems they face. Keeping in mind that plenty of women support male survivors, MS created a forum specifically for them. However, many of the women used the other forums, especially the forums that most male survivors commented on. As a result, many male survivors who came to MS looking for a safe space to talk about their experiences with other men… Read more »
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here, Jacob. Safety is paramount for survivors. My only disagreement, and it’s not so much a disagreement as a tweak from my own opinion, is that I personally want men involved in my stories as they are part of my life, culture, history, family. They are everywhere. Women are part of the lives of those that have been hurt (sometimes were the cause of that hurt) but sometimes are the ones watching their loved ones suffer. Women do need to listen to men’s stories. Men to women. Race to race, gender… Read more »
I wouldn’t want women to not be able to respond on the GMP, but maybe some articles could be setup in dual format, 1 for men only, 1 for both, maybe even another for women only?
I don’t understand wanting to separate genders so much. Aside from dating spaces, I really don’t prefer to have discussions among only women (or only men, for that matter). People are people, and sometimes the best way to better understand an issue (even a personal issue) is to hear something from someone who’s had a completely different experience to you…that includes a different experience based on their gender.
Now, where that would make more sense on GMP would be on articles talking about abuse, perhaps…especially sexual abuse. I totally understand wanting to be in single-gender spaces for discussions about abuse.
Because genders experience the world quite differently at times, and sometimes people only feel comfortable opening up with their own gender. It’s a really easy concept to understand people! I find far more guys have a personality and set of interests like mine than girls, guys will understand far more what it feels like to be me when I talk about that fear of being around children for instance due to pedo hysteria and not wanting some dumbass to start questioning my every action when I’m actually sitting there freaking out wondering what I am meant to do so I… Read more »
Or in my case where I didn’t defend myself when a crazy ex-girlfriend tried clawing my eyes out. Women may not understand that men feel that the law will disregard our injuries and we’ll be victimized twice. Arrested and jailed for defending ourselves while our abuser goes free to abuse someone else or us again later. Power and it’s abuse is not just relegated to physical strength.
Now, where that would make more sense on GMP would be on articles talking about abuse, perhaps…especially sexual abuse. I totally understand wanting to be in single-gender spaces for discussions about abuse. The problem is discussions aren’t always that cut and dry Heather. I’m sure the vast majority of people would say what you say about abuse discussion being something that is understandable divided by gender. But what about things that are so obvious? How men feel when it comes to being treated for merely being around children? How women feel when it comes to going to the gym with… Read more »
I don’t think that is practical, and I don’t think that is what Tom was getting at. I think he was arguing men need to have their own space, where they can talk about things they can’t talk about with women present (for whatever reasons that be)… not that GMP should be that place. I think it was ultimately a “feminism, stop trying to dominate and control men’s development too. We men will need to find our own path”
I agree with this too. I think it’s most important that Good Men Project be a place where men feel they *can* be honest. Archy, you had a comment on another thread where you told some things uniquely personal about your experiences as a man and near the end you said, “Where would you hear a story like mine? I can’t think of anywhere else, really.” That’s what we want to maintain. Those are the voices we want. Men finding their own path is great. If we as women can listen and help — that’s great too. But if it’s… Read more »
@ Archy
I agree with you. There should be a men’s only section at GMP. I think GMP can do this if they truly wanted to because I believe most if not all the female users would respect the space. They’d be welcome to read, but asked not to comment. If not, maybe we should consider creating our own space not that I’d want to pull traffic from GMP. Kind of like a brother or affiliated site. We could use blogger and maybe get permission to reprint some articles and discuss them in a masculine space.
I would put it in a subzone on the GMP like how NSWATM seems to be?
“There are several forums for men and boys to share their stories and talk about the various issues and problems they face. Keeping in mind that plenty of women support male survivors, MS created a forum specifically for them. However, many of the women used the other forums, especially the forums that most male survivors commented on. As a result, many male survivors who came to MS looking for a safe space to talk about their experiences with other men stopped posting in the public forums or stopped posting altogether.” This seems to be a common occurrence whenever men try to… Read more »
@Teflon: “Of course, the women ignored the men only rule and continued to post there keeping the site’s mods very busy. […]
And I won’t even go into when they appointed a woman mod and all the men’s issues started to be deleted from the men only sub-forum.”
As they say, “power corrupts”.
It looks like it’s equally true for both men AND women: once they got power (to post, to comment, to talk about their issues…), they just can’t stop using (and abusing) it. 😕
I think that there is value in both Hugo and Tom’s perspectives. As a woman who owns a women only network, I have seen first had the growth in the women there and how we have inspired one another to grow in ways that would have been very difficult to do in a mixed sex environment. We are able to talk openly about things that have happened that have caused us to feel limited, find comfort in finding commonalities in areas we never would have opened up about in a mixed group. So, I totally get what Tom has seen… Read more »
Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe. Often times we can help men see the root of their behavior where men fixate on the action. We can see the emotional reasoning because we are always discussing this in daily conversations with our friends. But that keen ability has limits. When applied improperly that keen sense goes from understanding the emotions behind things to projecting and dictating the emotions behind things. When applied improperly we end up with a… Read more »
Nicole says: “Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe.” Hi Nicole. I believe there is also a benefit to mastering your emotions. Greater emotional range isn’t necessarily always a good thing. I have seen a number of relationships where (mostly) women keep themselves and their loved ones a prisoner of their emotions and turn their emotions into a “problem” that everybody needs to fix. If you look at the ways parents raise children, and some of the societal… Read more »
“Although what we say can often be looked at as unwanted criticism, women have a keen ability to understand the emotions behind things more so then men I believe. Often times we can help men see the root of their behavior where men fixate on the action. We can see the emotional reasoning because we are always discussing this in daily conversations with our friends. I think both sexes play an important role in overall recovery. I think it would be best for the men and women “dens” to come together once a month and share what they’ve learned with… Read more »
” Maybe men do understand emotions as well as women, but just don’t show them as openly?”
This, is one of the things I took away from an article on the experiences of a trans-man
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoodmenproject.com%2Ffeatured-content%2Fsir-can-you-help-me-with-this%2F&ei=zTvvT9P5O4H10gHAsvD6Ag&usg=AFQjCNEitSw02Sdh5q4S803y00b-7VZMAQ&sig2=uC6XEjPfcn1jsyohlMooeA
Tom concludes his essay with his vision for the future of the Good Men Project. He wants it to be a space where “men can have their own stories of struggle for goodness that can be shared man-to-man in a way that changes the teller and the listener alike quite apart from what a woman or a feminist might say about that story.” It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen… Read more »
I agree with you Danny. It seems disingenuous to assume that any all-male gathering necessitates ill-intent to be held in suspicion. What’s worse is that it shows a double-standard all too common — when women do X it’s different than if men do X, even when X isn’t hurting anyone. Also like Danny, I welcome women to the conversation, but with the strict understanding that the conversation in these spaces is about helping men — not arguing Feminist talking points like patriarchy, privilege, how women have it so bad, or how men need to accommodate women more because of life… Read more »
I agree with you Danny. It seems disingenuous to assume that any all-male gathering necessitates ill-intent to be held in suspicion. What’s worse is that it shows a double-standard all too common — when women do X it’s different than if men do X, even when X isn’t hurting anyone. A double standard that a lot of people, even feminists, have no problem indulging in. …not arguing Feminist talking points like patriarchy, privilege, how women have it so bad, or how men need to accommodate women more because of life is harder for them. I’d even argue that the things… Read more »
“If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us guys” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations. ” I agree in a sense but still believe that men would benefit from exclusive male only communication in this situation. How I agree is that part of feminism is forcing a shift in how gener roles are evaluated. Man fix car, man eat steak, man have sex, man go to sleep, man is wise. That… Read more »
“But we have to adopt the things feminism has taught us, that we need to be honest and refuse to shame each other for wanting to feel masculine in our own way.”
Very well said.
If I may, I would change this sentence to “It would be good to adopt what is useful from what feminism has taught us, but we need to be honest. We should refuse to shame each other or let anyone (male or female) shame us for wanting to feel masculine in our own way.”
Mr. Schwyzer: I’m sorry. I honestly think your heart is usually in the right place, but I disagree with you…again. “If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us guys” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to women and include feminist perspectives in our most intimate and important conversations.” How’s this?….”If we want to be happier, if we want to be better, if we want to be different, then “us ladies” need to do what we’ve never done well collectively: listen to men and include… Read more »
That’s a good point. Hugo asked: “Is goodness something to which we all aspire together, or is it something men get to define for themselves without input from half the human race?” And in return I ask: When did women consult with men about how to define the nature and role of being a ‘good woman’ in our culture? Did they check with men and collect men’s input on the best way to go about it? or did they seek out the answers for themselves, on their own terms, using their own perspectives and a focus on what was most… Read more »
Well said, Copy.
At the end of the day, there will be no stemming the tide. What women and feminists CAN do is be supportive of it, or they can fight tooth and nail, building resentment among men until we end up with spite and hate running rampant.
I reccommend choosing carefully.
-Men are going to re-evaluate their role in society and what it means to be a man. And we’re going to do it for our own benefit, in terms of what we value. Women may be thrilled with some of our conclusions; they may hate others. But either way, we’re doing this by and for ourselves.
Amen!
Hugo thanks for being willing to contribute here. Obviously a crucial topic about which we don’t agree. In thinking about this a bit more one way to describe what I see as our fundamental disconnect is the difference between policy and personal. I am 1000% in favor of policy that leads to greater equality. I am for gay marriage, for greater civil rights, for a variety of types of legislation that would increase gender fairness and in fact greater ability for work/family balance for both moms and dads. But when it comes to my own soul I resent someone telling… Read more »
Tom, I never said you were ignorant. And there are many paths to recovery — which is why I wanted to show an alternate one to the one you laid out.
Showing an alternate path? Really? That seems more than a little disingenuous, Hugo. In this piece, you’re telling Tom he does feminism wrong, he’s doing recovery wrong, he’s doing manhood wrong, and his vision for GMP (whether or not it reflects what GMP has actually become) is wrong. You don’t put it so bluntly, but that’s the obvious conclusion you lead the reader to by contrasting his path with your presumably superior versions. That’s not showing an alternate path — that’s completely invalidating both the person he has become, and the way he has attempted to share that path to… Read more »
[Posted too soon.]
He can’t have a legitimate discussion “in their eyes.” But the point of the site is sharing and discussing, not lecturing.
“I’m glad it worked for you,”
But it hasn’t worked. He’s still self flagellating through his denigration of masculinity (equating it to an addiction, a disease, that must be cured?), and worst, demanding the rest of us join in. He has not forgiven himself, he has simply done the feminist thing, where he absolves himself of responsibility for his actions and lays the blame on … you guessed it, MEN.
As should be clear by now, I disagree with Hugo that feminism as he represents it is a cure-all for men, or that all men are as inherently bad as he was before he found Jesus feminism. However, I don’t have any problem recognizing that whatever his ongoing flaws, present-day Hugo does not resemble the entirely toxic and even dangerous Hugo that he has described himself as being in the past. I do think Hugo today is a better man than he used to be, and I commend him for that. His sins were not universal, however, so neither is… Read more »
I suppose We can chalk this up to a difference in interpretation of “it worked”. It would seem to me that you see it as “the alcoholic isn’t drinking anymore, so it worked”, while I’m seeing it as “the alcoholic isn’t drinking anymore, instead he is burning all his money gambling and smoking 2 packs a day. his addiction treatment didn’t work, he just shifted it to a new vice or two”.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I hesitate to get much more specific because it would seem like gratuitous mud-dragging through mud Hugo has been dragged through many times before (even though it was mud of his own making). His improvement goes beyond giving up drinking. I believe, for example (and I’m putting it mildly) that he’s more professional toward his female students than he used to be, and that he does not pose a literal mortal threat to any abused, strung out woman who might show up on his doorstep in a time of great vulnerability and need. This… Read more »
@Marcus Williams: “You are attempting to define the One True Path”
Exactly.
And that often happen with religious people (for whom Truth is just their own), and that’s the case even with mr. Schwytzer.
“It’s the updated equivalent of nailing a “No Gurlz Allowed” sign to the clubhouse door, with the grudging caveat that women are welcome as long as they affirm whatever “stories of struggle” that the male members happen to spin.” I too find this extremely insulting, happen to spin? Why are they automatically spin? What makes them wrong? Propaganda? Imagine the uproar of telling feminists that their “stories of struggle” are spin? Imagine if Tom did it over twitter, bam, twitter scandal numba 2. I’m noticing Hugo is commenting once and leaving, and not commenting on criticism, Why is that? Hugo,… Read more »
@Archy: “I’m noticing Hugo is commenting once and leaving, and not commenting on criticism, Why is that?”
There’s no need for Hugo to comment. His position is clear:
“(when in conflict) Women are right, men are wrong. Period”. 😉
Has his position ever been any different, really?
It’s patriarchy (one gender is dominant, the other is submissive) in reverse. 🙄
Thank you. That was very well said.
“but I am too repelled by your tendency to hold all men collectively guilty for your own transgressions. That you *used to be* a complete ass to women (to put it mildly) does not mean that I and all other people with a Y chromosome share in your transgressions ”
hits the nail right on the head, the tone of much of Hugo’s writing that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. Well said.
I didn’t see this in the article – are male-only spaces EVER appropriate or positive?
Are you asking that? Or are you asking Hugo if, in his worldview, such a thing is possible?
The latter. Sorry for the confusion.