Hugo Schwyzer, many of his commenters, and feminists like Amanda Marcotte continue to attack the MRA strawman position in what Schwyzer is now narcissistically calling “Spermgate”. Note to Schwyzer: you can’t affix “gate” to your own scandal. Others have to do that for you. That’s like buying yourself a “World’s Greatest Dad” t-shirt – something you’ve probably done as well.
I’ve always found it funny that feminists who have paid academic positions and paid writing gigs at influential websites and in popular periodicals try to compare their reach to that of MRAs. Feminists point at MRAs and say that they are spouting inanity; difference is, MRA inanity is contained whereas feminist inanity is not. The stuff that MRAs are spouting, sometimes, is like a giant turd in a toilet; the stuff that Hugo Schwyzer is spouting is like a giant turd in an overflowing toilet.
He wrote in comments:
I’m not not judging Jill just because she was my friend, or because I was an addictive insecure deadbeat when she and I were sleeping together. Rather, I’m not judging her because I don’t think what she did was fundamentally wrong given the circumstances in which we all found ourselves. [GLP: So if you’re desperate for money it’s cool to defraud someone out of their life savings, or it’s cool for a man to lie to a chick about his marital status in order to get her to have sex with him.]
When Ted and I ejaculated inside of her without a condom, at that moment we were “signing on” for the consequences of what might happen. A pregnancy happened. Ted already loved Jill. Jill loved (I really do believe) Ted. I was out of the marriage/partnership picture for a host of unhappy reasons for which I take full responsibility. And so my friend Jill made the best possible decision she could make with the information she had.[GLP: As if Ted had signed a contract into perpetuity that he would always love Jill. That love, like most, was contingent on certain other factors. And Ted didn’t “sign on” to get lied to about his paternity. If we’re so fatalistic here, let’s revoke all forms of child support for men who don’t want to pay; after all, the mother was “signing on” for a menu of possibilities, one of which was to have her baby’s father abscond his CS.]
I have a theory of mind pertaining to Hugo Schwyzer. Aaron of Aaron’s Holy Mountain has one too.
It is important to remember this about Hugo Schwyzer: he hated who he was. He talks a lot about previously being an addict and a “deadbeat”. To continue down his path of sobriety – so that nothing blows up in his face – he must draw a very distinct line between the man he is now and the man he was before. So while he is willing to call his former self a “deadbeat” he won’t dare judge the woman Jill who had sex with and colluded with the same self-named deadbeat in order to defraud another man of paternity. Present-day Hugo Schwyzer maintains his own sense of virtue by respecting old-Jill’s decision. What webs we weave in order to maintain our sanity.
So Hugo will take responsibility for being “out of the marriage/partnership picture”, but that’s pretty convenient, isn’t it? He can continue to paint himself as an asshole then while being a stand-up guy now. Hugo can have it both ways, and he won’t have to sacrifice his current identity in which he has invested so much.
Schwyzer’s circumcision – which he had performed at the age of 35 – is evidence of this. As I wrote about earlier today, Schwyzer got a circumcision as a sort of gift to his fourth wife. He places so much value on the penis (does that fit feminist theory?) that he offered up his foreskin as a dowry. He wanted to give her something that no other woman had had – a newly cut schlong. To play this against feminist theory again, this is akin to a girl placing utmost importance on her virginity – a seemingly socially constructed valuation.
So there is a pattern here. Schwyzer feels the need to atone for his past behaviors. He is always trying to get over the guilt and pain he has caused to people in his life. He went so far as to get a circumcision so that he could cut the pain and guilt away.
But at the end of it, Schwyzer must protect his ego. He did something wrong with regards to this Ted fellow so he must now pretend that Ted is a non-entity in this so-called “Spermgate”. Jill is the only person whose choices matter because if Ted were granted choice that it would be obvious that Hugo had a hand in curtailing Ted’s autonomy. Which – if he were honest with himself – would make Hugo a dick. And he can’t have that.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Again, this is a recreation of the Alpha Male – Female alliance.
The cuckolded – beta – males don’t figure in their moral compass.
Everything else – literally every possible thing that can be said – is rationalization and gloss.
Chuck, way to own this mangina.
To continue down his path of sobriety – so that nothing blows up in his face – he must draw a very distinct line between the man he is now and the man he was before.
perfect.
i also thought it was interesting/funny how the foreskin thing contradicts his views on the lack of sanctity of female virginity.
A fucking waste of a human being.
Follow the cockhold on Twitter #spermgate
What a looper. Actually, I imagine Hugo Schwyzer has high social intelligence to get where he is, but it’s strange how badly he’s handled this. Everyone aside from a few diehards and pals realize he’s going straw man on just about everything, and some probably think at this point the guy is a bit of a reptile. Also, I think Gorbachev nailed it here.
There was no good way to handle it. There is no good way to do something inherently evil. To try to absolve himself by making this into a lesson on the meaning of fatherhood for the rest of us. Then when he was called out, whine that he’s being victimized. Manginas are some very passive-aggressive people. Everything about this guy that I can see, I can’t think of a good thing I can say about it and feel like I mean it.
I think Grerp nailed it. Hugo can’t help it, he now wants this boy to know he’s really his father.
It shows why even if men don’t initially want the baby they should demand a paternity test and take responsibility. If they don’t the fact that they have a kid out there they’ll never know haunts them. As sleazy as Hugo may be, I feel sorry for him in a way. He knows he screwed up.
He’s going to get really angry at Jill when he thinks about it.
Women don’t get to just decide who they want the father of their child to be. I’m sure a lot of women would decide differently than who the father actually is. My mom sure would have.
Lara writes: >>I think Grerp nailed it. Hugo can’t help it, he now wants this boy to know he’s really his father.
If so, that just tells me he doesn’t drink his own Kool-Aid. If Ted really is the father in every meaningful way, then there isn’t any point in this guy dredging it all up now. He should just butt out, right? Or maybe it isn’t so trivial after all. Mobody thinks it’s trivial when it happens to them, so where do manginas and feminists get off deciding that for anyone else?
Jim,
Yeah, I know there’s no real good way to go about it, but it just looks *so* awful. I read the comments at his blog and at the GMP and he’s
been ducking and diving all over the place. The latest wheeze is he’s touting up some quite overwrought post by a guy called figleaf (in essence amounts to “forget about the maternal deceit stuff, you
are dickless assholes, fatherhood is awesome”). I don’t like Feminists, but it’s been an honest-to-God genuine surprise to me how greasey Schwyzer is when it comes to other men. I still think the whole MRA Feminism = man hate mantra is a bit of hysterics, but Schwyzer is weirdly becoming a poster boy for it, somebody they can factually point to and say, “Well, he done x y z and thinks this, this and this about it”.
“Or maybe it isn’t so trivial after all.”
No it isn’t and Hugo is starting to recognize that. This story is not going to have a happy ending. The truth has a way of eventually coming out and I think Hugo is going to be instrumental in that.
Hugo Schwyzer writes an awful lot about men while not really being much of one. This explains his acceptance among feminists and liberals. He has developed a self serving niche as a male apologist that caters to liberals by being a gender Uncle Tom.
Amanda M is a two faced moron.
What I love is how artfully everyone who supports Hugo on this is dodging around the whole Big Fat Lie issue. I mean hell, I actually like Hugo- agree with him on shit or not- but everyone is so busy going “Boo on a man who wouldn’t love a child unconditionally” because it is easier than saying “Well dang, lying like that is a scumbag move to make!”
Ren,
it is very telling that someone who normally supports Schwyzer thinks that he’s in the wrong here.
i’m not overly familiar with his work: on what do you tend to agree with him?
Mostly stuff relating to health and how body image expectation affect both girls and boys, men and women. Some of his thoughts on relationships as well. He has also come a long way on being more tolerant of porn, bdsm, and stuff of that nature which I think is good. Often Hugo and I tend to be not on the same page, but civil to and appreciative of one another’s views.
What is amazing me about this is a ton of people who are agreeing with Hugo on this would say if a man lied to a woman about a whole range of things; if he had an STD, if he used drugs, if he had no job, if he had a criminal record, so on, then that would be automatic grounds to kick his ass to the curb, divorce him, so on- and some would even say that any sex had with him would count as rape because the woman might not have consented to sex with him if she knew the truth….but hummm, Jill can lie her ass off to Ted and its all okay? Uh, WTF? And if Jill will lie about something like that, what else she might lie about?
Ren,
i guess i get Schwyzer a little more than i thought then. i can agree with him that men attach themselves to a certain brand of masculinity, but i think he and other gender feminists go too far in saying that social pressure to adopt one type of masculnity means that there isn’t any natural reason for sex differences.
anyway, what you say in your second paragraph seems to be the sticking point that most have with Schwyzer. hypocrisy. i didn’t make the same arguments because i haven’t read his take on any of those things or whether he thinks that any type of non-physical male-on-female coercion is a bad thing. i assume he does think that; i assume he thinks that Game, for instance, is bad because it involves a man trying to manipulate a woman. but this situation is much worse – it involves long-term emotions, lots of money, time…this is a man’s *life* we are talking about. getting out of line with a woman in a bar or a woman feeling compelled to behave a certain way because society dictates feminine roles is nothing compared to this man being taken for a ride.
I’ve actually read “The Game”…reviewed over at “Feminist Critics” a long while back. Can’t say as it offended me greatly, as a lotta the tactics in are the same shit women have been doing for years.
Hard defined gender roles with no room for divergence are bad for everyone IMHO- do I think there are differences between the sexes naturally? Well, yes, some are pretty obvious even- but I have never been big on forcing women or men to be specifically one sort of thing when it is not natural at all for them.
I’m sure K(yle) and Dr. Shit-for-brains thinks paternity is wholly overrated and we should bow down and worship the leftism of state progress.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Vacations Are Also Good for You Edition
fwiw, and I’m sure it’s not worth much, I am posting how I got banned today from Hugo’s blog, because I don’t think these things should just evaporate down a wordpress plugin so easily. I apologize if it is long.
I apologize if my comment is long…. It’s a real life story that took place in the past couple of hours of Hugo and his values regarding debate, censorship, and banning.
At Hugo’s blog, a commenter Catie asked:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/07/16/wrapping-up-spermgate/#comment-590614
“So does anyone have any idea why men are so interested in equating paternity issues with rape? This seems to be a trend in some of the responses to this story? Here’s one example from the Goodmen Project:”
I responded at:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/07/16/wrapping-up-spermgate/#comment-590682
“@Catie,
“So does anyone have any idea why men are so interested in equating paternity issues with rape?”
I’ll give you my very quick thoughts on the subject, but I am sure there are others that can give you far longer, more nuanced, …
1. Informed consent. Ted was not able to give informed consent to his fatherhood. Jill and Hugo conspired to take that away from Ted. Think of you being given a roofie and then raped.
2. Use of coercion and force. From the very day the birth certificate is signed by Ted, regardless of the true nature of who the biological father is, Ted is on the hook financially until the child is 18 (and actually in some cases longer) for Hugo’s child. As you know this is not an insignificant burden and will effect Ted’s entire life. If he has a divorce, it will limit his dating choices, it will limit his career, it will limit his ability to travel, study, take new jobs.
If he cannot pay child support, the state will use ways to coerce him, regardless of ability to pay. He will be shamed on billboards, he may lose his driver’s license or other professional licenses, he may even end up in jail.
This can happen once the birth certificate is signed even if the court discovers that Hugo is the father.
The court will be able to do this because inevitably, the court can rely on the state to bring guns and other force to bear against Ted, regardless of his choice.
Many people, including women, believe this is at least as equivalent to many rapes as there can be.
This is why I ask, and I’ve asked this three times, and Hugo has NEVER responded: what does Hugo think in 2011, is his obligations to another person that he sees being harmed.
Does he have an obligation to stop a mugging he witnesses? To stop a rape? To stop fraud from being committed?
Hugo in 2011, still rationalizes, and excuses his behavior from 1997. He still thinks he made the right decision then. He doesn’t see now how he failed Ted or Alastair in any manner. His story is completely narcissistic and self-serving.
Hugo and Jill both lied to Ted and dramatically affected Ted’s life and took away the information Ted needed to make an informed decision. That lie is now backed up with shaming Ted and victim blaming Ted: if he were to find out and abandon Alastair, he is not a real father, he is not a real man. And that lie gave the state the power to jail and imprison Ted.
I apologize to you Catie for using the wikipedia, but here is what it says:
”
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person’s consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.
In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical.[4] Consent need not be expressed, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim (such as persons who are asleep, intoxicated or otherwise mentally helpless).[4][24] The law can also invalidate consent in the case of sexual intercourse with a person below the age at which they can legally consent to such relations with older persons. (See age of consent.) Such cases are sometimes called statutory rape or “unlawful sexual intercourse”, regardless of whether it was consensual or not, as people who are under a certain age in relation to the perpetrator are deemed legally incapable of consenting to sex.[4] Consent can always be withdrawn at any time, so that any further sexual activity after the withdrawal of consent constitutes rape.
Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent.[24] Duress may be actual or threatened force or violence against the victim or somebody else close to the victim. Even blackmail may constitute duress. Abuse of power may constitute duress. For instance, in Philippines, a man commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse with a woman “By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority”.[25] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word ‘consent’: “a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive….
”
@Catie, how is it that so many modern feminists cannot understand this? Whether it’s knowing and malicious false allegations of domestic violence, rape, or paternity fraud, how is it that so many feminists don’t understand why a man would feel “raped”, and destroyed, and shamed, and abused, and not develop all the symptoms of a rape victim?”
Hugo responded at:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/07/16/wrapping-up-spermgate/#comment-590689
I let Anon’s comment through by mistake. Seriously, people: no more mention of any comparison between cuckoldry and rape. It’s an absurd and offensive equation, and I will delete all further comments arguing for even the most remote equivalence between the two.
And I responded with a post that was “under moderation” and then vanished. I can only assume I have been banned.
This was my post:
@Hugo, your last comment demonstrates how intellectually dishonest you are and what a poor and biased moderator you are. I wonder (or not) how that reflects your classroom behavior.
Catie specifically asked the question “So does anyone have any idea why men are so interested in equating paternity issues with rape?” and then she gave examples.
If you don’t want my response in your thread, you should delete Catie’s question, not mine or others.
Otherwise what you are left with is one person asking a question, and people with an opposing viewpoint not able to explain or defend their viewpoint. That’s intellectually dishonest and not fair.
Considering that my response was polite, on topic, and relevant, it’s also disrespectful and patronizing of your readers for you to suggest it was out of bounds and that you would delete similar responses.
Now, in the light of “Nixon goes to China”, or “We have to talk with our enemies to understand them, otherwise we would have no one to talk peace with”, it shows where the bias and agenda and propagandizing of your blog is. Toss out people who disagree, even when they are polite, on topic, and relevant. I, Hugo Schwyzer am not listening. Hands over ears. LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.
You’re dishonest Hugo.
Pingback: Schywzer on Ricki Lake « Gucci Little Piggy
Pingback: Male feminist advises men to get “pegged” (NSFW) | Gucci Little Piggy