Hugo Schwyzer had a manic meltdown yesterday on Twitter. Schwyzer apologized to a bunch of people and admitted that he was a fraud and said that he had carried on a relationship with a 23 year-old even as he was publishing articles against men who enter “May-December relationships”. He said that he never should have been teaching gender studies in the first place and that he will only be teaching Western Civ when he gets healthy again. Also, his wife won’t let him see his children.
There was some question about whether or not someone had hacked Hugo’s Twitter account, but I emailed him at an address through which we’d conversed in the past and he told me that it really was him doing the Tweeting. He also told me that I nailed his need for affirmation when I called him out on his penchant for selfies. I asked him about his article on having worked with a woman named Jill to perpetuate paternity fraud against a man named Ted. Hugo may be the father of a kid that Ted is raising as his own biological child. Hugo said he never should have written that article but that he won’t get involved in the peoples’ lives now.
And how about throwing some blame at Jezebel, The Atlantic, The Good Men Project, and Pasadena City College for letting Schwyzer work for them in some capacity? Good eye for talent guys. Maybe take a lesson from the Right and the critics of feminism/leftism on how to spot a charlatan. It was not at all hard. Take your skepticism for evangelical preachers and apply it to evangelical activists and professors. Pasadena City College pays Hugo $120,000 in cash plus benefits, and he admitted on Twitter that he finagled his way into the gig and had no business teaching gender studies. Hugo Schwyzer became this “microcelebrity” (his term, not mine) because those outlets gave him a platform in the first place. Schwyzer’s rise and subsequent fall does show the power that a credential – even a tiny one like a professorship at a community college – has on this faceless, distant internet platform.