Relevant Magazine, Hugo Schwyzer, and a thing called grace «
I spent last night in an impassioned Twitter discussion about the recent Relevant Magazine article, and how uncomfortable it made me feel. Several of my Twitter friends joined in to express their discomfort as well.
And as we talked about how nervous Schwyzer made us…
Schwyzer tried to follow some of us on Twitter.
He even “favorited” a tweet of mine in which I was talking about how uncomfortable he made me. It was as if he was saying, “I’m watching you. I see what you’re saying about me. I see how I’m making you feel. And I like it.”
I had a panic attack upon seeing that he’d favorited my tweet, and I cried for about 20 minutes.
And I still wonder, why? Why would a man who has completely changed “favorite” a tweet by a woman that felt uncomfortable reading his articles? Why would a man who no longer wants to hurt women attempt to force his online presence upon women who clearly did not want that presence?
The answer is, he wouldn’t.
Hugo Schwyzer may not be trying to murder women anymore. But he is still deliberately attempting to make them feel uncomfortable. He is still relishing their discomfort. Admitting, via Twitter, that seeing these feelings in women is a “favorite” of his.
As much as I would like to never hear or think of this shitbag again, he’s still out there, still up to his same old shit.
Contact info for Relevant Magazine is firstname.lastname@example.org.
One of the most informative and useful posts I’ve read about Hugo Schwyzer
Are Women Human? explores the implications and problems of defenses used to guard Hugo Schwyzer’s position in feminist circles. She also places emphasis on his present actions, demonstrating that Schwyzer is an ongoing threat. An excerpt:
… The discussion about which men belong in feminism is allowing people to abstract the conversation from what Schwyzer actually did, not just before his “transformation,” but in recent years – in recent months! – and why it’s dangerous. It’s turning it into this theoretical discussion about parameters for letting people into feminism – which is a related but separate discussion from how feminists should deal with a case where there is a demonstrated pattern of abusive behavior from someone in the community. It distracts from discussions of concrete actions and their implications.
Talking about the presence of “darkness and light” in “all of us” obscures the fact that this one specific person has engaged in abusive and predatory behavior and lied about it. Not “all of us,” Hugo Schwyzer. And a community dedicated to social justice needs to address questions of accountability for perpetrators and justice for their victims – not implicitly paint the abuse as something anyone could do. Accountability doesn’t look like lying about trying to kill someone. Remorse and amends doesn’t look like making money off of a history of abuse and predation – without the consent of the people whom you have harmed – or soft-pedaling this behavior as “what many addicts do” (no, actually, many addicts manage to not try to kill people while high), as “age-appropriate” and “less overtly predatory” than it could have been, etc. Remorse doesn’t look like comparing the near killing of a human being to the unwitting neglect of an animal.
The whole thing is great. Read it!
Most female-specific stereotypes are based in the universal fear of an unbridled and autonomous female sexuality. For women on welfare, this is complicated by their assumed undesirability and dependency on a patriarchal state economic system as well as the physical and material ways that poverty and working class lifestyles are visible on the body. Women on welfare are perceived and discriminated against in terms of their sexual activity and their body image. It is assumed that loose sexual morals or deviant desires placed them in the shameful status of poor; but not just poor—poor women that no man wants or that men only want for one thing.
As a teenage girl from a welfare family I automatically was labeled as SLUT, actually long before I was a teenager, by the time I was nine. There are two kinds of girls, those you marry and those you don’t—if you are poor you are a don’t. My sexuality was named and positioned before I was sexual. Adults were constantly deciding that their sons and daughters were not allowed to be around me and especially not allowed in my house/apartment (whatever it happened to be that month)…
I have also been noting how the assumptions of ignorance particularly diminish poor women and the incredible brilliance they operate in. Stupid girls make easy girls. —
—Tammy Rae Carland, “Reflections of a Stupid Slut” (from I <3 Amy Carter)
Dear Hugo Schwyzer,
Poverty does not make girls, as you say, hypsersexualized, competitive, and promiscuous. Being poor (or being nonwhite) makes rich, white, sexist men project their own feelings about the availability and worth of poor and nonwhite women onto their bodies in order to justify abusing them.
“I’m against rape culture but I’m sticking by Professor Feminism.”
regarding this. (clarisse at feministe making a post to tons of links about transformative justice).
i don’t even know what to say any more.i don’t know how to explain that post made me sorta want to throw up how she had that big old fucking link to incite! up top with no context, no explaining how she found this group, no reference at all to her *learning*—she’s somehow inadvertantly become the “teacher”—the *expert*—again….
never in *conversation*. always the expert, the teacher. even when they’re wrong.
Not explicitly Schwyzer-related, but relevant as:
1. Clarisse Thorne has been one of Hugo’s most ardent defenders, and
2. This is the way she positions herself as an expert over women of colour, while appropriating their work in order to make herself SEEM like said expert, which
3. Is basically Hugo Schwyzer’s approach to feminism as well.
4. And the approach of many other professional/”career” Feminists, and the culture of which Hugo Schwyzer is a natural byproduct. Like, you know… the shit of the giant colon that is such Feminism. Or something.
Do I get to have a “pre-sobriety past,” as a victim of abuse (rather than a perpetrator)? No, I don’t. While people like Schwyzer attempt to use their sobriety to evade accountability (while preaching accountability, no less!), I am scarlet-lettered with it forever. Why did that happen to her? Because she was unsafe. Because she was drunk. Because she was a user. Because she was promiscuous. Because she was bad.
Here is my sobriety story, for newer followers. Lots of triggery stuff at that link, so please be careful. I wrote it specifically to COUNTER the redemption narrative that comes with so many sobriety stories, because I do not believe I was to blame for my abuse. I do not believe ANYONE in a similar situation is to blame. EVER.
Do I believe a perpetrator will always be to blame? In some instances, yes, I do. I believe in restorative justice in some situations but I do not believe that events can be erased simply because one has worked through that process. Progress is not linear, and the things we have done that hurt others will ALWAYS be part of who we are. This does not mean that I can never trust someone who has been through the restorative justice process, but it means that I do not HAVE to trust an abuser going through such things.
(and he specifically points to tumblr)
aww, that’s cute.
I like to think that he spends his days obsessively reading this tumblr and hellnohugo, and creeping on the facebook group & twitter pages.
Possibly crysterbating, like that guy from American Pie in American Horror Story.
… ok, no, that’s too skeevy. I apologize. WE’RE SO VIOLENT, HERE AT FUCK NO, HUGO SCHWYZER.
Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. Pre-sobriety past. SHUT UP, HUGO. Just call it your past. That’s like a born-again Christian calling it their “pre-Jesus past”. It’s still a part of you, Hugo. Drugs or not, psychosis or not, you did what you did — and separating yourself from it by using buzz words tells us all that you are not taking actual responsibility. GTFO, please. —
-Overheard on the Fuck No Hugo Schwyzer Facebook page (via hellnohugo)
Person who has struggled with addiction checking in to note how extra-horrendous and irresponsible this attitude of HS’s is.
This has been your daily ‘Hugo Schwyzer is the fucking worst’ post on this blog.
BECAUSE YOUR LAWYER DOESN’T LIKE IT WHEN YOU ADMIT THAT YOU TRY TO MURDER PEOPLE
Can you even imagine how this conversation went?
“Hugo this is your lawyer, when you keep talking about how you tried to murder your ex girlfriend and had unethical and possibly illegal sex with your students it opens you up to possible lawsuits”
“WHO WOULD SUE ME?!!?”
“Well any of those people involved?”
Right, this is what I find so hilarious.
The fact that JUST NOW, apparently, it has come to the attention of Hugo and his lawyer that it’s problematic as fuck for them for Hugo to go around flaunting his history of rape, coersion, infidelity, violence against women, attempted murder, and abuse of illicit drugs.
I mean - it was always problematic in that it was always actually harmful to the other people implicated in those things - his victims, their families and loved ones, etc, as well as to the women who he was shouting over, the movements, campaigns, etc he was dominating, and so on. Hugo has always been a destructive presence. But you know, he was always able to make a buck, so why should he care?
Apparently it takes the possibility of legal action to get him to realize that he should, in fact, care. He might not give a fuck about the consequences of his actions for other people, but he SURE as shit gives a fuck about the consequences of his actions for HIMSELF.
To be honest, I’ve been waiting for this more or less since this whole thing started. His main defense against people pointing out how, for example, ”“”“having sex”“”“ with his students was cause for him to be fired, has been, “well, my
friends supervisor and some other profs knew, so it’s okay!” Yeah, uh, guess what, Hugo, universities and colleges are run and influenced by a NUMBER of bodies, including alumni, board of directors, student unions, faculty and staff unions, and so on - whether or not your supervisor is okay with you having used your position of power to sexually coerce young women whose academic futures you controlled is one thing, but it’s not enough to protect you should anyone BEYOND the tiny, tiny, closed circle of people you trusted to grant you absolution and not make too big a deal about it find out.
Which it seems as though they may have.
And that thought makes me happy.
As of this moment, legally gagged from further publicly discussing specifics of my pre-sobriety past.
-Hugo Schwyzer via his Twitter account
Posted: 4:24 EST on Jan 24, 2011
(Source: hellnohugo, via anluan)