Blame Men First

Originally posted on July 19, 2010

Everyone has problems. Everyone experiences some relationship issues, job issues, family issues, and a host of other trials. Some of these problems occur because of social ills. Others because of the person’s own behavior. However, it is improbable that any one group’s problems are solely the responsibility of another group of people. The broader the group of people, the more likely that several factors converge to create or cause problems for them. More so, it is highly improbable that any one group is solely responsible for all its own problems. Again, the broader the group of people, the more likely that several factors play a role.

So when Hugo Schwyzer makes the bold claim that men bear sole responsibility for all their own problems, he ironically has a problem.

One of the major flaws in Hugo’s arguments is he deals in absolutes. Things are the way he says they are and can be no other way. The problem with this type thinking becomes apparent once Hugo dives into his argument. Hugo tries defuse Tom Matlack’s position that men should speak up for themselves and voice their concerns considering that feminism and feminists do the same in for women, first presenting a red herring about the media not supporting feminism, followed by changing Matlack’s position altogether:

But perhaps what Tom means is that the media celebrate women’s breakthroughs into traditionally male spaces, while spending very little time discussing the crushing burden of successfully occupying those spaces. That is a worthwhile topic for discussion.

Of course, that has nothing to do with Matlack’s position. It does, however, set up Hugo’s actual argument, which is that if men have problems to actually complain about, those problems are all the fault of men:

But the real problem, of course, is that both men and women live and work in a system that was designed and is maintained by men. Wealthy men, yes, but men nonetheless. When men complain about being overwhelmed by the demands of wives and bosses and children, they are complaining about a system that men themselves erected. When women complain about the old boy’s network (which still thrives in many public and private institutions today) they do so as outsiders; even affluent white women are still outsiders in a world where women make up 51% of the population and 17% of the US Senate. When men complain about the crushing burden of expectation, they do so as (to use one of my favorite expressions from Twelve Step programs) “architects of their own adversity.”

As mentioned above, Hugo deals in absolutes. One of these absolutes is that women never cause any social problems. Another is that all men benefit at all women’s expense. The illogic of both those positions is so apparent that Hugo feels inclined to acknowledge that it is actually wealthy men who designed and maintain the “system” that men and women live and work in.

Hugo does not explain why he holds wealthy (presumably white) men as representative of all men despite those men making up a fraction of the total male population. The vast majority of men are working class or middle class, do not own businesses, probably work at jobs they could get rather than in careers they wanted, struggle from pay check to pay check, may not have had access to educational opportunities, and in no tangible way control any aspect of the United States government, businesses, or institutions. Hugo provides no justification for holding the majority of men responsible for the economic and class disparities they experience. More so, the red herring about women’s population rate and power within the US Senate in no way explains how men are responsible for being overwhelmed by the demands of wives, bosses, and children.

However, rather than prove that his assertion bears any veracity, Hugo moves on to absolving females of any responsibility for the problems males face. He states:

It is absolutely true that wearing the straitjacket of masculinity makes most men miserable in the end; many do lead the lives of “quiet desperation” that Thoreau described more than a century and a half ago. For most of these men, that straitjacket doesn’t feel like a choice, as they learned to wear it when they were little boys. Many of these men blame women for demanding that their husbands wear it, some blame their kids, some blame their bosses. Some blame themselves. But the real culprit isn’t individual men, and it certainly isn’t women or children. The real culprit is the “man code”, a set of rules created and transmitted by men through generations.

Again, Hugo offers no evidence to support this assertion. Men’s experiences do not occur in a homosocial vacuum. How likely is it that women, as Hugo posits, in no way impact how men behave? How likely is it that the relationship problems men have with their female partners is unrelated to the women’s behavior or demands? How likely is it that the problems men have with their bosses is unrelated to the bosses’ behavior or demands? How likely is it that the problems men have with their children is unrelated to the childrens’ behavior or demands? Hugo attempts to deflect these questions by stating “the real culprit isn’t individual men,” however, that deflection does not parse with his overall assertion that men are collectively and solely responsible for any problems they face.

Hugo continues with:

Both men and women suffer, but they don’t suffer equally. As Robert Jensen and many others have pointed out, the reason a woman can’t walk safely in a parking lot at night and the reason her boyfriend can’t cry in front of his friends are the same: fear of men. But the cost of not being able to cry is hardly comparable to the cost of rape and the fear of sexual violence. It’s false equivalence to suggest that the fear of being ridiculed as insufficiently manly and the fear of being raped and killed are remotely the same. Those who claim that “the patriarchy hurts men too” need to remember that the potential injuries are rarely as severe.

Firstly, males are far more likely to be victims of violence. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey:

Characteristics of victims of violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 were similar to previous years. Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger experienced violent victimizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older (table 4). Females were more likely than males to be victims of rape or sexual assault. Males experienced higher rates of victimization than females in all other violent crimes measured by the NCVS.

In regards to type of violence:

The percentage of violent crime committed against males and females by someone they knew (i.e., nonstranger) is driven by assault (table 6). Male victims knew the offenders in half of all aggravated and simple assaults against them. Female victims knew the offenders in approximately 70% of assaults against them. Offenders known to the victims were most often identified as friends or acquaintances, accounting
for a similar percentage of violence against male (42%) and female (38%) victims.

Strangers were responsible for about a third (36%) of all violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 (not shown in table). The percentages of overall violence, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault committed by strangers were higher for males than for females. Robbery was the crime most likely to be committed by a stranger. Strangers committed 61% of robberies against men and 45% of robberies against women.

That women may express more fear about being assaulted does not change that the majority of victims of violence and the majority of victims of violence by strangers are male.

Secondly, Hugo takes two completely unrelated examples — women’s fear of random violence and social expectations for men — asserts that someone considers to the experiences the same, and then declares that the comparison is a false equivalence. That he is correct that the comparison is a false equivalence does not change that Hugo presented a strawman argument. He provides no example of anyone stating that women’s fear of random violence and social expectations for men are similar. Matlack, whose article prompted Hugo’s post, certainly does not make that claim.

Hugo simply created a strawman to attack, and it appears the reason stems from his absolutist views. If he wanted to make a fair comparison then he could have compared women’s fear of random violence to men being taught not to fear violence. While the two social norms do not cause the same reaction, they both stem from concepts about men and women created and maintained by both men and women.

Ironically, Hugo skips the most obvious way in which men are victims of violence in favor for using the analogy of war. However, this dodge only serves to demonstrate Hugo’s absolutist bias. For the most part, women do not directly participate in war. They are usually not soldiers, not officers, and not combatants. So to state that “men tend to be the ones who started these wars, be they on the global stage or on the mean streets of the inner city” is a moot point.

However, to claim that “[men] started these battles not infrequently because of an unwillingness to consider compromise, or because of a hypermasculine, hyperfragile sense of honor” gives a false impression of the reasons behind warfare and unfairly tarnishes the boys and men who sacrificed the lives for very good causes. Some wars are fought for the reasons Hugo mentioned; many more are fought for a host of complex, convoluted reasons having nothing to do with “a hypermasculine, hyperfragile sense of honor.”

Of course, that sort of biased comment is necessary in order to facilitate Hugo’s view that men and only men are responsible for their own problems. Acknowledging anything else would undermine Hugo’s argument and demonstrate that the situation is not black and white. Hugo’s unwillingness to acknowledge the shades of gray leads to comments like:

I’d like to point out that in [inner-city communities] it’s still men who are perpetuating the problem: absent fathers abandoning their children, adult men choosing a life of violence and indoctrinating young men into it. And if you want to blame policing, it’s a male-dominated white power structure that creates the culture of incarceration for young black men.

Mothers and sisters are not responsible for fragile urban hypermasculinity. Absent (and present) fathers are; distorted images of machismo in the media are; appalling institutionalized racism perpetuated largely by a male police force and the male-dominated prison industrial complex are. If racism and classism weave their way through every aspect of our lives, so too does sexism, with equal (if not greater) deleterious effect on those who are its victims.

And the ubiquity of sexual violence can’t be ignored either — young girls are raped and molested (often by family members or at least members of their same race) across all social classes. Statistically, a middle-class white woman is more likely to have been sexually violated than is a young black man in the inner city (or a young white man in the suburbs). Rape is as soul-scarring as any form of gang violence.

Who kills young men? Boys, taught by older men, not women. Who rapes young women (and young men)? With a few spectacular exceptions (Mary Kay LeTourneau, take a bow), it’s predatory sexual violence committed by men. Racism and classism are awful and real, but misogyny is just as real, with the wounds it leaves just as deep and soul-scarring and community-destroying.

PM, my blood boils when I read that young women of color risk less “injury” than their brothers, as it reflects a grossly distorted understanding of what injury is. Is rape and sexual molestation not injury? Do you think boys and men suffer sexual violence equivalently at the hands of women?

So severe is Hugo’s absolutist view that women never cause any problems that he makes the unfounded, indefensible statement that mothers in inner-city communities are in no way responsible for their sons’ self-image and behavior. Never mind that violence in the home against children is often a precursor to violence committed by the children when they grow up. Never mind that the majority of the violence against children is committed by women. Never mind that abused children are more likely abuse drugs and alcohol. Despite that all of those are factors for why inner-city communities experience violence, and likely some of the many reasons why fathers in those communities are absent, Hugo skips them in favor of blaming men.

He goes on to mention sexual violence against females, first by making an unsubstantiated claim about middle-class white women being more likely to be sexually assaulted than a young black man from the inner-city, and then by asserting that no women outside of  “a few spectacular exceptions” commit sexual violence. He balks at the sexual violence committed by women against boys and men while also downplaying the general violence young men suffer, the latter of  occurs far more frequently than any violence against females.

As I noted on Hugo’s blog, according to a study featured in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine40% of men abused as children reported that their rapists were female, which disproves Hugo’s assertion that women never rape boys. Hugo harbors extremely disturbing and hostile views towards male victims of female rapists, so it was unsurprising, particularly in light of Hugo’s absolutist views, that he dismissed the above study, although in his dismissal he misrepresented the statistics listed on the Wikipedia page concerning child sexual abuse.

This level of intellectual dishonesty by feminists like Hugo is part of the reason why men like Tom Matlack would state:

…the media are still consumed with the old feminist battle cry, to the exclusion of the predicament of boys and men. Maybe guys need to complain more publicly about how hard it is to be a good father and husband, and still bring home the bacon. Maybe we should have our own cable network — not for ultimate fighting or pornography, but for guys to talk about trying to do it all while the wife, kids, and boss expect more than ever.

It is not just a matter of men not talking about their problems, but also feminists like Hugo misinforming people about the reality of men’s experiences. Feminists like Hugo are not interested in addressing Matlack’s position or addressing any of the issues men face because doing so would require them to throw aside all their preconceived notions, admit the flaws in their theories, and actually require those feminists to listen, really listen, to what men have to say. Instead, feminists like Hugo attack males, masculinity, and even male victims of rape and abuse, deriding them, minimizing their experiences, and blaming them for their own problems.

The irony of all this is that these feminists do this to men as they complain about people doing the same thing to women. None of the dozens of posts Hugo wrote about women holds women responsible for anything they experience, whether it is something done to women or something women do to other people. It is not just a double standard. It is the result of an unrelenting assuredness coming straight out of abject bias against men. That kind of open bigotry never fixes problems. It only worsens them and leads to people writing their convoluted theories on double-sided chalk boards.

45 thoughts on “Blame Men First

  1. (Weird. This post just showed up in my feed reader today.)

    And this is why I’m hesitant in dealing with feminists. Some of them cry foul over straw feminists but then build up strawmen/women all over the place and think its okay.

    I just did a post last night about men speaking up and Hugo’s attitude in that post of his is the exact attitude that keeps men quiet and thinking we deserve to be treated the way we are and that we MUST kiss the feet of feminism in order to set things right.

  2. Weird. This post just showed up in my feed reader today.

    I think that is because I wrote the post a few days ago, but did not post it until today. I corrected the time stamp.

    I just did a post last night about men speaking up and Hugo’s attitude in that post of his is the exact attitude that keeps men quiet and thinking we deserve to be treated the way we are and that we MUST kiss the feet of feminism in order to set things right.

    The irony of the whole thing is that neither Hugo or the feminists like him provide any kind of viable solutions. What he offers reminds me of the crap some Christian groups put gay people through when they try to “cure” gay people of homosexuality. It is so destructive so and degrading that it is no surprise so many boys and men avoid feminists.

  3. “40% of men abused as children reported that their rapists were female”

    The women were only copying the men.

  4. It is so destructive so and degrading that it is no surprise so many boys and men avoid feminists.

    Yes this burns me to no end. You have feminists who will simultaneously blame men for everything bad that’s ever happened while at the same time acting confused when the men that start speaking up decide not to do so under the banner of feminism.

  5. I’ve always known Hugo to be a lost cause. He believes what he wants to believe, evidence or contrarian opinions be damned.

    What irks me is his blatant dismissal of male victims of female perpetuators. Like Danny says, he is a vocal reason why men are afraid to speak up. Not just machismo, not just pride, but the rattlings of ideological ignoramuses (no personal attacks – TS) whom have an axe to grind against the “Oppressor” or “Men”.

  6. What irks me is his blatant dismissal of male victims of female perpetuators.

    There is also his blatant hypocrisy. He states, “PM, my blood boils when I read that young women of color risk less “injury” than their brothers, as it reflects a grossly distorted understanding of what injury is. Is rape and sexual molestation not injury? Do you think boys and men suffer sexual violence equivalently at the hands of women?” In one stream of thought he bemoans that young black women’s suffering is not mentioned when people talk about the problems in the black community, and in the very next sentence dismisses the suffering of boys and men at the hands of women.

    To be fair, I do not think Hugo sees the flaws in his arguments. I think he is a true believer on par with people like Glen Beck. I think that like Beck, Hugo absolutely believes what he says and thinks is true, and there is no shred of evidence anyone could present to him that would change his mind.

  7. People like him is an absolute disgrace of humanity. (no personal attacks – TS) This is no longer the era where more women suffer than man. This is an era where everyone can do harm on everyone. Too bad too little people stand on your side while a lot more stand on his.

  8. To be fair, I do not think Hugo sees the flaws in his arguments. I think he is a true believer on par with people like Glen Beck. I think that like Beck, Hugo absolutely believes what he says and thinks is true, and there is no shred of evidence anyone could present to him that would change his mind.

    I have to disagree. He believes it and in order to keep believing it he must ignore those shreds of evidence or do his damndest to try to disprove them, even if his proof is weak.

    There is also his blatant hypocrisy. He states, “PM, my blood boils when I read that young women of color risk less “injury” than their brothers, as it reflects a grossly distorted understanding of what injury is. Is rape and sexual molestation not injury? Do you think boys and men suffer sexual violence equivalently at the hands of women?” In one stream of thought he bemoans that young black women’s suffering is not mentioned when people talk about the problems in the black community, and in the very next sentence dismisses the suffering of boys and men at the hands of women.

    Which goes against the supposedly feminist way of caring about all people. Hugo could have very easily had mentioned how injuries to young women of color are not talked about without resorting to, “But but but women are teh real victimz!”

    He is trying to sweep the fact the injury to young black men means death much more often than to young black women.

    You would think that a feminist would be able to acknowledge injuries to members of one group of people without intentionally trying to minimize injuries to members of another group of people.

  9. The problem with that quote, as I see it, is that it seems to indicate that sexual violence is the only kind that really matters. (Now, I’ll be fair and assume thats not how Hugo meant it, but it is how it reads)

    Because yeah, women are the majority of victims of sexual violence… but every other kind? Not so much.

  10. That quote really raises some questions: What is the undistorted understanding of “injury”? What is sexual molestation (to Hugo)? What does “suffer equivalently” mean? Why should sexual violence against young men count only if perpetrated by women?

    There is hardly an argument there; it is a wibbly-wobbly feely-weely expression of an outrage which Hugo is unable to rationally explain.

  11. EW, the whole thing does have the feel of someone strugling to hold onto a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence. He is torn between retaining his belief system and his humanity.

  12. ‘Because yeah, women are the majority of victims of sexual violence… but every other kind? Not so much.”

    Paul, there was a very good thread over at Feministe concerning female-on-male rape. It got very nasty, with some commenters spouting the doctrinaire line that women are the overwheliming number of rape victims. otheers jumped on that. they said that since the standard script is that males always want sex, that means we are not allowed to revoke consent, and consent that can’;t be revoked is no consent at all. That means not only that every time a women initiates sex, it can be construed as rape, it also means that rapes of men will be ignored by law enforcement and society at large.

    So even if you discount that extreme position that every tiem a woman initiates etc, it still means that 1) we have no idea how often men are raped by the standard legal defintion and 2) it probably happens very, very often. Besides 3) most rapes of males are of boys anyway, not men and 4) most of theose rapists are women, not men.

    As for other violence, you are completely right that men are overhwlmingly the victims.

  13. Thouroughly enjoy your posts. Keep up the good work..men looking at mens issues all over the world

  14. There is hardly an argument there; it is a wibbly-wobbly feely-weely expression of an outrage which Hugo is unable to rationally explain.

    I concur, and I think that may be one of the reasons why he does not accept counter evidence. I do not think he has thought pass his outrage.

  15. Jim, that’s a good point, and I did see that thread at Feministe… it was fascinating, to put it mildly. In fact, I seem to recall several female posters objecting to being labeled “(potential) rapists” for their conduct with their significant others, and I just really wanted to say that now they knew what being a man was like.

    Anyway, yes you are right that it’s impossible to know how many men have been victimized sexually because men, “by definition” can’t be victimized sexually. Especially by a woman. It’s still surprises me how many people don’t even realize that a woman CAN rape a man.

  16. Hah, hugo is beyond parody! His stuff is simply amazing to read. I am literally amazed that someone can buy the agglomeration of nuttiness he refuses to let go of.

  17. Aych: “Hah, hugo is beyond parody! His stuff is simply amazing to read. I am literally amazed that someone can buy the agglomeration of nuttiness he refuses to let go of.”

    The depressing and dangerous thing is Hugo believes every word and is serious about his stance that he will defend and impose it by any means neccessary.

    It makes me worried about the venerable boys and men he mentors. The last thing they want is to be shamed by their being `Priveledged`.

  18. So basically, if a woman were to go out and murder a bunch of people, he would find a way to get her off the hook and blame men for it.

    I love feminists…

  19. The really amazing thing is that I’ve seen Hugo attacked by other feminists for being too moderate and pro-male; a faux-feminist in their terminology.

    I remember seeing Sam of Genderburg declare Hugo a sexual predator, just pretending to be a feminist to screw female students, and wrote about wanting to shoot him with an Uzi. Not that receiving abuse like that would ever cause Hugo to dare to criticise a feminist…

    Of course the sad thing is that compared with a lot of them he actually is reasonable and objective.

  20. Eagle32 said:

    “It makes me worried about the venerable boys and men he mentors. The last thing they want is to be shamed by their being `Priveledged`.”

    That worries me a lot, as well; ever since his disgraceful remarks about Pal Sarkozy and his nanny it’s been the first thought to pop up whenever I see a reference to him. I shudder to think what the influence of someone with Schwyzer’s attitudes, in the position of a trusted, “caring” authority figure, could do to a psychologically troubled boy (Or a psychologically healthy boy, for that matter), especially if the boy has been abused or harmed at the hands of a female. If I’d had a “mentor” like that as a boy, I seriously doubt I’d be alive today.

    Danny said:

    “Of course the sad thing is that compared with a lot of them he actually is reasonable and objective.”

    I think that actually makes the things he says more bothersome, in a way. As he is, he can adopt a tone that initially comes across as reasonable and friendly and concerned about men’s well-being. If he was making Mary Daly-style comments about killing most of the male sex, there’d be no bait on the hook.

  21. Pingback: Weekend Link Fest – Sultry edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord

  22. Pingback: Toy Soldier Critiques Hugo Schwyzer (NoH) | Feminist Critics

  23. Just a note, the statistics linked from your text “the majority of the violence against children is committed by women” doesn’t appear to actually back that up. It specifies that the majority of maltreatment of children is committed by women. But they include neglect among other things in “maltreatment”, and they don’t appear to list the gender ratio for actual violence.

    That said, I agree with many of your points. Thanks for the good read.

  24. Just a note, the statistics linked from your text “the majority of the violence against children is committed by women” doesn’t appear to actually back that up. It specifies that the majority of maltreatment of children is committed by women. But they include neglect among other things in “maltreatment”, and they don’t appear to list the gender ratio for actual violence.

    The statistics do demonstrate that the majority of violence against children is committed by women. Maltreatment is simply the term used to describe various forms of child abuse. If you look at the breakdown of who commits the majority of those types of abuse, women commit most of it.

  25. On this quote: But the real problem, of course, is that both men and women live and work in a system that was designed and is maintained by men. Wealthy men, yes, but men nonetheless. When men complain about being overwhelmed by the demands of wives and bosses and children, they are complaining about a system that men themselves erected.

    Hugo is apparently a history teacher so he must be aware that the emphasis put on “historical figures” has been criticised for centuries. Hasn’t he even bothered to read Adam Smith or Tolstoy?

  26. The statistics do demonstrate that the majority of violence against children is committed by women. Maltreatment is simply the term used to describe various forms of child abuse. If you look at the breakdown of who commits the majority of those types of abuse, women commit most of it.

    But it doesn’t break down violent abuse by gender, it only breaks down abuse in general by gender. You’re assuming an equal distribution of the abusive population over all types of abuse, but the data they present doesn’t say anything about that.

    For example, more men could be committing the violent abuses, and more women could be committing the non-violent abuses, and the presented statistic that women commit more abuse would still be valid. It could also be the other way around. We don’t know. It doesn’t say. To validate your claim (especially since only ~13% more abuse is committed by women) they would need to present a breakdown of violent abuse by gender, not just abuse in general. And they did not do that.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that your claim isn’t true, it just means the source you cited doesn’t show that.

  27. For example, more men could be committing the violent abuses, and more women could be committing the non-violent abuses, and the presented statistic that women commit more abuse would still be valid.

    All the forms of maltreatment listed on the site count as “violence” against children. Your argument hinges on defining “violence” as meaning only physical acts. However, the report does not do that, and to my knowledge no other else studying child abuse limits “violence against children” to mean only physical violence. Being such, I do not think we should make such a distinction, especially since several studies show that psychological abuse, verbal abuse, and neglect can have just as damaging an impact on a child as physical and sexual abuse. If we accept the latter as true, then the report I linked to would demonstrate that women commit the majority of violence against children, regardless of the breakdown of the types of abuse.

    Edit: The reports stopped listing the genders of the abusers in 2000. However, those statistics are still available on the website. As the stats show, more women than men were as the abuser except for sexual abuse, the latter of which could be the result of victims being unwilling to come forward or support providers failing to inquire about female-perpetrated sexual violence.

  28. Ah, cool. That last link is more definitive. Thanks.

    Regarding what “violence” means, I’m not really picky. In laymen terms violence is generally physical, and that’s how I assumed you meant it. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

    Certainly I agree that other forms of maltreatment than physical violence can be just as damaging. I did not intend to imply otherwise.

  29. Presumably he would not blame black men for the things white men instituted, but he has no qualms about blaming poor men for the things rich men instituted.* Would he blame male serfs for the codes of chivalry instituted by male knights? (Who were presumably influenced by their wives and daughters to some degree)

    *This is not to say that he is right that rich men instituted this society as he presumes, but working with his concept.

  30. Would he blame male serfs for the codes of chivalry instituted by male knights?

    Most likely yes. Hugo would likely argue that the male serfs benefited from chivalry at women’s expense, and would offer some long-winded explanation of how that would occur, despite that male serfs were completely at the mercy of the lords they served.

  31. I’ve read Hugo’s blog for some years now and I think two reasons account for his penchant to begin and end his critiques with masculinity. First, he makes a good living from it. How good? He and his movie-industry wife recently bought a four-bedroom home in West Hollywood. Second, his religiosity makes it impossible for him to place any serious primacy to class. He found God just as GW Bush did; his life fell apart and there seemed nowhere to turn. When one turns to that kind of Jesus, dialectical materialism and class struggle, which would have no trouble accepting the fact that most victims of violence are men, go straight out the window. He’s even endorsed winner-take-all capitalism—so long as the winners are mainly women.

  32. Catullus, I think the posts on Hugo’s blog occur because Hugo does not see how his comments can come across as hurtful or harmful. His presentation is generally benign, so he may actually be oblivious to how his message reads to men and their allies. I have my doubts about that because when someone mentions that he does not treat women in the same way, Hugo usually shuts down the discussion. That suggests he is aware of the imbalanced nature of his critiques of males, maleness, and masculinity, but does not want to confront that. I also think that because his presentations are so benign that he may think this balances out the impact of what he writes. In other words, he may not intend to hurt (again, I have my doubts about that), and so if a man is hurt by something Hugo writes or says the man ought to just get over it.

  33. I wish I could agree but I don’t. Hugo has a PhD., after all. This doesn’t of course confer emotional intelligence, but I think his intellectual acumen and the fact that he brooks no criticism of feminism on his blog tell me it’s about sticking it to men for the reasons I detailed. He knows what he’s doing.

  34. Pingback: Top posts of 2010 « Toy Soldiers

  35. “Catullus, I think the posts on Hugo’s blog occur because Hugo does not see how his comments can come across as hurtful or harmful. ”

    That alone is a display of dominance. “This kind of crriticism doesn’t hurt me; it doesn’t occur to me that it might hurt you. It does? So what’s wriong with you that it does?”

    There is an obvious strain of misandry in his writing. I noticed a pattern in his posts at TGMP on penile issues – he even has one on the joys of erectile dysfunction. Rememebr the big brouhaha about his circumcsion, and how he intruded his adult experience into every discussion of circumcision to downplay the unaccpetablity of infant circumcision? He hates penises.

    I recall a thread on his blog where someone came on railing about the crime of penetrative sex. The commenters pointed out that the first harm alleged, pregnancy, was just as much a threat whether it resulted from penetrative sex of form artificial ensemination. So the discussion continued and moved on, and the commenter finally said that penetrative sex was a harm because it was based on soem notion that a vagina was needed to be filled, and this was a greivous harm. Hugo was all attentive to this, it really resonated with him. The whole thing was just an exercise in the Evil Penis, quite blatant.

  36. I’m glad I found this thread. I knew I couldn’t be the only one who found something fishy about this Hugo character. He’s one slippery bastard, I’ll give him that. Catullus nailed it: he knows what he’s doing. He’s jockeying for position to be a lead thinker on men’s issues. He sees the racket for what it is. Don’t trust this man for a second; he has an agenda. I think these guys go straight from high school to Ivy league and are insulated from the life of a common man. His ideas are pure reverie; in the real world they are not practical. Gynocentrism is his philosophy. May he rot, the bastard.

  37. Pingback: Different Sides of the Same Coin… | stonerwithaboner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s