It’s been two months since the controversy over my past erupted in the blogosphere. The debate surrounding me has become bigger than I (or anyone I know) could have imagined. This week’s article in The Atlantic reignited the discussion, and has led to a new round of blogposts. Four for which I am personally grateful are here and here and here and here. I am also sincerely appreciative of posts which have been less friendly but no less thoughtful, such as this one.
Lawyers have done for me what I couldn’t do for myself: forced me to stop writing about the most controversial aspects of my situation. I’m not able to discuss publicly the nature of the legal injunction that bars me from speaking further about my pre-sobriety past, but can say that I am not currently under criminal investigation nor am I engaged in any civil litigation.
I can also say that silence on these matters is personally as well as legally necessary. This whole business has exacted a tremendous toll on my family and my friends. In order to prioritize my sobriety, and in order to remain the best husband, father, friend, son, brother and mentor I can be, I’ve needed to stay out of many of the most heated public discussions of my life, my writing, and my role in feminist community. It has been an extraordinarily painful and challenging time; I’ve lost many friends who have — for a host of reasons I won’t question — found it impossible to remain in relationship with me as a result of what they’ve learned about my history. Worse still has been seeing the pain that this has caused loved ones who are fiercely protective of me. By staying out of these debates, I’ve hoped to calm things for their sakes.
I remain convinced, as I wrote last month, that withdrawing from explicitly feminist spaces remains the best course of action. In the past, I have centered myself — or allowed myself to be centered — too often in those forums. While I do think that there is a role for men in feminism; it isn’t clear to me that someone with my past is a good candidate to take such a role. I believe in feminism today just as passionately as I did two months ago; indeed, the tools I learned in feminist community have helped me tremendously throughout this painful time. But it’s one thing to believe in feminism — and another altogether to be one of the better-known male faces of the movement.
I’m still listening to voices on all sides of this debate; some want me to continue to do public feminist work, some don’t. (The number of emails I get daily has fallen considerably, but I’m still getting 15-20 messages a day, evenly divided between the supportive and the condemnatory.) The voices I’m closest to remind me that it’s still too soon to make long-term decisions about the shape of my career. Though these last two months have seemed interminable, not enough time has passed for complete clarity to arrive. So things will remain in flux a little while longer.
As difficult as this controversy has been personally and professionally, I’m grateful for it. It has forced me to confront aspects of my personal and public privilege I hadn’t fully considered before; it has forced me to take responsibility for my cavalier attitude towards telling other people’s stories. It is an opportunity to grow, and I don’t want to squander it. Part of ensuring that this chance isn’t wasted is taking more time to reflect, to listen, and to say “thank you” over and over again.
Controversy creates some of the best writers…anyway, I am wishing you well….and I hope you keep writing….you are a very sensitive and honest writer…and I always appreciate your insights….!
I am still having a hard time understanding why so many feminists are so upset with you. People in your personal life are one story, but as far as those of us who don’t know you are concerned, I don’t think we have any right to judge whether you are feminist or not or what place you should have in the movement. Even though your past was very rocky, from what I’ve read you didn’t do anything overtly – or purposefully – “un-feminist” that should bar you from the positions you have taken thus far in the feminist community. I think people should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Also I think there has been a lot of inferences and assumptions about some of the things you did. There’s no one line of logic I can truly follow that the anit-Schwyzer feminists have put out there.
My thoughts and prayers are with you, Hugo. You’ve been very gracious about this whole experience. Your blog got me interested in feminism, so I hope you find an appropriate venue for your talents after this time in the wilderness. Peace.
Hugo,
You banned me some time ago but I’ve still been reading and getting a lot out of your blog.
I don’t understand this ostracism at all. You acknowledged your past long ago and have been trying to atone for it. This certainly isn’t a Kyle Paine situation. And the worst that has been said about you since, is that you tend to take a male point of view. Well duh!!!
I think “withdrawing from explicitly feminist spaces” is a mistake. Don’t let anyone tell you what to think or what to write. But if that’s best for your mental health then that’s what you should do.
You could at least say sorry to all the men you’ve hurt.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bigger egotist.
My prediction: As the uproar from Hugo’s latest stunt dies down – and most people start ignoring him – he’s going to pull something for further drama. Not even consciously, it just wells up in him and he is completely controlled by his feelings. I don’t even think it’s going to take a year, maybe six months or maybe a few months. Hugo is simply a gaping black hole of attention needs.
By the way, Hugo, what does the community college you work at think of your false use of the title “Professor” when you are only an instructor there?
Or does the college simply ignore all of your stunts and shenanigans and attempts to make yourself out to be something you’re not?
Right. By asserting white privilege in a dispute with racialized feminist web log writers, Hugo offended those of us who care about the implications of asserting privilege in anti-oppression contexts. By speaking on feminism in feminist spaces, after admitting to an attempt to kill himself and take an unwilling woman partner with him, Hugo clearly outrages a great many feminists. By violating the sacred academic hierarchy, he might have offended… who? Offhand, I’d guess that an exceptionally pompous stuffed shirt from Wilhelmine Germany would have found a mere instructor taking the title of “professor” a bit outrageous. In the twenty-first century, I suspect most sane people care about oppression, feminism, and various other important matters, but don’t give a damn about a dying academic hierarchy. I really have to wonder why, with all the serious issues raised by Hugo’s admissions, you feel it necessary to keep harping on this one.
Assuming you’re referencing the same post as on previous occasions, what Hugo did was say that an accusation of stealing someone else’s work was a serious one (because those in the “dying academic hierarchy” and, one woud hope, elsewhere, do take it pretty seriously) and shouldn’t be made without strong supporting evidence.
You appear to have constructed a narrative out of whole cloth in which this equates to his threatening to get on the phone and summon up an army of lawyers to sue those he criticises. Not because he did this, not because he threatened to do this, not because he even had any legal standing to do this (it wasn’t him being accused of plagiarism), but because, um, he’s white. Or something. Do you think it’s incorrect to say “Hey, not cool” to unfounded plagiarism accusations and, if not, under what circumstances would doing so not conjure lawsuits in your mind?
As for the “professor” thing, one doesn’t need to cite “Wilhelmine Germany” to find situations where the title is a pretty significant one to casually appropriate; many places outside the US today reserve it for fairly high-ranking academics. That said, it seems to be fairly common usage within the US to informally describe anyone teaching in higher ed that way, so it doesn’t seem like a huge stretch to Hugo to use it.
I can only say that what Hugo wrote and did deeply offended the women in question, and that from my reading of the situation I thought and I think they had a point.
Hugo, rock on. Please. We’ve all made mistakes. You’re no longer the same person you were 5, 10, 15 years ago nor am I the same person I was 5, 10, 15 years ago.
The people who matter won’t mind and the people who mind won’t matter. Right? A bit simplistic, I know but damn, it feels good to believe it
One more thing:
Hugo has an extremely bad habit of attributing his sometimes warped way of thinking to all men in general.
He doesn’t speak for all men in general, although he has taken that task upon himself. He doesn’t even consider the fact that lots of men could possibly not have the base motives that he apparently has inside of himself.
On top of that, I used to think that he had a stunning lack of empathy for men, while he seemed to have an overabundance for women – putting them up on pedestals and protecting them like children.
The truth is that he is a sociopath / psychopath who cannot feel empathy for *anyone*. But he APPEARS to show lots of empathy and protective feelings for women, because women can be useful to him.
For the people who haven’t seen through him yet, I don’t know what to say. But the tide is definitely turning vis-a-vis just a few years ago.
The truth is that he is a sociopath / psychopath who cannot feel empathy for *anyone*. But he APPEARS to show lots of empathy and protective feelings for women, because women can be useful to him.
Whereas you appear to show no empathy for women and children, and a healthy dose of sympathy for men. I suppose you find women and children of no use. And so you shouldn’t. Stay strong my brother.
You are simply creating things out of whole cloth. I have empathy for humans (men and women), but that really has nothing to do with what I am saying here.
I hope that some of the people who are dazzled and blinded by Hugo’s tactics realize what he is doing.
This is like women who wrote serious marriage proposals to Ted Bundy in jail. He had a penchant for dazzling them to the end.
And I’m just talking about the common trait with Hugo of being a sociopath and knowing how to work young women. I’m not saying that Hugo ever tried to murder anyone.
Oh wait.
Your emphasis earlier was on Schwyzer’s criticism about men, and how unfair Schwyzer was to them. I suspect that it’s not concern for any target (women and children), but dislike of attention he gets.
The sociopathic argument doesn’t quit fit — sociopaths aren’t known for their empathy — they also tend also to direct pity towards themselves than other people. I suppose it could be glib charm, but if Schwyzer was simply looking for attention and drama, he could have become an interesting spokesperson for MRA groups after the drubbing he took from feminist groups. Imagine the drama and attention that would have generated. But hey, really something like this is difficult to judge something like this on-line. Best via a test by a professional.
The Bundy comparison doesn’t work. Bundy didn’t work any magical charm as much as the women attracted to him once his crimes were exposed were most likely suffering from hybristophilia.
I do think that everyone should take a grain of salt with anything they read over the internet — me, you, Schwyzer’s. Caution — we might not be fair judges of a situation.
But hey, really something like this is difficult to judge something like this on-line.
Blah to me.
Something like this is difficult to judge on-line.
“I hope that some of the people who are dazzled and blinded by Hugo’s tactics realize what he is doing.”
When’s the last time you’ve been “dazzled” by a blog? Post the link.
Camille Paglia said:
“Let’s get rid of Infirmary Feminism, with its bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives, rape victims, and incest survivors. Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses.”
–
Hugo lives from that. Hugo lives from saving women and being the Hero. OH NO! Two genders working together to help each other. That is certainly not going to happen on Hugo’s watch, where men are only there to serve women, and women have all the choices they want, supported by men.
The type of feminist who is a spoiled brat college student, supported by daddy, who wants unlimited rights without any responsibilities, is going to be in favor of Hugo’s feminism. But no rational, thinking person is going to even remotely think Hugo is funny. Hugo’s core has apparently dwindled to very young, very stupid girls. And … that’s it. Not even Mythago is around anymore to support this loser.
I’ve stayed away this long while because I wanted to wait until this foofaraw died down, and because I could not get all my various thoughts into a pattern. But I won’t wait any longer to lend a bit of support for you and yours through this tough time.
It’s not up to me nor anyone here to forgive you; it’s not up to me nor anyone here to condemn you–that’s for the people that were directly involved in the incidents you confessed. After what some people did to me, I don’t go around talking forgiveness much. But by the same token, I’m going to try and not pile on someone just-like-that. If I thought you were irredeemable, I wouldn’t be hanging around here multi-posting about it; I’dve been long gone.
Here’s looking forward to spring, to HRCS’s growth, to the discovery of young talents, and a time when we can get back to talking about the important matters, like the proper color of holiday lights.
This would make a great opera. I see this whole thread as a libretto with everyone singing in counterpoint.
Brava, Bravissima!!
Okay, Hugo, I’m not here to join in the beatdown, though I have been critical of your viewpoints in the past and you’ve even banned me commenting once or twice. But if you really are listening, let me suggest one thing, from my own perspective as a guy no more or less flawed myself than most: Pay close attention to the bit in the Campus Progress article about your penchant for assigning your past evils to your addictions. Then note how, in this very post, you still refer to your “pre-sobriety past.”
Okay, that’s one thing to fix right there.
Fine, you were an addict with some serious mental issues. But every time you use phrases like “pre-sobriety past,” it still sends the message “it wasn’t me, it was the drugs and booze!” to your critics. You still sound like you’re skirting full responsibility and minimizing the enormity of your deeds.
So forget the drugs, forget the booze, and show that you’re owning those awful past deeds as choices you made. Remove “pre-sobriety” from your lexicon and just go with “past.” And mean it when you do it.
That’ll be a big step towards regaining trust. Won’t get you all the way, but it’s a non-trivial means of countering continued skepticism.
Just a suggestion. Good luck on all this. Guess you’ll be a bit more circumspect about oversharing the personal stuff in future, eh?
I suggest that to do this would be to ignore an extremely important part of who Hugo was at the time and where he was in his ability to make sound choices.
One of the most important pieces of recovery is to never forget that the addict is IN recovery; this helps remind them that the choices they made while under addiction were influenced BY the addiction.
This is different than saying they were not responsible for their choices; that’s what the amends process is about.
But when you remove the context of addiction, especially to appease others who may not understand or care about that context, an addict can run the risk of losing sight of it themselves.
Hugo, and this is my assumption, uses that specific phrasing BECAUSE keeping the context front and center is important to his ongoing recovery.
To ignore it in order to appease others is pointless and potentially damaging.
I’m not saying Hugo should deny he’s had addictions in his past, he should simply make it unambiguously clear that he’s owning his mistakes and not foisting 100% of the blame off onto the addictions.
Anyway, it’s a bit absurd to suggest that a man going through an “amends process” shouldn’t try to appease others. That’s, uh, kind of what an amends process is all about. If you only care about forgiving yourself, don’t be surprised or dismayed when everyone else still blacklists you because they don’t actually trust the amends you think you’ve made.
There are concepts you are mixing together and, unless you have some background in addictions treatment, it’s going to be difficult to understand.
An addict cannot separate out the bits and pieces of who they were from how they were on the substance. To make amends INCLUDES owning the substance abuse as a piece of what contributed to the areas for which one is amending (to phrase it awkwardly).
For him to say “what happened was 100% me” would be a lie. You asked him to “forget the drugs, forget the booze…” which is an unrealistic thing to ask of someone with addiction.
The amends process is not about “appeasing others,” it’s about doing your best to correct wrongs to those you have harmed. As many have pointed out, no wrongs have been done to the greater feminist blogosphere through his addiction. It’s some people’s perspective on actions he took years ago while under the influence.
The amends process is not about requiring someone to go through it each time a NEW person finds out about the addicts history. Which is largely what’s happened here.
Currently, people seem to be more focused on present wrongs they perceive about Hugo, not the past. Which has little to do with his addiction history.
Ah, nice one. The ever-so-subtly implied “You’re not an expert like me, so STFU” card.
Allow me to clarify then. I’m not mixing things up at all. What I’m doing is using my scalpel to slice through the obfuscating layers of responsibility-dodging excuses folks like you trot out and dress up in academic gibberish. Hugo violated trust by treating female students as his private harem, and made one flamboyant murder-suicide attempt. That he did all this at a time in his life when his system was swimming with alcohol and drugs, far from being something we should look at and hand-wave away with an “oh well, that explains it,” simply gives him one more thing he needs to show honest remorse for.
Your victim, the numerous other people and community (including loads of admiring students, professional colleagues, and an online readership, all of which Hugo cultivated) who formerly considered you trustworthy…these aren’t “others”?
Hugo committed the crime of attempted murder. I would suggest it was the act, not people’s “perspective” on it, that’s the problem.
Your whole apologia reminds me of something similar that happened not long ago when Mel Gibson went through a series of PR nightmares that effectively derailed his career, which included making atrociously racist and misogynist remarks to police and threatening to beat the living shit out of his girlfriend. While most people were rightly appalled, there was the small apologetic voice from those who were quick to point out that Mel, well, he likes to have a little drinkie or three now and then, and, see, he may be an alcoholic, so we shouldn’t be too hard on him, because you know how people are under the influence! It would just be so unfair to hold Mel responsible for his own actions when he clearly wasn’t in control of himself. And so on and so on. What was missed by the bleeding hearts? The little inconvenient truth that alcohol and drugs don’t turn you into another person. They simply break down your inhibitions so that the most unpleasant version of the real you can come out.
So nope, none of what you’ve written convincingly refutes my point that Hugo should take care not to be perceived that he is using his addictions as a “get out of responsibility free” card. Own the addictions, own the decisions made under the influence, but at no point come across as saying, “Look, I was drunk/high, okay?”
That he did all this at a time in his life when his system was swimming with alcohol and drugs, far from being something we should look at and hand-wave away with an “oh well, that explains it,” simply gives him one more thing he needs to show honest remorse for.
I don’t think that’s exactly the point Andrew was making.
If you know you behave badly on drugs — and let’s admit the fact that drugs have an effect on the mind, it’s the reason people like taking them — if you know you’re going to be irresponsible or violent, then you have to take responsibility by admitting this and not take them.
It’s almost the opposite of what some people with bipolar disorder experience after they stabilize on drugs. They think they don’t need to take their drugs any more because they’re “normal.” The problem is that the reason they may be more balanced is that they’re on drugs.
Anyway, here’s a page on how drugs effect the brain and behavior.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/science-addiction/drugs-brain
From the page.
“Chronic exposure to drugs of abuse disrupts the way critical brain structures interact to control and inhibit behaviors related to drug abuse. Just as continued abuse may lead to tolerance or the need for higher drug dosages to produce an effect, it may also lead to addiction, which can drive an abuser to seek out and take drugs compulsively. Drug addiction erodes a person’s self-control and ability to make sound decisions, while sending intense impulses to take drugs.”
They simply break down your inhibitions so that the most unpleasant version of the real you can come out.
The real you…. Your conscious and your evil impulses — it’s all part of you, isn’t it? How they all work together — that’s the real person.
In truly tragic situations — there are Parkinson’s drugs that lower inhibition and increase impulsive behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787882
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=news&id=136268&cn=114
Here’s a truly tragic case. I doubt that the man in this situation would consider this to be the “real” him.
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=101849
Thank for writing at all, I’ve always enjoyed learning your perspective and writing. I hope you will not completely withdraw from feminist spaces: as a feminist who’s able to see I am not perfect, I think your stories are important ones to hear.
I have to admit that your writing has helped me tremendously in healing from my soon to be ex’s husband’s behavior and addiction.
I wish you the best.
My take on the whole, unsavory clusterfuck…
http://omangueblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/hugo-schwyzer-male-feminist-publically.html
I for one will be sad to see you go. I don’t think it makes sense for past mistakes (acknowledged as such) to trump ongoing positive contribution in deciding who gets access to ‘our’ spaces. However, I trust that this decision was driven by your own judgement, rather than ideological bullies.
All the best.
Why does expressing disapproval of, and an unwilling to associate with someone, who admits to a criminal past make one an “ideological bully”?
Mmmm, the only thing I have to add to this discussion is that I think it kind of validates my view, expressed way back in the past so you probably don’t remember it, of the pitfalls of social-change-through-self-help-narrative. This controversy is pretty much exactly the illustration of the problem with it.
I just had to say that I admire and respect you so much, Hugo. You are an inspiration to me and to my family–in ways that so many of your readers probably couldn’t ever understand. My children adore and respect you…and I am so grateful for your influence in their lives. Thank you for the things I know that you do for so many of the people who I love the most.
Additionally, as I was reading this I was struck with the notion (having been raised a staunch Episcopalian myself, doncha know–LOL)–let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. And then it occurred to me…most people who have sinned spend much more time trying to cover it up than they do trying to make amends for the sin, and here you are being stoned twice (probably many more than twice)–you are stoned for the sin, then you are stoned for the admission of sin, then you are stoned for using the sin as an example of what not to do…etc, etc, etc.
Sheesh.
To me you are a brave, honorable, trustworthy (with my children, no less), Light-filled husband, father, mentor, friend.
I thank the Light for your example every day. The path you have navigated (are navigating) for the rest of us is an admirable one–even if there are so many who are not able to understand that.
I do understand. To me your “sins” are but a recognizable reflection of the lives so many of us lead at another time in our lives. Would I associate with the woman I once was? Hell to the NO! Do I adore her for the place she helped me come to in today? Without measure.
We made it. This far. And it wasn’t us who got us here…well, not entirely.
I am so grateful for the Light that has been (and will be) revealed through you. You are an example that I am honored to follow. You are an inspiration of honesty. I admire, respect, and support you, Hugo. Thank you for telling your truths, and for encouraging so many of us to honor our own truths.
One of my favorite sayings has always been, “The truth will set you free…but first it will piss you off.”
Many of my truths are not “pretty”…and many of them have pissed not only me off, but others as well. So, perhaps, we should amend the above to: The truth will set you free, but first is might scare, piss off, and offend–not only you, but other people who may or may not be ready to handle the truth. None-the-less, the truth will out.
Love and Light,
Miriam
St. Louis
Miriam, thank you so much for that. I love you and your amazing kids. I appreciate your willingness to say this so very, very much.
What does matter to me most, in all of this, is how the people who know me best — who’ve seen me and interacted with me over and over and not just read my words — feel about it. It’s a source of comfort that the animus is highest among those whom I’ve never met, and the support is strongest among those with whom I’ve worked the longest. If it were the reverse, then I’d know I really had some different work to do.
And yes, part of transformation is learning to adore that broken, destructive, selfish and unhappy former self – not for what he or she she did, but for who it was he or she helped us to become.
Thanks and all the very best!
Pingback: Men, Feminism, Race, Movements and the Cult of Hugo Schwyzer: The F Word Interview with Ernesto Aguilar | Feminist Current
Dear Hugo,
Please update on your accountability process – specifically, the portion about you staying out of feminist spaces. I have been more frequently seeing posts by you in feminist and women-centered spaces online, and am wondering how this aligns with your past commitment to accountability?
Thank you,
accountability