This post originally appeared in August 2006.
Yesterday on campus, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen in several years. "Max" and I were hired around the same time as adjuncts in the early 1990s; I eventually was lucky enough to get a full-time job. Max (who taught sociology and psychology) was not. He taught at PCC for a number of years, and then gave up his dreams of teaching and went into the business world. He told me yesterday, as we greeted each other, that he’s back to "adjuncting" again — his business success has allowed him to return to his original passion of college teaching, even if only part-time. He’s maybe a decade and a half older than I am, somewhere (I think) in his mid-fifties.
I never saw Max teach. But I vividly remember a discussion we had a few years ago, not long before he left the college. He was in the faculty lounge one morning, going over his class roster. He stood up excitedly when I walked in: "Hey Hugo, look at what I’m doing!" I came over, and saw that he had placed numbers next to the names of many of his students. My heart sank; I thought Max was going to share with me some new and complex grading theory that would be very tedious to have to listen to.
But it wasn’t about grading: "Hugo, I’ve ranked all the girls in all my classes!"
I was stunned, staring at the sheet. He’d ranked them two ways. One, "ordinally", from 1 (the "hottest" in his estimation) up to about #20 (there were that many women in the class). Then, he’d put a second number (in a different color pen) next to the first number. This reflected, he explained, where the girls stood on the classic 1-10 "objective" scale. His #1 in the class, therefore, ranked as an 8.75.
I was so bewildered, all I could think to ask was "Max, how long did this take you?"
Max told me he did this with every class each semester. It took him a few weeks to make decisions, he explained. "I can’t make a final decision on where they rank until I see them in different outfits; it’s usually not until the midterm week that I am sure of what numbers they deserve. But hey, Hugo, you should try it — it’s objective and subjective grading at the same time!" And with that, I got a slap on the back and off he went.
I really agonized for a while about confronting Max about this. The temptation to "let it go" was overwhelming. I was certainly still quite tentative in my commitment to challenging older men. But after running Max’s story by a friend of mine who was an active feminist (and not on campus), I summoned up the courage to confront him. Of course, it didn’t go well.
I invited Max into my office, and I told him how uncomfortable I was with what he had showed me. I used words like "sexist" and "unprofessional". Max became very indignant. "This is bullshit, Hugo. I’m only doing on paper what every man does in his head. I’m honest about it — but you, you’re a fucking self-righteous fraud!" And he stomped off. Later, he came up and apologized for his language , but not for his "ranking system." And having said my peace, I let it drop. When I saw Max yesterday, I instantly flashed back to our fight over his "rankings". Honestly, I’m surprised I hadn’t remembered it earlier to blog about it before.
This story ties in nicely with the theme of yesterday’s post about feminist men and assertiveness. It also dovetails with the vital issue of accountability in fantasy as well as in action. And in that context, I remember that Max had been right about one thing: many men do in their minds what he was doing on paper — "ranking" their students, colleagues, and acquaintances on their sexual desirability. He may have been more brazen than many, but he was hardly unique.
As a teenager, I learned that "ranking" girls was one of the chief pastimes of my peers when we were in a single-sex group. And I’ll be the first to admit that in those years, I happily participated. We had long debates about whether "Cindy" or "Lisa" was the hottest girl in Mr. Fletcher’s biology class. And of course, even at that age, I figured out the desperately obvious: the real pleasure in sharing these rankings lay in the fact that they acted like glue to cement male friendships. I was shy and insecure and eager to make friends with guys, and at that age, more than willing to use sexual objectification as a tool to bring me closer to them. Homosociality in action indeed!
It was telling to me that Max was so eager to share his ranking system. It wasn’t enough for him to establish "control and power" over the women in his classes by secretly evaluating them on their looks without their knowledge. Whatever pleasure that brought him was insufficient — he needed to share his efforts with another man. I suspect that he hoped I would react with pleasure. He knew that he and I shared some of the same female students, and that perhaps we could spend a few happy minutes together discussing and rating their physical attributes. I’m grateful indeed that for me, there was no charm at all in his creepy "system"
Obviously, I don’t rank my students this way, even in my mind. It’s unethical, it’s anti-feminist, it’s immoral, you-name-it. As a married gender studies prof more than twice the age of my students, to do so would be antithetical to everything I profess. But I still run into men (including some of my current colleagues) who from time to time are eager to "bond" over a shared discussion of the relative and objective attractiveness of their students, co-workers, or simply women passing by. Sometimes, the temptation to "get along and go along" still flares for a tiny second, though I resist it. The lure is not in the power over women, or the excitement of evaluating women who would no doubt not give the likes of us a second glance. The lure — the terrible, destructive lure — is that in sharing fantasies and "rankings" men can become closer, recreating as adults the "boys only" clubs of their childhoods.
Max is back on campus. (And his real name, obviously, ain’t "Max.") And I’m wondering whether to bring up the ranking system again, or leave it be. He’s not violating an official college ordinance, after all. Maybe what he’s doing is harmless. But from the perspective of his students, the idea of him continuing on with his "system" bothers me still. I’m not yet sure what, if anything, I’m going to do.
UPDATE October 2012: I did end up asking Max about the ranking system again, in late 2009. He looked embarrassed, told me that it was a stupid thing and that he’d given it up. I have no way of knowing, of course, whether that was true. I had no power to look at his rosters. But I’m glad I asked.
Max has not been on campus since the fall semester 2009, when his adjunct position was eliminated.
I ran into a professor after graduation once who admitted that he and the other profs agreed I was in the “top three” during our semester abroad together. I was like, “top three of what?” and he said something to the effect of what you’re talking about.
I thought it was bizarre and a little gross considering the guy was probably 50, but in a weird way I was flattered. Look, I still remember the story!
Yawn. Nobody cares, Hugo. Why don’t you write about something interesting for a change, instead of recycling tired liberal-feminist dogma.
Trying to understand this better. Is it the mere fact that some men consider some women to be more desirable than others that disturbs your sensibilities, or the hierarchical nature of listing it out?
Owen Ferguson,
Do you really expect to get some semblance of reason from a fellow like Dr. Schwyzer?
You really don’t see yourself, do you, Hugo? That’s the same for most psychopaths. You have simply learned what ‘others’ want to hear and pride yourself on being the one man on the planet that really “gets” women. You’re really an original.
“Obviously, I don’t rank my students this way, even in my mind. It’s unethical, it’s anti-feminist, it’s immoral, you-name-it. ”
But you slept with your students and tried to kill one?
MUCH more ethical.
You really do think you’re the savior of women from all the “bad” men out there, don’t you?
Who saved your son from having his genitals cut on your whim?
How many young woman were irreparably harmed by your sexual duplicity?
I’ve seen several articles of his where I think: “That’s exactly what he does”. He really doesn’t see himself in these things; maybe he is not able to.
As a side note, I personally want to have some semblance of a good reputation in my profession. Hugo, on the other hand, just seems to be fully relying on the fact that his community college is never going to get rid of him. He seems absolutely sure of that – maybe his family has some “in” with them or maybe there are relationships there that are not obvious.
But it would scare me personally – because if he ever got fired he would be eaten alive by life. No one would hire him, and the people who truly hate him would start coming out of the woodwork like zombies.
I don’t know enough about his professional work at the junior college to comment on that except to say you raised an important query.
And I’m not invested enough to “hate” him but nothing bugs me more than a self-annointed gurus/saviors of women, especially one with extremely questionable sexual histories.
He just doesn’t have a clue as to how he comes off. Classic psychopath (and I don’t use the term lightly).
Do you disagree with the article?
LOL to that, Ellen.
I get the feeling some of the people writing here aren’t as interested in discussing the theme of the article as much as simply tearing down the author for the sheer, bizarre, fun of it.
Andrew Pari,
No, we talk about it because of the pure, oblivious, totally self-unaware hypocrisy of Dr. Schwyzer. And the fact that he uses terms like ‘immoral’ and ‘unethical’ without seemingly having any capacity to understand what they mean.
Someone with Mr. Schwyzer’s views and behavior is not, to put it politely, exactly the person who I’d consider an authority on sexual morals.
What if a psychiatrist ranked his or her patients?
Or a male gynecologist rated how his patients looked naked? Or what he thought about their vaginas?
Or a female urologist ranked her patients’ penises?
There’s the tongue-in-cheek ranking of Hugo, and then there’s the crude ranking of individuals that come to you at their most vulnerable, or who come to you for guidance, or that see you as a mentor. One is good-natured fun. The other is cruel.
P.S., Hugo — just finished reading your excellent article at Jezebel.
Next time, as an experiment, write an article about happy chinchillas frolicking in a field of wildflowers, dancing to the music of singing canaries.
At least four comments will say: “Ironic that you’re writing about chinchillas when you tried to KILL YOUR GIRLFRIEND!”
At least one comment will say: “This entire article is disgusting.”
At least two comments will say: “His description of the chinchillas dancing comes from such an overwhelming position of white male privilege that it’s almost intolerable to read.”
Someone else will add “I bet Hugo mutilates his chinchillas’ genitals.”
And a few will write “I hate it when someone mansplains canary song.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself! Hugo certainly owes every single woman who ever existed a personal apology, since he’s the only person to do anything bad, the only person to do anything bad to someone else, to someone who is a woman, and clearly, no one has ever committed more horrific crimes against humanity! I’d bet $20 these same folks still watch Charlie Sheen and listen to Chris Brown.
TBH, Hugo circumcising his son has helped galvanise opinion that male circumcision is wrong too (as HUGO = WRONG) and thereby protected many boys from having part of their penis cut off.
So, um … good work Hugo?
“you’re a fucking self-righteous fraud!”
Max sounds like a perceptive fellow. He was way ahead of the curve.
Sam,
Yup, indeed.
On a more serious note…
Women defiantly rank men
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/toplists/topLists.jsp
look Hugo is the second hottest professor in the world.
Either all ranking is bad and objectifying, or none of it is. It is not worse when men do it. I might accept an argument that it is wrong if people in power do it, but that argument is non-gendered.
I think you mean “definitely”.
“I might accept an argument that it is wrong if people in power do it, but that argument is non-gendered.”
I’m pretty sure that was the point: this is a man in charge of these young ladies’ grades. Just because this is an example (that you obviously don’t like) where it’s a man ranking women doesn’t make it less wrong, both in a feminist way and in a general one. Why can’t it be both? Additionally, all or nothing thinking is very dangerous. We live in a world of grays, and if you don’t believe that, you are not living in reality.
My understanding (as a man who listens to women) is that a sizeable fraction of young women rank each other, especially within a group such as a meeting or field trip, and determine their own position in the attractiveness scale very quickly. One could argue that since they are peers, it’s not so bad as “being ranked” by a man in position of authority, but since sex is power, those near the top of the list are pretty much doing the same thing to those below them.
The only reason women “rank themselves” is because patriarchy keeps reducing us to our looks and youth, thus many women, especially young ones, are scared to see someone “more attractive” and thus “more worthy.” This does not make the fact that a teacher ranks his female students (yuck, yuck, double yuck) in order of their attractiveness ok. It just shows how damaging patriarchy is to women in teaching them to unconsciously take on self-damaging behaviour.
Were you really “stunned”, Hugo, staring at the sheet, by some guy ranking girls (and probably most of this from your fertile imagination)?
You brag about sleeping with students on your desk, cuckolding “Ted” and trying to kill some woman, but you are “stunned” that some guy ranks girls?
Someone really took it personally to create so many sockpuppets.
Just a heads up: if you really believe in your words, you don’t need to fabricate yes-men for approval. If you really can’t do without them, at least add some creativity to your arguments, it makes for nice discussion.