Early last year, women’s studies professor Hugo Schwyzer disclosed on his blog that he had attempted to murder an ex-girlfriend in the course of a 1998 suicide attempt. That admission first attracted broad attention a few weeks ago, and has since sparked considerable controversy regarding Schwyzer’s position in the feminist movement.
In his 2011 account, Schwyzer said that he called a friend to warn her of his plans before he slipped into unconsciousness, describing this as the successful effort of “the small sane part of me” to ensure that help arrived in time to rescue them.
But in a 2007 blogpost, republished in 2010, Schwyzer — who at the time described the incident exclusively as a suicide attempt, and the woman as his girlfriend — made no reference to any phone call, and declared that it was only his neighbors’ noticing the smell of gas that saved their two lives.
Earlier this week Schwyzer edited the 2007 and 2010 posts to remove the reference to the neighbors and acknowledge that the attempt to kill the woman was intentional. As I write this on January 7, the original version remains in Google’s cache of the 2007 post. The relevant passage reads as follows:
My last episode of drinking and drug use ended on June 27, 1998; my body filled with massive amounts of alcohol and prescription pills, I blew out the pilot lights on the stove in my old apartment and turned on the gas, trying to kill myself. I not only nearly took my own life, I came close to accidentally taking the life of my girlfriend as well. Had the neighbors not smelled gas and called 911…
I just wanted to get that in the public record before the cache went away.
30 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Comradde PhysioProffe
The dude is such a fucken liar, who the fucke knows what the real truth is?
January 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Bijan Parsia
There are other, perhaps not as outrageous, inconsistencies in what he writes (as many people have pointed out, e.g., Comradde PhysioProffe elicited the “Oh, I don’t want to be a ‘professor’, but merely a lecturer” vs. “AUTHOR. ACTIVIST. PROFESSOR.”; the “I posted it in haste though I took the time to run it past the lawyer”; the “I promised never to reveal the possibility that I was the father but hey, here’s a blog post about it!”; etc.)
Without having extracted them all, it’s hard to assess their significance fully. But it certainly seems like he is pretty systematically dishonest, which makes the tension between what he professes (esp. humility) and how he appears (LOOK AT ME!) rather disturbing.
I find it odd that people (including the dude himself) find his “confession” to his school to be evidence of courage: Hasn’t he written several posts where he claims his behavior was an open secret; that senior people were amused by his rascally ways; etc.? So, where was the risk? Indeed, his “punishment” was to author the amended the conduct code? That’s unusual, to say the least.)
I also find the displacement of responsibility onto his “accountability circle” to be repugnant. As far as I know, no one in the circle has been identified or spoken up (maybe Amanda Marcotte?). But instead of resigning, wise feminists told him to stay. They told him to take a breather from the controversy and “listen”. Etc.
January 8, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion « Clarissa's Blog
[...] Another obsessive post about Hugo Schwyzer. This blogger should have been told by somebody that first-person writing is still fiction. Do you think he will be able to deal with a revelation that Jane Eyre is a character in a book? [...]
January 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm
FelixBC
I don’t understand this. If he was *caught* sleeping with students, or trying to gas a girlfriend, he’d be a pariah, in for investigation by the police and/or University officials. But if he confesses some magical number of years later, it’s ok? Even somehow laudatory for honesty? Not buying it.
January 9, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Chris Clarke
Tangetially, it’s been a couple days and I’m still gobsmacked by the utter stupidity of the text quoted in the trackback to this post.
January 9, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Chris Clarke
Or, you know. Tangentially.
January 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
steve locke
It’s hard to believe that in California, in 1998, after the raised awareness of intimate partner violence following the O.J. Simpson case, that someone, privileged or not, would avoid prosecution in this scenario.
It’s hard to believe that someone who could have blown up a building was not charged with endangerment of property by the building’s owner or the mortgage holder. It also defies belief that there is no consideration or mention of other people living in the building who could have been killed from an explosion or fire.
It’s hard to believe that someone could refer to such happenings as an “anecdote,” could dash them off in 20 minutes or so, and include details that border on the sensational and hyper-erotic.
I don’t think this story is true. I think it’s a “good story”, but I don’t think it is factual. It sounds allegorical like a scene from GO ASK ALICE.
January 11, 2012 at 12:52 am
Melusina
“But understand this: the feminist blogosphere isn’t here to encourage and enable your transformation. The feminist blogosphere is not here to dialogue with you as you process through your issues and your past. You are not welcome in the feminist blogosphere now, and likely never will be again. The next right thing for you to do is delete your blog and, to the best of your ability, your archives online. You’ve forfeited your right to be part of this community, and a few months in jail with no apparent effort at real change do not earn you the right to sneak back in.” – Hugo Schwyzer to fellow “pro-feminist man”/sexual predator Kyle Payne, 2009
This guy is a scummy narcissist of the highest order. He needs to delete his whole damn “feminist” career instead of organizing Slutwalks and allowing women, god knows why, to come to his defense and silence other women who aren’t buying it and aren’t happy with the space he takes up
January 11, 2012 at 9:36 am
Angus Johnston
Yeah, Chris, that left me pretty befuddled too.
I’ve heard that suggestion before, Steve, and I don’t know what to make of it. My own guess is that there’s a significant kernel of truth in the story, but beyond that I have no idea.
And yes, Melusina, I think Schwyzer would have done well to re-read that Payne letter as this whole situation unfolded.
January 12, 2012 at 1:25 pm
ginmar
But he’s different from Payne. Ew. I can’t even type that. And that pingback is pretty typical for Schwyzer’s defenders: privileged, fanatic, arrogant, and probably seeing more than a few of his characteristics in herself.
January 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Cara
Ah, but that letter applied to Kyle, you see, just a poor sad kid using acts of feminism to buy enough tokens to cop a feel. Not to a big shot professor who was actually adept at seducing students.
*Do I need a sarcasm tag? I hope not. Still, I’m being sarcastic.
January 12, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Cara
Or, since ginmar and I apparently share a brain, what she said.
January 13, 2012 at 11:12 am
hubbit
@Melusina Wow. There’s a lot of which many are unaware that’s now coming to the forefront; that quote to Kyle is one for me. I can think of few things more audacious than a man defining/speaking on behalf of the feminist blogosphere. Or deciding who is and who is not a feminist. Just..no.
January 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Philippa
Fantastic post, thank you. I only recently found out about his past, and I was bitterly disappointed. I hadn’t studied his writing in depth, but what I had seen, I had liked. Now, the more I read about the guy the more ill I feel.
January 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Connie-Lynne
If you’re worried about losing the original posts when the Google cache expires, the “Internet Wayback Machine” project can help — I found the original post, with the reference to the neighbors, here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080108142050/http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/28/a-very-long-post-on-how-to-rebuild-trust/
It’s a volunteer project, and won’t always archive everything, but if a page has existed for a year or two unchanged, you can generally find a copy of it there.
January 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm
mediahoundongmp
Hugo – The Unreliable Narrator? Never – I’m Soooooooo Shocked! NOT!
“Definition:
In fiction, as in life, the unreliable narrator is a narrator who can’t be trusted. Either from ignorance or self-interest, this narrator speaks with a bias, makes mistakes, or even lies. Part of the pleasure and challenge of these first-person stories is working out the truth, and understanding why the narrator is not straightforward. It’s also one tool an author uses to create an aura of authenticity in his or her work. ”
http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/unreliablenarr.htm
It’s fascinating how some react when they are caught out! P^)
Once is an accident, Twice a coincidence and Three times…..
January 15, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Rosa
I don’t see what is so hard to believe. This happens all the time.
I heard it all the time about my ex-husband. If your ex had really pleaded guilty to beating you with a blunt object wouldn’t he have gone to jail? If he really then defrauded the bank to buy crack came to your house, defied his restraining order, broke in and beat you up wouldn’t there have been consequences when he saw a judge? No, the judge let him off. He is white. He is middle class. He is well educated. He seems said the judge “like a really nice man.” Also my ex husband cried. He defied his restraining order 6 times, pleaded guilty six times, had a suspended sentence of two years, which means no jail time.
Eventually, after several years of this, and a new judge, he did go for three weeks.
I have medical records, I have witnesses, I have his own testimony that he did these things. He pleaded guilty every time. Still people, mostly men, think that is impossible. It is also impossible they think that the prosecutor told me that there has never, in her 17 years, been one conviction of marital rape in our city and since he did admit to breaking into my house and beating me and causing my injuries I should take that, if I “cried rape” he would be completely let off – even though I have injuries consistent with injuries from rape.
He is white. If he were any other colour the judge would not have said “You look like a nice man” to a man who stole from a bank, bought crack and beat his ex wife. My friends ex lit her house on fire and told her he was going to do it. Not enough evidence to convict. White men can do what they want. They are, after all, always so very nice.
January 18, 2012 at 5:54 pm
ishere
Wow, Rosa, thanks for sharing your story. What an evil person your ex sounds like. Evil, arrogant & full of entitlement. It’s so true those in power want those who look like them to be “good” or “nice”. We are such a shallow society. Not that that excuses it.
I went to that blogger’s site in the 2nd comment – honestly I have to agree with ginmar – arrogant elitist & “I’m the academic” – eyuw. Now I remember why I stopped reading her blog – if anyone disagreed with her, her defense was “It’s my opinion, so you can’t argue with me.” Pfft
So, Rosa thanks again for reminding us how it happens all too often that those in power (or who look like those in power) usually get no punishment for assaulting & even murdering or attempting to murder those in a lower social position.
January 18, 2012 at 6:09 pm
ishere
Correction to my comment above, it’s the 3rd comment I was talking about not the 2nd.
January 19, 2012 at 8:16 pm
John Godfrey Spragge
I propose to address my questions here to the men.
Whatever your views or your history with the people involved, this discussion has clearly exposed some serious divisions and quite probably created others. Do allies stir the pot in a dispute that pits some members of a movement they claim to support against others? Or do allies do their best to keep faith with the entire movement, to the point of withdrawing from the issue if it looks set to create or exacerbate serious divisions?
Looking through the links in the web log of at least one man engaged in this discussion, I note a conflict with Hugo expressed well before the issue of his character blew up. Do allies have a responsibility to declare their previous conflicts and agendas, and to the greatest possible extent, check them at the door?
At least one of the complaints expressed against Hugo, namely the instructor vs. professor business, accuses him of violating a hierarchy that many people have found extremely oppressive. Do allies bring issues from outside into discussions like this?
January 19, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Bijan Parsia
Hi John,
I confess to being a bit suspicious about several aspects of your questions, esp. given your behavior in a prior post, but let me make a couple of good faith/assuming good faith answers.
“I propose to address my questions here to the men.”
I’m not sure why. That makes me a little uncomfortable (i.e., why aren’t you interesting (here) in women’s views? it makes the questions feel a bit leading as well; but good faith!).
“Do allies stir the pot”
No.
“Or do allies do their best to keep faith with the entire movement,”
Always. But that doesn’t mean not “taking sides” all the time. I’d say contributing is ok; dominating or distracting is not.
“to the point of withdrawing from the issue if it looks set to create or exacerbate serious divisions?”
Obviously this is in the tool chest and should be ready to hand. But just as obviously there are cases where you have to stick it out.
“At least one of the complaints expressed against Hugo, namely the instructor vs. professor business, accuses him of violating a hierarchy that many people have found extremely oppressive.”
As I pointed out in the other discussion this isn’t really a correct characterization of a cluster of issues, e.g., the at least two separate strands:
1) Schywzer prominently claiming to be a “professor” of “women’s studies” (per se) which at least one person (a women) on the Feministe thread described as co-opting (at least), domineering, and worrisome (given his history e.g., with students). I believe this critique could easily extend to any man with the credentials who pushed those credentials as much as Schywzer appears to (esp. with his problematic history). I also believe that at least some women (and men) find men who have or seek those credentials to be suspect. (Similarly to how men claiming the term “feminist” is often seen as suspect.)
2) He claimed to abhor and distain the rank of “professor” and yet, on his personal site claims it. This speaks to his honesty and the honesty of what he writes as well as the honesty of image he presents. This, by itself, isn’t the hugest deal (i.e., it’s not a stand alone issue), and, in light of silent edits (as discussed in this post) it is, at most, a bit of buttressing evidence.
“Do allies bring issues from outside into discussions like this?”
I don’t understand your question. Did this happen? How is either strand “outside the discussion”?
January 20, 2012 at 12:04 am
John Godfrey Spragge
I addressed the question to the men because I believe questions about the behaviour of allies do not, in a discussion of feminism, apply to women. In the same way, in an anti-racist context, questions about the behaviour of allies would apply to people ordinarily identified as white, and in a discussion of ableism, questions about allies would apply to people unaffected by disabilities.
January 20, 2012 at 12:23 am
Bijan Parsia
But wouldn’t it be helpful to have their perspective? I mean, it seems weird for men to discuss among themselves how to be allies of feminism, esp. when we’re discussing putative norms (or, for that matter, tactics and strategy).
It reminds me of your comment in that other (now deleted) thread wherein you wrote in response to me:
(I had to read it a few times to get that you *did* want to know what women feel.)
It was weird because I wasn’t telling you what women felt:
That women expressed the difficulties I listed was, I trust, beyond dispute as they appeared in the very feminste thread you cited. I was trying, there, to speak to you qua fellow ally about how I was understanding *other people’s* concerns. Not to mediate those concerns for you, but to share my perspective.
Similarly, even if you are raising questions which are not directly about women, I tend to think that their perspective would be valuable.
Ah well, perhaps it was a mistake to engage again as I know you find me offensive. But, good faith effort!
January 20, 2012 at 3:54 am
John Godfrey Spragge
Bijan Parsia (Dr. Parsia, I assume from your home page), I dislike multiplying issues with Hugo’s history because I came to believe early that when dealing with moral or political issues, the most important and basic moral issues take precedence. I came to that conclusion as a writer and activist, through the work of Jonathan Kozol, and particularly his book “The Night is Dark and I am Far from Home”. But if you want a rigorous argument for clarity in information, I refer you to Arenas and Libkin, “An information-theoretic approach to normal forms for relational and XML data” Journal of the ACM 2005. Essentially, the more charges you make against Hugo, the less clear a statement of principles when and if he departs feminist spaces, as he has already done to some extent. Information theory, in this case, mirrors my own sense of the obscenity of conflating the violation involved in claiming the title of professor, which at worst involves minor social vanity, with his attempt to kill his former girlfriend, his racial insensitivity, the betrayal involved in his sexual activity with students. Even the arguments against his teaching a subject he apparently has no clear credentials in involves an imposition on vulnerable people, in this case his students. By contrast, who does he hurt by calling himself “professor” on his web page? Only those to whom that (oppressive) hierarchy actually means something.
January 20, 2012 at 4:35 am
John Godfrey Spragge
Sorry, to clarify: WitchWolf and others have argued that he should not teach womens’ studies, given his qualifications and his gender. Those arguments imply that by teaching subjects he lacks the qualifications or the insight to teach, he compromises the interests of vulnerable people, in this case his students. This concern may or may not have the same weight as his attempt at murder suicide, his racial insensitivity, or his having sex with students. But arguing that he has no qualifications to teach womens’ studies or other gender courses does not belong in the same category as arguing that he should not refer to himself as a professor, which offends only petty social snobbery and a slavish adherence to an oppressive hierarchy.
As for my question: I don’t ask men what women think, and I don’t challenge women to examine the behaviour of men.
January 21, 2012 at 12:40 am
Cara
Oh, jeez. Spragge, are you really suggesting that men who are agreeing with feminists don’t really agree? That they’re not real allies, but just jumping on the bandwagon because they never liked Hugo in the first place?
And the irony (in this context) of yet another white guy pontificating about nothing, asking men and men only for their opinions, and then talking about “that (oppressive) hierarchy” and how meaningless it is? Breathtaking.
January 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Why do some feminist spaces tolerate male abusers?
[...] endangering his then girlfriend in the process. In recent weeks, some of these posts have been amended to reflect his current story, but without any indication that they’ve been edited, giving the [...]
February 14, 2012 at 9:55 pm
anon
Often, genuinely nice, warm, intelligent, caring, decent men will speak of their difficulties in understanding how often women will ignore them, or shun them, and flock around sociopathic bullies and psychopaths.
Feminists will defend these sociopaths and their own behavior by inverting the problem. Being a little shy is a problem, being respectful is a problem, a man being afraid to be hurt, is a problem, it is a passive aggressive and abusive attack on a woman, disrespectful to her as it indicates the male only wants her for sex, whereas an abusive male is showing the feminists confidence and respecting her as a person. Feminist even have a shorthand name for this the “nice guy”
Well, for at least five years if not more, feminists all acros the spectrum have flocked to, crowded around, slept with, and promoted Hugo Schwyzer, even as many men pointed out that the guy was a sexual predator who often took his crimes and projected them onto other men as a way of rationalizing his horrible behavior and deflecting blame.
So it’s amusing to see feminists kinda sorta get it.
The question is not why feminists are kicking Hugo out of their club, the question for feminists is why didn’t you see this a decade ago, what does it say about you, and how many times have you made similar mistakes, flocking to an abuser, and blaming men.
You guys deserve each other, by which I mean you all can go to hell.
February 21, 2012 at 1:13 pm
On Hugo Schwyzer: Accountability, not silencing dissent | Are Women Human?
[...] then just in the past two months, since the backlash against him, Schwyzer has edited his past posts to conceal the fact that he repeatedly lied about his history . There are no disclaimers or notes [...]
February 26, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Cara
Wah, wah. More snivelling, and once again it’s due to NOT understanding feminism. Feminism isn’t the culprit.
Feminism means women are people. Actual individuals. Do you know what that implies, Sparky? It follows, as night does the day, that different women see things differently. Not every feminist had Hugo in “their club”. Not every woman is attracted to “bad boys” and refusing to service the nerds (which is the crux of your complaint above). But, I guess every woman is alike so we can all go to hell. ;)
It’s clear that your problem with Hugo was the stuff he was right about in regards to whining MRA-types, whether he was being self-serving about writing about it or not. The basic issue is that women get to decide who they want to sleep with; the fact that you don’t like it when someone doesn’t want to sleep with you is not the fault of feminism and it’s not every woman’s problem.
Women aren’t your problem. Your insisting that women are your problem and that “masculinity” requires putting women down for being people with preferences is your problem. Until you deal with that attitude you’ll be miserable. But then, you’ll get to do the socially-accepted “wah wimmen r meen” snivelling, so I guess you’ll be fine.