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.

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.

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.

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.

As for my question: I don’t ask men what women think, and I don’t challenge women to examine the behaviour of men.

It reminds me of your comment in that other (now deleted) thread wherein you wrote in response to me:

And by the way, if I want to know what women feel, I’ll ask. Or better yet, I’ll read what they write. The women I read, here, at Feministe, Amptoons, and in the blogs by racialized feminists seem to have a pretty clear perspective about the problem in this situation, and what healing it might take.

(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:

I’m trying to show you why women might well be offended or frustrated by Schwyzer.

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!

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”?