NEWS JUST IN:
Effective immediately, I have resigned from the Good Men Project. Details soon. Thanks to all for support.
— Hugo Schwyzer (@hugoschwyzer) December 21, 2011
Effective immediately, I have resigned from the Good Men Project. Details soon. Thanks to all for support.
— Hugo Schwyzer (@hugoschwyzer) December 21, 2011
God what a beautiful voice she sings with!
Lovely isn’t it?
YES ! Finally the most misandrist guy on GMP is gone !
it is good news isn’t it? I might start writing for them again now. I stopped because they were deleting my comments that criticised Hugo.
Yay! Please do!
I never read the comments anyway ;)
I have read his resignation post a few times. I major problems with the arguments he put forward. But,the impression I get is of someone who is uncomfortable with reality and is withdrawing back into the security and certainty of a belief system that has all the characteristics of the closed circular world of a cult. You Know Mother feminism.
yes you should see his twitter, full of back slapping from feminist women. One said ‘Hugo Schwyzer for king!’
Wow, really? It’s interesting to see all these strong independent empowered women reduced to cocksucking groupies.
The hilarious part is, Schwyzer’s the very embodiment of the so-called “patriarchy” they despise. A upper class white male who pats their heads and tells them nothing they do is wrong, stripping them of the very agency they all complain they don’t have in the first place.
Schwyzer for king? I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
If you can’t do anything wrong, you can’t do anything right either.
But I suppose it’s a safe place to be, in a cowardly way.
That’s a good point jonh – I’ve seen this phenomena many times. Some who have a controlling and semi-obsessive personality search out fairly strict ideologies, jumping between religious cults, to political cults, to twelve step programs to whatever else provides a tight set of mental ligaments. They are active seekers of certainty and tend to latch on to highly contrived belief systems like a fly on poop.
I suspect that there’ll be a time when even Schwyzer falls out with a group of feminists, because otherwise even he’s going to struggle with the idea that ‘The Women Know Best’ simply because they happen to be (feminist) women.
I think he already has. He was interviewed on Feministe by Clarisse Thorn and it caused a massive shitstorm. and as someone pointed out, the violent reactions to him from feminists rather undermined his point that feminists don’t exhibit ‘wrath’ when they are challenged/annoyed.
Just read that now (on Role/Reboot). I can’t see why it caused a shitstorm; mostly it’s just specious waffle — but this struck me:
>>I have an “accountability team” of men and women whom I count as my friends (many are feminist academics). I’m willing to listen to hard criticism from them, without insisting that they parent me. If you’re gonna be a male feminist you need those accountability partners in your life.<<
What a load of tosh.
I know. What a pillock.
I just read the thread on feministe. Why did it get closed? Quote: “I am closing comments on this thread because I have received multiple email complaints about the ugliness of its tone. “ So, anonymous, email-writing feminists are concerned about the tone. Last time I checked the so-called tone argument was a accepted derailing technique in feminist spaces. Apparently this doesn’t apply when an ally* is on the receiving end.
*I believe Thorn would say someone with “social capital”. (In the back of my head I remember that she used the term once in a discussion with you, QRG. I had to look it up, otherwise I wouldn’t remember. But I might be wrong.)
well remembered Thomas. That was on Clarisse’s own blog where she said I lacked ‘social capital’ and I certainly don’t have any social capital at Feministe!
look at how the bigots love censorship…
also the only other person I’ve hear talk about tone as much was Eddie Van Halen and I’ve never seen a feminazi shred on a guitar, so what’s up with that?
They’ve reopened the thread, sort of — in that they’ve started a new one about having closed the previous one:
Currently it has 330 comments :o . Wtf? Is Hugo really worth all this energy?
No. But then neither is feminism! :D
I’m not taking the bait. :p
good riddance. Schwyzer’s writing is horrible, and since I sure as heck never go by Feministe or *snerk* jezebel, he will be that much easier to avoid.
I’d be okay with Feminism if it hadn’t co-opted all this “privilege” crap. Especially considering the majority of feminists are college educated, middle and upper class white women. I can’t even get a job at McDonald’s and have only enough money saved up for two months worth of bills. After that, my ass is on the street.
…Yet, I’m supposed to be the “privileged” one?
here is my canned response to the privilege argument:
A few commentators picked up on his “treat women as children” tendency on feministe. Glad to see that. Its weird being seen as anti-feminist when most of the time my objection to feminism is the lack of agency placed on women. Women can’t be flawed can’t do bad things etc
When chivalry and feminism collide hugo will be there to protect the poor widdle wimininz
Skeezer doesn’t have a job at TGMP anymore, well the priesthood is hiring. I mean they’ve had many problems with scandals so they wouldn’t want anyone who is untrustworthy. Y’know, like taking advantage of his students…oh, wait….
You know, they are all in one spot on that Hugo thread…what if we threw a net on them and dragged them all away? We could take turns housing them in our basements.
There a lovely post on Hugo’s farewell party thread, from a long haired fellow called Jack:
“Forget Gaslighting. I call grandstanding, and childish things .”
He has a knack for recapping all in less than ten words.
And he ran off to Jezebel. Shocking.
Predictably so yes! :D
just came across this: http://www.facebook.com/SayNoToHugo
a new “Feminists Against Hugo Schwyzer” facebook page
yeah there’s feminists who think he is ‘patriarchal’ in his support for feminism. and then there’s a feminist who said ‘Hugo for king’ on twitter! so they are a bit conflicted.
It’s his dubious past they don’t like. But starting a “we don’t like Hugo Schwyzer” facebook page….. I dunno. Maybe it’s an American thing and I’m just suffering from culture shock.
A few months ago, I was summarily banned from The Good Men Project for repeatedly criticizing the view that looking at pornography can somehow turn someone into a porn addict.
While I admit that there were a few occasions in which I overstepped the bounds of civility, many of my interlocutors and critics were much more rude and offensive, far more often, than I. None of them were banned and their ad hominems and insults are still up on TGMP. MEanwhile, almost all of my comments of substance have been removed.
Most of my comments revolved around calls to look at what scientific evidence existed that “porn addiction” was actually a major health problem. On a few occasions, I criticized articles brought up by the pro-“porn addiction” faction, point by point, showing the methodological problems many of studies they cite have and the more frequent interpretative errors people made when reading them.
In particular, I got into a series of arguments with Marnia Robinson, a corporate lawyer with no medical or psychological training who is making a reputation for herself on-line by pushing the concept that orgasms are an evolutionary leftover which threaten our health. Marnia’s position is a layman’s synthesis based upon a creative interpretation of marginal scientific data. For the most part, my comments regarding Robinson’s work were civil and based upon the facts of Marnia’s case.
The Good Men Project editors, however, decided to give Marnia Robinson editorial control over the comments to her pieces, a priviledge that was not extended to any other TGMP author, as far as I know (it was certainly never extended to me or any other author I’ve corresponded with). Marnia then began to block all my comments. When I complained to the editors about this, I was told that my insistence in bringing up and dissecting the so-called “science” behind Marnia’s position was, in fact, a form of ad hominem attack!
Now think that one over for a bit: one cannot oppenly discuss the merits of the proof supposedly underpinning a scientific claim because to do so is to engage in an ad hominem attack on the author. Were this to be the position taken by any other publication, it would rightly be criticized as partisan and ridiculous. TGMP, however, seems to feel that insisting upon proof when one calls other human beings “diseased” is somehow radically uncivil discourse.
A few weeks later, I was perma-banned, apparently because other commentators complained about my stance on prostitutes’ rights (I support the legalization and regulmentation of prostitution and the definition of sex workers as workers).
During this process I asked Lisa Hickey on several occasions what the bounds of censorship on TGMP actually were. Could one in fact take positions which were unpopular or was one at the mercy of the crowd? If people complained, could one’s comments be censored no matter what degree of respect one showed? Effectively, Hickey responded to me that while she personally believed I shouldn’t be censored, she had to think about how to promote TGMP and that this meant that controversy needed to be kept to a minimum. Here are Lisa Hickey’s direct comments to me regarding the “appropriateness” of my comments:
Here’s the thing. You are on our radar because enough people have said that they feel threatened by you, feel “unsafe”, and think you are creating a hostile environment. I have actually stuck up for you many times. But I have to run this as a business. I don’t have time to get in the middle of things. I may, in the end, decide to not moderate comments at all, or I may decide to close comments to everyone if they completely get out of hand, or I may decide to do something totally different as far as systems and processes. I do believe we need a fair system for all, and I don’t believe we have it — yet. But I had to dive into the comments myself, and make some mistakes along the way, in order to really understand what the issues are. So thanks for your patience.
Our moderating your comments actually has very little do with your views on pornography or anything else. It has to do with two things: 1) your style, which some people find threatening — which I think is actually a function of you being adamant and articulate at the same time. 2) The fact that people have told me that you go around complaining about GMP on other sites (as well as sometimes GMP itself, which I have seen first hand). People who actually work *with* us do, sometimes, get preferential treatment. It’s not that you have to agree with everything we say or do — of course not. But bad-mouthing us as an organization, saying things against The Good Men Project itself means that you are going to be on my personal radar more than other people’s. You are, of course, free to say whatever you want wherever you can. But I am also looking for people to be a part of this who actually want to help us succeed. And yes, I probably do give preferential treatment to those folks. It’s up to you to decide if that is unfair or not.
Lisa also asked me, on several occasions, to write up my comments as an article.
Now think about this for a bit, people. If my comments are unacceptable for the site, why would they suddenly become acceptable in article form? One could be excused for believing that TGMP was and is much more interested in generating free article-length content than actually promoting discussion about men’s issues. A 500 word commentary take up no more virtual space than a 500 word article and if it is “threatening” as a commentary, it should be no less threatening as an article. The [b]ONLY[/b] thing different between the article and the commentary is that the article generates more frontpage content for TGMP and, as Lisa clearly points out above, TGMP is a business and its editors need to partial in supporting those who help it grow as such.
Findley’s comments surprised me because of their blatant appeal to partisan politics and their somewhat callous and mercenary attitude to the issues being discussed on TGMP. Reading them, one gets the impression that content that’s in any way controversial – especially content that is argued in an adamant and articulate manner – will be censored if people make vague claims to the effect that they feel “threatened” by it – unless, of course, said content helps increase the magazine’s profile as a business!
Thus the self-promoting author Marnia Robinson, who has no training in health care or psychology but who feels competent to diagnose anonymous strangers over the internet as “sex addicts”, is not at all “threatening” or “unsafe”. Calling Marnia out on her claims, however, and showing how they are based upon very shaky scientific foundations… That’s “threatening” and “unsafe”.
One wonders how TGMP editors feel that they can discuss gender and men without people feeling threatened and unsafe – at least some people, somewhere. In my case, the decision to censor seems to have been based on a purely mercenary calculation: Marnia writes more content for TGMP than I. Complaints about her are thus to be handwaved while complaints about me should be taken seriously.
Furthermore, Lisa flat out admits that a factor which contributed to my ban was the fact that I had the gall to publically complain about TGMP’s lack of ethics and standards in its decisions as to who gets to censor which comments on its board.
In other words, I was punished for criticizing TGMP, for not writing enough frontpage content (concentrating instead on commentary) and because “some people” felt that being adamant and articulate about an unpopular position was “threatening” and “unsafe”.
A few months after I was banned, I went back on TGMP and dug up Tom Mattlack’s articles and read them. I noticed a common theme in many of his pieces: Tom is a self-described “recovering sex addict” who feels that “pornography” is one of the ten most pressing issues for men in the 21st century. I can’t help but feel that Tom’s personal beliefs regarding porn also played a role in the decision to sack me.
In conclusion, I should point out that I have strenuously disagreed with Hugo on many issues. I’m hardly a Schwyzer partisan. It does not surprise me, however, that The Good Man Project has created a writing project to which Hugo feels he can no longer honestly contribute material. For all of Tom Mattlack’s public chest-beating regarding masculinity and its discontents, it seems to me that he has chosen to edit TGMP in a very patriarchical and traditional style. If you piss on one of Tom’s hobby horses or disagree with his views regarding men and gender, you WILL be censored.
It’s no wonder, then, that serious gender scholars like Hugo are being pushed away from TGMP. Academia has many flaws, but one thing which generally doesn’t occur in the academic milieu is out-and-out censorship based upon political and personal agendas. TGMP has, sadly, shown that it is not willing to treat all views regarding gender and masculinity equally. It champions some and cuts others according to agendas which its editors are loathe to make public.
I think TGMP is a valid attempt to deal with men’s issues and don’t think the magazine should be closed down.
I DO think, however, that its reputation as a sounding board for all things masculine is grossly overplayed. Tom Mattlack has a definite agenda regarding masculinity and is also, apparently, the owner of a fairly fragile ego.
We should all be aware of what The Good Man Project Magazine is: Tom Mattlack’s hobby horse. If your views coincide with his, you will be given preferrential treatment. If your views run counter to his, you will be censored.
Thanks for your comment. I had a lot of comments ‘moderated’ during those porn discussions with Robinson. I also had some deleted under Hugo’s posts round that time. As a result I stopped writing for GMP.
BUT I wrote them something recently, as, although I know what you mean about Matlack, I think Hugo was actively writing misandry – led posts. His feminism is anti-men. I couldn’t write for a ‘men’s ‘ website whilst such anti men views were being promoted by one of their lead writers.
I find Lisa’s approach odd at times. I have got on well with her in the main but have had one or two disagreements with her about the commenting policy.
Feminist women are good at playing the ‘victim’ and they probably did feel threatened by you due to you being articulate, and disagreeing wiht them. But that’s no reason to ban you!
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,761 other followers