not interested in someone who wants to give me orgasms to save himself. what the fuck is that even? get away from me
also i just want to say
The lengthy letter reflects Daedone’s equally staunch essentialism (she believes men and women are naturally very, very different) and feminism (she comes from a gender studies background.)
was she not paying attention in class? (is this one of hugo’s students?)
from the comment section of hugo’s blog.
no commentary necessary.
hahahahhahahah ohhhhh he’s got to be trolling
this would be funny if it weren’t so awful
“To generalize enormously, the less privileged the background, the more intense the sense of competition among young women. Far too many young ones grow up with a sense that their sexual desirability is a more marketable commodity than their intellectual accomplishments; this is all the more likely to be true in families where there isn’t a history of women going to college. (If you don’t believe me, visit any American community college on a hot day — and then visit an elite university in the same weather. You’ll see more mini-skirts and heels in five minutes at Pasadena City College than you will in five hours at Berkeley or Stanford. That’s anecdotal, sure, but don’t take my word for it — try it yourself.) The bottom line: class and sexual competitiveness among women are, to say the least, not unrelated!”
I had somehow managed to avoid reading this Schwyzer piece until now. It fucking sucks. It’s gross and classist and racist and sexist and violent and horrible and it’s also fucking hurts me. Fuck this guy. Fuck him for “herding” not just sluts but poor sluts and then making money off of turning them into a farce. Fuck this guy, seriously.
Many first-generation male students, particularly but not exclusively East Asian (PCC is over 33% Asian), are ostentatiously fond of labels, particularly those that they associate with the “establishment.” Every year, even on hot summer days, my classes will be filled with remarkably neat young men in pressed khakis wearing Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, A&F, or even — oh, flashbacks to ’80s preppydom! — Brooks Brothers polo shirts. The labels are always conspicuous. Reading Glendenb’s comments, it occurs to me that these young upwardly mobile fellows are indeed mimicking what they imagine to be the appropriate attire of the privileged. (Only later will some of them transfer to Cal, Stanford, and Georgetown and discover that the real privileged tend to be far more unkempt.)
This is racist, orientalist, classist bullshit. To Schwyzer, immigrants’ participation in American cultures amounts to no more than “mimicry.” They can never be genuine participants in white culture, they can never “master” Schwyzer’s cultural practices. Because they are Asian. And God forbid, you know, Asian-Americans actually be among a wealthy class. God forbid he allow them to access American culture without hurling ridicule and racist tropes.
His premise, here, is that by virtue of their race and ethnicity, Asian-American people could not possibly authentically access American WASP culture. I am reminded of Minh-ha T. Pham’s piece “The Racial Construction of Preppiness“—
That this American should covet the “American style” of RLP and the aspirational social and economic values it symbolizes and secures is hardly noteworthy. Socioeconomic climbing is the promise at the heart of the American Dream. For Ditum, though, Villareal’s Americanness is not legible because his brown body is an inappropriate representative of the U.S. national body (which she describes in the racial terms of “gilded WASP”).
He is sexist, classist, racist, and abusive. That’s one thing, I guess? But how does an educational institution allow him to get away with publicly degrading their own students and demographics on racist, sexist, and classist grounds? What the fuck kind of institution allows a professor to publicly state disdain for his East Asian students—he names some of them!—without some serious ethics hearings?
i am reading women without class by julie bellie for one of my women’s studies classes. (if you are unfamiliar with it, tumblr, it is an ethnography of girls in a california high school)
she, like hugo schwyzer, observes that middle-class and working-class girls perform femininity differently. she, unlike hugo schwyzer, provides an analysis that isn’t terrible.
she says, basically, working class girls perform more sexualized femininity (which she refers to as “dissident femininity”, in contrast to the middle-class “school-sanctioned femininity) in order to align themselves more with being adult, whereas the “school-sanctioned femininity”—ie, minimal makeup, looking pretty androgynous—is pretty much designed to make middle-class girls seem unthreatening in their femininity.
(also, she notes that working-class girls’ sexuality is further stigmatized by pregnancy/babies, but that middle-class girls got pregnant about the same amount but had access to abortions. however, the appearance of babies/pregnancy made their sexual identities more blatant and also, also, i am simplifying out a lot of racial analysis regarding white girls vs mexican-american girls)
but like, hugo schwyzer is such a fucking tool. you can like feel the contempt he has for all his students (making it a very different reading experience than reading women without class)
the differences are also probably because like, julie bellie actually TALKED to the girls??
a quote from black feminist thought, by patricia hill collins.
let’s think really fucking hard about this in context of hugo schwyzer.
black feminist epistemology is awesome.
There’s also a Twitter!
Please contact me if you want to help run this show, ‘cause I really could use it. I’m on the social networks all day long but it would great if someone could write some content for the FB page, like some sort of “what’s wrong with Hugo Schwyzer?” thing or…something.
I mean, the fuckery of all this is that it’s great to get cum on sometimes as long as it’s not by Hugo Schwyzer.
No, actually, let me talk about this article:
- Your argument is that “facials are not degrading.” Your argument is not that “facials don’t have to be degrading,” your argument is that “facials are not degrading.”
- Your argument is an intervention in a prevailing discourse about facials. If I were writing something like this, I would be like “this theorist says that facials are degrading because Dworkin or whatever.” What you do, though, is quote a woman saying “facials feel really degrading to me” in order to prove her wrong about her feelings about getting cum on her face. That’s fucked up, dude.
- “Glickman further suggested that the fact that facials are also so common in gay male pornography – where the sexual politics are radically different – argues against the assumption that coming on someone’s face is rooted in men’s misogyny.” There are no power relations in gay relationships. ?. Or anyway, “I did this thing that I am doing to you to a man once! Therefore it’s not misogynistic!”
- “Both agreed that rather than seeing the facial as rooted in the impulse to denigrate, it might indeed be better to view it as longing for approval.” I have a really loving relationship with theorists who make totally bullshit and off-the-wall arguments that no one accepts. But this is too much for even me.
- Also, like, please. Talk to a motherfucking women. Lots of them are okay with/into getting cum on because it’s whatever/it’s weird and funny/it’s whatever. Like, even in my women’s studies classes, when it comes up, no one acts like it’s “committing an act of violence against other women.”
- Or, anyway, what if that were the case? What if most women (as Hugo is arguing) really did feel “degraded” by getting cum on? Why, as a male feminist, would you insist on writing an article about how they’re wrong about that?
- Oh, right. Because you’re Hugo Schwyzer.
- But getting cum on is over, now that I know H.S. is into it.
- Period Blood On Schwyzer’s Face In 2K12
really he’s just trolling by this point
“power conceals itself from those who possess it.”
how i have struggled to put that to words a countless number of times.
Hugo Schwyzer has confessed to attempting to murder his ex girlfriend. He’s confessed to unethical sex with his students (that statistically probably encompassed non-consensual sex with his students).
Hugo Schwyzer silences women in feminist discourse. He talks over us. He conjects half baked elementary level concepts of what women have been saying for thousands of years and he’s viewed as fucking revolutionary when he does it.
Hugo Schwyzer needs to get the fuck off my dash and my feminist tag. You can’t try to MURDER your ex girlfriend and still call yourself a feminist.
wow this entire conversation is so gross on so many levels. i haven’t heard of this before so i’m going to be kind of annoying and comment on parts of it while i’m reading it.
in the past every time i’ve read something on the good men project i’ve generally agreed with it/not explicitly been disgusted SO the original article that sparked this whole thing came with a special sort of disgust.
It seems that the blame game in the mainstream, whether through the minimization of male life in pop culture or on television or through the continued obsession with men behaving badly, has finally struck a chord with the average guy. We are no longer willing to be blamed for being men. We are no longer willing to avert our gazes and stay silent about our feelings. We are raising our voices and telling our stories in our own male vocabulary.
wow, it sure is hard to be a member of the oppressed male class, amirite? women are always silencing you and stuff.
oooh then there is the “look, i don’t know how privilege functions!” part of the twitter conversation:
my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn’t have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.
says white dude. the only (the ONLY!) sort of privilege ever is class privilege. didn’t you know, laaaaadies? but like, basically all of that twitter conversation is extremely familiar to everyone who’s ever had a discussion about feminism with dudes so i won’t quote extensively. also, i got really bored of reading it after a while, because i’ve had these conversations before and they suck.
man ok actually i was planning on reading this more in-depth but it’s just kind of fucking depressing. fuck hugo schwyzer for all of the reasons you already know and are mentioned above. am mainly just pissed the dude running “the good men project” is just as much of a derailing asshole as your common bro.
oh geez i guess it is misandry day. this post is so very, very disorganized. i just edited the title because i certainly did not really enjoy this piece by hugo schwyzer.