![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How is this still going on?
Jan. 21st, 2012 08:29 pmDays after posting about it, I am still absolutely furious about the ongoing controversy (HOW IS THIS A CONTROVERSY?) over Hugo Schwyzer in feminist blogging circles and the hypocrisy of the feminists who are defending him (which include the usual suspects at Jezebel, Feministe, Pandagon, and now Feministing too . . . because the Feministing people couldn't watch Amanda Marcotte and part of the Feministe crew jump off a cliff and not jump too). I've followed horrendous messes in Blogland before. This one is hitting me in more places that hurt than most others could manage. Many important discussions are spinning off from it, and articulating exactly where I stand on the issues and why would require me to write about several very personal things that I usually prefer not to be too specific about-- including my religious beliefs and my mood disorder. I've been worrying over these things for hours on end . . . but then I take a step back and realize OH YEAH, THIS STARTED WITH AN ADMISSION OF ATTEMPTED MURDER!
Sorry, I just had to put that in all caps because I am still having trouble wrapping my brain around the concept of so many self-proclaimed champions of feminism giving a man a pass on trying to MURDER HIS GIRLFRIEND-- and not merely a pass to be considered an okay guy who gets the equivalent of invitations to all the right parties but a pass to continue presenting himself as a leader within the feminist movement and someone qualified to give advice on sex, relationships, and feminism. There are some conversations going on about whether men can or should be feminist leaders and spokespersons, and those are very interesting, but I would like to think that even the people taking the most extreme "Sure, men can do whatever they want too!" position should acknowledge that this particular man's actions disqualify him. I've done a lot of thinking (and a lot of having All the Feelings) about the religious angle and the addiction/recovery angle, and . . . and I almost typed a 100-word sentence and followed it up with "ARRRRRGH!" At this point, it's sufficient to say that much of the discussion around those issues serves Hugo well by drawing the people who find basically everything about him objectionable into arguing about the merits of specific addiction and recovery models, arguing about whether alcoholics and narcissists are targets of ablism, and either bashing his religion or debating theological points. I could write fifteen posts on those related issues, but you know what? I keep coming back to thinking how incredibly wrong it is that this whole thing ever got started in the first place. Seriously, how are we even having this conversation?
Sorry, I just had to put that in all caps because I am still having trouble wrapping my brain around the concept of so many self-proclaimed champions of feminism giving a man a pass on trying to MURDER HIS GIRLFRIEND-- and not merely a pass to be considered an okay guy who gets the equivalent of invitations to all the right parties but a pass to continue presenting himself as a leader within the feminist movement and someone qualified to give advice on sex, relationships, and feminism. There are some conversations going on about whether men can or should be feminist leaders and spokespersons, and those are very interesting, but I would like to think that even the people taking the most extreme "Sure, men can do whatever they want too!" position should acknowledge that this particular man's actions disqualify him. I've done a lot of thinking (and a lot of having All the Feelings) about the religious angle and the addiction/recovery angle, and . . . and I almost typed a 100-word sentence and followed it up with "ARRRRRGH!" At this point, it's sufficient to say that much of the discussion around those issues serves Hugo well by drawing the people who find basically everything about him objectionable into arguing about the merits of specific addiction and recovery models, arguing about whether alcoholics and narcissists are targets of ablism, and either bashing his religion or debating theological points. I could write fifteen posts on those related issues, but you know what? I keep coming back to thinking how incredibly wrong it is that this whole thing ever got started in the first place. Seriously, how are we even having this conversation?