![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gryphonseggOh, look, I'm posting about messed up reactions to Hugo Schwyzer's abuse of women again! Apparently, that's what I do now. Because people who claim to be pro-woman keep reacting to his appalling behavior in ways that are messed up.
For example, Hugo's supporters sometimes say that "we" (most likely meaning the feminist and progressive online communities) should "forgive" Hugo of his past transgressions. (I imagine the women of color who were pointing out his and his buddies' racism years ago asking, "What do you mean 'we,' white person?") It is often implicit, if not outright stated, that "forgiving" him would necessarily entail letting him continue to put himself forward as a spokesperson for feminism and a leader in the feminist movement. Whether a man should have put himself forward as a feminist leader in the first place is a point that can be debated separately from the Hugo-specific issues. Even if you think it would be appropriate for some hypothetical man to take on a leadership role in some hypothetical feminist space, Hugo's ongoing practice is to insinuate himself into exactly those spaces and projects where the presence of any cisgender, heterosexual man can't help but raise a few eyebrows. Hugo's personal history of taking sexual advantage of women who were especially vulnerable, at least one of whom did not give consent--a series of events which Hugo himself admitted were rape, although he then added assorted hedges--and several of whom were his own students, takes his involvement in certain projects past "inappropriate" and into "What the hell are y'all thinking?" territory.
In other words, Hugo's supporters are conflating forgiveness with trust in a way that makes it difficult for some participants in the discussion to express their concerns about extent, the nature, and the high profile of Hugo's involvement without seeming to abandon previously stated principles. Some of Hugo's critics accept this and simply say that they won't and shouldn't forgive him. But others have staked out philosophical territory which values forgiveness and/or meeting people where they are, flaws and all. In a reply to a comment on my previous post, I said this:
I've seen people blaming Hugo's refusal to take full responsibility for his actions and his expectation of acceptance in spite of them on Christianity and/or the AA model. And their arguments do include some good points; I say that not as a disinterested analyzer of arguments but as a Christian of exactly the kind they're criticizing/complaining about (the reasons why are intimately tied to very personal experiences, including my mood disorder, and I might never feel comfortable enough to explain) and as someone who respects AA because it has worked for people I know who didn't find anything else that worked for them. I think left-leaning Christians do need to engage in more questioning and discussion about how to interact with repentant abusers. But Hugo's current behavior is NOT that of someone who has sincerely turned away from his past.
I'm ready to state my position on the forgiveness issue more clearly. Forgiveness is an act of grace. It is freely given, whether deserved or not. Trust is earned. Forgiveness and trust are not the same thing. I have forgiven people of actions which I would not trust them not to do again. I no longer bear any ill will toward the people I just referred to, but I would not put myself in position to be hurt by them again, and if I found someone else in a position to be hurt by them, I would warn that person of the danger of getting burned. I would not give that warning out of malice for the people whose behavior I have reason to worry about; I would give the warning out of concern for the person who might get hurt.
That brings up the question of how trust is earned. There are no easy answers for that. By its very nature, this problem has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a person has sincerely repented of abusive behavior similar to Hugo's. Let's call that person Bob, because the "sincerely" part rules out calling him Hugo. Bob realizes the full enormity of his mistreatment of others. He is truly and deeply sorry for what he did. He has turned his life around and made an earnest commitment to doing the right thing. What does "the right thing" for Bob include? Well, given his past, it doesn't include leading a youth group in his church, talking to teenagers about body image and sexuality, or teaching women's history classes (especially if those classes are likely to derail into class discussions about sex and pornography!). It's quite possible that it doesn't include continuing to teach classes at all. It doesn't include writing about sex on Jezebel, writing about the relative provocativeness of various women's clothing on his blog, or helping to organize a Slut Walk event.
It is good for the communities in which Hugo has been participating-- feminism, Christianity (or any other religion; Christianity just happens to be both the one Hugo chose and the one I know the most about), AA and addiction/recovery support-- to offer a welcome to reforming people who have done terrible things in their past lives due to patriarchy, unmet spiritual needs, drug addiction, whatever. But those communities must keep their obligations to their other members, some of whom may not be able to deal with a sexual predator and partner abuser-- even a genuinely reformed, former predator and abuser. No person who was abused by him, no person who was abused by someone else in similar ways, and no person who fits the former abuser's preferred victim profile should feel obligated to interact with him for any reason. Such a person definitely should not have to interact with him to be considered a good feminist, a good Christian, a good AA member, or a good person. This limits Genuinely Reformed Bob's ability to take leadership roles within the community. There might be entire events or entire subgroups from which has to be excluded for the good of other community members. I am okay with that because it's not all about Bob. Other people have their own issues that are just as serious and just as important to work through as his. If his presence in some spaces would cause distress to people who need those spaces to be distress-free, then he should go be present somewhere else. If Bob really is genuinely reformed, he will accept that it's not all about him.
For example, Hugo's supporters sometimes say that "we" (most likely meaning the feminist and progressive online communities) should "forgive" Hugo of his past transgressions. (I imagine the women of color who were pointing out his and his buddies' racism years ago asking, "What do you mean 'we,' white person?") It is often implicit, if not outright stated, that "forgiving" him would necessarily entail letting him continue to put himself forward as a spokesperson for feminism and a leader in the feminist movement. Whether a man should have put himself forward as a feminist leader in the first place is a point that can be debated separately from the Hugo-specific issues. Even if you think it would be appropriate for some hypothetical man to take on a leadership role in some hypothetical feminist space, Hugo's ongoing practice is to insinuate himself into exactly those spaces and projects where the presence of any cisgender, heterosexual man can't help but raise a few eyebrows. Hugo's personal history of taking sexual advantage of women who were especially vulnerable, at least one of whom did not give consent--a series of events which Hugo himself admitted were rape, although he then added assorted hedges--and several of whom were his own students, takes his involvement in certain projects past "inappropriate" and into "What the hell are y'all thinking?" territory.
In other words, Hugo's supporters are conflating forgiveness with trust in a way that makes it difficult for some participants in the discussion to express their concerns about extent, the nature, and the high profile of Hugo's involvement without seeming to abandon previously stated principles. Some of Hugo's critics accept this and simply say that they won't and shouldn't forgive him. But others have staked out philosophical territory which values forgiveness and/or meeting people where they are, flaws and all. In a reply to a comment on my previous post, I said this:
I've seen people blaming Hugo's refusal to take full responsibility for his actions and his expectation of acceptance in spite of them on Christianity and/or the AA model. And their arguments do include some good points; I say that not as a disinterested analyzer of arguments but as a Christian of exactly the kind they're criticizing/complaining about (the reasons why are intimately tied to very personal experiences, including my mood disorder, and I might never feel comfortable enough to explain) and as someone who respects AA because it has worked for people I know who didn't find anything else that worked for them. I think left-leaning Christians do need to engage in more questioning and discussion about how to interact with repentant abusers. But Hugo's current behavior is NOT that of someone who has sincerely turned away from his past.
I'm ready to state my position on the forgiveness issue more clearly. Forgiveness is an act of grace. It is freely given, whether deserved or not. Trust is earned. Forgiveness and trust are not the same thing. I have forgiven people of actions which I would not trust them not to do again. I no longer bear any ill will toward the people I just referred to, but I would not put myself in position to be hurt by them again, and if I found someone else in a position to be hurt by them, I would warn that person of the danger of getting burned. I would not give that warning out of malice for the people whose behavior I have reason to worry about; I would give the warning out of concern for the person who might get hurt.
That brings up the question of how trust is earned. There are no easy answers for that. By its very nature, this problem has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a person has sincerely repented of abusive behavior similar to Hugo's. Let's call that person Bob, because the "sincerely" part rules out calling him Hugo. Bob realizes the full enormity of his mistreatment of others. He is truly and deeply sorry for what he did. He has turned his life around and made an earnest commitment to doing the right thing. What does "the right thing" for Bob include? Well, given his past, it doesn't include leading a youth group in his church, talking to teenagers about body image and sexuality, or teaching women's history classes (especially if those classes are likely to derail into class discussions about sex and pornography!). It's quite possible that it doesn't include continuing to teach classes at all. It doesn't include writing about sex on Jezebel, writing about the relative provocativeness of various women's clothing on his blog, or helping to organize a Slut Walk event.
It is good for the communities in which Hugo has been participating-- feminism, Christianity (or any other religion; Christianity just happens to be both the one Hugo chose and the one I know the most about), AA and addiction/recovery support-- to offer a welcome to reforming people who have done terrible things in their past lives due to patriarchy, unmet spiritual needs, drug addiction, whatever. But those communities must keep their obligations to their other members, some of whom may not be able to deal with a sexual predator and partner abuser-- even a genuinely reformed, former predator and abuser. No person who was abused by him, no person who was abused by someone else in similar ways, and no person who fits the former abuser's preferred victim profile should feel obligated to interact with him for any reason. Such a person definitely should not have to interact with him to be considered a good feminist, a good Christian, a good AA member, or a good person. This limits Genuinely Reformed Bob's ability to take leadership roles within the community. There might be entire events or entire subgroups from which has to be excluded for the good of other community members. I am okay with that because it's not all about Bob. Other people have their own issues that are just as serious and just as important to work through as his. If his presence in some spaces would cause distress to people who need those spaces to be distress-free, then he should go be present somewhere else. If Bob really is genuinely reformed, he will accept that it's not all about him.
