January 27, 2005
In the aftermath of Glenn Sacks' latest radio program this past weekend, I’ve gone over his exchange with Hugo Schwyzer. In my blog I’ve described this as with a sense of mounting horror bordering on the Lovecraftian. The adjective is used to describe a sense of unearthly wrongness to Hugo’s embrace of the hate movement that is called “Feminism.”
The only analogy I can think of is that of Martin Luther King introducing David Duke as his nomination for “Man of the Year.”
It is difficult in a column to address the missteps and tortured logic, let alone apparent cognitive dissonance that exists in Hugo’s world. A point by point analysis and refutation would be too long. At the same time, it is unnecessary, and even undesirable.
It is the tendency of demagogues and intellectual types to wish to bog down debate in a series of quibbles and set of posturings on trifles. To engage in such a manner is, then, to play their game under their rules. This is what makes a point by point analysis undesirable.
What makes it unnecessary is simple: Hugo proceeds from staggeringly false premises, ones that make his whole dog and pony show utter nonsense.
Such forms of argument are common, and if anyone has ever taken a logic course, they will understand the form, to wit: A) Black people are lazy. B) James is black. Conclusion: James is lazy. This is a perfectly sound and valid syllogism. The trouble with it is, it rests upon the truth of its premises; with premise “A” being incorrect, the whole of the argument collapses.
So it is with Hugo Schwyzer; it is pointless to argue over the details. And Hugo’s whole philosophy rests almost solely on the premise that there is something wrong with masculinity, or more narrowly, traditional masculinity. It is unfounded, unsupported, and utterly untrue.
Before I proceed further, I have no doubt some armchair logician is sitting back and protesting, and set on writing some insipid email to me saying that “Hugo Never Says That! Show Me Where He Says That!” Well, that’s correct – but a half truth. Hugo has throughout his work a theme that “Men must change.” This begs the question, “Why? Is there something wrong with Men?” The inference to be drawn here, and it is thusly an extremely fair inference, is that his answer is yes.
All Hugo has to show for his support is a series of anecdotes about some men behaving badly. Well, it’s not news. There are a lot of scumbag humans running around and who have run around, and about half of them are men. We in the Men’s Rights Movement do not commit the fallacy of division, that because Masculinity (Or Femininity) is good, that this trickles down to each and every person in that group. We also do not commit the fallacy of composition, and argue that because there are men and women who are scum, that all of any gender are scum. Dr. Schwyzer, unfortunately, clearly implies and commits both.
A lady who posted a comment to my blog once said something to the effect of “The reason there are so few female Hitlers, Dahmers, and Bundys is the same reason there are so few female Einsteins, Pasteurs, and Schweitzers.” While many misandrists will cheerfully recite a litany of the sins of the male, they often forget that this same group is responsible for law, philosophy, science, healing, and so forth, and this litany is far, far, longer and with more profound implications.
Masculinity is about competition and risk taking, in a raw form. The male heroic archetype is full of both qualities, and in superabundance. Anyone who has ever raised or taught boys will no doubt agree that boys are more active and interactive with their world. They push the envelope in ways more overt than girls.
(Go write Larry Summers. He was right the first time. Men and women are different. It’s innate. It’s Biology. Get over it.)
Now, I’ll throw Hugo a crumb here – after all, even a blind squirrel can find a nut upon occasion – in where he says it takes a man to raise a boy to a man. Hugo misses the idea though in that the height of male achievement is when that masculinity is directed to productive ends. Over the centuries, the human male, left to his own devices, has done an excellent job of that. Male competitiveness, risk taking, curiosity, and even aggressiveness has been by and large harnessed by men to produce civilization as we know it. The exceptions to this, or at least the vast and overwhelming majority of those exceptions, has happened by the hand of improperly formed and dysfunctional men. We have reams of material written to support this; abused men becoming abusers, promising young men in poverty from a lack of education, etc. etc. ad nauseum, ad infinitum. In the years from the inception of feminism, this has been exacerbated by the driving of the father from the lives of their children.
I concur with Hugo – the idea of a woman alone raising a boy to be a man is ludicrous, as she has no idea of what being a man is. (Yes, Hugo, the reverse is true. This is why we in the movement like to say that both parents are needed.) Hugo’s answer is one of throwing the baby out with the bathwater – change men and make them more feminine. From the seats of those of us in the Men’s Movement, such a thing would be most probably futile and do incalculable damage in the process. Eliminate those elements of nurture which do the damage, and encourage that nurture which brings out the better nature, and one turns a young man from a David Koresh to a Billy Graham.
(Hint: Recognizing that a boy desperately needs a father for this, and removing obstacles from displaced fathers being part of their son’s lives is a really good first step. Just one of those misogynistic MRA suggestions.)
So, is the Men’s Movement misogynistic?
It’s a ridiculous canard. While some of them exist, and a portion of them initially gravitate to the movement, it’s again committing the fallacy of composition. As well, like many female rape victims initially are hostile to men, I’d also suggest that a goodly portion of these men are fresh from getting raped in the Family Court, and like most of those aforementioned women, the misogyny of those men would pass in time.
It’s very fashionable for feminists and their sympathizers to point to statements made by such men on the fringe, and ignore the fact (or dismiss it) that the anti-male statements made by feminists are made by their leaders, and by “authorities” whose works are required reading in women’s studies classes, and who are cause celebré in Feminist circles.
What is the truth of it, though?
Many men’s activists are troubled by routine circumcision of male babies; and perhaps rightly so when female circumcision, differing from the clitorectomy, is seen as genital mutilation.
Is this misogynistic? There’s no call to mandate female circumcision, only stop it being done on boys.
Men’s Activists oppose the drugging of boys to keep them quiet and compliant, a practice which at least coincides with dropping school performance in boys.
Is that misogynistic, especially when it is many times more likely to happen when a boy has a female teacher?
Men’s Activists oppose affirmative action and quota systems based on gender, saying that such things promote tokenism.
Is it misogynistic to suggest that? I myself have sat in on meetings where such women were spoken of as the “token titties” kept around to satisfy a federal contract requirement – and this by a female part-owner of the company. Does that really help women?
When only men are subject to a draft, subject to being impressed into military service, Men’s Activists oppose this. Sadly most feminists miss the irony when it is suggested that women be subjected to it as well, and also miss the opportunity to wear the other side’s moccasins.
I don’t think it’s a leap in intuitive thought to think that Hugo is against war. Is it misogynistic to suggest that one doesn’t want their daughters OR sons to be forced to go fight and kill for a cause they don’t believe in?
When men object to being identified, locked up, vilified, and denied due process on the basis of an allegation, allegations of rape and abuse which far too often turn out to be false, where is the misogyny? When you have divorce attorneys commenting that it almost borders on malpractice to not advise a woman to seek an ex-parte restraining order for advantage in a custody dispute, is this not a problem?
Is that really misogynistic to ask that men not be denied their civil right of “innocent until proven guilty?” To not have their good name dragged through the mud?
When false accusations of rape, abuse, molestation, and harassment are made – often referred to as “perjury” and “false reporting” - Men’s Activists are asking that such women as make them are held as accountable as men making them.
Is it misogyny to suggest that women and men be held to the same standard of behavior in the legal arena?
Men’s Activists argue for the rebuttable presumption of joint custody, in order to remain a part of their children’s lives and not relegated to the status of second-class parent. Nowhere in mainstream MRA writings is it suggested that such men should then not exercise their prerogatives as parent, or be exempted from caring for their children. Isn’t it, after all, more than just a little disingenuous for mainstream feminism to actively seek policies which prevent men from being involved as fathers, and then castigate the male half of the human race for it?
Is that misogynistic, to want to be a father? Or only misogynistic to point out the hypocrisy of feminism?
Men’s Activists have promoted and campaigned for the “Male Pill,” for non-intrusive birth control to allow men to take charge of their reproductive destiny; now that it is close to becoming a reality, I myself have been derided for “wanting to deny a woman her right to be a mother.”
But is it really misogynistic to not want to be a walking sperm bank?
As I move in the circles of Men’s Activists I get a sense of men being angry at being denigrated in the media, discriminated against in court, having their contributions discounted, their opinions discredited and their concerns dismissed. Is this anger misogynistic? It is surely directed against feminists and feminism, and Dr. Hugo Schwyzer claims that one cannot be anti-feminist without being anti-woman. Is this true? Or a convenient rubric from which he slings rhetoric? Or what? He surely holds Men’s Rights Activists in low regard, but claims to be pro-male – is this cognitive dissonance in action?
Was it racist for blacks of the early twentieth century to chafe under Jim Crow? Is it truly misogynistic for men of the Early 21 st century to chafe under John Crow?
I see no suggestion that laws against rape be repealed within the Men’s Movement. I see no suggestion that child abuse should be legalized, or wife beating. I listen for the hordes of angry red state men who want to remove the voting franchise from women, and hear silence.
Where, then, is the misogyny in all this?
Is it from the men who want women to be held as equally accountable as men under the law?
Is it from men who “kept it in their pants” and don’t want to be indentured servants for children they never made?
Is it from the participants in the apocryphal “Marriage Strike” who want no part of a Family Court system beholden to interests that are actively hostile to them?
Is it from those men who are so enamored of their “Male Privilege” to be drafted and sent to die, given harsher sentences, denied any meaningful voice in the reproductive process, to be forced to labor past their retirement age to support some indolent ex-spouse because of antiquated spousal support statutes?
Maybe it’s from “Homosocial” men who are so busy trying to -(ahem) – show off to other men as they are bombarded with advertisements every commercial break to “Please HER” this Valentine’s Day?
Dr. Hugo Schwyzer sure sees it in there.
And it doesn’t take `The Amazing Carnac” to see that sooner or later someone will come along and give a sad little condescending comment about how “bitter” such Men’s Activists are. Yeahsureyoubetcha. Tell that to the black men who have been driven so far from their own families that in any other time and place the actions of feminists – a club for rich old white lesbians – would be called a Holocaust; to the men who have placed bullets in their heads due to outrageous child support orders based on an imputed income they never made, let alone can pay; or to the children who grow up wanting their daddy to be allowed back in their lives.
What Men’s Activists want is nothing less than a fair shake under the law, to be considered and treated as equal parents, and with the rights and responsibilities inherent thereof. Men’s Activists have no problem at all with women who wish to play under the same rules, and share equally the responsibilities, to take the good and the bad.
That’s real equality. And when looked under that lens, it’s perhaps the real truth that Men’s Activists are the only real Feminists in the whole mix.
