Christmas draws nearer, and as is to be expected, things get busier. Grades were finally turned in yesterday. A few small presents remain to be bought; I expect to have them done by tomorrow afternoon. On Sunday, I'll be off to England for ten days, for a family New Year's gathering in Exeter.
I don't know what to do about this fellow who, using various internet addresses, posts here and elsewhere as "Hugo." He is what is evidently to be referred to as a troll, and seems part of the movement of MEN (Misogynistic Embittered Neanderthals, and I say that with sincere affection.) I do trust that my readers are clever enough to distinguish my comments from his! Right?
UPDATE: It is interesting to note that men's rights guys tend to use the same slurs in coming after pro-feminist men. Their attacks seem to fall into one of four categories:
1. Pro-feminist men are lapdogs; weak, frightened, and under the control of strong, feminist women.
2. Alternatively, pro-feminist men are "wolves in sheep's clothing", sexual predators using a facade of compassion to attract victims. Pro-feminism is a slick tactic designed to help "score" with certain women.
3. Pro-feminist men are gay, and thus not "real men".
4. Pro-feminist men are filled with self-loathing. To be involved in the feminist movement is likened to psychological self-castration. Pro-feminist men are filled with rage at other males (perhaps rooted in bad experiences with their fathers, or being picked on after school), and thus align themselves with feminists to get revenge.
Most of the vitriol tends to place men in the movement into one or more of these four categories. Feel free to classify the troll attacks accordingly!
Do you have any idea the cognitive dissonance I deal with? I am timid, and passive -- yet predatory. I am gay -- yet controlled by the women with whom I am in relationship. And all of my work with men and boys is really a cover for my own intense self-hatred. I get a headache just thinking about it!
Anyhow...
Things I've been reading:
Ralph Luker at Cliopatria on Martin Luther King and plagiarism (new insight -- from an expert -- on the old story).
The growing number of "Top 5" posts at Bob Carlton's place, from bloggers familar to me and new. I still am happy with my own top five, though I have certainly got a few runners up of which I am proud, like this and this.
Jenell Paris has a very interesting review of the emerging church movement's hot new book, A Generous Orthodoxy. She gently points out some of its shortcomings, along with strengths.
Lisa at Feminist Mormon Housewives has this provocative post on anger, vindictiveness, and forgiveness.
Graham at Leaving Munster provides a useful thumbnail sketch of anabaptism.
Amanda has a fine feminist analysis of "it's a Wonderful Life".
Lynn, in a long and superb post, touches on mercy and sexuality, among other things.
Think of it this way, Hugo: you know you have "arrived" in the blogosphere when the trolls come out to play.
Merry Christmas and have a great trip!
Posted by: Rhesa | December 22, 2004 at 09:54 AM
Hugo why do you flatter your enemies? They so constantly lie to you. They say you will gain women in your quest to appease them, but you do not gain women. They deny you any possibility of a sweet wife (or multiple sweet wives, but they deny you even one). They demand that you submit to domeneering women. They say that you are evil for want of a good female. Why do you flatter them? They hate you and wish you only ill... they seek to keep you captive and obedient, on a hook everlast.
http://www.cafepress.com/ribboncandle
Posted by: Hugo | December 22, 2004 at 09:57 AM
There's always the other sort of "ignore", the one where no one responds to nonsense.
Personally, I would find it flattering. You've hit a nerve, and isn't that what good writing is supposed to do? Touch people in some way?
Posted by: Michelle | December 22, 2004 at 10:14 AM
That's because the vast majority of the trolls are the same 3-4 guys, who just use a bunch of different posting names to make it look like they have huge numbers. At feministing, many of them "disappeared" after Jessica pointed out to them that using different names doesn't disguise their IP addresses from her.
Posted by: Amanda | December 22, 2004 at 10:39 AM
Proxies and shells would disguise the IPs, perhapse that is too much effort to waste on feminists though.Jessica isn't so greatly smart because she can see those IP addresses, don't pat yourselves on the back. Now on your feminist bulliten boards I can see all the IP addresses that read certain posts, and not by any "hacking", just by being clever, and I am no admin of said boards. I'm sure none of you will figure it out, but know that you are not safe or anonomyous on those boards.
http://www.cafepress.com/ribboncandle
Posted by: Hugo | December 22, 2004 at 10:47 AM
I hate to sound as though I'm sticking up for a troll, but it bears noting that the four categories of attacks you identified are not mutually contradictory, unless each is prefaced with the word "all." Otherwise, there's nothing particularly odd about arguing that some pro-feminist men are wimps, while others are playing into the politics of getting laid, while others still are either gays or self-loathing straights. The categories are not completely exclusive of each other, either; a wimp trying to get laid may do so by spouting feminist dogma, while a non-wimp will rely on a "manlier" (though not necessarily more successful) strategy than that.
Not saying any of these theories are right, just that they're not necessarily wrong solely because they are different from each other.
Posted by: Xrlq | December 22, 2004 at 11:11 AM
You know this troll would have been much more effective with some subtilty and brains. I was confused for about half a second but as soon as "you" cursed me with plagues I figured it for a troll.
Now a smart troll with this kind of aimless vindictiveness could wreak havoc. But I wonder if trolldom by nature only attracts the adamently stupid.
Posted by: Lisa | December 22, 2004 at 12:38 PM
make that "affective"
doh
Posted by: Lisa | December 22, 2004 at 12:39 PM
double doh, "effective". Sorry, I was up all night with a nine month old with double ear infections. I have very few brain cells left.
Posted by: Lisa | December 22, 2004 at 12:41 PM
XRLQ, I agree that they aren't all mutually contradictory. I'm just pointing out the taxonomy of defamation strategies. Some are internally contradictory, some aren't. Any man who has worked for gender justice, however, has been on the receiving end of most, not necessarily all, of these four.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | December 22, 2004 at 12:46 PM
First thing that comes to mind: don't the sad gits have anything better to do?
I know you and thisgirl have your reasons for putting up with the trolls, but the few I get just get deleted (so far, by my apparently-prescient anti-spam plugin). The way I see it, I'm not paying for webspace for some sad little person to write misogynistic drivel on.
As for the contradictory attacks...I would say they're just not very bright, but that might not be strictly true. What does seem certain, though, is that they don't think very deeply, or very much at all, in fact.
Posted by: The Birdwoman | December 22, 2004 at 01:05 PM
They seem to be heartened in some way by my pointing out that the same I.P. posts under five different names, often referring to each other! Bizarre.
Hugo, at least they haven't asked you the world's dumbest question yet; "How would you feel if your mother had aborted you?". I mean, different stances on the abortion debate aside, that really is roll-on-floor-laughing material right?
Posted by: thisgirl | December 22, 2004 at 01:19 PM
Indeed, thisgirl. I wonder what answer they expect to that particular question? After all, I am hesitantly and ambivalently pro-life -- but no serious members of the consistent life movement would ever dream of such a question, except as a bit of gallows humor.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | December 22, 2004 at 01:23 PM
Hugo when will you get into thisgirl's pants (she dosn't wear skirts). I doubt she will ever let you aquire what you want to have.
http://www.cafepress.com/ribboncandle
Buy a teddy bear for her
Posted by: Hugo | December 22, 2004 at 01:47 PM
Before I continue my no-doubt futile efforts to ban you, ersatz Hugo, can I put you down as using #2 from the above list of slurs?
Hey, other men's rights fellas -- I take your silence in response to this Hugo as support for his tactics. No doubt you will let me know if that is fair or not.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | December 22, 2004 at 01:51 PM
Um, someone kept posting under different names but the same IP address, and you call *Jessica* stupid for seeing that? Huh.
Well, at least we know this "Hugo" guy is the one who kept whining that thisgirl is wowed into bed with him by his abuse. One does wonder how frustrating it must be to want to have sex so badly with members of a sex you hate so much.
Posted by: Amanda | December 22, 2004 at 02:36 PM
Teehee, I love the emails I get saying "You're an evil feminazi.. you could be saved though.. got any more pics?"
Posted by: thisgirl | December 22, 2004 at 03:21 PM
WHY are you guys giving this guy the negative attention he so desperately craves? Each time you respond to him, you reinforce the behavior. I suppose I am doing the same with this post. Nuf said by me on this topic.
Posted by: Michelle | December 22, 2004 at 06:31 PM
Hey, other men's rights fellas -- I take your silence in response to this Hugo as support for his tactics. No doubt you will let me know if that is fair or not.
It's not fair. You don't speak out against all the evils in the world. (You can't because there are too many of them.) I would not equate that failure to speak out with support for the status quo.
Jeff JP
Posted by: Jeff JP | December 22, 2004 at 08:43 PM
Not saying any of these theories are right, just that they're not necessarily wrong solely because they are different from each other.
In the abstract, no, but when trotted out one after another when direct at the same person or persons, they are. You can say that feminist men are emasculated/gay/players/whatever, but as soon as you start piling on Hugo for being a pussywhipped, homosexual player, it starts to look silly.
Posted by: mythago | December 23, 2004 at 07:03 AM
Lord, have mercy on us all. This men's rights business is disturbing. I'm all for parental rights for men, but this group sounds more like property use rights (the property being women) for male pleasure-seeking without responsibilty-taking for any OOOPS--just get an abortion, honey.
I'm pro-feminist, male, partnered to another man (e.g. gay) with a seemless web pro-life approach to things. Does that make me less a man? Wimpy? Not in the slightest. In fact, from what I can see here, these so-called men's rights folks haven't yet begun to grow up: compassion, treating others as you yourself would like to be treated (not as mere objects for pleasure), self- and other- respect, commitment, bridling the passions--these are what make for grown-up men (and women for that matter). But then, my definition of what makes a man (or woman) is rooted in reflection on Christ.
And what is a self-loathing straight (man)? A man who doesn't think women are there only for his use, but are persons with agency, who properly treated are committed to through thick and thin, who doesn't ask her to get an abortion if she becomes pregnant? I certainly strive not to treat other gay men merely for my use, having chosen to bridle my passions through committed monogamy. Does that make me a self-loathing gay man? Pppllleeeaaassseee! Lord, have mercy on us all.
Posted by: Christopher | December 23, 2004 at 08:48 AM
Christopher, I like that: "property use rights" rather than authentic "men's rights."
Thanks for the terrific, thoughtful comment.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | December 23, 2004 at 08:50 AM
don't delete my posts fool
Posted by: shinrikyou | December 26, 2004 at 10:06 AM
"women as property" is really old and tired, and this is not what "men's rights" is about.
even MFJ does not seek to make women into "property" and MFJ does not represent all "MRAs".
i am not an "MRA" myself
(for various reasons)
but i do read their stuff.
and from what i saw most of them don't aren't "conservative".
i am not a "conservative" either, i am not religious, and i don't believe in the awesomeness of marriage.
i also think that having a working wife would be cooler than a non-working one.
it's all about her approach to marriage, not about whether she works or not.
this is not the 30s or something, "putting women back in the kitchen" is simply impossible because they are about half of the workforce.
MRAs are dedicated to fighting misandry in culture and discrimination (or what they perceive as discrimination) in some areas,
not to "subjugating" women.
Posted by: shinrikyou | December 26, 2004 at 10:13 AM
i also think that having a working wife would be cooler than a non-working one
Then, when you're out of college and ready to marry, get a "working" wife. You're going to run into problems if your wife is at home, taking care of the children and running the household, and you're firmly of the opinion that she doesn't "work."
Posted by: mythago | December 26, 2004 at 12:50 PM