... to post samples from the two dozen emails I have received in the last six hours from fans of Glenn Sacks. I wrote earlier this morning that most of the email was polite, taking the stance that I must simply be delusional to support the feminist movement. Lately, the email has taken an unfortunately ugly turn. Still, as nasty as some of it is, I am confident that my female counterparts face worse. After all, it's a lot tougher to think up insults for straight white men than it is for women. That dpesn't mean the old boys don't have a damned good try:
Thisgirl alerts me to this discussion forum, where some fine fellows think my pro-feminist stance has pedophilic overtones. (In my work -- heck in any man's work -- there's no more hurtful lie than the attempt to disprove one's trustworthiness. Hence, it's an all too-common line of assault.) As I've pointed out before, attacks on pro-feminist men follow a prescribed pattern. How many of the four types of slurs can you find here?
I don't think I'm worth all this attention, frankly, and after this post, I'll try and get back to the real issues.
Reflecting on Sunday's show, I am clear that I do want to honor the anger that is out there. And on Sunday, as forcefully and firmly and politely as I can, I'm going to make the case that the men's rights movement has misdiagnosed the cause of that hurt and anger -- and they have wildly misprescribed the cure.
Hugo, what's wrong with a little attacking for the greater good of changing minds???
Posted by: B | January 20, 2005 at 04:44 PM
"Attacking" rarely has that effect, B. It feels good to get oneself good and frothy in a self-righteous lather, but it doesn't change many minds. But I think a frank and spirited exchange of views (as diplomats put it) is sometimes useful, even on talk radio.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | January 20, 2005 at 04:49 PM
Keep on keeping on, Hugo.
And for the record, I think the way you fight your fights is inspiring. "Love thy enemy" isn't a yoke placed on us Christians when we interact with people we disagree with, even if it leaves us fuming inside. All that love pouring out in the face of disrespect and hatred comes across more clearly and befuddles more completely than we realize, I think.
Posted by: Chris Tessone | January 20, 2005 at 08:49 PM
just catching up on the Sacks show, goodness, said a prayer for you, keep your head up H man
Posted by: Rudy | January 20, 2005 at 08:52 PM
Oops, I meant "love thine enemy" earlier. I know my Shakespearean English well enough I shouldn't have made that mistake. ;-)
Posted by: Chris Tessone | January 20, 2005 at 10:59 PM
And for the record, I think the way you fight your fights is inspiring.
Sneering self-righteousness is inspiring? OK...
"Love thy enemy" isn't a yoke placed on us Christians when we interact with people we disagree with, even if it leaves us fuming inside. All that love pouring out in the face of disrespect and hatred comes across more clearly and befuddles more completely than we realize, I think.
It's interesting that you say this. Quoting or paraphrasing Jesus, or calling oneself a "Christian," does not make one immune from false pride and hypocrisy.
The way the Hugo deals with men who question his mindless feminist dogma is really anything but loving. By contrast, it's riddled with unkind, sniping condescension. That seems neither inspiring nor loving to me.
If such behavior and commentary are examples of so-called "Christian love," then I'd much rather do without.
Posted by: Jeff JP | January 21, 2005 at 12:01 AM
from their site;
The alleged documentation about this fellow's Internet penchant for chat rooms with teenaged girls needs to be sent to Glenn Sacks ASAP!
Hehe I hope someone calls in to say; "well, he comments on this girl's blog, we don't like her either, erm... yeah.."
Posted by: thisgirl | January 21, 2005 at 05:48 AM
Don't post sample e-mails, Hugo. They crave the attention. ;)
I read the "discussion" *cough* forum thisgirl told you about. Sheesh, some of the half-baked blather some people can come up with... LOL
I just wanted to wish you well on Sunday. I wish I could hear the show, but I'm on the east coast. Definitely fill us all in on how well it went. Can you post a transcript, or a link to one?
Posted by: Trish Wilson | January 21, 2005 at 09:16 AM
Yes, Trish, and if you go to Glenn's site, you can listen live on the net or listen to an audio file from his archive afterwards.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | January 21, 2005 at 09:25 AM
So, JeffJP, is it intolerable "false pride" to say that the meek shall inherit the Earth?
Posted by: Amanda | January 21, 2005 at 09:42 AM
Hugo, the first major problem is your decision to call Glenn Sacks a "denier of male privilege." This would be like me calling you "a denier" that you committed armed robbery. The target of the charge can't win: either you will accuse him of admitting male privilege or you will accuse him of admitting that he DENIES male privilege.
The fact is: men enjoy privilege in some ways, and women enjoy it in others. For example, Bill Cosby's name is being smeared all over the media for allegedly having groped a Canadian woman. Her name? Oh, that's remaining a secret so as to protect her privacy. All well and good. But if you protect the privacy of the accuser, you must also do so for the accused. This case never should have been publicized in the news, because if this woman is lying through her teeth, there will still be people clucking and saying that he did it, regardless of evidence to the contrary. HIS name will be tarnished forever, while HERS will remain a mystery.
Your second major problem is the impression you give that male activists are wonderful -- so long as they are banding together to help women exclusively. This is a key problem faced by MRAs: the silly impression that, no matter what may happen to a man, or to men, women "obviously" have it worse and those affected men should therefore keep quiet.
Only when we aim to help females and males EQUALLY will we see true equality.
Posted by: bmmg39 | January 21, 2005 at 04:28 PM
Once again, I am truly in awe of the logic that it is a privilege to be the victim of sexual crimes.
Posted by: Amanda | January 24, 2005 at 10:38 AM
"Once again, I am truly in awe of the logic that it is a privilege to be the victim of sexual crimes."
No one has said that it is. The point is that, with the astronomical rate of false accusations, we shouldn't keep any accuser's identity (male or female) a secret but then turn around and reveal the identity of the accused (male or female).
Posted by: bmmg39 | January 25, 2005 at 09:48 AM
Please cite your source for this "astronomical number of false accusations."
Posted by: Moontyger | January 25, 2005 at 10:27 AM
' Please cite your source for this "astronomical number of false accusations." '
Well, here is ONE source; I won't pretend that I have only one.
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaStats.html
Our society must equally protect those who have truly been victimized by rape/sexual assault/domestic abuse and those who have been falsely accused of such crimes.
Posted by: bmmg39 | January 25, 2005 at 10:42 AM