I worry a bit that posting this makes me as creepy as Hugo, who seems to have an obsession with FCM’s posts while not actually understanding or replying to them at all. (Have you noticed they never quote FCM radical feminists in general? Makes it much easier to misrepresent what they say.) But I don’t think it does, because there are a few major differences. Firstly, the major reason this needs to be pointed out is to say with big neon letters that even “feminist” men can be creepy rapist motherfuckers. It also is a sort of case study on what FCM said in On Crediblity. And as to why I’m motivated to this, Hugo is essentially going back on his word, where he invited to reopen comments on his posts describing the affairs, since I might have a “new take.” Only if he believed my analysis of his past to be irrelevant to the topic does my ban really make sense, since calling his “affairs” outright rape is obviously a “new take” on them. But since he didn’t mention me being off topic, I can only guess I analyzed his past a little more than he would have liked.
Alternatively, I was banned because I was “arrogant and entitled,” and “threw the word rape around” for nearly any sexual act, by calling Hugo a rapist for fucking his students. It’s interesting to me they say these things, because the rationalizations of these commenters are the same ones I have seen from rapists and rape apologists I’ve encountered (or been raped by). The general lack of seriousness with which they treated my judgment of his actions also says quite a bit about “feminist” men’s definitions of “consent” and how they react to women accusing men of misogyny, in this case manifesting as rape and an abuse of power.
One of the most frightening responses was from someone who said I had a “right to my opinion” that he had raped his students, but that I shouldn’t apply labels based on it. Which I assume translates to: You can think he raped those women, but don’t call him a rapist because that’s mean and irrelevant. Thanks! But more so than this guy’s concern for Hugo’s fee-fees, the analogies that followed this are incredibly frightening, considering the subject matter.
Ms Citrus – No one that I’m aware of is saying “that liberal men don’t consider a professor sleeping with student rape, or even predatory”.
If I had several accidents caused by drunken driving where I injured or killed others – I would clearly be a “murderer” or similar to some. To hear that years later would be different from shortly after the last “accident”. (None of this happened.)
There is plenty – if you want to criticize Hugo – related to his past and certainly material he writes of now. There is no need to make things related to Hugo or others as a: “you’re with me or against me” mindset as you are (unfortunately) doing. Thanks!
The key words in his analogy are “accidents.” This commenter is, yes, comparing accidents that happen while driving drunk to a teacher fucking his students. As though you can accidentally fuck someone. The fact of the matter is these “affairs” of his takes intent. He could have, I am sure, found willing sexual partners in his own age range. But he didn’t. He could have even dated people half his age who weren’t his students, or simply waiting until whoever he was interested in graduated. But he didn’t.
He deliberately chose to fuck his students-whether that’s because he knew they weren’t in any position to say no, or simply because he had some sort of fetish for student/teacher relationships isn’t clear. What is clear, however, is that his affairs with students were no “accident” and not due to any spiritual or emotional connection to the women involved, since he fucked multiple students in the same time period. Despite what “feminist” men like Hugo, my ex, and the commentators who support him might imply, you cannot accidentally fuck someone, nor can you accidentally rape them. Rape is never a “mistake” on the part of the rapist, to use the same term of another commenter. Nor is fucking students a mistake that everyone could make. It occurs when a man wants to fuck a woman, regardless of what she wants.
I don’t think it any different than how people have labeled Andrea Dworkin and may others. Dworkin was obviously Much More Profound an influence on most of us than Hugo is and didn’t have a Past of which she was Ashamed due to things she’d done – as Hugo does, but she wasn’t “perfect” in her visions. Criticizing specifics of her ideas is fine, but labeling her as oft times is done shows More of the limitations of the Labeler than anything about her.
Because labeling someone as a bitch or a “misandrist,” based on their theory, is just as bad as calling someone a rapist based on their actual history of fucking their students. Most of the time I’m convinced this is deliberate stupidity, because I don’t see how else anyone could say things like this and not realize how moronic they sound.
I was able to recover one of the comments I believe I was banned for, which *just so happened* to contest his account of those “affairs,” although I added some points and stuff so it fits into the post better:
Of course I’m going to be hostile-Hugo is a fucking rapist as far as I’m concerned, and “feminists” are listening to him. You cant sleep with someone you have that kind of power over “consensually,” and even if HE says it was consensual, that doesn’t mean it was. We’re hearing the perpetrator’s perspective, and the sad thing is people are taking it seriously. I’m not going to take the word of a man who fucks women half his age while in an authority position over them on whether or not they were willing.
He has every reason to lie on whether or not they “consented;” and I’m willing to bet he is. Since he never says who initiated these relationships, yet lists every other excuse for them imaginable (she wanted it, she was older than me, blahdeblah), I’m lead to conclude that HE initiated some of these relationships, which qualifies as sexual harassment and makes any prospect of “consent” on their part far more dubious, even if you think it’s possible for them to consent. And even if you don’t think he raped them, he’s still a fucking creep who sexually harassed (past tense?) his students. And he now teaches classes made up of predominantly women-women in the same age group and social position as others that he habitually fucked. It’s akin to putting a “transformed” pedophile in charge of an elementary school class so he can redeem himself. Like hell anyone would support that.
His “past,” as he euphemistically calls it, isn’t exactly the only shady thing either. He is currently on his fourth wife-which to anyone with a lick of sense suggests that something about the way he treats and interacts with women is off. It’s just plain pathetic that people are taking what he says about women and other feminists to be true.
My nigel actually pointed out when I was discussing this with him, that I was “warned” in a way by Hugo, that I needed to shut up about his past: he’s made amends publicly, and “grieve[s] the harm [he] did” with” patient and persistence and the complete absence of shame.” Which roughly translates to: I apologized, you bitch, what else do you want?
Heard the same before from my rapist and his supporters. When I confronted them and they had the actual sense to realize they were wrong and apologize, if I didn’t immediately drop the issue, I was reminded it was years ago, that I needed to just let it go, and that they apologized. When I pointed out that them wanting me to just shut up about it meant their apology is just a way to dismiss their crimes, they blocked me or just walked off, depending on if I confronted them on chat or IRL. So no wonder Hugo banned me! He made amends and grieves the harm he did, and I was still not letting it go. What could he do but ban me, right? It causes him so much pain to be reminded of the fact that he raped his students, and he’s made amends so I should just stop talking about it. And men should never have to deal with pain or guilt, even if it comes as a direct consequence of their actions. The fact is, if he lacked shame about his crimes, he would let me post my interpretations of his “affairs” and “acting out years,” as he euphemistically calls them.
This whole episode, their attitude towards going without PIV, and the manipulative mansplaining I feel the commenters did, left me doubting myself. So I did what I usually do when I feel insecure, and started picking arguments apart and analyzing things. Eventually I was left with a pretty big piece of writing, and I figure I might as well make it a post since most of it was already written.
(I have to say though, the comment about me having to be a creationist because I think the idea that the desire for intercourse is socially constructed was hilariously sad, at least.)