If you want to know the thesis for every argument that Hugo Schwyzer makes, all you must do is read his Bologna through the lens of "Men must change. There is something fundamentally wrong with men and masculinity." Ask yourself, can you recall an argument by feminists that was predicated on the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong with women and femininity? The assertion itself, whether expressed or implied is so absurd that any thinking person should reject any conclusion based upon such a premise. Let's see some excerpts of Mr. Schwyzer's belief system in action:
He compares MRAs to the Ku Klux Klan: "...I think it’s a classic case of false equivalence, as if MRAs and feminists are both equally right and wrong. It’s like saying the Klan and the NAACP have two different views on race relations. It adds respectability to the indefensible. That’s not to say, as I always point out, that MRA anger and pain isn’t real. But it’s woefully misdirected and involves a staggering refusal to take responsibility..." I like this one, because it implies that Schwyzer knows better about what men are thinking and feeling, than they themselves.
He compares MRAs to the Klan, not once, but twice: "No, not all MRAs are like the Klan...Those who argue (as Zeta and others do) that feminism is a system of oppression are indeed akin to those Klan types who argued that the end of Jim Crow was a kind of anti-white racism. I think the analogy stands."
Schwyzer argues, in essence, that men have to "man up" to feminism. Vomit. One thing you will see argued by "pro-feminist" men, more so than even with feminist women, is they believe that men "have to take responsibility," or have to be held "accountable." In other words, feminism is a burden that men should cheerfully yoke. This is not your sister's feminism, i.e. the liberating, empowering experience that gives you more freedom. No! No! No! Feminism for men is a fucking drag. If you read Hugo Schwyzer's website, you'll see "male responsibility" and "male accountability" are used repeatedly. Here is a simple experiment; google "Hugo Schwyzer" & "male accountability" and then google "Hugo Schwyzer" & "female accountability". The results show that for "male accountability" there are a few pages of hits. With "female accountability, there are three hits, TOTAL. That's because, in Hugo Schwyzer's world, women have freedoms, men have responsibilities.
He writes essays with titles, like:
1. The Blessings of Erectile Dysfunction
2. How Men's Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong
3.Why Does It Matter How Many Partners She's Had?
4. Men and the Sexualization of Young Girls.
5. Red-Hot Monogamy
1, 2, 3.) Having been in adult films, done sex work, and presently a board member of a non-profit that works to decriminalize prostitution, I find Mr. Schwyzer's anti-porn bullshit tiresome and cliche:
1. "What we don’t know — or, as Jensen points out, what we don’t want to know — is how truly ugly pornography is. For a host of reasons ranging from denial to civil libertarianism to sheer horny curiosity, a great many voices across the spectrum are unwilling to name porn as one of the most corrosive influences on our culture and on our humanity."
You notice, that when an activity is preferred by men, people like Schwyzer tell us there is something wrong with it. Like football (which I hate); but, weren't we all told that women are more likely to get assaulted during the Superbowl? Same crap here. You never hear one of these guys saying some activity associated with women is "corrosive."
2. "I am convinced sex not only brings pleasure but helps to transform the people who are participating in it. I am a better teacher, better friend, and better mentor because of the light that my wife and I reveal when we have sex with each other."
I'm sorry, but doesn't the thought of having sex with someone who is "transformed" by sex, and has light revealed by the experience seem like a colossal bore in bed?
3. "...Balancing thoughtful analysis with deep candor, he makes the most powerful case against pornography that I’ve read since the late Andrea Dworkin’s Pornography: Men Possessing Women, a book now more than 25 years old. And yes, Getting Off is dedicated to (among others) Dworkin herself..."
Well, that certainly explains a lot. Anyone who celebrates Dworkin is obviously a toadie misandrist.
4. "...Robert Jensen makes a compelling, at times radical case against pornography — accompanied by a searing and entirely accurate indictment of contemporary American masculinity..."
Here it is again. There is something wrong with men and masculinity.
I have a suggestion. Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with Hugo Schwyzer.