Hugo Schwyzer

Lots to do this morning.  I’m pleased to note that I’ve got an extended version of an earlier post up at Inside Higher Education this morning.   Turning blog posts into publishable articles is something I’ve been meaning to do for a long time now, if only in hopes of reaching a wider audience.

I can report that in the fine tradition of Eleanor Smeal and Phyllis Schlafly, or of Timothy Leary and G.Gordon Liddy, my friend and sparring partner Glenn Sacks and I are considering doing some public debates together, perhaps on college campuses or in other settings.  Despite our obvious ideological differences on issues of feminism and men’s rights, Glenn and I have formed a cordial working relationship.  What’s more, we’re both pretty darned entertaining; I imagine that we could do a lot of good work together.  We’re in the preliminary discussion stages, but if any readers are connected with organizations that might be interested in having Glenn and me come by, do feel free to contact me.

At the risk of offending many colleagues, I’ll say this:  most of the leadership of the pro-feminist men’s movement in this country is not terribly media-savvy.  There are a few shining exceptions, particularly Jackson Katz and Michael Kimmel, but it seems that a lack of media interest and a certain degree of shyness on the part of many leading pro-feminists leads to the exclusion of our perspective from the public conversation.  Though I can’t say that I’m qualified to become a national spokesperson for pro-feminist men (my movement credentials are far less impressive than many, and some of my views are more than a little idiosyncratic), I do feel that I’ve got  sufficient years of professional and academic experience in gender work to put myself out there.  Glenn Sacks is quite well-known in the men’s rights community; in that sense, I’d be honored and delighted to be his public foil.   He and I are both confident that we could do a considerable amount of good for our respective movements if we pursue this current project.

Of course, at the risk of being accused of affected modesty, let me say that I think Glenn will surely have the upper hand in our debates.  Running a radio show with precise to-the-second time constraints, not to mention dealing with hostile callers,  is a very different thing from lecturing –without commercial interruptions — for an hour or two to students held captive by the power of the gradebook!  Still, eleven years of drama training in my childhood and adolescence may come in handy, and I hope to be able to keep up with my opponent.

At their worst, debates simply provide opportunities for two sides to lob tired rhetorical grenades at each other.  In bad debates (and I’ve been in a few of those), each participant is thinking less about what the opponent is saying, and more about what she herself ought to say when it’s her turn again.  Each talks past the other.  In good debates, each is challenged by and made better by the other.  As a result, the issues that are on the table become more comprehensible for the viewers or listeners.  Both the pro-feminist and men’s rights movements have everything to gain by having new and greater opportunities to carry their messages to a wider audience.  And while I have no doubt that getting this project going will be a lot of work, I’m excited by the chance to work with such a kind and competent adversary.