Thursday, December 20, 2012

Hugo Schwyzer: This is satire, isn't it? Seriously, this is a joke, right?

Below is an excerpt from something written by Hugo Schwyzer, another daft and miswired academic who's gravitated to the easily-mouthed cliches of angry gender politics. In Schwyzer's world, it is perfectly appropriate to take a broad brush and unjustly demonize an entire class of citizens -- so long as that class of citizens is white males -- by reducing them to caricature. Hugo Schwyzer would never dare to negatively stereotype any other group of citizens, probably because every rational person knows that prejudice and bigotry are wrong and that broad brush stereotyping is never accurate. The exception, of course, is when it comes to white males. No amount of scorn is enough to heap on white males for people like Hugo Schwyzer.  In no other area of academia would such nonsense be treated seriously.

Schwyzer should apologize to the community of the mentally disturbed, not to mention young white men, for suggesting that the criminal acts of  a severely disturbed man were prompted by anger over the loss of so-called white male privilege. I haven't seen so much "straw man" since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on The Yellow Brick Road. Schwyzer's preposterous epiphany is posited with no evidence beyond his smug, all-knowing ipse dixit.  It is abominably insensitive to persons with mental disorders, not to mention the vast majority of young white men who harbor no such anger (but, hey, why let the facts get in the way of an angry gender rant?), and it's flat-out stupid by any other measure. When someone writes as if he's a wacko, as Schwyzer does here, he is not to be taken seriously.

Here is an excerpt from Hugo's brilliance -- don't take my word that it's wretched, read the whole thing for yourself -- the entire sorry thing is found here: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/defending-masculinity-with-guns-20121219-2bml3.html:

Privileged white men aren’t the only ones to suffer from mental anguish, but as a result of our national history, they are disproportionately likely to imagine that they are entitled to foist their pain onto others in a terribly public way. Privileged white American men are also the ones most likely to feel the rage of “frustrated entitlement,” keenly aware of the disconnect between the affluence and autonomy they were taught was their birthright, and the anxiety and rejection that seems to characterize their daily experiences with others.

In killing others before dying on his own terms, Lanza, like so many rampage killers before him, lived out a perverse male fantasy of total control. When Australia saw that horrific fantasy lived out in Port Arthur in 1996, it took strong steps to ensure that such a tragedy could never be repeated. For all our expressions of grief in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings, Americans – particularly white men – remain stubbornly enchanted by the freedoms that they imagine the gun represents. Too many of us still want our Man Card, and, in a way unique to our country, we will sacrifice our own children to get it.