Posted on | August 14, 2013 | 89 Comments
“I was pulled away from the computer by the police because someone had called me in as potentially suicidal. . . .
“I am periodically suicidal. I have been hospitalized three times in the past month. . . .
“Before 1998 I slept with two dozen female students, somewhere in there, it’s a ballpark thing. That ended when I had a similar but not as bad a breakdown to the one I had now. When I got sober, I made amends to the college and swore off sleeping with students.”
— Professor Hugo Schwyzer
“I suspect he’s playing a longer game, and this is first class bullshit. . . .
“Confessing fraudulence is leverage toward greater sincerity. It feels like a feminist strategy.”
— Professor Ann Althouse
Pasadena City College Professor Hugo Schwyzer is famous for supporting the feminist agenda and, by “supporting the feminist agenda,” of course I mean banging fine young undergraduate poontang.
Some have accused Professor Hugo Schwyzer of faking his mental illness, of trying to get himself a taxpayer-funded “disability” vacation, or of attempting to establish the pretext for an insanity defense in advance of any investigation of his perverted sexual behavior.
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt: Hugo Schwyzer is crazy.
He’s been crazy for years, and his madness took a form that, while increasingly common for women, is rare among men: Feminism.
Not all crazy people are feminists, but all feminists are crazy.
Psychiatrists attempting to treat these patients — alas, their madness is usually incurable — must ask themselves, “Is feminism actually the disease or merely the symptom of the disease?”
Let’s think about this: Suppose you are a young neurasthenic wimp hired to teach college girls. This position provides you with the opportunity to bang some fine undergraduate poontang, but the administration might object if you announce this in the course syllabus: “Gender Studies 201: Introduction to Professor Hugo Schwyzer’s Penis.”
OK, so you call it “Women in American Society” or “Humanities in the Social Sciences,” and if someone mistakenly get the idea that your class is called “Navigating Pornography,” so what?
Pasadena City College administrators met with instructor Hugo Schwyzer today and came to agreement to move an unauthorized scheduled public event that featured a male actor in the pornography industry. There will be no public event at PCC on Feb. 27. . . .
We support the instructor’s academic freedom within the classroom,” [assistant superintendent of Academic and Student Affairs] Dr. [Robert] Bell said. . . .
As with all classes at PCC, the attendees will be limited to properly enrolled students registered in Schwyzer’s Humanities 3 class. . . .
“The college also notes that PCC does not have any course titled ‘Navigating Pornography,’ ” Dr. Bell said.
What? Why would anyone have gotten the idea that Professor Schwyzer’s Humanities 3 course (“Humanities in the Social Sciences”) was called “Navigating Pornography”?
A California college professor said he will no longer teach his “Navigating Pornography” course after ending up in rehab because of the backlash it engendered.
Pasadena City College Professor Hugo Schwyzer — often referred to as the “Porn Professor” — announced this week he is dropping the course because the pressure from the college and members of the public drove him to psychological rehab . . .
Oh, that makes sense: The class was officially listed by one name in the course catalog, but Professor Hugo Schwyzer himself called it “Navigating Pornography,” and the actual course content was notorious enough on campus that Schwyzer was known as the “Porn Professor.” However, once it garnered widespread public attention (because Schwyzer invited a famous porn star to speak on campus), this flimsy deception was no longer sustainable.
Kind of like calling yourself a “feminist” as a means to gain opportunities for banging fine young undergraduate poontang.
Professor Hugh Schwyzer’s various deceptions led to cognitive dissonance, an unresolved conflict between (a) the person he actually was, and (b) the image he attempted to present. The motive for his deceptions was entirely selfish (to get laid), yet he presented himself as the spokesman for a popular ideal (feminism) and, when his perverse scheme inevitably led to trouble, the result was a psychotic crisis.
- He tried to murder a woman after she’d been sexually assaulted because he thought that being raped and having substance abuse problems made her better off dead
- He used his position of authority as a teacher to coerce students into sleeping with him
- He’s capitalized on sexually assaulting one of his partners by writing articles about her blaming her for not saying no to him enough
- He has used racism in white-dominated feminist spaces to hide behind famous white Feminists and shut down, silence, and alienate women of colour
However, he promoted “SlutWalk” and was pro-abortion, so therefore Professor Hugo Schwyzer’s “feminism” was acceptable to liberals.
Did I mention that Professor Hugo Schwyzer, 46, is now on his fourth marriage? And that his psychotic crisis followed the revelation of his (obscenely NSFW) text messages with a 27-year-old porn actress named Christina Parreira? Because maybe that’s kind of relevant.
Has this produced any meaningful discussion among feminists about why their ideology — which supposedly endows them with keen insights into the inherently oppressive patriarchal nature of maleness — failed to detect Professor Hugo Schwyzer’s bogusness?
Of course not. If they were capable of admitting error or taking responsibility, they wouldn’t be feminists, would they? Ace of Spades:
You know, we used to have a name for a male feminist, or a guy who just tells women whatever they want to hear and seems in thrall to them: Either Mama’s Boy or Guy Who Just Wants to Get Laid or both.
This is sexual dysfunction. I’m not saying women are supposed to defer to men — I don’t believe that crap at all.
But I also don’t believe that men are supposed to go about asking “mother may I?” to anyone in an Indigo Girls t-shirt.
Ace is “not saying women are supposed to defer to men”?
Damn, Ace, I’m kind of disappointed in you. Am I saying women are supposed to defer to men”? No, I’m saying, “Fix me a sammich.”
Since we are already digressing here, let’s examine a hypothetical scenario: What if a gullible young woman — slightly pudgy, but not entirely charmless — saw a Professor Hugo Schwyzer column and was so impressed she decided to turn it into a YouTube video?
OK, I lied. That scenario is not hypothetical:
Thank you, missy. You sure do got a purty mouth.
Excuse me, what were we talking about?
Ah, yes — now I remember — Professor Hugo Schwyzer wrote that column as a sort of weird psychological projection of his own twisted worldview, a sour-grapes rationalization offered as an “objective analysis” of other men’s objections to feminism.
Because (we now realize) Professor Hugo Schwyzer was by no means able to live his own life in accordance with the feminist ideals he espoused. Because (we now realize) the only reason Professor Hugo Schwyzer ever espoused feminism was to advance his own selfish interests, i.e., banging fine young undergraduate poontang.
Honesty is the best policy and, when people engage in elaborate deceptions — when, as in the case of Professor Hugo Schwyzer, their entire lives are a wall-to-wall monstrous lie — they tend to exhibit a vehement hostility to the truth about themselves.
Truth is truth, even if it is unflattering to us. The narcissist, however, can’t cope with his own faults and errors, and erects a system of defensive rationalizations and false personae in an effort to conceal (even from himself) the reality of who he really is. Because the truth and his false self-concept cannot be integrated, his personality disintegrates when the truth can no longer be evaded or suppressed.
Professor Hugo Schwyzer is suicidal. Is anyone really surprised?
If you were Professor Hugo Schwyzer, you’d be suicidal, too.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 14, 2013