Who Is Hugo Schwyzer?

Of course, I am a happy supporter of Substack. Where else can you read Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald and Julie Burchill-- without any interference from the gods of Big Tech.

Now, however we have a Substack article by someone named Hugo Schwyzer. In truth, I had never heard of one Hugo Schwyzer-- and apparently I wasn’t missing very much. 

Now, however, Schwyzer has done us all a massive favor by offering for free a recent Substack article, where he opined about a New York Times article written by one Ruth Whippman. Apparently, he is doing so by popular demand. His readers thought that the article was so good it needed to be shared. Considering that his article was not very astute or original or well-written, you have to ask yourself about his readers.

Normally, you would have to pay to read him, so I suppose we should feel privileged. As you read it you should ask the question that he himself asks himself: are you getting your money’s worth?

Now, as readers of this blog know, I too opined about the Whippman article-- four days ago. Link here. I will not ask whether you got your money’s worth reading my post for free, though I am mindful of the fact that this blog still accepts voluntary donations. If you would choose to defund the Schwyzer Substack and contribute to this blog, that feels to me like a good idea. At the least you can compare the two and ask which one gives you your money's worth.

I will not rehash my ideas from my previous article, but I will offer you a sampling of Schwyzer’s prose.

At an early part of the article, he takes issue with the fact that Whippman has, by writing about how she wants her boys to grow up to become human beings-- an absurd notion if ever there was one-- has subjected them to potential embarrassment. On this issue, I believe Schwyzer’s idea to be well taken-- up to a point.

He writes:

My first thought, as a parent keenly worried about embarrassing his children, is that I should very much like to hear from these boys in a few years. I hope that they are not hurt by their mother’s disapproval of what she regards as their impoverished inner terrain. The parent who writes should remember their most important audience is the one who may be too young today to read what you’ve scribbled. It is a child’s right to tell harsh truths about their parents, but love is like water, and it flows downhill. A parent who chooses to humiliate their offspring in the press has done a dangerous thing. Ms. Whippman isn’t quite Thomas Markle, but she is a little too close for my liking.

To be fair, this point would be far more persuasive if Schwyzer had not opened his piece by offering up seven paragraphs describing his children’s behavior. The Biblical injunction: Physician, heal thyself, comes quickly to mind.

His next point, with which we cannot really take exception, explains that the biology is clear enough. Boys and girls are not the same thing. We have rehashed the point often enough on this blog. Those who want a more detailed argument should read the work of Toronto professor, Debra Soh. You might also check out Donald Symons' book: The Evolution of Human Sexuality.

So, Schwyzer’s points, while accurate, feel a bit banal:

Here’s the thing: contra Ms. Whippman, the boys are okay. It is fashionable to attribute to the “cage of toxic masculinity” what might be just as easily explained by some of the enduring differences between men and women. The research is compelling that at least some of women’s increased emotional acuity is by biological design rather than imposed cultural necessity. Many a feminist who has committed to raising boys and girls without rigid gender roles has discovered, to his or her chagrin and bemusement, that those gendered differences still show up despite a parent’s best efforts to keep them at bay. While it would be risible to attribute all these differences to biology alone, at some point it becomes equally silly to insist that every child is born a blank slate, and it is only culture that molds identity.

Sorry to quote so much of what is obviously not very good writing.

In the next passage, Schwyzer throws in a large word-- misapprehension-- which he misuses. It’s called pretense. Anyway, the argument ends where it began, with a thoroughly correct, though platitudinous, statement about the reality of biological sex differences.

And that’s the point I think Whippman is missing. So much of what disappoints and worries her about her own sons is, perhaps, a misapprehension of their depths. Just because a boy does not manifest social anxiety, or verbal dexterity, in quite the same way as a girl, it does not make him shallow or simple. When it comes to our children, the modern mind too easily mistakes gendered choices for imposed obligations: “He only refuses to read those books because they’re girly and he’s afraid of being shamed! He would be more social and verbal if boys weren’t mocked for that! He only likes football because it’s what the other boys like!” It is certainly true that the performance of gender roles is often a straitjacket – it is also true that sometimes, well-meaning and otherwise open-minded parents see feminine passions as both superior and more useful, and would rather attribute their son’s lack of interest in parties and friendship drama to enforced submission to performative masculinity, rather than to his own innate preferences.

As I said, it's a good argument for donating to this blog.