I’m going to preface this by saying I don’t know a whole lot about Hugo Schwyzer. I know he is famous for being both a man and a feminist, and that’s about it. So I think commenting on his alleged status as a fraud would be “Tea-Partier talking about the Constitution while having no idea what’s in the Constitution” talking-out-your-assery. Not gonna touch it.
I’m not sure how familiar readers at LGM are with the tenets of Men’s Rights activism, but a favorite talking point of those who are sympathetic to the movement is that any man who professes any sort of allegiance to the tenets of feminism is only doing so to get unfettered access to feminists’ plaid flannel granny panties.
What’s interesting about the Swhyzer interview is that he appears to be an extraordinarily high-profile example what MRA’s would describe as a “White Knight.” If you think the “White Knight” chestnut is 99% bullshit, this is unfortunate. Mostly because people who subscribe to the MRA way of thinking are bound to have serious issues with nuance, so they may not understand that one can believe that a.) being a feminist is a good thing to be and b.) being a feminist may make you more appealing to women who are not Phyllis Schlafly simultaneously.
Now, obviously, I think the feminism men practice when no one’s looking is most important; but I think the idea that men wanting attention and validation from women necessarily cancels out any pretensions at feminism is pretty silly.