Radish News: Fundraiser Held to Bail Out Male Feminist Activist

The following article is satire, not reality. Mostly.

Thursday night in downtown San Francisco, a fundraiser was held to raise bail money for James Hackett, a prominent local feminist activist. Hackett is being held on sexual battery charges, after one of his students alleged he groped her at an event on campus. Hackett faced similar accusations in the 1990s, but the woman did not want to press charges.

Organizing the fundraiser were Hackett’s colleagues, friends, and members of Sluts for Justice, a pro-slut legal group that fights for all things law- and slut-related. A spokeswoman for Sluts for Justice, Anne Vincent, explained why the group got involved: “He’s just such a great guy. He’s helped us out so much, and we just wanted to repay the favor. I mean, the girl who says he did this… she probably just wasn’t as open about her sexuality as James is, and that confused her. He’s really knowledgeable about sexuality and stuff.” When Radish News asked Vincent if she knew about the past accusations against Hackett, she replied, “Yeah, I heard something about that, but he apologized. He seemed really sorry. His blog post about it even had a shirtless photo of him looking really sad. He’s suffered enough.”

On the sidewalk outside of the event, a small group of women wearing sensible shoes held a protest against James Hackett. “He’s done this before. I’m not surprised,” one woman said. A few people attending the fundraiser got into a heated exchange with the protesters, shouting that the protesters should “leave the poor baby alone!” A man offered some constructive advice to the protestors, saying that maybe more people would listen to them if they wore only bras and miniskirts and wrote misogynistic slurs across their bellies. At his suggestion, there were several hearty guffaws.

The event raised more money than was required, and bond was posted for Hackett on Friday morning. Outside of the jail, we approached Hackett and his attorney in the parking lot. “I’m just so glad to be out of there so I can get back to teaching and giving back to Sluts… for Justice. You know, that group?” Hackett continued, “They raised more money than was even needed, and they’re just going to give the rest to me in cash. I couldn’t believe it. Sluts are so great!” He also confirmed that he wants to get back to teaching as soon as possible. “I can’t wait to be back in the classroom, to be surrounded by all those trusting, impressionable young women. They’re so eager to learn about feminism. I’m so glad to be the one who gets to teach them. And now I’ll have my first-hand experience to discuss when we start our next unit on how the legal system favors males.”

Hackett was surprisingly chatty when asked about his past. “Yeah, I totally almost got caught that last time too, but —” At this point, Hackett’s attorney interrupted and walked to the car with his client.

Hackett is scheduled to appear in court next week, but some have speculated that the charges won’t stick due to Hackett’s extreme sliminess.

Advertisements
50 comments
  1. thebewilderness said:

    Ouch!

  2. FCM said:

    bahahaha!

  3. Mocha Erinys said:

    The sad thing is even if this article wasn’t a satirical post, the story and its “characters” wouldn’t surprise me.

  4. luckynkl said:

    Sexual predators teaching feminism? Do they have KKK members teaching ethnic studies in San Fran too? Godbags teaching evolution? Skinheads teaching WWII and Holocaust history?

  5. ibleedpurple said:

    Timely satire considering the lastest fall-out on Feministe. :3

  6. Hecuba said:

    James Hackett does have first hand knowledge of how the legal system works to maintain male domination and control over women so yes he is well placed to teach ‘impressionable young women’ and indoctrinate them into men’s sexual disposable commodities..

    Appalling – this male has been charged with committing sexual violence against a young woman and a group of young women claiming to be feminists are rushing to his aid. These young women do not know anything about feminism and instead blindly accept Hackett’s claims as truths. Do they not know Male Supremacist System has always claimed women are innate liars who routinely accuse ‘innocent men’ of sexual violence committed against them.

    So Hackett is very knowledgeable about sexual matters – ah so that proves he is innocent. Well I can claim I am very knowledgeable about science but that doesn’t mean what I say should be accepted as the incontrovertible truth!

    What about the young woman who Hackett allegedly attacked? What about her suffering and having to endure misogynistic insults because she dared to accuse a pseudo pro-feminist male of sexually attacking her. Instead we have young women doing men’s work (again) for them, wherein these young women are engaging in rape apologism.

    The menz must be laughing themselves silly and rightly must be thinking ‘way to go girls because if this is feminism we need not have any worries, we have women just where we want them – under our male heels or prone for our sexual usage.

    As Hackett says ‘sluts are great!’ Yes that is what men think of women – we are just men’s sluts not human beings. Way to go Hackett you’ll have a very prosperous and lucrative career indoctrinating young women into accepting male domination over women because men are the experts in teaching feminism!

  7. Hecuba said:

    Just realised article is satire – but I happen to know in real life men are infiltrating feminist organisations and taking over. One man in particular is playing ‘the victim card’ to his advantage despite fact he has a history of committing sexual violence against women. Still never mind this man is accorded prestige among ‘impressionable young women’ and yes this male calls women ‘sluts’ which obviously makes him a pro-feminist male!

    This male’s actions have been excused/minimalised and justified by certain women because apparently ‘men can do no wrong’ and if they do – well we women are expected to forgive them because they are male. Women of course are never given a second chance let alone the right to make mistakes because are supposedly innately evil – unlike men who are innately ‘good!’

    Yes that is how male supremacy operates men can do no wrong and women can do nothing right!

  8. delpyhyne said:

    Satire, but reality is worse.

    Hugo Schwyzer’s backstory is attempted murder, not just groping. Which is still not enough to get him banned from Feministe or for Amanda Marcotte not to stay friends with him.

  9. Sadly this is a really common story, and sounds soooo true. It took me a while to remember it was a satire again! In my country some of the most prominent gender study academics and teachers are men, of which some are famous serial sexual predators, targeting their female students for decades, and even after being caught repeatedly the university still allows them to teach. They steal women’s voices, women’s places in feminist departments and steal the feminism away from it (and call it “gender studies”, sexualities, masculinities, intersectionality and everything but women) and destroy the little that women have achieved in academia.

    Meanwhile, radical feminist academics here are isolated and closeted by their institutions, are not given the right to teach (or maybe only at BA and MA level) or supervise theses (ironically, one of the only time a radfem was allowed to supervise a thesis in materialist feminism recently was with a male student…!!!). Many of the top jobs in gender studies are given to men, who then continue trashing feminism with queer, postmodern and pro-prostitution and MRA shit.

    What’s crazy is that people don’t even see how insulting this is to women. As you say lucky, if we saw a KKK member teaching ethnic studies at uni and he was found lynching some of the students from his classes, there would be a public outrage, he would never be let near a uni again. It pisses me off that we always have to compare women’s situation to men’s so people can understand the horror.

  10. lishra said:

    delphyne – Hugo who? 😉

  11. Michiru said:

    Are Amanda and Hugo in a relationship (or have been)? Because that might explain her misplaced loyalty to him.

  12. delpyhyne said:

    At least we now know what the line is for lib fems/fun fems. It’s not sexual predation, it’s not even attempted murder, it’s holding radical feminist views – now that really does put you beyond the pale.

  13. Michiru said:

    I’ve just read Clarissa Thorne’s Feministe article-On change and accountability. She talks about accountability, for everyone other than Hugo. The whole post was a tangent about accountability but not really pinning any to Hugo. 

    She’s rather disingenuous and everything she wrote in bold either made snicker or facepalm, this gem in particular:

    “I believe that the politics of this situation is a cheap distraction from truth and honour”

    So apparantly not genuinely reproaching your peer for his gross misconduct, then in turn being called out for that is the fault of the neighsayers. Then accusing them of ‘hate mail’ worse than antifeminists….yeah not buying it not for a second.  Honestly she’s always struck me as bratty this post has cemented it.  

  14. Michiru said:

    She views the reaction as a distraction from not asking the real questions. She said that she’s being asked to throw Hugo under the bus and that’s not humane, she does know it’s a figure of speech, right?

    Then she goes off on a rhetorical brainfart ‘when do we draw the line in the sand?’ Well if I may ask what exactly does he have to do become a lost cause?

    Have sex with students under his charge? trying to have sex with any woman or man that takes his fancy? take positions that are for actual (female) feminists? dilute feminism? brag about students having crushes on you? (seriously keep it to yourself) promoting a self-serving, poorly planned brand of psuedofeminism open to backfire as sexy fun and ’empowering’ by marching down the street in ‘sexy’ clothes and misogynist slurs written on you? (the riot grrls tried it, didn’t work, irony is lost on misogynists) trying to take the life of your girlfriend and possibly the neighbours just so you didn’t have to attempt suicide alone? dodging responsibility? just in general being untrustworthy? and expecting automatic forgiveness? 

    At what point do we need to make a stand? We needed to make a stand before he even became a feminist professer, how did he actually make the cut? No really, how?

    This guy needs to sort himself out before he can help women. In his confession he mentioned his exgirlfriend had been sexually brutalized by drug dealers he mentioned like it was just another detail, um you call yourself a feminist why not bring to light the sexually abusive and exploitative practices of drug dealers and other career criminals. Drug crime is closely related to the sex trade to birds with one stone, that would be a way to redemption. But nope he took the cushy, college job with a bonus harem, coward.    

    These things matter actions show a person’s character. This is my general rule for men; act like a scumbag I’m going to think you are a scumbag. I’m not going to hang around to find your ‘inner goodness’. I’m going to write you off and be on my way. If you don’t like it the onus is on you to change and prove yourself. I may be a young woman but I am not a foolish one

  15. delphyne said:

    Should add that there are some lib fems who do get it and understand that attempting to kill a woman does mean a man has no place in feminism. Just not the ones who are making money or a name for themselves out of the movement.

  16. julia said:

    Brilliant Lishra!

    I had to read a few paragraphs before I saw that it was satire. It seems because it is.
    This reminds me of the women who defend Julian Assange. I’ve asked some of them ‘ How do you know he didn’t do it’ and they say ‘He doesn’t seem like the type’, My answer is ‘There is no type’. All men can rape and most men do.

    Men always stand up for men who rape and sexually assault women. They seem equally as united whether they are liberal academics, religious Christians or Black Block anarchists.

    Women must bond together and stand up for each other all of the time, without fail.

    Joyful Resistance and Sisterhood to all of us in the New Year.

  17. julia said:

    Oops, I meant to write ‘It seems realistic because it is’. Excuse the frequent typos, everyone – I don’t have a computer and use use the public ones at the library where you have to write fast.

  18. karmarad said:

    Very witty writing, Lishra!

  19. thebewilderness said:

    Hugo got the job teaching womens studies because they wanted diversity in the program. He was not qualified in that area. His degree is religion and history IIRC or religious history. He has been a very effective mens rights activist in the feminist community. You would think someone would have noticed that by now.

  20. thebewilderness said:

    Oh wait! Someone did.

  21. Danila said:

    I love this and I love you women. I cannot wipe the smile off of my face.

  22. Michiru said:

    @bewilderness If they wanted diversity why not hire a woman of colour *pulls hair out*.

    Anyway if we are going to learn from this we should use him as a case study, as an example of what misogynist wolves in sheeps clothing are like.

    On another note, is anyone else sick of lib fems pulling the ‘feminist police’ card when someone draws the line, apparantly having standards us facist.

  23. FCM said:

    Delphyne, I loved your comments over there, particularly the one about “violence” and no wonder fun fems can’t recognize a predator, when they are so deluded and intellectually dishonest as to think that “misgendering” transwomen is “violence” and saying that men aren’t women is violence and saying that being anti pornstitution is violence and that dissecting and examining choosy choice is violence and criticising piv is violence.

    If everything is violence, then nothing is.

  24. thebewilderness said:

    Michiru, When white men see an area where there are no white men in charge what do you think the word diversity means to them? You see the same think on blogs and FB. You have a group project with specific goals and then you have some d00d who joins in order to argue against the project and denying them their right to do so is an abuse of free speech and demonstrates that you do not welcome diversity of opinion.
    You might think it is stupid. It is not. It is specifically designed to either redirect the group or take down the group.
    Please pardon my generalization but really, all men are mens rights activists in one way or another. Just as all women are womens rights activists. Even if the only womans rights they care about is their own.

    Sorry, I’ve gone off topic. Again.

  25. julia said:

    Found the Hugo Schwayzer interview but the comments have been deleted.

    Is this the guy who had a talk broadcast on US radio (maybe NPR?) where he says he likes the new man who can cry, helps with the kids and has a flat butt because he doesn’t go to the gym? If so, my gut reaction was how woman-hating he was. Especially when he continues and says that the new woman tried lesbianism in college and then said ‘Naaah’ and got married and had a kid. She’s tough and athletic, he’s flabby and sensitive.

  26. My (pretty mild) comments are still pending there, so it’s possible they censor radical feminist views

  27. delphyne said:

    They banned me and they’ve banned lots of other radical feminists, so they do indeed censor radical feminist views. They don’t even want people to be aware they exist. The rage and disgust at my posts on the thread is in direct contrast to what Hugo met with when he posted which was virtually no reaction at all. That tells you all you need to know.

    The most striking thing about this is the fact that the lib fems have no tools whatsoever to deal with men who harm women. A banning of Hugo would apparently be “pre-emptive”, even though he sexually preyed on women and tried to murder one. If feminists aren’t going to take a stance about a man like that, then who will they take a stand against? Well we know the answer to that – radical feminists who do actually hold men who harm women accountable for their behaviour.

    Even for the people who want him banned over there, the strongest argument they have against him is that his presence would be triggering to survivors. Nothing about how there is no place in feminism for men who harm women and that he stands against everything that feminism stands for. Now they’ve discovered his academic credentials aren’t quite what he said they were, so that will probably finish him off. Why though, has it taken this long for the lib fems who after all have been promoting this guy and helping his career, to check them out and find out what he’s really about?

  28. FCM said:

    yes thats the problem isnt it? when they dont publish radical feminist comments, they really are making it seem like we dont exist. we are a minority voice and are challenging male supremecy in a real way and we are the only ones who are doing this. we dont publish every single comment that comes through the HUB either but thats bc we require that comments here be 1) from WOMEN and 2) move the discussion forward. mainstream recycled garbage is not moving anything forward, its what radical feminists already KNOW and are RESPONDING TO. they think we havent already heard all their garbage but we have. the same cannot be said for liberal and non-feminists already knowing and understanding radical views — most of them dont. they think that libfem is the best they can get, but its not. its just more male-centric bullshit posturing and politicking, where womens interests are only protected insofar as they are identical to mens interests. womens interests that are antithetical to mens interests are never served or addressed, or even spoken out loud or acknowledged.

  29. WitchWolf said:

    The problem with Hugo is that he was never hired at PCC to teach women studies he was hired to teach History. He teaches one class in Women in History at PCC and his beauty “class” was not a course but rather a workshop. He is not a professor at PCC – he is listed on their site as an Instructor. He has never published any academic papers/articles on Women Studies that were peer reviewed.

    There is no women’s studies department at PCC and they only offer two classes related to women, and no classes in Feminism.

    I don’t think he has a right to speak for women or be anywhere near woman. He is revolting in every way.

  30. lishra said:

    It’s so screwed up how a commenter on Feministe yesterday was *super* reluctant to post a link to FCM’s post on the Hub about Hugo organizing Slutwalk L.A (from May! get with the program!). Why so reluctant? Because of our site’s “transphobia”. This is why we can’t have nice things! Willfully not posting information that would help reveal a man as an abuser and a fraud because other posts on the site critique transgenderism? Really? Delphyne’s comment about how they can’t recognize *real* violence is spot-on. If simply writing something critical about gender is “violence”, then you’d think they’d care a whole lot more about Mr. Feminist Phd (alleged Phd) sleezing it up with students and intentionally trying to kill his ex-girlfriend after they had “sex” following her being (it sounds) raped by a drug dealer.

    Somewhat related to this general discussion…. I had a quick dream as I was falling asleep last night, kind of just a fleeting image and I woke up again. [TW] A woman was handcuffed and patiently sitting on the floor of an empty room. There was a man standing by the door, as if he wasn’t going to let her out. When I woke up and reflected on this, I thought how liberal feminists would be politely asking the man to unlock her handcuffs, saying pretty please. Radical feminists would be kicking, screaming, and trying to chew through the metal with our teeth.

  31. FCM said:

    lishra thats so true. alleged transphobia is the reason du jour to reject radical feminists, and alleged transphobia is *also* the reason old hugo stopped paying even lip service to radfems and rejected us outright. LOL yes he actually did pay lip service to us back in the day. since hes an alleged feminist himself, i guess he felt he had to honor the decades-old tradition of radical feminists and pay tribute to feminist elders. for some reason, even women in the libfem group rarely even bother doing THAT. anyway, my point is that alleged transphobia is just an EXCUSE to reject an actual critique of and affront to male supremacy. if it wasnt that, it would be something else, like the cult of motherhood which was used decades ago to do the same thing (back before in vitro) bc you cant be PIV-critical and subjecting yourself to multiple ambivalent pregnancies at the same time. at least, its easier to reject the PIV criticism (and het criticism, and marriage criticism) if that is your goal.

  32. delphyne said:

    Watching them tie themselves up in knots over “transformative” justice at Feministe, because they can’t bring themselves to tell a guy who tried to kill a woman to fuck off, is one of the most depressing things I’ve seen in feminism.

    I didn’t notice this level of hand-wringing over “transphobia”. That doesn’t require reflection or thought at Feministe.

    Trans has been the excuse they’ve used for years to ignore us. It’s been incredibly useful to them.

  33. FCM said:

    I like how they dismiss us bc we enable rapists and give safe harbor to batterers and murderers. Apparently we do this by saying that transwomen are men. I thought that was pretty creative.

  34. lishra said:

    LOL – yes, “creative”. As in they have quite the imagination when it comes to how male violence works. And feminism. And gender. And “sense making”.

  35. ibleedpurple said:

    At least we now know what the line is for lib fems/fun fems. It’s not sexual predation, it’s not even attempted murder, it’s holding radical feminist views – now that really does put you beyond the pale.

    That is exactly what is going on, particularly among the younger libfem set. And to think that we are called ideologues. Personally, I would have no trouble working with libfems on a variety of issues. However, seeing as how they are dead-set on not giving a shit about my “transphobic” ass…

  36. julia said:

    ‘We require that comments here move the discussion forward’.
    This is a rare and important platform.
    On thing I love about this blog is that it always addresses ‘Straight Mind’, meaning the way in which all women, especially hetero women, support male supremacy.

  37. FCM said:

    I don’t think its accurate to say that women support male supremecy. It’s probably more accurate to say that most of them either refuse or lack the tools and resources to critique it.

  38. FCM said:

    I can’t spell

  39. thebewilderness said:

    I was shocked when I read the comment that these, radical feminists, are the women who are responsible for the violence men do to women. What shocked me even more was that there was zero push back. Not one person suggested that holding women responsible for what men do to them is anti feminism 101. How is that possible on a so called feminist web site?

  40. julia said:

    Women hold up male supremacy in all kinds of ways. Many of us do it unconsciously. That is part of the thousands of years of brainwashing.

  41. ibleedpurple said:

    @thebewilderness:

    Radical feminists are seen as symptomatic of patriarchal thinking.* That we are supposedly responsible for hate crimes committed against women, however, is a whole other bucket of stupid. To assume this you actually have to believe that we have power to influence people in a way that will make them commit crimes in our name and that we would actually like to influence people into committing crimes in our name. Bullshit.

    *I am not too familiar with this line of thought but a huge part of it can be traced back to post-modern/post-structuralist thinking which is right in asserting that difference is a justification for discrimination. However, some followers of this tradition hold the opinion that if you can dissolve everything into intersections discrimination would cease to exist. So with our emphasis on the different realities of men and women and our evil practice of making statements on the macro level (society) we are supposedly parroting patriarchal thinking. I think their energies would be better spent on examining “discursive practices of the dominant paradigm”, to get into their academic-speak, but they obviously think that radical feminism being “transphobic” is more important than men raping women. I also think that they are strengthening boundaries by disappearing them but this is not for here.

  42. Hari B said:

    My impression from reading feministe, and another site called The F-word (feminisms.org) out of Canada, maybe? Anyway, my impression from reading those authors/commenters is that those womyn share a goal of wanting to be just like the ‘best’ of educated privileged middle class liberal men, within patriarchy’s established institutions and personal habits. I found this surprising, coming from people who consider themselves feminists….especially since, at the F word in particular, they are all about adhering to the ACTUAL, REAL definition of feminism (as posted there).

  43. tiptree2 (vliet) said:

    “they obviously think that radical feminism being “transphobic” is more important than men raping women.”

    Well said, ibleedpurple. This is another odd logic I simply can’t comprehend, but it does appear that Hub criticism of various aspects of the transgender movement is license for dismissing just about anything else the Hub addresses, on some sites.

  44. Hari B said:

    Following the link to 1035 comments (!!!) about this guy…I find that I am so astounded by the amount of attention given to a mere (and rampantly misogynist) man by feminists. Really, just mind-blown. What a waste of time and energy. I mean, Lishra’s post as satire was great–I totally appreciate the writing, Lishra, your spot-on stab at the dynamics of this kind of situation. But the history of it…all the analysis of the real man behind it, all of this commenting and emoting over him…makes me want to scream and tear my hair. Well, except that I just don’t want to give him that much energy and in my opinion he’s been given waaaaaaayyyyyy too much already!

    Call me totally jaded on men, even if not everyone’s definition of a radfem. Maybe it’s because I’ve known too many like him, and already know what self-aggrandizing blowhards not to forget died-in-the-wool (and always wearing sheep’s clothing) privileged male misogynists they always turn out to be. Yet, womyn just cannot seem to stop paying attention to vampires such as these…seem so readily able to suspend our feminism in the name of The One Man who defies the odds somehow and restores our faith…in men. And once again we collude with the agenda of giving our energy to men.

    Here is the kind of attention I think a guy like this deserves: for feminists to protest–to him privately/personally, and to the institution that lets him teach ANYTHING ‘womyn’s’, about the travesty of misogyny involved in him being given that position instead of a womyn. Write and speak publically against men being given attention (and teaching positions) in womyn’s work of feminism. Refuse to give men any platform at all on feminist pages.

    And when a feminist like Clarisse slips in such a major way, and gives a man like this her time, air time and emotional energy, we should just politely look away and carry on with more important things. Kind of like if she’d done nothing more or less than accidentally fart loudly in a formal setting. Just let it go by without comment. No fuss, no bother….I mean, how important is a fart in the grand scheme of things? An insignificant little nothing that needs no attention at all from people who have much more important things to do.

  45. Hari B said:

    Surprise, surprise (yawn…)

  46. why has he still got “professor” on his blog. HAsn’t it just been revealed that this is a lie and he’s just an instructor…
    That’s all I have to say. Agree with HariB

  47. delphyne said:

    What this episode really showed is how far liberal feminism has gone from being anything like actual feminism i.e. politics that represent the interests of women. Being a man who tried to kill a woman isn’t enough for the big name feminist blogs (the ones who make *money* out of feminism) to turn their back on you or to stop being your friend.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: