Cogito Ergo Doom

thecurvature:

(My feelings that Hugo is neither particularly redeemable nor worthy aside.)

This is about who we think has the right to speak to and for women about women and their lives, issues, and concerns — and whether that group ought to include men with known histories of abuse, let alone those who seem far more self-absorbed than repentant.

This is about whether or not women who are victims/survivors of violence feel safe and supported in spaces that claim to be feminist and designed for them.

This is about doing the most we can do to keep other women safe from someone who is known to have been and/or currently is: violent, abusive, manipulative, blatantly racist, openly engaging in “grooming” behaviors, self-involved, self-aggrandizing, patronizing, and paternalistic.

This is about letting those women know that we value THEM more than we value HIM. (Or for many of us, about valuing OURSELVES more than we value HIM.)

I do not particularly give a shit whether or not you think Hugo is redeemable and worthy as a human being, so long as your definition of redeemable and worthy is not “deserving of free rein to speak to and for women about women and ride roughshod over their right to safety, dignity, and humanity.”

I do not know how to make that any more clear. I’m in fact past the point now of pretending that it’s in any way not clear and actually needs explaining.