Look.
Hugo is as wrong as a penguin in the Sahara on a lot of issues.
Unlike the vast and overwhelming majority of feminists, though, I would not accuse him of not believing what he says.
That's my chief gripe with feminists - say one thing, do a different thing knowing the rhetoric is a load of bullshit, and then figure out how to sell it. Their little rhetorical trick of refusing to define feminism is just one example of their paucity of intellectual honesty.
Diasgree with Hugo all you want. I will be there with you. Call him a traitor to his sex, even. But unlike most feminists you can have a conversation with him, and not have to worry about him squirming away with amphiboly and dual meanings. If he says he believes something, he really believes it. If you ask him what he means by something, he will tell you without some pathetic excuses like "Feminism is for whoever claims it, and means what they want it to mean - EXCEPT FOR THAT RIGHT WING CUNT LAURA BUSH! FEMINIST MY ASS! SHE'S NO FEMINIST! And nobody assigns feminist credentials, or can say someone isn't a good feminist or not, because that itself would be anti-feminist.."
