Schwyzer presents himself as a liberal feminist, concerned more with individual agency than with fundamental societal structures. He prides himself on counseling male students who are ambivalent about feminism, and he often criticizes what he calls "the myth of male weakness," the notion that men cannot control or change their behavior. He was able to change, his argument goes, and so can you.

Schwyzer is also a religious Christian (he has written of "a return to Christ following my near-death experience in 1998") and leads a Christian youth group, so the language of redemption comes easily. Many of his posts read like sermons, with their smooth writing, literary panache, and attention to language. He is the sort of writer who, when telling a penitent man that he needs to be humiliated, discusses the Latin root of the word, humus, meaning earth or ground.

But some argue that behind Schwyzer's feminism lurks traditional patriarchal authority. On January 11, Jezebel ran a piece by Schwyzer entitled "He Wants to Jizz on Your Face, but Not Why You Think," in which Schwyzer argued that men crave this sexual act not to denigrate women, but to feel accepted. Flavia Dzodan, a Latina writer for Tiger Beatdown, wrote an impassioned response beginning with the question, "Exactly how is this defense of the act feminist?" In an email, Dzodan explains that Schwyzer "systematically presents feminist issues, but his proposed 'solutions' to the problems he posits almost always involve the feelings, status, and outcomes for men."

Schwyzer notes men's intentions weren't the only question in his piece (though he wishes he'd emphasized this point more). He acknowledged that regardless of men's intentions, the act might feel degrading to women, and "no one should be obligated to endure humiliation for the sake of someone else's longing for validation." Still, the fight over facials reflects a broader disagreement about which writing counts as feminist. Schwyzer thinks that "men are inextricably bound up with feminism. That doesn't mean they should be at the center. But they cannot be excluded. ... Feminism isn't just about liberating women; it's about liberating men."

Dzodan, on the other hand, thinks that feminist analysis ought to come only from women's voices and experience, and that there are plenty of non-feminist places for men to write about gender and sex. ("How is this different," she asked in her email, "from what we have to hear in mainstream publications like AskMen or Maxim?") Men can be important feminist voices, she says, but only when they "do not drown the voices of women while presenting their message." She cites The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates and video blogger Jay Smooth as examples of men who "give prevalence to topics that affect women."

As I reported this story, Schwyzer suggested that I get a sympathetic perspective on his work from Zoe Nicholson, a feminist activist who fasted for 37 days in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. But even Nicholson argued that it is problematic for a man to have a visible, public role as a feminist leader. "I do believe that a man can be a contributor to empowering a disenfranchised group of women," she says. "I believe that it would be done by getting behind, by getting underneath, by doing fundraising, by stepping away." The question is not so much what a man thinks, but how he works within the community of feminists.