Wow. It’s notable how these types of comments always seem to follow any attempt to educate or show support for feminism.

Um, that’s what a false equivalence is.

Basically, it’s like saying “You are just like Hitler! … because Hitler used rude words, and so do you!”

Uhuh.

I’ve never claimed to be god’s gift to anyone, much less feminists. Nor have I ever claimed to be morally perfect. And indeed, a major reason I am divorced and openly poly now is so I never again am in a position to cheat on anyone. It’s much nicer living honestly. Now I do. That’s called moral progress.

Meanwhile, you act like a child who still thinks “Dick” is an insult.

Oh, indeed. Anti-trans feminists are shitty feminists, but even they are still feminists, in precisely the way Sommers is not. So when even they recognize she is an MRA, you need to take note. That’s the point.

You seem to be confusing “being a feminist” with “being a correct feminist.” That’s a No True Scotsman fallacy. Some Scotsman are awful people. They are still Scotsmen. But some people who claim to be Scotsmen aren’t even in fact Scotsmen. And that is Sommers.

She denies all the facts of feminism and attacks nearly every feminist issue and sides almost uniformly with anti-feminist MRAs. That’s not even a Scotsman.

[I’ve added a note there now to make this point clear.]

In addition to Hugo trying to kill his girlfriend, he cheated on his wife. Many times. Like you dick.
All while proclaiming himself god’s gift to feminists. Like you dick.

If you think “feminism” is a divisive a term, then you have a problem. It means you are so uncomfortable accepting that women are indeed the ones most disproportionately mistreated in society (even in our society), that you don’t even want to hear that fact represented with a word, much less accept the fact it refers to and get to work doing something about it. Physician, heal thyself.

Start with this and then this. Those will get you up to speed with what’s wrong with what you’ve said.

Um, Hugo Schwyzer tried to murder his girlfriend.

False equivalence much?

Indeed, not a single thing he’s been scandalized for, have I ever done.

At most, I have accepted and taught as students in my online courses women who were already my lovers. And those courses assign me no power over them (they aren’t graded, and no degrees or anything depend on their outcome). So, still, quite the false equivalence.

I think you just tried to find some random name of some guy feminist who did something bad and tried to pin that on me. Even though the example does not fit me even remotely at all. That’s kind of lame, dude.

You also don’t seem to have a good grasp of logic. “I guess since I am an atheist, and I dislike your brand of atheism plus, so I guess you are no longer an atheist” makes no sense. It should be “I guess since I claim to be an atheist, but I attack atheists and defend theism, so I guess I am not really an atheist.” If you said that, then you’d be right: that is a perfect analogy to Christina Sommers.

Finally, are you saying it is wrong to have sex with a woman who has been drinking at all?

Because I suspect you are lying when you pretend to think there is anything wrong with that. Much less that it’s as bad as being Hugo Schwyzer. Indeed, I’m willing to bet you’ve done it a few times and would defend to the death it being right to have done so.

Meanwhile, I no longer cheat on people.

At no point in that quote is it said there are only the two sides. To the contrary, there are quantifiers that eliminate binary interpretation (e.g. “almost all”), and in no case is the community being sorted to exclusion, but only two of many groups within the movement are being described (those doing x, and those who hate x; this does not exclude those uninterested in x or not noticing x or just not doing x, in fact they are addressed in the second paragraph as a wholly different group, and that second paragraph does not say there are even two groups within that, much less only two). Nor is the word “evil” ever used.

So, you need reading comprehension courses. Or therapy. Because you are delusionally seeing things that aren’t there.

Interesting. You say it isn’t true, but here’s a quote I found:

In the atheist movement over the past five years or so what people call “drama” the rest of us call fighting for respect for minorities and victims of harassment and sexual assault. The people who hate that we do that are the ones who have caused almost all the drama you have ever called drama. Pretty much entirely.

The enemies of truth and justice do this by counting on people who don’t care enough about the truth to check and find out what’s really going on. Because out of an apathetic aversion to “drama,” such people will just believe whatever bullshit anyone says loudly enough or officially enough.

So, according to this person, one is either on the side of respect for minorities and victims of sexual assault, or in the camp against truth and justice. It’s like the author wants to divide people into two camps, one good and one evil, and of course puts himself into the “good camp,” and everyone who disagrees with him into the “evil” camp. No feminist would ever do such a thing, correct?

And it’s laughable to think that Sommers, who has been a feminist since the second wave, has taught feminism, and who still can be seen to share the values of second wave feminism is no longer a feminist in your eyes because you disagree with her. Hell, I guess since I am an atheist, and I dislike your brand of atheism plus, so I guess you are no longer an atheist.

Anyway Hugo, carry on.