YAC triggers me.
Christina H. Sommers is an anti-female propagandist.
She is associated with The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research(AEI)
and right wing propaganda making machine
and The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is a politically conservative woman's group
- she is NOT considered a feminist by most feminists
----zero proof. In all likelihood those are not real feminists since, as you've said many times, real feminists aren't sexist racist dirtbags. Show me one of these "feminists" who says she's not considered a real feminist AND explain how they think they can deny a woman an identity that she, herself, has chosen. Either I get to say that the great mass of self proclaimed "feminists" are not real feminists OR you can't say that Sommers is not a real feminist OR you admit that feminism is about hating men and Sommers is excluded b/c she's not a sexist man-hating bigot.
and does a lot to undermine all women and women's rights.
She has no cred with thinking women
----zero proof and I dare say she's got a lot more letters in front of her name and a higher IQ than you, love.
and you using her shows that you have little cred with these women too.
----so what? So where is this Official Feminist Holy Council that gets to OK or censor everything and who elected them?
Why do you even bring this up when you don't listen to anything female gamers say about the sexism in gaming?
Your comments to me in previous questions show you are NOT open minded about the subject
and don't pay attention to any female who speaks up about it
and who does not agree with you - basically that it's not an issue. Sexism does exist
-----sexism does exist? Feminism and Islam are proof of that much since both are incredibly sexist.
but you deny it.
This is just sweeping the problem under the carpet and promoting more sexism in the industry
----zero proof and assumptions that also have zero proof.
- you are an apologist for it
- that is YOUR sexism. Closing your ears to women is what sexism is all about, isn't it?
----You incredibly obtuse numbskull. YOU are the one closing your ears to what a woman is saying.
First: wikipedia, even on the best of days, is proof of nothing. Add that to intentional feminist 'wikistorming' of wikipedia and it becomes worthless on any matter feminists might care to insert their bias into.
Second: the Guardian is also a left leaning rag.
Tell you what, rather than me reading through all of that, why don't YOU tell me which of my statements was off the mark and show me how your source proves me wrong (by proving you right)?
Now, when I do NOT play "linkception" and follow the links in the link you gave (because that could take all damn day), I get this from the things the author her/his self wrote:
"So who is Christina Hoff Sommers? While she may bill herself as the “Factual Feminist”, her history suggests she’s a right-wing shill who uses her platform to spread misinformation about feminism, in the hope of opposing social change."
----shill? Or simply paid speaker? (assuming she is paid to speak). Misinformation? Prove it. Opposing social change? The Holocaust was 'social change'. Not all 'social change' is good.
I think she’s taking something of an embrace, extend, and extinguish approach: pretend to join up with what you oppose, but alter it to be superficially similar yet quite different and use a mix of money and rhetoric to bury the original version.
----Identify and define 'original version' of feminism. And PROVE it. Second, prove that's what she's doing and that she's not simply speaking her mind.
Yeah, the above’s a bit of an ad hominem, but I can fix that easily enough by looking at Sommer’s actual arguments. Take her recent video defending GamerGate.
You read that correctly, she’s defending GamerGate:
----so what? Just b/c most feminists demonize Gamergate without knowing the first thing about it does NOT mean that it should not be defended.
Summary? No problem with that.
That narrative leaves out critical details, though. We have chat logs that show it’s also a coordinated movement
----first, it's a "twitter movement" or a "social media" movement and if you want to judge it based on a small section of it's total numbers, that's fine but that means I get to judge feminism the same way and it will NOT look good for feminism b/c I will produce pages and pages of self-proclaimed 'feminists' acting as I've already described.
plotting to spread hate and lies about women who talk about gender issues in games,
----Does the author ever prove any of the things he/she says? Oh, that's right. We've got some (supposed) quotes of (supposed) GamerGaters coming up. That's fine. Judge the whole movement by a select tiny section. I'm OK with that if you are, YAC. I'll admit that GamerGater is horrible if you'll admit the same thing about feminism and Islam and due to the same reasoning. Granted, with feminism and Islam my critique goes a bit deeper.
with the help of an ex-boyfriend of one of their targets. In one such log, for instance, one member discusses driving Zoe Quinn to suicide, to general agreement, while another frets about keeping up the facade:
(more cherry picking from the feminist author)
Further proof comes from examining what happens on the #Gamergate hashtag, where the majority of discussion is not about ethics at all. We even have archives of where GamerGaters invented a hashtag as a false front, hoping to enlist innocent but gullible people to divide and conquer feminists:
(the majority of discussion from feminists is not about equality but rather, first world pseudo-problems faced by women and only by women. Enlist gullible people? Feminists on YA are engaged in a constant drive to silence anti-feminists by reporting them so that there won't be a counter message. Why? To enlist gullible people to serve feminism.)
GamerGate, in short, is a hate group. While there may be positive elements to it, we have good reason to expect they will or are being exploited by the negative ones.
(then feminism and Islam are also hate groups. Thank you, YAC!)
Now, I discovered GamerGate when I was working on my recent video about sexism in games. Now in that video, I pointed out that the evidence does not support the claim that video games cause violence or misogyny. I mean gaming has surged since the early 1990’s, but youth crime has plummeted. And Millennials who were born and raised in “video game nation,” they are far less sexist, homophobic, bigoted than older generations.
Note the bait and switch? Sommers swiftly transitions from discussing sexism, to discussing violence, racism, and homophobia.
----if you're going to make a case that video games cause such things and she's pointing out that such things have gone down as video games have become more popular, it's not a bait and switch. Feminists have yet to prove that video games cause ill behavior. She's a skeptic of the stuff feminists have yet to prove.
She jumps from talking about video games to talking about youth crime, as if the greatest predictor of the latter was the former. It’s not. If her case was solidly in line with the facts, she would never have to engage in such verbal slight-of-hand;
----hardly a slight of hand. It's the logical conclusion of an argument from feminists telling us that video games cause people to be sexists, racists and violent.
Sommers would just duly report the facts, pointing on existing body of research that demonstrates an accurate, balanced portrayal of women in video games.
(Anyway, it goes on like this for some time but I think getting YAC to admit that her logic would also lead to feminism and Islam being hate movements will be impossible since she still thinks that 'feminism' is a synonym for 'all women'.)