Hugo Schwyzer has a bit of an obsession with the infamous feminist blogger Factcheckme (FCM), who also doubles as an admin of the Radfem Hub. Now, I don’t know, but if I were Hugo, a Professor of Gender Studies at Pasadena City College, and if I wanted to remain a reputable writer and activist for the feminist community, I’d steer far away from someone like FCM. She has gotten a reputation for being a hostile and belligerent simpleton, who has made no secret of her hate for men. Oh, did I mention she often advocates the abortion of male fetuses and the systematic reduction of the male population?

But her “reproductive solution” hasn’t stopped Hugo from obsessing about her.

No sir, forget about her desire to “dispatch male babies at birth idea.” Indeed, the “mainstream” feminist Schwyzer actually feels that FCM can teach us something useful.

“Radicals like Julian, Factcheckme, Andrea Dworkin, Robert Jensen, and Andrea Smith are great “cover-pullers,” rousing from slumber those of us who sometimes like to hide from the reality of the oppression all around us. That doesn’t mean that their criticisms are always right, or that their solutions are wise. It does mean that their perspective is useful and deserves to be taken seriously.”

And part of FCM’s perspective is?

Schwyzer stumbles on, trying to find common ground with FCM and other radical feminists, attempting to deliver a “serious response” to her criticism of men in general and men teaching women’s studies.

“That’s a criticism I’ve heard many times over the years, and it’s a serious one that deserves a serious response. There are three parts to FCM’s critique of men teaching women’s studies, and it may be helpful to answer them in turn”

Where does her biological solution to us genetically mentally ill men come into play?

After almost a year of writing various articles on FCM’s viewpoint, it seems Schwyzer has almost given up on FCM, but:

“Though I don’t think FCM and I could have much of a conversation (a civil exchange requires a mutual recognition of good faith and legitimacy, and she’s made it clear she doesn’t think I possess either), her views are not unique to her and deserve a response. I’d also like to make it clear that as off-putting as her rhetoric is, FCM is making some very important points that deserve responses, even if actual engagement is unpromising.”

And one of FCM’s very important points?

Huh, now where does one begin a response to someone who is “more than willing” to consider the end of humanity to end her idea of oppression?

Jeffrey Dahmer might have had a few ideas and perspectives that some may have considered worthy of examination as well, that is if he wasn’t a complete psychopathic serial killer who kept body parts in his refrigerator for eating at a later date. Schwyzer, despite whatever good intentions he had, is not only enabling a disturbed and potentially violent monster like FCM, he is enabling and promoting her views to a larger audience. And Schwyzer is hardly alone with “mainstream” feminists fawning over radical feminist bloggers who often advocate gendercide and murder. Indeed, there are several others as you will see in the coming days.

Hugo Schwyzer should know better, and should have never given any type of attention to someone as disturbed and as deranged as Factcheckme (Yes Mindy, you are not a secret anymore). Forget about MRA’s or feminists for a second, Schwyzer has lost all credibility as a professor or even as a decent human being for allowing this filth a stage of any sort.