I would argue that feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers and Camile Paglia are not at all "enemies of humanity," and that the world certainly wouldn't be better off if they were dead. The people who are attacking the underpinnings of Western Civilization are, of course, 3rd Wave feminists (not 2nd Wave, like Sommers and Paglia), postmodernists, and, to a lesser degree, nihilists, anarchists, and Frankfurt School neo-Marxists (there is a large amount of overlap between those groups, naturally).  Some feminists (like Sommers and Paglia) are now finding themselves arguing on the same side as groups that they used to battle regularly, such as traditional conservatives. They are doing this in order to fight against a common enemy in an authoritarian left that seems  1fc2   to have taken over academia and parts of the modern media...an ideological group that has few (if any) answers to social and moral problems...a group that isn't designed to have solutions, but to, instead, merely critique "hegemonic power structures" (that is why it is called Critical Theory).  For 3rd Wave feminist critical theorists like Sarkeesian, it's not about allowing women the choice and the opportunity to get into STEM, it's about fulfilling quotas so that more women are represented in those fields (after all, they'd be there already if it weren't for the oppression of the patriarchy; let's break that glass ceiling!). It's not about having the ability to choose a female lead protagonist or about having a well-written female character in a video game...no, that character has to fit certain, very specific criteria, otherwise it's "problematic." It's not about building women up to be strong enough to deal with the world and succeed in it, it's about coddling them and protecting them from any and all potential physical, mental, and emotional harm (such harm is, after all "misogynistic").  Sommers and Paglia support human agency, freedom of choice, and earned respect. They call themselves feminists because they've been around long enough for that to have meant the same thing as egalitarianism. Sarkeesian, by contrast, is simply an autocratic chauvinist that uses feminism as a cudgel to beat her opponents into submission. This is yet another example of just such a tendency on her part.