Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Does America mean United States here? --Steinsky 23:30, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Note to the last editor, who changed "dissident feminist" to "anti-feminist": please re-read Wikipedia's POV statement regarding bias in editing. --Noirdame 22:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sommers and feminism

Cut from intro sentence:

, best known for her questioning of mainstream feminism; a self-described feminist, many consider her to be anti-feminist. She

If she describes herself as a "feminist" that probably does not need a reference. But if opponents say she's not, I'd like to get the names of one or two of the people who are contradicting her - even explain on what basis they do so. Are we talking about different definitions of feminism here? Uncle Ed 16:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Should include somewhere that shes libertarian, preferably in the context of an illuminating point.

Almost every female scientist who deals with gender issues these days calls herself feminist. But if you compare her ideas to mainstream feminism you will find they are opposed to them and on the other hand, if you look at anti-feminist masculist ideas you will find a close relationship between their ideas. She works for a conservative think tank whose aim it is to promote ideas of a certain mindset, in this case traditional role models of gender and family. You will find her ideas fit hand in glove with that. Which is opposed to what most feminists want (change in gender rolles - of both sexes - and change in the structure of society, which Hoff Sommers consicers "gynocentric). --BarbD 19:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. And you will find she is extremely popular within masculist cirles, and the contrary in most feminist cicles, except the libertarian ifeminists, who are also much closer to masculism than to traditional feminism. So it's not only the names of one or two of the people who are contradicting her...-BarbD 19:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't just call her a masculist without giving citations of people who do so. To draw conclusions on your own isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Saying that people say it is not an indication that it isn't true, it's just maintaining a position of reporting facts instead of making one's own theories.

It's much more problematic to talk about CHS differing from mainstream/traditional feminism, as she defines these terms differently than you do. To CHS, she is the traditional, mainstream feminist. So if nothing else, it's confusing, in an article about CHS, to speak of "mainstream" or "traditional" feminism in the non-CHS definition. NickelShoe 19:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The main division between contemporary feminism and masculism is the inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of '64 (CRA'64), which is legally based on NO SEX DIFFERENCES. Without CRA'64's inclusion of women there would have been no contemporary feminist movement. Us masculists feel it has been a disaster for both men and women, but even more of a disaster for children. We believe there is no legal basis for "mandated sexual equality" because sex differences are so great. Try to make two things equal that are unequal and there's negative consequences for both. Wendy McElroy is definitely a libertarian and as such would want CRA'64 repealed. Sommers is not so clear in that respect and probably could still be considered in the feminist category from a masculist perspective. McElroy could also be included from a feminist perspective because the feminists in this respect reap what they have sowed, and that is intentionally obfuscating the real meaning of contemporary feminism. Both beleive women are equal...whatever that means. user:QIM

Loving the anonymous editor's latest changes. Wish I had figured out how to make it sound that good. I am slightly concerned with the "original goals" comment, because it sounds a little POV, but maybe it's okay or would be fine with a slight rewording. NickelShoe 15:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Masculist"

Hi all -- we need a source for the description of Sommers as "masculist". I have never heard this term used seriously, only pejoratively, let alone in the context of Sommers. Sdedeo 03:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I recall a weird, angry-looking frumpy guy in a skirt who used to come on Phil Donahue's show and bitch about feminists. He called himself a "masculist" and had some kind of Organization for Men. It was during the time when radical feminism was the insanity du jour, maybe 1988 or thereabouts, contemporaneous with much of Sommers' work. I pretty much agreed with his principles but always considered him a few marbles short as well. Doovinator 03:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, OK. What I am going to do is remove the "masculist" link, but retain the notion that Sommer's "femminist street cred" has been attacked. Sdedeo 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) ... which you have already done. Thanks! Sdedeo 04:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great minds think alike! ;-]

"...fools never differ." ;) . We could really do with some sources for the whole femminist street cred thing; if you know of any articles that are like "Sommers is not a femminist", do please add them as inline citations. Sdedeo 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll look around. Might be able to find a couple. Doovinator 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read accurately!

There is no point where I called Sommers a "masculist". I only claimed - which I still think is true - that her ideas are much closer to masculism than to traditional feminism. Maybe I should have kept the word mainstream of feminism. The mainstream of feminism claimes that there has to be a change in gender roles and in the patriarchal structures of society for real equality of men and women. This is exactly what Hoff Sommers attacks. Whereas most masculists claim that a legal and civil equality of man and woman is a just aim and this has been achieved, and that a change in gender roles and of the structure of society is not necessary and asking to much and discriminating against men etc. and that traditional gender roles are perfectly o.k. etc. This is basically what Hoff Sommers says. By the way, there are enough people who are proud to call themselves masculist (I'm not talking about Hoff Sommers), and so it is just a question of your point of view if you find it pejorative or not. --BarbD 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is bothering to disagree that she holds masculist ideas (though I don't know if anyone's particularly agreeing either). I believe the point is that you can't just make that assertion on your own without a source. Your own ideas, right or wrong, can't just be put into the article. Without third party sources, it's original research. I also, for the third time (counting equity feminism), object to your use of "mainstream" feminism, and go now to look up where CHS applies this term to herself. Even if she's wrong, in the CHS article it's POV to take sides on the issue, especially when it's not a matter of "fact", since the definitions of words are pretty shaky when it comes to this kind of thing. NickelShoe 17:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here, page 22 of Who Stole Feminism (cited in the article):

The tradition, classically liberal, humanist feminism that was initiated more than 150 years ago was very different. It had a specific agenda, demanding for women the same rights before the law that men enjoyed. The suffrage had to be won, and the laws regarding property, marriage, divorce, and child custody had to be made equitable. More recently, abortion rights had to be protected. The old mainstream feminism concentrated on legal reforms. In seeking specific and achievable ends, it did not promote a gynocentric stance; self-segregation of women had no part in an agenda that sought equality and equal access for women.

Most American women subscribe philosophically to that older "First Wave" kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education. A First Wave, "mainstream," or "equity" feminist wants for women what she wants for everyon: fair treatment, without discrimination.

Now I certainly don't advocate that the article use CHS's definitions without qualifying them as her definitions, because clearly they're in dispute. But I think it's important to make it clear in the article that these terms are in dispute. Part of this quote should probably go in this article and/or the one on equity feminism, but I don't have the time right now. But do you see what I'm getting at? I just think we need to represent it as a debate, not as a situation where right and wrong has already been determined. NickelShoe 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added into the article some explanation of how CHS uses the term mainstream. Hopefully this is a good start, but feel free to address any problems you have with it. I'm pretty sure my citation style is all wrong, too. NickelShoe 17:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I like this new development, NickelShoe. I think it most clealy explains CHS's position without coming off as biased. Raccoon64.12.116.198 04:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Positions: Another Perspective

Well, Hello All...

I myself have recently edited this page in order to promote greater neutrality on its part. It seems like several of us are on the job, so I'll share my thinking on this subject and part of why I changed what I did.

To start off, I'm a political independent that agrees with some liberal and some conservative ideas. One of the things this has made me more aware of over the years is how terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are not monolithic, at least not for everyone. What I mean is, someone can be in line with conservatives on a particular position and NOT actually be a conservative; furthermore, one can be a certain type of conservative (like an economic conservative, or a foreign-policy conservative) yet not be on the same page with "mainstream" conservatives (perhaps for their social agenda, or whatever).

My point? Let's watch how we talk about people's political positions. It can be trickier than many think. When CHS or anyone else says "I'm a liberal," it's not necessarily that they are lying as part of some big right-wing conspiracy. One can be mainstream liberal and not support "gender feminism" and side with some conservatives that are more vocal in their opposition (due to Democrats' expected silence about one of their voting blocs). Also, last I checked, the organization that CHS is a member of focuses on economic and foreign policy issues, not social ones. It does not necessarily follow, as some above have suggested, that she supports traditional sex roles. Lastly, I think it's important, when identifying an organization pointing out a particular person's bias, to identify the potential bias of the organization itself. Future

references to MediaTransparency should identify it as an organization that tracks CONSERVATIVE funding.

One of the points made in "Who Stole Feminism?" is that "gender feminists" are silencing criticism by accusing their detractors of being sexist/unenlightened/anti-feminist. Whatever they (or anyone else) might say in the realm of propoganda is one thing, but I personally think we need to get away from "all heat, no light" ways of talking about things here at Wikipedia. Rather than accuse CHS of being (OOH, I'm Scared!!!) a conservative, or going out of our way to paint her as one by playing up her connections to conservatives, we should instead point out all sides of the evidence, including what SHE says about HERSELF and what she says about women, which is NOT that they should go back to the kitchen, or that rape isn't a real problem, or anything else one might expect from a true "anti-feminist."

--Raccoon 64.12.116.198 09:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why I object to the first sentence defining CHS as conservative. It over-simplifies the issue, making her sound more like an ideologue than a thinking writer. (She may well be an ideologue, but there are better ways to illustrate it.) So showing why it's (believed to be) the case is, as usual, better than simply saying it is. NickelShoe

MediaTransparency

I like Raccoon's latest characterization of MediaTransparency better than the last editor's. I'm still not convinced it's a great idea, but much better than simply calling them liberal. The thing about it is, people can simply follow the internal link if they want to know about it. I just don't see how important it is that they focus on conservatives, if their claims are black and white verifiable. NickelShoe 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Raccoon's thoughts--

Personally, I'd like to know what other sources of funding she received. In academia, an awful lot of people get funding through a range of sources, sometimes with little or no strings attached. A lot of studies have been funded by liberal and conservative groups, or received the majority of their funding through nonpartisan sources and a few political ones, or received funding from very generous donors without a lot of mandates over what the study had to focus on. I think it's misleading to show only part of the picture, just the conservative sources, and then play it off as a "follow the money game" of conservative influence. It may be that, but not always--judging from MediaTransparency's info, it looks like she got all the funding from the one organization through Clark University, which means it MAY have been a grant given to the University for any of a number of purposes, political or otherwise. What I would really like would be to see a list of everything.

--Raccoon 205.188.116.138 05:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor claimed MediaTransparency should be identified as "liberal" since the funding organizations were identified as "conservative." I disagree. Here's why. I think we should avoid labels as much as possible in these circumstances. Not labelling MT as liberal doesn't seem to be hiding facts, to me. The article says they track conservative funding. Conservative is a necessary label, because MT apparently focuses on groups they consider conservative. That does make a difference. Labels like that make more of an emotional impression on people than a fact-oriented one.

If someone disagrees, let's talk about it here. NickelShoe 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing

Hey, I was involved a little earlier in doing some NPOV, and you guys have done a great job. Congrats. I think the article is very well balanced and neutral at this point (but of course could always be expanded.) Sdedeo 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Antifeminist

Much thanks to Barb for finding references to disagreement over CHS's status as a feminist. It's important information that the article needed but also very much needed sourced before it could be in there. I haven't checked out the references yet, but I'm very glad for this addition to the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page number, I should have done this! --BarbD 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove the POV tag?

It seems most parties agree, so, isn't it time to remove the POV tag? If someone doens't agree, could they please say comment.KarlXII 13:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I've had no comments I will remove the POV tag.KarlXII 12:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Christina really Jewish?

Christina seems to be an odd first name for a Jewish woman. Can someone provide a citation for that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.64.93 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Christina's husband Fred Sommers is Jewish but she did not convert at the time of her marriage. Perhaps she converted since then, but otherwise no. Cambridgeways 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New section and POV tag

I added a new section after reading Who Stole Feminism to reflect who Hoff Sommers really is. To go on about her politics ad nauseum and ignore most mentions of her contributions is a cute totalitarian tactic to slander and silence her. As we all know, she is a whistleblower who pointed out some unpopular truths about status quo feminist fraud, falsehood and thought-policing. I added the POV tag here to show the censorship, the slander and the distracting political babble that conceals her controversial content. Her politics might indeed be interesting to those who care about internal feminist pissing contests but that leaves out a majority of readers both female and male who could care less about feminist politics but do indeed care about the ISSUE-associated controversies she has created. This article needs NPOV balance that speaks to all readers rather than merely to a few feminists. I added a badly needed pov tag to reflect the shameless totalitarian tactics being indulged in here. I will be glad to pull it as soon as I see some reflection of Hoff Sommers many contributions to the dialogue about fact and fraud in our society. 128.111.95.47 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not anti-CHS, but I'm not sure what you're actually objecting to in the article. Perhaps you could help balance the article? NickelShoe (Talk) 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My fault for being obtuse. Here is my concern in a nutshell. Mainstream 'gender' feminists have been shown by many independent, (both feminist, nonfeminist) authors to be 'ideological', 'fascist', 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', and of course fraudulent. Feminist partisans will do anything to censor, slander and silence someone like CHS because she bluntly, logically and factually busts many mainstream feminist flim-flams. When I see an article packed with political positions but one that makes no mention of CHS' highly controversial professional positions I have cause to suspect that the totalitarian partisans are in charge here. Totalitarians care more about keeping INSIDERS in the dark than they do about outsiders so they will do anything to conceal (with political smoke screens) critical content that pops their bombast-balloon. CHS is a 'popper' they hate, shun, and fear. We need to see why in this article. Hope that helps. I did balance a little bit of the article but I need help because these meanspirited monsters will attack viciously the moment I pull in the really 'problematic' stuff. 12.107.17.150 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone who's been working on this article has been doing so in good faith. But I've got it watchlisted if you're afraid your changes will be reverted arbitrarily. I'm glad you're interested in working on this article. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. So far so good. However watch for the cunning, covert and ugly forms of bad faith like double-speak definitions ('anti-feminist' indeed!), pejorative labeling (what do Hoff Sommers (alleged) politics have to do with her profession) and subtle forms of one-sided slander. The bad faith I watch for here is bad faith toward the person, we are writing the bio on. She deserves at least some respect as a professional. I have no problem taking issue with her positions but to slander her as a person is how politicians dish dirt. That has no place here. 71.102.254.114 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now the political controversies section seems to be very much slanted in CHS' favor, especially the last paragraph. This should be fixed. JuJube 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note notable (and ugly) controversies about CHS and CHS's work here?

CHS challenges the very credibility of mainstream feminist scholarship. This has been most unpopular among those same feminist scholars as one can see from a glance at the following links. The fights are notable both for their meanness and their significance. Seems to me that the essence and character of these cat-fights belong here on this page at least as a summary. What do other editors have to say about this?

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Please note that the only systematic study of feminist forms of scholarship I found is contained in Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies which is a comprehensive and critical take on the 600 Women's Studies programs in U.S. universities. Patia and Koerge offer chilling support to what Camille Paglia, CHS, Phyllis Chessler and other feminists have said about 'Feminist Scholarship' in America. Patia and Koerge say the problem is worsening rather than improving about a decade after they wrote the first edition subtitled Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies. My local Univ's Women's Studies department head hadn't even read these books much less made them required reading for her Women's Studies students...a fairly shocking lack of critical comparison from a 'head' scholar in a highly respected university today. One has to wonder who is nuts here: CHS, her critics or all of the above? In any case, given the significance of the issue of the alleged abuse of academic priviledge nationwide for gender-feminist political pandering, I for one consider the CHS' allegations noteable for more than mere allegations of lieing, falsehood, fraud or fearmongering. However, I know from reading the content in this article that many other editors hate CHS enough to label her, slander her and duck most mention of the real issues she raises. Could we replace pejorative personal labeling, political slander, and non-notable innuendo with a NPOV discussion of the CRITICAL controversies here? 128.111.95.245 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to sweep anything under the rug here, it's just that people see the world through their own biases. Some of the information you're talking about would probably make a good addition to the article, however I'd be careful, because you seem to be wanting to vindicate CHS as much as improve the article. The London interview looks good, but I'm not sure I'd cite Friesian.com--I don't consider that a reliable source.

Obviously feel free to improve the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

gender feminism section

I've been bold and merged Gender feminism to here. That article is unsourced and since the term is a neologism it probably shouldn't have its own article. The info is probably best here. I've turned Gender feminism into a redirect to Christina Hoff Sommers--Cailil ^talk 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

70.112.206.246

The current summary had a lot of "she says" statements and a vague description of Hoff Sommers thesis. This gave the impression that it wasn't a summary, but rather a critique by a hostile skeptic. I'm not against critiques, but it is premature to lead with a critique of a thesis that has not yet been stated. So here is the thesis put succintly and tied into other works. I kept the main points raised on the original summary, pointed out the political philosphy tie in with Freire, and added relationships to a number of other works. 70.112.206.246 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 70.112.206.246, most of your additions are great. I have just 2 issues:

1. The way the sentences about Freire is linked to Hoff Sommers is essay style and violates WP:SYN - it just needs a bit of rewriting to fix that.
2. The reason there were a lot of "she says" and "what she calls" is WP:NPOV - neutral point of view. Using "she says" is not a criticism of Hoff Sommers' views it is a neutral wording of them.--Cailil ^talk 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

criticizing a person's research based on the funding source is a fallacy

Criticizing a person's research based on his or her funding source is a fallacy. Even when the organization has been truly discredited and ostracized it is a questionable method of critique. E.g. we would all be at a loss to dismiss Heisenberg's physics, or Konrad Lorenz's psychology. However, the libertarians are not yet in this extreme category anyway.

It sure would make reviewing papers go faster, though ;-)

The idea of stigmatizing a person research based on libertarian funding source is simply dirty politics, nothing more. It is no different than saying a work is “communist”, or “Jewish”. Works should stand on their content and the merits of that content. This section should be rewritten. (it does not parallel entries for other feminists either, I would challenge someone to name one that is not "controversial", indeed that must be a compliment in these circles. 70.112.206.246 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

While I see what you mean 70.112.206.246 and I understand your point. The criticism isn't by the author of the article. The article is citing critics of CHS who label her as "antifeminist" or "conservative" - this is WP:NPOV. That said there are a number of problems with passage - first it's unsourced and second its using weasel words. That part does need rewriting but please check out WP:NPOV first--Cailil ^talk 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

70.112.206.246 I've had to roll-back your second addition tonight because it is what wikipedia describes as original research and synthesis. Please be aware that all additions to WP require a reliable source. It is also important to note that this article is covered by the biographies of living persons policy - which is very strict. All material must be neutrally recorded and verifiable using independent reliable sources--Cailil ^talk 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

references don't click to the right place

When I click on the superscripted references the page jumps to the wrong place. There is no way for a reader to correlate the citing to the reference entry as the numbers in the text don't correspond to the reference number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

response to sommers section

The section was edited substantially without explanation. The current response section outlines UAW responses to points the article didn't bring up in the first place. This makes the response look rather mysterious. Seems it was edited to sound more like a general response, but when I went to their website, they only listed points specific to them. There have been no responses to many allegations made against others.

The first paragraph of the summary points out the March of Dimes report that has been widely cited, but does not exist, it seems appropriate for purposes of parallel construction that it is mentioned that no defense has been suggested for this (and many other allegations made)

In general I don't find the character flaw or attitude criticisms Hoff levels as being very interesting. I find the very specific allegations highly interesting. There is very little response to these. The UAW page mentions not having someone at a meeting Hoff claims someone was at, and claims they did provide data. These are not so interesting, because short of an investigation they are unverifiable - unless Sommers were to reply with further evidence. A citation to a report that doesn't exist, on the other hand, is easily verified. There have been no responses to this allegation.

To say that the UAW made a blanket response, as the section has now been changed, to leads to the impression that everything is *ok*, but something is really really wrong with either the allegations or the responses. In any other field of research, if someone made such widely published allegation of citing reports that didn't exist, then something would happen. This begs questions. Are feminist debates/research not to be taken seriously? Is this just play? If it is serious, then where is the resolution? If it isn't serious, then how embarrasing for the notable Universities that have been passing out degrees to these folks. This aspect of Hoff's work is very important to people trying to make sense out of using the reports, or out her thesis of a transition to a supremancy movement.

.. personally, I'm in a quandry trying to make sense of it all because of the "she said" "she said" aspects of the debate. I think it would be best to stick to statements made by the parties that are verifiable, or perhaps could be verified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 08:19, 3 September 2007

The problem with adding text like "In any other field of research, if someone made such widely published allegation of citing reports that didn't exist, then something would happen." is that it is not sourced, its not neutral and it's not verified.

Please also be aware that wikipedia is not a forum and not a soapbox - the 4th paragraph in your above comment violates rules. Please see WP:TALK for an explanation of how to use a talkpage.

Dimitrisdad, I'm having problems identifying exactly what your issue is, so if I've got the wrong end of the stick I apologize in advance. If you are asking why the text linking Hoff Sommers to conservative funding was removed it's because that was original research. If you can provide a peer reviewed published article/book/journal piece that states this then it can go back in. Otherwise that stays out. If you arguing that the section about the AUAW needs expansion so that it is made clear then I agree with you - however I'm unsure of exactly how notable either the criticism or the response is.

Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~

--Cailil ^talk 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth date

The article says she was born in 1956. It also says she graduated university in 1971. If both of these are true, it's extraordinary. Are we sure it's right? Metamagician3000 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Health and Human Services

Found an incident that should be included. http://www.angryharry.com/esFeministsarenastythings.htm http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120501.shtml

Also why is there no mention of her appearence on the Bill Maher show in 2004, with Michael Moore, and Sandra Burnhard?

216.201.48.26 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)