Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Improved Definitions Of Feminism Relative To Christina Hoff Sommers

Apologies first hand. I do not wish to change the WIKI before discussion as I understand controvery surrounds it.

Paragraph One Christina Hoff Sommers:

• Sommers is known for her criticisms of contemporary feminism, arguing that modern feminist thought often contains an "irrational hostility to men" and possesses an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different". Other scholars and feminists have called her anti-feminist for her criticisms and writings. Sommers rejects claims that she is opposed to feminism. Sommers's most notable books are Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, both of which are critical discussions of contemporary feminism.
  

Christina Hoff Sommers speaks in contrast to "Gender Feminism" interpreted by psychologists as "radical feminism", contentiously "militant feminism" or a lesser form "gynocentric feminism" and "self-victimization". We must appropriate subjective adjectives "contemporary feminism" or "modern feminist" as it diverges from the overall context; One might surmise the usage as misdirection or opinion driven. Sommers herself identifies with "Equity Feminism" relative to 19th & early 20th century First-Wave Feminism. In contrast - the pertinent characterization would be Third-Wave Feminism, Standpoint Feminism or Post-Feminism. Sincerely, --j0eg0d (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

actually no, we do not use someone's self definition to frame topics. We frame the overall subject (in this case "feminism") as the mainstream academics frame it and place the subjects self description in the appropriate context as the mainstream academics view it of being mainstream or fringe or cutting edge or whatever. In this instance while Sommers has set up a view of "my good feminism vs their bad feminism"; that not a view that has very much traction in the mainstream analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Self definition? The source was Psychology Today [1]. The definitions were provided by 31 references. One reference being your personal favorite, Jezebel; Did you investigate the source before challenging it?

1. Alfano, S. (2009, February 11). Poll: Women’s movement worthwhile. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965224.html (link is external)
2. Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition. London: Chapman and Hall.
3. Buss, D. M. (1996). Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insights into feminism and the “battle of the sexes.” In D. M. Buss and N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296-318). New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Revised edition). New York: Basic Books. (link is external)
5. Buss, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. (link is external)
6. Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533-548. (link is external)
7. Confer, J. C., Easton, J. E., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110-126. (link is external)
8. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: Murray.
9. Descartes, R. (1641/1993). Meditations on first philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
10. DeKay, W. T., & Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual differences, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 184-189. (link is external)
11. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved predispositions or social roles? American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
12. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64, 758-767.
13. Friedman, B. X. (1997). Who stole feminism? Binghamton Review, 10, 14-15.
14. Friedman, B. X., Bleske, A. L., & Scheyd, G. L. (2000). Incompatible with evolutionary theorizing. American Psychologist, 55, 1059-1060. (link is external)
15. Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd edition). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (link is external).
16. Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! (…and here’s why…). Psychological Topics, 15, 181-202. (link is external)
17. Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., Lewis, D. M. G., & Buss, D. M. (in press). Sexual exploitability: observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior. (link is external)
18. Kuhle, B. X. (2012). Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 39-43. (link is external)
19. Mealey, L. (2000). Sex differences: Developmental and evolutionary strategies. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (link is external)
20. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking. (link is external)
21. Profet, M. (1988). The evolution of pregnancy sickness as protection to the embryo against Pleistocene teratogens. Evolutionary Theory, 8, 177-190.
22. Profet, M. (1992). Pregnancy sickness as adaptation: A deterrent to maternal ingestion of teratogens. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 327-365). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Ryan, E. G. (2012, May 24). How to look dumb and slutty enough for a one night stand. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/5912975/how-to-look-dumb-and-slutty-enough-for-a-one-night-stand (link is external)
24. Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., McKibbin, W. F., & Starratt, V. G. (2007). Absence makes the adaptations grow fonder: Proportion of time apart from partner, male sexual psychology, and sperm competition in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 214-220. (link is external)
25. Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9, 228–248. (link is external)
26. Sommers, C. H. (1994). Who stole feminism? New York: Simon and Schuster. (link is external)
27. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press. (link is external)
28. Vandermassen, G. (2004). Sexual selection: A tale of male bias and feminist denial. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 11, 9-26.
29. Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who's afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
30. Vandermassen, G. (2008). Can Darwinian feminism save female autonomy and leadership in egalitarian society? Sex Roles, 59, 482-491.
31. Vandermassen, G. (2011). Evolution and rape: A feminist Darwinian perspective. Sex Roles, 64, 732-747.

--j0eg0d (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Psychology Today lists some references -- but those references are copyright by the journal. TRPoD is correct: the subject’s esoteric attempt to redefine the term "feminism" has gained no traction outside a particular corner of right-wing extremism and need not be followed here. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References are never copyrighted. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The subject's self-definition is of interest to our readers but it does not define her. Rather, WP:SECONDARY sources define her. I agree with others here that Sommers certainly is not a first-wave feminist since she has advocated the status quo, the superior position of men in society. Plenty of observers have called her antifeminist, so it doesn't really matter what kind of feminist she thinks she is. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments cross the line into soap boxing, Binksternet. Please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. I don't believe that you're correct, but I am not going to try to argue with you. Just keep in mind that if it comes to an extended argument over the application of WP:BLP, those comments won't help you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no question of BLP violations in representing what is documented by dozens of highly qualified academics [2]. BLP is not a whitewash that prevents presentation of well documented criticism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That biographical articles can (even should) mention criticism of living people when documented by reliable sources is not at issue. I am simply noting to Binksternet that endlessly demonstrating personal hostility to a living person on the talk page of the article about them isn't going to help in the context of an extended dispute over application of BLP - a reasonable point you would also do well to note. Binksternet's views could be taken more seriously if he were to go the trouble of documenting favorable commentary on Sommers's work by scholars, something that he has notably not done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet seems to be merely repeating what is in evidence in the [3] dozens of academcic's sources] that they have previously presented and appear to be continually ignored by people who wish to present the world of feminism as if is it circumscribed by Sommers, when the sources clearly identify such a circumscription as being not only out of the mainstream of feminism, but anti-feminism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The people who praise Sommers' ideas are typically social conservatives or reactionaries writing to uphold their beliefs. These folks also call Sommers a feminist. The ones that say Sommers is an antifeminist are scholars studying feminism. Which group should we say is correct? Of course the unified mass of scholars holds greater weight than politicians or journalists or other observers of society.

The tactic of diminishing me because of my stance is not going to work. I go by the sources; Wikipedia also goes by the sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The word contemporary (as in contemporary feminism) applies to today's feminist, to with we can all agree has been labeled by several definitions. The most accurate definition of what Christina Hoff Sommers opposes is an absolutist version of feminism - Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There are in fact many lines of feminism. But there are no major lines of feminism that see Sommers' "my feminism is good, your feminism is bad" as being a major line of feminism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses Sommer's Equity Feminism as a branch of Liberal Feminism [4]. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

with a big caveat: "Note that there is dispute over whether classical-liberal or libertarian feminism (the Sommers "Equity Feminism") ought to be considered a version of liberal feminism (see section 2.7))" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"To summarize, critics suggest that classical-liberal or libertarian feminism is not adequately supported by a consequentialist case; fails to recognize our obligations to those who cannot care for themselves; hides from view the way in which the work of care is distributed in society; denies that state power should be used to ensure equality of opportunity for women and women's equal standing in society; and (cultural libertarianism excepted) is uncritical of traditional social arrangements that limit and disadvantage women. For reasons such as these, some have argued that classical-liberal or libertarian feminism counts as neither feminist nor liberal (Minnich 1998; see also Freeman 1998)"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the controversy, yes. but they made the call to list it as a branch of feminism. To be honest, I don't think it is a big deal - Sommers doesn't describe herself as a feminist on her official bio, [5], so if it is not worth highlighting there, I don't see it as a core issue. But while I see it as a minor issue, there are clearly notable academic works that view her equity feminism as a (controversial) branch of feminism. It isn't the case that it has been discredited as feminist thought, but is instead an ongoing and unclear debate. Back when this was first an issue I did some digging with the intent of determining if she was widely regarded as anti-feminist, but I found that it was a lot more complex than that. She can be regarded as anti-feminist, but also as feminist and as postfeminist depending on the paper. - Bilby (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers is absolutely a feminist. An already existing RS for the article says so right off the top. It's absurd to me that this sort of thing requires discussion. I mean, we aren't seriously reasoning from the premise that feminists aren't allowed to criticize other (even mainstream) branches of feminism, right? 74.12.92.201 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree she is a feminist, I have warned the FreeKnowledgeCreator to stop his edit war. XGustaX (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about this issue is completely irrelevant. Since you are edit warring yourself, you are in no position to issue me any kind of warning. Incidentally, why did you warn me in the name of another user rather than in your own name? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not my personal view. Reliable sources on this talk page have said she is a feminist. You are the one who doesn't want to her that for some personal reason. It stays. XGustaX (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A very large number of rs also describe her as antfeminist though. You're trying to oversimplify a rather complex and contentious debate in a way that is not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's great, but Wikipedia has a NPOV we need to consider all reliable sources. Not cherry pick. I have purposely left that many critics, reliable ones at that, call her an Anti-Feminist. It is again important to remain netural and present all sides. XGustaX (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Fix Christina Hoff Sommers' Wikipedia Page

Where do I begin? ...

1. Criticisms are correctly reserved for a Criticism Section of the WIKI, not sporadically written across several sections.
2. The editors need review Christina Hoff Sommers' biography in webmd.com and compare it her WIKI. The current Christina Hoff Sommers is in violation to policies demanding a neutral point of view - The comparison makes this Wikipedia page appear juvenile.
3. Also, (but most importantly) please take note of WIKI sources to claims that Christina Hoff Sommers is an anti-feminist (Reactions need to be made):

• 'SOURCE 3 leads to this book which states, "The third wave of feminism, of course, is no more homogeneous or unified than was the second wave, but what is disquieting is how easily some third wave concerns can be translated into a distinctly antifeminist agenda such as that put forth by Roiphe or by Hoff Sommers, all the while retaining the feminist name." The line refers to third wave feminism being defined "anti-feminist" and not Christina Hoff Sommers (nor Roiphe).
• SOURCE 6 leads to Michael Kimmel in the heavily criticized Tikkun Magazine reviewing one of Christina Hoff Sommers' best-selling books The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. This review does not call Christina Hoff Sommers an "anti-feminist", but alludes to book's notations about Absolutist Feminism as "Misguided Anti-Feminism as Misdiagnosis". Someone interpreted the source themselves.
• SOURCE 8 is bluntly misleading. On reading the actual Tweet, Sommers is talking about the bias of her own Wikipedia page and not making a statement. In fact she provides a URL to her own SOURCE which UNNECESSARILY proves such accusations incorrect.

Lastly - Editors are taking a respected feminist's WIKI BIO and allowing misogyny the contention to make her look foolish. That's unforgivable.

Please & seriously - get this page on track. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to take you seriously when you start off completely on the wrong tracks 1) "criticism" sections are not the proper method for structuring articles and the lead sections are specifically to included summary of the whole article/subject INCLUDING major criticisms. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If anything, MORE needs to be written about how Sommers is described by scholars, which is that she is against feminism. See the above list of scholars who may be cited. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to go by what the reliable sources say. We wouldn't edit Obama's page with a lede saying "some people have accused him of being a Kenyan Marxist" just because you can find a lot of links to add as sources about it. Likewise, just because you have an agenda against her doesn't mean you can smear CHS in her lede. 96.246.153.88 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

those people aren't notable though. Critics of Hoff Sommers are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source already cited in the article calls her a feminist right off the top. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable positive view of CHS

^[1]

"[H]er books Who Stole Feminism?, The War on Boys, and Freedom Feminism have cemented her place as a sane and attractive voice for women’s liberty and equality rightly understood—not to mention for integrity in scholarship."Wajajad (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure "run" is the right word, but yes, the project has all types of editors and POVs. --Malerooster (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be a stretch to call the weekly standard a reliable source (at least for statements of facts on CHS). It's a very partisan, very conservative pub. If this is used, it should be attributed and given appropriate weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So sources which smear and are clearly radical feminist and intent on smearing Sommers are OK, but the contrary are not OK? Okay.... Notable to see Wikipedia is run by SJWs, radical feminists, fools and total idiots... 77.174.128.18 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

But then why is the caveat "should be attributed and given appropriate weight" curiously absent when Wikipedians discuss partisan left-wing sources? 74.12.92.201 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Sommers, the supposedly "partisan left-wing sources" are actually scholarly sources, the most respected sources available to us. Scholars define the topic, and scholars who study feminism, writing about Sommers, are in wide agreement that she works against feminism, that her books and her career are anti-feminist. Such a wide agreement of scholars does not need attribution. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that this very page cites 'Tikkun' (quite controversial, and undeniably leftish) as well as 'In These Times' (described on its page as a "progressive/democratic socialist monthly magazine") as two sources for the charge that CHS is anti-feminist, I wonder how we justify including those while excluding 'The Weekly Standard' purely on the basis of it being "very partisan, very conservative." If you want to keep NPOV, find a standard and stick to it. For my part, I think that we already have three sources for the claim, each one from a university press, so there's no point in keeping the other two around? Plus, it may be an essay, but WP:CITECLUTTER seems relevant here. PublicolaMinor (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In what way is Tikkun] controversial? MarkBernstein (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

See the article. TL,DR: besides the (much disputed) accusations that their anti-Israel essays use anti-Semitic rhetoric, there's the fact that their founder and former editor-in-chief used to write letters to the editor in praise of himself and publish them under pseudonyms, pretending that they came from his readers. PublicolaMinor (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which references you're referring to? I can't find them in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a disambiguation page. I meant to link directly to Tikkun (magazine), which is where the source in question originated. PublicolaMinor (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not really much controversy. Any publication critical of the current Israeli government is likely to be accused of anti-Semitic rhetoric, and a minor debate on letters to the editor, nearly 20 years ago, is hardly earth-shattering news, especially compared with the Weekly Standard’s owner, Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. Note, though, that The Weekly Standard has always been closely identified with the American Enterprise Institute, our subjects’ employer. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

True, but any magazine that publishes essays denying Israel's right to exist is probably going to be at the center of a much bigger firestorm than one merely critical of Israel's policies. As for The Weekly Standard, how specifically has it "always been closely identified" with AEI besides the fact that they're both very conservative organizations located in the same city? The fact that the WS seeks out contributions from conservative scholars, many of whom work for AEI, doesn't mean anything unless there's actual institutional overlap. PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

for the frequent connection between the weekly standard and AEI, see, for example, Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to the Weekly Standard lede: "Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute." How does this contradict what I said above? PublicolaMinor (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What I'm getting from this is that there is consensus that In These Times is a partisan left-wing source, since nobody sees fit to object to that. A monthly news and opinion publication hardly qualifies as "scholarly", either. As for "wide agreement of scholars": the article cites three such "scholars", one of whom is apparently not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and another who is an editor in the SFF community - the work being cited is originally that of another SFF author.

Incidentally, the analysis in that work seems to me to be complete bunk, as for example it deliberately misinterprets Hoff Sommers: the phrasing "even modern American women" is implied to carry "race, class and other biases", which is patently absurd first of all because people of many races and classes are "modern American women", and second because it's obvious that she means that decades of feminist thought in American culture promoting "strong, independent woman" ideals has yet not provided immunity to the idea that such women "are in thrall to 'a system of male dominance'". It's a clearly ideologically motivated and uncharitable reading. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

When I said "wide agreement of scholars" I was referring to other sources that are not being discussed in this thread. I posted such a list back in December, now at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 5. There are a great many scholars who have written about Sommers in the context of how she writes and works against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Complementary work?

I came across this a few months ago, kept meaning to post something about it, in fact thought I may have but seems I haven't yet. Anyway, does anyone else feel the wording currently used in our article:

Robert Coles, a child psychiatrist at Harvard University, has compared Sommers' book with the separate but complementary work of psychologist William Pollack, author of Real Boys' Voices and Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood, and with the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan.

is fairly misleading, particularly the part about "complementary work"? I first noticed when reading the article for Real Boys, that the work didn't sound particularly complementary, it even includes a quote in opposition from Sommers. I read a bit more about Pollack's work, and none of it sounded very complementary.

While they both feel that we're failing boys in modern times, it seems a bit far fetched to described them as complementary as their reasons are almost the opposite. Pollack seems to feel that despite the increasing allowance for girls to express themselves in ways that were traditionally disallowed or considered unfeminine, boys are still largely expected to conform to traditional notions of masculinity and that's harming them. Sommers however seems to feel the push from femininists and particularly people like Pollack against traditional concepts of masculinity and boyhood is harming them.

That was OR, but I later check out the actual source [6], and I don't see how it really supports the idea the works are complementary either. For example the review says

comes across as Sommers's strongly felt war against those two prominent psychologists

(referring to Pollack and Gilligan). And

Pollack, we are informed, "is attributing pathology to normal boys, and his conclusions are expansive and alarming." The same charge is directed at Gilligan, at her well-known book "In a Different Voice," and at her more recent effort to understand how boys as well as girls come to sometimes difficult terms with our country's social conventions and values.

Ultimately, I don't see that the review suggests they are complementary.

If the text was trying to say the work of Pollack and Gilligan was complementary to each other, this may be true, I didn't read the review carefully enough to be sure. At least to me, our wording definitely implies Pollack's work is complementary to Sommers work.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Complimentary" and "complementary" are two different words. A compliment expresses praise. A complement improves or perfects something. I believe Scholes is saying that Pollack’s work observation-based approach is complementary to -- and a useful corrective of -- Sommers' ideologically-derived approach.MarkBernstein (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)