Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Protected edit request on 27 November 2014

Add Category:American academics and re-add Category:American women writers to the categories section. According to what I am reading, Sommers is both a former professor and is currently a scholar. In addition, she is a writer according to the sources and the categories on this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

she is definitely an author, but she currently works at a think tank- do we consider them "academics"? they are generally more pundits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

She also still writes books to an academic standard independently, speaks at universities in a personal capacity, plus AEI is a broader church than people give it credit for.SatansFeminist (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

lots of people speak at universities - that doesnt make them "academics". and no matter how "broad" a think tank is, its not "academia" - in fact the most broad think tanks are little more than propaganda machines and marketing firms. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A professor, even one who is "former", is still an "academic". Weedwacker (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree Loganmac (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question - Do RS call her an academic? If so, then yes, add the cat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: RS call her at least professor. Why would you have to look for literal use of "academic"? Doesn't professorship qualify person as academic? Matthew1J (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matthew1J: That's a tough one... professor usually means they are in academia, but some people use it instead of "doctor". Honestly not sure on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP article

Seriously the POV-pushing WP:UNDUE needs to be taken out of the lead. The subject is rightfully really annoyed. She is a feminist, she's not anti-feminist.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS call her anti-feminist and the wiki article reflects that fact. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't see anything wrong with someone being anti-feminist, some people would regard being identified as anti-feminist as defamatory. That being the case, it is your responsibility to show that calling Sommers an anti-feminist is justified under WP:BLP. I think you'll find doing that only leads to trouble. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a misapplication of BLP. First, negative content is allowed if it's sourced well and the person is well-known enough. Second, it's not defamatory to be called antifeminist. While some people consider antifeminism misogynistic, we aren't calling her a misogynist (which would be defamatory if said in Wikipedia's voice). I can see an argument for the attribution of the use of "antifeminist", but frankly it is not a negative enough label to require such imho. Where the label "antifeminist" requires such attribution or is considered defamatory is more an issue for WP:BLPN (though there's already 2 conversations there about Sommers started by SatansFeminist). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't need a lecture on BLP. I am quite aware that it does allow negative content, and have pointed that out myself on occasion. If you understood BLP, you would realize that anything that is even potentially negative or controversial, which definitely does include "anti-feminist", needs the highest standard of sourcing. It may be acceptable to say that sources have called her anti-feminist, but saying that she is anti-feminist, in Wikipedia's voice, is never going to be acceptable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We differ on "potentially negative or controversial". Take it to BLPN if you're so concerned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue here is calling someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist and writes (well referenced) feminist works, an anti-feminist. Cyrenbyren (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read BLP. It is not an issue to report what is widely reported. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will quote it for you. Under "Challenged or likely to be challenged":

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.

Cyrenbyren (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While i thank you for quoting the policy, my next question is to ask why you think that is relevant? the article quite clearly cites the claims made and [1] there is no shortage of other academic sources that could be added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because of the context it is presented. She clearly labels herself as an "equity feminist", and her work is mainly focused on feminism. Claiming that she is an anti-feminist in this context can be quite controversial for how she is viewed as an academic. As she is a well published academic with a large amount of references to her work, applying the aforementioned paragraph in the WP:BLP guidelines, requiring the use of inline quotes explicitly stating what is being said and by whom. This is not done here. Cyrenbyren (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If her work is viewed as antifeminist, then it is viewed as anti feminist and that is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia is not here to promote her personal perception, it is here to present the way it is viewed by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that perhaps there are different views among "mainstream academics"? Or is that too difficult a concept? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

please demonstrate that the view "anti-feminist" is not one of (if not the) major view held by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the point is being challenged, which is why its a BLP issue. If you feel, and can find reliable references, that it is valuable to the article, cite those references inline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrenbyren (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you reading? the one i see DOES have inline cites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am reading the current article. There are no inline quotes stating she is anti-feminist. Thr closest thing even relating to this is a a review of "The war against boys", and it does not even make that claim. The statement is in the lede, as well, and while the lede do not have the same requirements for quouts and references as the main article, I highly doubt that means it allows BLP violations. Cyrenbyren (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What statement(s) in the article identifying her work "antifeminist" is not sourced? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That Sommers is not "anti-feminist" is obviously the view of some sources that have discussed her work. See, for example, John M. Ellis's book Literature Lost, which is cited in the article on Who Stole Feminism?. It's just ignorant to claim that all reliable sources discussing Sommers call her anti-feminist. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations. I am not talking about references. Cyrenbyren (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's just ignorant to claim that all reliable sources discussing Sommers call her anti-feminist." Not all, but the vast majority. For every reliable source calling her feminist, there are at least ten reliable sources calling her anti-feminist. In academic sources the ratio is probably even more skewed in favor of antifeminist. And then there are also the sources that call her self-description into question without explicitly labeling her as anti-feminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. This is a BLP after all, so it's your responsibility to show that what you're saying is correct. Rather a lot has been published about Sommers, so I'm surprised that you would know exactly what proportion of sources discussing her call her a feminist and what proportion do not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let's go. Provide as many reliable sources as you can that call Sommers or her work feminist (not "antifeminist feminist", "faux-feminist", "self-described" "equity feminist" or "feminist" with quotation marks). And I'll provide reliable sources that call her or her work antifeminist or say that she opposes feminism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the right way to do it. Please collect as many quotes from reliably published sources that describe Sommers relation to Feminism as possible. That will make it so much easier to write a balanced and accurate article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It already started a few weeks ago: Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_3#"NPOV". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy-pasting quotes from RS regarding Sommers and feminism here so that the can be easily viewed and all in one place:

It seems clear from this so far that only Sommers refers to herself as a feminist. We have no RS calling her such. But there are a number of RS calling her anitfeminist. Does anyone have RS that call Sommers a feminist (without attributing the label to her own words)? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PS - I'll be happy to add to this list if someone has more to add. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Rhonda Hammer's book I mention above dedicates many pages to critiqyeing Sommers' claim to be a feminist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Katha Pollitt's status as a reliable source is questionable. She is described in her article primarily as a poet. How does she become an acceptable source for who is a feminist and who is not? It's not as though she were a political scientist or something. She happens, incidentally, to be one of the people criticized in Who Stole Feminism?, so using her book as source for describing Sommers as an anti-feminist is in effect taking sides in a dispute between two living people. Is this really what people want Wikipedia to do? ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is not going to describe Sommers as an antifeminist, it is going to say that she is described as that by many authors. Just as the article can describe Sommers statements about feminists, it can also describe their statements about her. Just for the sake of comparison, I also write on some BLPs for people on the political far right, sometimes a large amount of sources will talk about their associations with neo-nazis and describe them in unflattering terms, terms that the subject themselves reject. The articles nonetheless need to include them if the viewpoint is sufficiently predominant in the sources, as well as the biographic subject's own statements about their political affiliations. This article similarly will have to describe both Sommers' claim to be a feminist, as well as the claims of the many sources that says she is nota feminist in any meaningful sense of the word.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus: At what point to we speak in Wikipedia's voice when ascribing an extremely well-sourced but potentially negative label? This label is not defamatory. I don't think we need to attribute the label extensively if at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally wouldn't label people in wikipedia's voice if it is at all controversial. Some editors do it when there is a clear difference between "science POV" and "Fringe POV", but I dont think that is the best way to do it. In this case I think the relaiton is so compolex that that it is best to describe both views as views and attribute them. Personally I think the fun part is to try to make sure that the reader understands the way that the subject think, by describing their views and statements and in so far as possible without using labels to pigeonhole them. Of course their stanidng with in the field needs to come across though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a six new sources. I could probably go on for days. @EvergreenFir: By the way, why do you question the RS status of a book that was edited by a bunch of academics such as Lisa Sowle Cahill, Elaine Wainwright and Diego Irarrázaval and published by the small but academic publisher SCM Press? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• How did User:Bilby's edits add any "balance" in light of this and other discussions? "Some feminist scholars"? Some? And only feminist? Her approach has been received positively, sourced with an Economist piece that mentions her once and goes on praising the Independent Women's Forum? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I may well have stuffed up - I'm more than open to any corrections. Today, though, I went through about 20 papers and books discussing Sommers, selected randomly by going through the database hits on a general search. My impression was that (like always) the issue was complex - the views of Sommers and some of her contemporaries are accepted by some, strongly denied by others. There wasn't a consistent dialog in what I read, although there was no doubt that she was polarising. I felt that the previous single sentence in the lead wasn't adequately summarising this issue, given that her views on feminism are the main thing she is known for, so I wanted to add better context to the lead

Thus the changes I made were:

• Acknowledge that her views are controversial
• Provide a neutral description of her views before describing her as anti-feminist
• Note that her approach was accepted by some in the literature
• Use stronger sources for the "anti-feminist" description

I originally included a reference to the "pod feminism" which turned up an a few sources, but that seemed to unbalance the lead.

I have no problems with other approaches, but I think that the general pattern - describe her stance neutrally, and acknowledge both support and opposition - is probably one we should look to take. The previous wording started with the negative, and only used Sommers' own voice to present any positive. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see three main problems with your edits:

• You wrote that some feminist scholars categorize her as anti-feminist, implying that only feminist scholars do so and that it's only some scholars. In reality, it's scholars in general or at the very least most scholars who consider her anti-feminist and this view isn't restricted to feminist scholars. I'm not aware of any academic sources that regard her as feminist. I assume that there must be some but they will most likely be in the minority. You're welcome to join the effort to collect quotes from RS regarding Sommers and feminism. So far it looks like all RS consider her anti-feminist.
• You stated that her approach (i.e., her "equity feminist" approach) has been positively received and added an Economist article as a source for the statement. The source mentions Sommers only once as part of a group of conservative women ("the pods") with a particular stance on "capitalism and American institutions", "individual rights, personal responsibility and equality before the law", group rights, vaginal orgasms, and men. The article then goes on to praise right-wing organizations like the Independent Women's Forum and state that "the pods" think that "women's organisations are so overwhelmingly left-wing that they have to be attacked from the right". If anything, then the article receives "the pods'" overall right-wing politics positively, not Sommers' approach to feminism. The sentence as it stands gives the wrong impression of what the source finds praiseworthy about Sommers' "approach", i.e., the sympathetic view of capitalism and America institutions, the rejection of the idea of group rights, ... and, last but not least, the attack on feminism from the right.
• The Sommers quotefarm and the quote from Camille Paglia in the lead section is bad form and, in the case of the Paglia quote, WP:Undue.

Can you link your general search? It would help to know what sort of search terms you used and what those 20 papers and books are. Also I don't share your perception that "The previous wording started with the negative, and only used Sommers' own voice to present any positive." The previous statement was that some critics consider her an antifeminist while Sommers labels herself an "equity feminist". Both "equity feminist" and "antifeminist" can be badges of honor or slights, it depends on whom you ask, but they're not positive or negative per se. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I used "some feminist scholars" because those describing Sommers were discussing her work in regard to feminism. I have no problems if there are others who also describe her as anti-feminist, but to be honest I think that has more weight coming from those who are experts in the field, rather than people who are not known for expertise in the area. In regard to the search, no, I can't link to it, but the terms were "Christina Sommers" & feminism. - Bilby (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What about the Economist source that doesn't support the statement that her "approach has, at times, been positively received"? Or what about the quotefarm in the lead that you started and that was expanded since then? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Paglia has been extensively referenced in regard to Sommers, and the particular quote was used in a secondary source when discussing Sommers, so from what I've been reading Paglia's opinion seemed worth including. That Paglia was being quoted elsewhere suggested that her comment on Sommers was being given some weight. The Economist was to include a non-academic viewpoint in regard to the approach, rather than specifically Sommers. From The Economist [2]:

"The pod feminists are led by writers and academics like Karen Lehrman, Anne Roiphe, Wendy Kaminer, Naomi Wolf, Camille Paglia, Cathy Young, Danielle Crittenden, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Katie Roiphe (daughter of Anne), Christine Hoff Sommers and Rene Denfeld"

"In sum, the pod feminists have attacked many of the totems of orthodox feminism. This has angered Ms Steinem, Ms Faludi and others, but it has also provided a breath of fresh air to a movement that was choking on its smug certainties. The establishment feminists are stuck with an angry, state-driven, quota-ridden 1960s mind-set that is looking dowdy."

I'm not particularly wedded to either statement being in the article. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Where has Paglia been extensively referenced in regard to Sommers? Who quoted Paglia? And why quote Paglia and not Hammer, for example, who writes extensively about Sommers' work in Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective? I'm still not sold on the Economist piece. The statement that you added says that Sommers' "equity feminist" approach has been received positively. But that's not what the sources shows. The source shows that the Economist believes that the "pod feminists" (including Sommers) attack on what the Economist believes to be "orthodox feminism" is great. It doesn't say anything about Sommers theoretical framework or approach to anything. It simply states that the "pod feminists" attack feminism from the right. So I suggest that the sentence be adjusted to better reflect to source ore removed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in regard to Paglia, the reference I used was Gring‐Pemble, Lisa; Blair, Diane. (2000) "Best‐selling feminisms: The rhetorical production of popular press feminists' romantic quest", Communication Quarterly, 48:4, p362, which quoted Paglia in regard to Sommers. - Bilby (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

March of Dimes study

it didn't exist.

'The March of Dimes never did any such study, nor did it commission any such research. The source Lemon cites is a 1987 article in the nursing journal Birth by two authors who were awarded a grant by the March of Dimes to do a small study of battery during pregnancy and to summarize strategies for prevention. In their introductory remarks describing the scope of the problem, the authors refer to a 1981 monograph by Evan Stark, Anne Flitcraft, et al., titled Domestic Violence. It makes claims about the links between battery and miscarriages, and it was not connected with the March of Dimes in any way. When students are told in Lemon's book that "the March of Dimes found …," they are led to believe that this reputable organization carried out the major study with the advertised finding. They do not assume that the finding was by a third party, which was then referred to by someone who received a grant from the March of Dimes to do a small study on a different topic.' http://chronicle.com/article/Domestic-Violence-a/47940/ SatansFeminist (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's already in the article. aprock (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. You have to ACTUALLY mention that she replied and provide a direct link to that reply. 87.162.222.186 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We give her original claim, and Lemon's response, but we do not currently include the response to that response, which is further down at the link given above. Our article gives the impression that the matter can be easily and conclusively settled in favor of Lemon but that is not what the source says.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur. There is a discussion in the Chronicle article that seems to make the Lemon's claims a bit far-fetched. For example Romulus having the first anti-domestic violence law. That, on its face seems to put Lemon at the fringe at least from a historical perspective as she argues it as historical fact when Romulus is oft regarded as mythical. Our article labels Romulus as part of the Rome's foundation myth. Romanticism (interesting etymology of that word) reinterpretations seemed to have occurred to give truthiness to some stories but the foundation is very weak for us to cite considering how the topic is treated by scholars (myth). Lemon's arguments on English common law "Rule of thumb" are also dismissed in our Rule of thumb article with well-sourced references as well as the seminal misinterpretation by others of a statement by feminist Del Martin who used it as a metaphor, not as historical fact. The "March of Dimes study" claim also seems to be a reach as the report being cited doesn't appear to be supported by the March of Dimes. Researchers often receive multiple grants from multiple places so even though two authors may publish multiple studies together, it is not accurate to say all studies are funded as if it where a pool. Sommer's rebuttal seems to be much more accurate with sources to back it up. This all needs to be cleaned up as the BLP shouldn't be the place to leave innuendo or criticism when the main articles on the same topic are much more clear cut. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: "the response to that response..." Such back-and-forth dialogue between Sommers and her critics is discouraged per WP:STRUCTURE. Sommers' response to that response, and then a response to Sommers' response to the original response, and so it goes ad infinitum. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm no, all Jimbo, who founded wikipedia is saying is that if you put someone's claim Sommers got something wrong then you need to put a response from the subject, or we're implying the criticism is an incontrovertible fact when it's not.SatansFeminist (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree with Sonicyouth86. Honestly, discussion of her views on the March of Dimes research paper is unwarranted per WP:UNDUE. This is not something she is known for, and descending into an endless he-said/she-said over what looks to be some fuzzy sourcing really doesn't belong on her bio. aprock (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is a March of Dimes study. It's very clear that Lemon's criticism is lacking accuracy according to the other aspects she brings up including "Romulus" and "Rule of thumb." Both of our Wikipedia articles on those topics directly dispute Lemon's assertions with citations. Sommers disputes those items and the "March of Dimes" claim with equal rigor. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While she disputes it in her book, that is not what the book is known for. That level of detail may be appropriate in the book article, but here is comes across as trivial bickering between pundits. Not really appropriate here. aprock (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Please show the the consensus for this removal of sourced content? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Three people above weighed in about how just Lemon's rebuttal was a BLP violation as being incomplete at best. At worst, everything posited by Lemon was disputed by reliable sources. Lemon should be removed completely. The only question would be whether to mention Sommers' "March of Dimes" observation. As it stood, Lemon was mischaracterized as critiqing Sommers book (she was actually replying to a different piece) and it was stated as an unrebutted fact when that also was not the case. Our own unrelated articles refute Lemon's arguments. Lemon is not reliable and it was an obvious call to remove it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential third party sources

Here is a good source critiquing Hoff Sommers's views of ethics.

• Miller, Seumas (2010). The Moral Foundations of Social Institutions: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge University Press. pp. 184–. ISBN 9780521767941. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

A critique of Hoff Sommers critique of rape stats

• Raphael, Jody (2013). Rape is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis. Chicago Review Press. pp. 201–. ISBN 9781613744796. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

A critique of Hoff Sommers's general critiquing methods

• Superson, Anita M.; Cudd, Ann E. (2002-01-01). Theorizing Backlash: Philosophical Reflections on the Resistance to Feminism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 49–. ISBN 9780742513747. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts, TheRedPenOfDoom. It confuses matters not to sign them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:31, 26

November 2014 (UTC)

Also

• Rhonda Hammer. 2002. Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rhonda Hammer. 2000. Anti‐Feminists as Media Celebrities. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies. 22 (3), pp. 207–222. doi:10.1080/1071441000220303. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Equity feminism

The first line in the section "Ideas and Views claims that "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes equity feminism as libertarian and socially conservative." While the former is supported by the source supplied, the latter isn't. From the source section 2.2.3 Socially Conservative Equity Feminism,

"Some equity feminists are socially conservative (Morse 2001; Sommers 2000). To be sure, equity feminism as described here is a form of classical-liberal or libertarian feminism."

This claims that **some** are socially conservative, not equity feminists in general. It even goes on to clarify that in the article that equity feminism is described as classical-liberal or libertarian. The sentence is misquoting the source. I suggest the following rewrite:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes equity feminism as classical-liberal or libertarian with some members being socially conservative.

SirArren (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence, as written, does not even seem to be about Sommers. It does not mention her by name. Why place it in this article? Also, please sign your posts. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

signed, sorry. I'm still getting around wiki. I don't know why it's in the article in the first place. And as is, it's misconstruing the source. SirArren (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since that material as it is currently written is not even about Sommers, it should simply be removed. An admin could do this, as they can edit through article protection. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She coined the term/invented it. Should we remove Einstein's general theory of relativity from his bio? We can add her name back but you've objected to every factual and neutral portrayal of her. Her socially conservative stance is not nearly as attributable than equity feminism. --DHeyward (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also The immediate following sentence is unsourced(where does she say there are acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism?) and then the sentence following that isn't supported by its source. On page 22 of "Who stole feminism?" http://books.google.com/books?id=EIUtJziqIqAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q=Enlightenment%20principles%20of%20individual%20justice&f=false

She says that 18th century feminists "grounded their demands in Enlightenment principles of justice." She does not describe equity feminism with this. Rather she describes the 18th century feminists with this description. She directly describes equity feminists in this line(on the same page)

"A First Wave, 'mainstream,' or 'equity' feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination.

SirArren (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the acceptable/non-acceptable line should be removed. Your quote is also accurate and was in the lead prior to the addition of negative material (I added it but I believe it was reverted). --DHeyward (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of critics dispute Anita Sarkeesian as a feminist but nobody adds this on her page (as it shouldn't). Who could have ever approved of this? The classical definition of feminism is still a movement for female empowerment and equality of the genders. In which she fits in 100% fix this POV as soon as possible, wikipedia becomes worse and worse have you seen that according to wikipedia "white people" are a social construct and "black people" are an ethnicity? This kind of SJW insanity belongs on a personal blog not in an encyclopaedia. Helester (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All ethnicities are social constructs for your information. But neither being black or white is an ethnicity. They are racial categories. Being African-American or an Irish-American are ethnicities. And what you have heard wikipedia says is not what it actually says about those two things. When there is wide debate among feminists about Sommers status within the feminist movement then of course the article needs to note that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here. Its the unequal treatment of topics Sjws love and hate. C.H.S gets a whole lot of criticism, while all the criticism A.S received was "forgotten" and they only included it as "harassment". This is not based on facts its based on opinions and on unequal treatment of topics. Either we include it in both or in neither of them. In my opinion articles should be neutral and a lot of articles show the conservative opinion of the sjws instead of being neutral like they claim. Helester (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that, we cannot enforce "equal" treatment of articles. Who ever participates in writing a given article decides how it is to be covered - using the sources at hand. If Sarkeesian has been critiqued in reliable sources then that should be included. If reliable sources describe the "critique" as harrassment then it should be described that way in the article. But this article is about Sommers, who I dont believe has been involved in the Gamergate thing except maybe as a stooge paraded by one or more of the sides involved. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just try to get an equal wording on the "White People" and on the "Black People" page, I dare you to try it. I promise you you wont be able to. Same here, if the SJWs dog pile facts do not matter any more. Also you seem to forget that the media talks about the most interesting story's and not about the most truthful ones. C.H.S for example also received harassment but she deals differently with it which is the reason why the media cant write a "bawww" story about it, and they would if they were given the chance to. Does that mean she didn't get any? If a popular group of people would start doubting the status of an apple as a fruit although it full fills all category's would we include that some people doubt it? Helester (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition phrase in the articles White people and Black people are not identical, but they are completely equivalent in contents - describing both as social constructions with different social and political implications. There is not good reason they should be verbatim equivalent. If CHS "deals differently" with the harrassment she receives that is her choice, and will of course be reflected in the sources. Wikipedia articles reflect the sources. We have no requirement for or possibility of representing both sides in exactly the same ways. We have to represent them as the sources do. And yes if the consensus in reliable sources regarding the status of citrus fruits to other fruits started to shift then we would have to report that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Brand new editor here. I'm hardly familiar with the rules, so I appologize in advance if I'm violating any of them. I've read both Who Stole Feminism and The Blank Slate by Christina Hoff Sommers and Steven Pinker, respectively, and I personally found Pinker's definitions of equity and gender feminism more helpful than Sommers'. In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatments that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology." He then defines gender feminism as "an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive--power--and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups--in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender." There is an obvious bent in the latter quotation toward the subject of his book (so it probably isn't suitable for this article), and it also strikes me as far too wordy a quote to be included. That said, I do find the moral versus emirical distinction between the two doctrines to be very helpful in distinguishing between them, and also find Pinker's definitions more precise and useful than the political categorizations currently used in the present article (not that I don't think they belong here). As a new editor, I'm oblivious as to whether this is useful information to include - and given the discussions that have been going on in this talk section lately, I imagine it's hardly a pressing concern - but I just wanted to contribute this in case anyone else agrees that this would be useful in describing Sommers' views. SaltyG (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)SaltyG

Protected edit request on 26 November 2014b

Ms Sommers replied to criticism by FAIR. I think her reply should be mentioned in Who Stole Feminism paragraph and article. Matthew1J (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please phrase your request as a "Change X to y" or "Add Z to section S" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for kind reply. Please add "Sommers has responded to this criticism." at the end of Who Stole Feminism paragraph. English isn't my first language so feel free to correct my possible errors and typos. Matthew1J (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone else did something similiar, just with debunker reference. So I think it's done now. Matthew1J (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead Rewrite

Okay, I am going to make an attempt and reworking the lead. There are a number of issues with it. I will make a BOLD edit and will discuss it here.

For reference, here is the old lead:

Old lead here; click to expand

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her most widely discussed books are Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her approach, which she contrasts with what she describes as victim or gender feminism. She criticises much of contemporary feminist thought as containing "irrational hostility to men" and possessing an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different". Her approach has been positively received and Steven Pinker states that "Christina Hoff Sommers draws a useful distinction between two schools of thought", referring to equity feminism as "part of the classical liberal and humanistic tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment, and it guided the first wave of feminism and launched the second wave" versus gender feminism as "opposed to the classical liberal tradition and allied instead with Marxism, postmodernism, social constructionism, and radical science". It has also been criticized, and she is considered anti-feminist by many feminist scholars.

Here is my edit:

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with what she describes as "victim" or "gender feminism".

Sommers is known for her criticisms of contemporary feminism, calling "irrational hostility to men" and possessing 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, though Sommers rejects claims that she is opposed to feminism. Sommers's most notable books are Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, both of which are critical discussions of contemporary feminism.

Reference list
References

Reasons for changes:

• Moving mention of books to bottom. One of two books mentioned doesn't even have its own article, so I question its notability. However, they are part of what makes her notable and deserve mention. I added a line about their topic, which relates directly to what makes Sommers notable
• I have removed discussion of reactions to her coined term per WP:COATRACK. The article is about Sommers, not equality feminism. Discussion of the term itself belongs on that term's article.
• Similarly, praise for one scholar, though well-known, seems a bit UNDUE in the lead. I have removed it.
• I kept the part about coining the term and its distinction from other feminisms.
• I moved the "anti feminist" part up to the paragraph with equality feminism as they are directly related. I was careful to be clear that Sommers herself reject this label or suggestions that she is opposed to feminism and cited it with her Tweet.
• The anti-feminist claim could use a reference or two more but honestly don't have the time at the moment to add it.

I'm sure this isn't perfect, but I hope that this will get some discussion moving so that we can figure out what needs to be changed and why. Currently the article does seems generally balanced, though given the perponderence of sources discussion her antifeminism, it needs to be made more prominent. Again, I've included Sommers' voice to balance things and appease BLP. The info on antifeminism is absent from the body of the article however and needs to be included. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward (talk · contribs) take:

Christina Hoff Sommers (/ˈsʌmərz/; born 1950) is an American author and former philosophy professor known for her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with "gender feminism".

Sommers criticizes specific schools of feminist thought that have moved beyond the "first wave of feminism" of achieving equity in law and focus on differences in outcome that correlate to gender. She argues those branches of feminism do not entertain the "possibility that the sexes are equal but different". Sommers' critics generally do not distinguish between equity and gender feminists and argue the desirable outcome of both views are the same. Sommers notable works include Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, both of which are scholarly critiques of contemporary feminism.

References

The main criticism I have here is that the focus is on the idea of equality feminism, not the subject of the article. The article needs to be about Sommers, not her ideas. I think it's also important to mention the antifemininsm bit but acknowledge it needs to be fleshed out in the body of the article more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Her seminal work is equity feminism from 20 years ago and is the reason she is notable. Everything is based off of that. Today, it's a chicken/egg thing as she is very notable and sought after for views and opinions. I agree that more biographical data should be added to the lead including her current role at AEI and her video blog. In addition, family information such as parent, spouse, children. etc could fill out another lead paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So long as everything in it is properly cited, the version of the lead that reads, 'She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with what she describes as "victim" or "gender feminism"' is better than the one reading, 'She coined the term "equity feminist" to denote her philosophy, which she contrasts with "gender feminism"'. "Gender feminism" is rather an obscure term; the other version gives readers a better idea of what Sommers says she opposes. I find the part reading 'Sommers criticizes specific schools of feminist thought that have moved beyond the "first wave of feminism" of achieving equity in law and focus on differences in outcome that correlate to gender. She argues those branches of feminism do not entertain the "possibility that the sexes are equal but different".[1] Sommers' critics generally do not distinguish between equity and gender feminists and argue the desirable outcome of both views are the same' to be too detailed for the lead, which should be kept as simple as reasonably possible. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"equity" and "gender" feminist terms were coined at the same time by CHS. One is not more obscure than the other. "victim" was taken as a quote but the term used by CHS in her work is "gender feminist." The reason you might think it's obscure is because no one would identify themselves with that term while many identify with "equity feminism." "victim feminism" is more obscure in the literature. Our article is called Equity and gender feminism. --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Does not make sense to describe any of them as obscure. It is enough to note that "gender feminism" is her term used to refer to contemporary mainstream feminism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both terms are obscure. Most people do not read books like Sommers's and would not know what either term meant. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both terms are rather obscure... I buy the argument that they should at least me mentioned in the lead as they are key to her notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They should be mentioned of course. But w cannot describe either of them as obscure with out a very good source that describes them as such.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I said the terms were obscure. I didn't mean that the article should say, "these terms are obscure." OK? ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

^Same. We don't have RS saying such, so it cannot be in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how many people here have read CHS' books. She calls herself a freedom feminist, that's the name of her latest book on feminism. I'd say she's most well known nowadays for this liberal brand of feminism (and she is a feminist.) Equity feminism and gender feminism she describes as the 2 strands of feminism through history. 'Victim feminism' is more commonly used in general parlance by the way although it's not entirely the same thing. Congrats on the lead! It no longer is a slur on her character which is all we can ask for. Now can we say somewhere in the article that she's a registered member of the Democratic party? It is relevant because it shows she's not the right-winger some people try to paint her as.SatansFeminist (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

all that can really be derived from "registered democrat" is that in a primary she will have to vote in the pool of those seeking to represent the democratic party in the final election and that in November her mailbox and phone will be filled with contacts from the democratic party. there are plenty of people who cross register to get a weaker candidate selected in the primary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Her notability is not currently from an academic coinage 20 years ago, she's very involved with current cultural battles such as Gamergate controversy. Because she's 'The Factual Feminist' on youtube. SatansFeminist (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)