Jump to content

Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Fourth paragraph in 'Ideas and views'

Hi. I think it's odd to write sentences such as

Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements.
Not only do women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, but they also seek out more family-friendly careers.

without direct attribution of these views to Sommers. I've attempted to put attribution to these statements twice, but have been reverted both times. I understand that the other statements in the paragraph are attributed directly to Sommers, but I don't see that as leading the reader to assume that these statements are also attributed directly to Sommers. What's the case against attributing them? Do any other editors also believe these statements should be attributed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of any case against instating this edit, I'll implement it fairly shortly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd support that, it seems obvious to me that it should be attributed. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's much risk of readers confusing the contents of a section titled "Ideas and Views" with something other than the article subject's ideas and views. But you'll do what you feel you must, I'm sure. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Starke, seems pointless and at best clunky to read. Arkon (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Consider this hypothetical statement, in the section "Ideas and views" of a devout believer in the existence of hostile alien life that intends ill will to humanity.
Martians are a famously hostile race. Mr. Freeman believes that they abduct us and harvest our brains.
I'd prefer attribution on both the sentence which posits that martians exist and are famously hostile, as well as Mr. Freeman's fears of a conspiracy to harvest human brains- regardless of how obvious things may seem to some editors. With no cases against, and one agreement, I'll implement attribution. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Your preference is noted. Still a clunky pointless edit that lacks consensus. Arkon (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, "Lack of consensus isn't a reason to revert", what in the world are you thinking? Arkon (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, now that this reads like a third grade paper, is it necessary to point out the studies that support what is now started with "Sommers believes that"? There are plenty. Arkon (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem: these are very controversial statements, some of them are very dubious. They have to be attributed since these are very far from unproblematic/unchallenged facts. Sorry, but NPOV trumps your personal preferences on wording (personally I think it's fine btw) Fyddlestix (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
To be specific " not only do women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, but they also seek out more family-friendly careers" is hardly controversial and is well supported. This is not just a "Sommers believes". Do try to keep up. Arkon (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The text in question also contains the statement that "Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements." Unattributed, that's a clear and obvious NPOV violation. And please leave out the juvenile "do try to keep up" type comments, they are completely unhelpful. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yet again you are unable/unwilling to respond to the actual argument being made. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the argument you're making, Arkon, that the statement "women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, and also seek out more family-friendly careers" is a fact and thus does not require attribution? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The argument is that its a widely held, supported by multiple studies position. Not something that is simply a belief of Sommers. Arkon (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's an opinion, it needs to be attributed. You don't get to ignore our requirements of attribution just because more than one person holds a particular opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Do try to read more carefully instead of creating pointless strawmen. You don't get to disregard facts because they are inconvenient to your POV. Arkon (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So, again- you believe that "women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, and also seek out more family-friendly careers" is a fact? I don't see why you didn't say so in response to my earlier question. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So again indeed. Let me paste my earlier comments since you seem to be having a hard time. Sigh, now that this reads like a third grade paper, is it necessary to point out the studies that support what is now started with "Sommers believes that"? There are plenty. and The argument is that its a widely held, supported by multiple studies position. Not something that is simply a belief of Sommers.. Now, unless there are any substantial responses, I will be restoring the text that you altered without consensus shortly. Arkon (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:V, and also clearly state why you believe that Sommer's opinion does not need to be attributed. You've said plenty, but none of it has been very clear- endeavor to educate me, not insult me. We can quite easily say that these are opinions of Sommers. We cannot, however, state them as fact because reliable sources do not. (edit conflict) PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
If you'd like to go over the timeline of supposed insults, I'd invite you to my talk page. As is, I've been quite clear in my statements, and you've not refuted a one. Please ping if you decide to do so. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree we must attribute everything, and leave no doubt in the reader's mind that it's Sommers' ideas that are being presented. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times now, this is not a "Sommers' idea". This is a well supported by multiple studies position. Would you like the cites? Arkon (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if other people believe the same thing - what matters is that it's controversial (ie, not a "fact" that we can state in wikipedia's voice). If you want to argue otherwise, then yes, you're going to have to produce some reliable sources that support your position. What "multiple studies" are you referring to? And are you sure that those studies support the exact wording of Sommers' argument? Fyddlestix (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

conservative think tank

@Fyddlestix: the recent reversion got me thiking, since AEI does have its own article where stuff like this can be mentioned, what is the need for mentioning it here when info pertaining to the institute is easily accessible and better debated and sourced there? The introductory sentence mentioning her current employment is one thing but do we really need to elaborate on explaining it when the organization has its own article? 64.231.169.3 (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

GG section

@Fyddlestix: checking the history further back another revert, good catch on it not belonging under early life. Should it go under 'ideas and views' or possible a new section? Agree on better sources. Particularly since just one was used twice. I don't know how reliable it is but at least I can have a go at formatting it if it is admissible in any way:

Kristol, William. "Conversation with Christina Hoff Sommers". ConversationsWithBillKristol.org.

The problem I see with this link, while useful, is it is more like an aggregator which simply hosts links to a main video, and then I think possibly the same thing divided into 6 smaller chapters. I think perhaps cite-videos on the chapters (for more specific and less resource-intense loading) would be ideal if someone wants to rely on citing this for the interview. Probably chapter 6 would be the most applicable considering the chapter titles. I probably won't get to listening to these for weeks though if someone else wants to have a go. ?t= on YT cites are our friends everyone. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Feminist ideologues

It is so easy to see from this article once again, how feminist ideologues have taken over Wikipedia's editing. If this was a neutral article, the first description would mention her being a feminist. But because she is wrong kind of feminist, they emphasize her being a conservative, because being conservative in feminists circles means being wrong, being evil. Even Wikipedia will ultimately sink with this Wikipedia+(feminism+SJWism), because it means Wikipedia+bias. And you can all argue against me, but the truth is that Wikipedia policies do not prevent bias very effectively, especially when bias comes from news articles, academic articles, which both can be really low in quality, even when the publisher is famous. If Wikipedia existed in 1920's 1930's there would be lot of race ideologues editing articles and using their own academic research to justify their biased editing, and guess what... when people like me would try to correct their bullshit, some of the Asbergerish editors of Wikipedia would come lightning fast to revert my perfectly justified changes, because regulation and policies would be on the side of national socialists and race ideologists rather than in side of reason and neutrality. Wikipedia is very vulnerable to politics, political correctness, academic bias, media bias, and widespread ideological bias, and thus a rare case of open source platforms that easily easily corrupted and has very weak and slow self-correction system. Not many people complain yet, because many of the natural sciences articles and most of the general boring articles stay unaffected, however once feminists start to edit those articles, people in large number are going to reject and abandon Wikipedia for being full of bullshit. --91.153.161.184 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you looked at the literature written by scholars you would understand why Sommers is not respected or even considered a feminist. Many scholars write that Sommers is working against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
By your logic we shouldn't refer to Trotsky as a communist because Stalin (and hundreds of Soviet academics supporting his decisions) said he was in fact an anti-communist. These two were certainly both communists but both refused to refer to each other as such. And yet you argue we should take Sommers' opponents word on if she is or is not a feminist, even though most refuse to meet or speak with her or to engage with her views on any serious level; you say we should take their word for it because they are 'scholars'. Well Sommers is a scholar too. And she calls herself a feminist. Saying that other scholars disagree is a clear no true scotsman falacy. The idea that Feminism is a monolithic Soviet-style party that dictates which people are and are not feminists is absolutely absurd. Feminism is not a monolith. There are many schools of feminism, including Sommers' 'equity feminism' that she talks about in Who Stole Feminism and defines as being a philosophy that aims for equality of opportunity and personal empowerment. I agree that she is not in the mainstream of modern intersectional feminist thought but that doesn't mean she is anti-feminist; she is not against women or the achievements of feminism, she is certainly not a traditionalist or a misogynists; she is simply opposed to 'gender feminism' (her term) or marxist-style feminism that defines all women as opporessed and all men as oppressors. She doesn't believe that reflects reality and change off the basis of that paradigm cannot solve any problems except to make the sexes less equal. Stalin said Trotsky was working against the Soviet people, even as he was writing The Revolution Betrayed. Feminist scholars say Sommers isn't a feminist even as she writes a book about how feminist scholars are gender idealogues who's opinions cannot be trusted. Whether you agree with Sommers (or Trotsky come to that) we cannot write an unbiased article if we allow the people she is criticizing to tell us what she thinks. How do you think Wiki pages written by Stalin would read? Unbiased? Really? 86.166.231.128 (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
People who are experts in the topic don't agree with you. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
"Many scholars write that Sommers is working against feminism." "People who are experts in the topic don't agree with you." May I just say....citation needed. 174.71.12.229 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Which people? Who are we considering an expert here? People who Sommers is a vehement critic of? To take the same allusion again; would you consider a piece in Pravda calling Trotsky an enemy of communism as 'experts' on communism?109.148.160.216 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Scholarly writings are not the same as newspaper articles from the former USSR. Scholarly writings are viewed as extremely reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
So what Scholarly writing can you cite that came to the conclusion "Sommers is not a feminist"? 173.71.121.171 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem to not understand his point, so allow me to present it a bit more clearly. Should we believe all the "academics" from Nazi Germany who wrote scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on the evils of the Jews and the supremacy of the Aryan race? Because that is what you are arguing we should do here.68.200.64.60 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
you are aware that we used to employ Mike Godwin right?©Geni (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Godwin's law states nothing about the accuracy or logical consistency of a claim. Evaluate what he said. 70.81.35.20 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading this talkpage...

I am reminded of Ahmadiyya. See how much of the lede is devoted to the more mainstream (and vastly more numerous) viewpoint on/of them? One line. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What is it you believe to be the mainstream stuff that's missing? Arkon (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hoff Sommers considered a feminist

A quick search revealed four reliable sources classifying Mrs. Hoff Sommers as a feminist:

I suggest you compromise on Breitbart's "equity feminist." If not you prove 86.166.231.128's point about Wikipedia's bias to a t and need to to think hard about WP:BALASP. 82.221.105.73 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is not WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware you made this comment a separate topic? It looks like it should be replying to Binksternet in the discussion above. 87.49.185.11 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite aware. You listed four sources, saying they're reliable. You specifically mention Breitbart in your final point. Just informing you that Breitbart is not a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If Breitbart is not reliable, why are there more than 400 pages on Wikipedia citing them as a source? https://www.google.com/#q=breitbart.com+site:wikipedia.com 2602:FFC8:2:104:0:0:0:9 (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody is cherry-picking their sources, ignoring the ones that they don't like. I'm going to delve into the talk page archives to show you a very large number of scholars who say that Sommers is working against feminism:
  • 12345
  • Toril Moi writes that Sommers is "one of America's leading feminist bashers."[1] Philosophy professor Tom Digby writes puts Sommers' self-described feminism in scare quotes, saying that she wrote "a series of antifeminist articles."[2] Sue Hatt, Linda Watson-Brown et al write that Sommers is among the so-called "free market feminists" who advocate women to "stay in their place and maintain the accustomed distinction between the public world of paid employment and the private world of domestic caring labour."[3] Leola A. Johnson writes that Sommers is one of the "new antifeminists" who have replaced Phyllis Schlafly as the "most visible antifeminists" in the U.S.[4] Elisabeth Armstrong of Smith College says that Sommers reports but ignores critically important statistics which disprove her whole theory: "Sommers cites statistics which reveal most young women's support for a strong women's movement to fight for women's equal rights and equal pay. Even in the face of this evidence, she draws the assumption that feminism is a movement dying a natural death, though she simultaneously credits its demise to the favorable conditions faced by women in the United States."[5]
  • Linda Watson-Brown says that a handful of "those writing from a free market feminist perspective", including Sommers, describe how women should "keep the home fires burning, stay in their place", and maintain traditional gender roles.[6]
  • “While she calls herself a feminist, her background reflects a very different story, and a long history of promoting ultraconservative causes.”[7]
  • Professor Anne-Marie Kinahan of Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada
  • Political scientist Ronnee Schreiber of San Diego State University
  • Professor Dale Bauer, Department of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
  • Dean Emerita Katherine Rhoades of the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
  • Professor Rhonda Hammer, Department of Gender Studies, UCLA
  • Kristin J. Anderson, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Houston-Downtown[8][9]
  • Theologian Sister Rebeka Jadranka Anić, Institute for Social Research, Ivo Pilar, Split Center.[10]
  • Mary Douglas Vavrus, Communication Studies Department. University of Minnesota.[11]
  • Sociologist Michael Kimmel, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the Stony Brook University in New York[12]
  • Professor Elaine Ginsberg, City College of San Francisco[13]
  • Professor Emerita Sara Lennox, Director of the Social Thought and Political Economy Program, DePauw University[14]
  • Theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Harvard Divinity School[15]
  • Becky Francis, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Department of Education & Professional Studies, King's College London[16]
  • Professor Christine Skelton, Emeritus Professor of Gender Education in the School of Education, University of Birmingham[17]
  • Philosopher Alison Jaggar, Feminist Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder[18]
  • Sarah Projansky, Associate Dean, College of Fine Arts, University of Utah[19]
  • Farah Mendlesohn, Head of the Department of English, Anglia Ruskin University[20]
  • VèVè Amasasa Clark, Academic Senate, University of California. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Professor Shirley Nelson Garner, Department of English, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Minneapolis. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Margaret Higonnet, Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of Connecticut. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Ketu H. Katrak, Professor of Drama, University of California, Irvine. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Writer Laura Kipnis, Guggenheim Fellow.[21]
  • Diane Railton, Senior Lecturer, English Studies, School of Arts & Media, Teesside University[22]
  • Paul Watson, Principal Lecturer, English Studies, Teesside University[23]
  • Barbara L. Marshall, Professor of Sociology, Trent University[24]
  • Nancy Berns, sociologist at Drake University[25]
  • Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Librarian, Simon Fraser University[26]
  • Myra Mendible, English Department, Florida Gulf Coast University[27]
  • Jackson Katz, Ph.D, independent scholar of gender violence prevention[28]
  • Deborah Holdstein, Professor of English, Columbia College Chicago. Challenging Perspectives: Reading Critically about Ethics and Values, page 501. ISBN 9780618215034
  • Valerie L. Scatamburlo, York University, Toronto. Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness, page 107. ISBN 9780820430126
  • Patrice McDermott, Vice Provost of University of Maryland Baltimore County. Third Wave Feminism, page 187. ISBN 9780230521742
  • James P. Winter, professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, writes about "a broader framework of pro-patriarchal spokeswomen, or professional apologists for the status quo" and he lists Katie Roiphe, Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers. Mediathink, page 42
  • Alyson M. Cole, associate professor of political science at Queens College and the Graduate Center, CUNY.[29]
And check out the archived discussion at Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_7#Antifeminist_references_from_scholars. A handful of sources saying Sommers is feminist does not successfully counteract the myriad of sources describing her as working against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Binksternet, you should stop misrepresenting Toril Moi as if she says Sommers is an anti-feminist. She outright describes Sommers as a feminist in that same book you linked to. "On the back cover of Young’s Ceasefire!, Sommers thoughtfully provides an enemy, proclaiming the book a “brilliantly reasoned indictment of the radical feminist establishment.” Sommers, incidentally, is the only other feminist singled out for praise alongside Roiphe by Camille Paglia (Vamps and Tramps xvi)." What's more, your conflating "working against feminism" with her not being a feminist. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This has all been discussed several times before, with the exact same points being mentioned. And the fact that you question Binksternet's interpretation of that one source does not negate the dozens and dozens of other high-quality, academic sources out there that primarily classify Sommers as an anti-feminist. But FWIW (and as I've said at least 2-3 times on this talk page already), I think it's quite clear that Moi is suggesting that Paglia classifies Sommers as a feminist, not classifying her as a feminist herself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree, Moi clearly calls people anti-feminist in her book but does not do so for Sommers. And in turn she calls Sommers a feminist in one of her notes. I think people are synth'ing their positions onto Moi. And in turn I highlighted that statement because it's pretty apparent that Binksternet is doing the same thing, cherry-picking sources, and even goes a step further into cherry-picking parts of a source that only fit a prescribed narrative. If we have so much about how Sommers is an anti-feminist, how about we get those details into the article. Then we can worry about the correct application of labels. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Moi describes Sommers in "How Feminism Became the F-Word" in a section with the header "Disenchanted Feminists". She discusses a series of people who are working against feminism, describing the lot of them as "feminists, ex-feminists, or self-styled feminists wanting to remake feminism in their own image..." She puts Sommmers' equity feminism into that group of self-styled feminists who are trying to remake feminism. She says these people, including Sommers, all start by attacking feminism. She describes Sommers as "one of America's leading feminist-bashers", ridiculing Sommers' circular argument. Finally, Moi groups Sommers and the others she was talking about as "malcontent feminists and ex-feminists, or women with various ideas of how to change feminism, [who] furthered the conservative feminist-bashing agenda." Basic reading comprehension allows one to see that Moi describes Sommers as working against feminism.
If by "cherry-picking" you mean my work in looking up myriad scholarly sources, then we have a problem. The notional cherries appear to be the greater proportion of the harvest. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This argument strikes me as similar to the way some American conservatives deride criticism of America as unpatriotic and un-American.
Feminism is not a monolith: Gloria Steinem doesn't become un-feminist by disagreeing with Valerie Solanas' interpretation of feminism. Neither does Solanas become un-feminist by promoting it.
Feminism is ever-changing: Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug are feminist icons. Summers' version of feminism mirrors theirs more closely than, for example, Jessica Valenti's does. That neither makes Sommers un-feminist or Valenti un-feminist.
The argument seems to be that to qualify as a feminist, one must subscribe to whatever the most popular interpretation of feminism is at the time. And if the popular tenets change, the same beliefs that explicitly qualified you as a feminist may now explicitly disqualify you. That's an unreasonable standard.
We should of course make the popular interpretation clear, and draw distinctions between it and the subject's interpretation. We should even include the popular version's criticism of the subject, properly weighted, but when it comes to unattributed statements of fact, no one interpretation holds claim over the ideology or the right to dismiss earlier or contrary interpretations as un-feminist. Self-identification and a belief in core tenets of a recognized version are all that's required. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-identification is an interesting point to tell the reader but it is not a defining point when many high quality sources contradict it. And it's not just that Sommers criticizes feminism, it's that she actively works to undermine its advances, and openly embraces the reactionary social forces which oppose it. She fabricates false arguments and ignores contradictory evidence. As such, she's a tool for reactionary social movements. That's what all the scholarly sources say about her. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-identification is indeed not the primary point - primary is alignment with any recognized version of feminism. I hope my earlier comment illustrates her alignment with (historically) the most popular version of feminism.
Again, your use of "it" is incorrect as it implies universal agreement among feminists. More correctly you should have said:

And it's not just that Sommers criticizes third wave feminism, it's that she actively works to undermine it's advances third wave feminism, and openly embraces the reactionary social forces which oppose it third wave feminism ... That's what all the third wave scholarly sources say about her.

That's a reasonable summary and good argument that we not qualify her as a 3rd wave feminist. However: no one is proposing we do, as far as I can see. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You're off by one wave. This book says Sommers is third wave, that is, part of the group that says feminists should celebrate the advances already made, and that there is no longer any oppression of women by men. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This books says that there is no agreement about the meaning of "third wave feminism", nor is there any agreement about who is or is not third wave. The author, Ednie Kaeh Garrison of UC Santa Barbara, says the term is used by "those who have no real clear sense of what feminist ideology, feminist praxis, feminist movement or feminist identity have meant across time and place." The term is based on a fatal misconception about feminism. Two pages later, the author says that the antifeminist Sommers is not working to change feminism from within, but is "launching a moral attack on feminist cultural authority", which serves her reactionary social stance. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and the major sources in our own article offer a contrary description of third-wave feminism. All further evidence of the subjectivity of these terms and their diverse and sometimes contradictory qualifications. This broad range of valid, feminist interpretation is precisely why we shouldn't allow supporters of one interpretation to disqualify supporters of another from the entire category broadly. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


More scholarly sources:
  • Ednie Kaeh Garrison, Feminist Studies, UC Santa Barbara. Sommers is an antifeminist, part of a group that is "launching a moral attack on feminist cultural authority".
  • Shelley Budgeon, Political Science, University of Birmingham, UK. Sommers is a "post-feminist", part of a libertarian backlash against second-wave feminism. Such post-feminists ignore the lasting effects of historical male dominance, they say that "particular advancements made by some women" are representative to a much greater degree, and they work to banish the feminist voice from public debate, to make feminist questions private again, as a return to the old status quo where individual women lost their arguments with men. Such post-feminists are lauded by advocates of patriarchy.
  • Sherryl Vint, English Department, UC Riverside. Sommers puts forward "a distinctly antifeminist agenda" which skews any legitimate concerns that were voiced by third wave feminists. Sommers is criticized for "retaining the feminist name", the term she uses to describe herself. Sommers makes the mistake of generalizing from her own privileged success a much wider victory by women in society, a stance which belies the continuing systemic discrimination seen by many others.
  • Leslie Heywood, English Department, Binghamton University; Jennifer Drake, Psychology Department, Brooklyn College. Heywood and Drake describe Sommers as a "conservative postfeminist" in the Foreword of their book Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism. Sommers splits feminism into two camps as part of her divide-and-conquer strategy, to roll back feminist advances. In her own book, Heywood says that Sommers claimed consensus for her brand of gender feminism "simply has no basis." Heywood says that Sommers' viewpoint that second-wave feminism is a separatist movement couldn't be more wrong, as disproved by written works from Linda J. Nicholson, Marianne Hirsh, Evelyn Fox Keller, Sayla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell and Nancy Fraser. Heywood says that right-wing speakers and thus the mainstream media have welcomed Sommers and her undermining of feminism, as it fits in with the right-wing attack on multiculturalism, affirmative action, and other liberal reforms.
  • Carolyn Sorisio, 19th century literature, West Chester University. Sommers uses "impossibly trite" caricatures of feminism to undermine feminist cohesion, saying, for instance, that women "are not a tribe. We're not a class. We do not have a shared vision."
  • Rebecca Stringer, Gender Studies, Department of Sociology, University of Otago, New Zealand. Sommers is one of a group of women who are constructing the idea of "victim feminism" as an attempt to redefine and undermine the victories of second wave feminism. Stringer calls this an "ur-narrative", that is, a fabricated version of reality. Stringer says that Sommers' invention of "gender feminism" is based on two false claims: that second-wave feminists are committed to a view that women passively become victims, ignoring the agency of women, and that the structural oppression of patriarchy is no more. Tellingly, in using Sandra Lee Bartky's feminist theory of the victim to prove Sommers' point of passivity, Sommers ignored Bartky's description of women as completely responsible for their actions.
  • Kellie Bean, Academic Dean at Lyndon State College. Sommers claims success for her brand of "equity feminism" despite the "basic statistical truths" which contradict her narrative, for instance the lower wages of women, the smaller percentage of women politicians, the even lower wage of African-American women and Hispanic women, and many more examples. Sommers ridicules second wave feminism to isolate and exclude it from debate. Sommers has made a career out of opposing feminism.
I'm sure I can find more scholars who describe Sommers as antifeminist; this list isn't at all complete. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I expect you can. I said initially: the current majority interpretation of feminism opposes Sommer's interpretation. That's indisputable. It doesn't change the fact that her interpretation (like theirs) is one of many, valid and historically supported interpretations. Summers feminism is similar to Camille Paglia's feminism (whom we identify as a "militant feminist") is similar to Friedan's feminism, is similar to Simone de Beauvoir's feminism - all undoubtedly feminists. These and similar papers do nothing to disprove that. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually Sommers has distanced herself from de Beauvoir. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point. It prompted me to read this, https://www.aei.org/publication/not-lost-in-translation/, thanks. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few of these scholars are saying that Sommers does not put forward a valid view of feminism, as it is founded on falsehood and misinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised to see opponents of her brand of feminism being critical. Feminism is not a monolith, no one brand gets to decide who is and is not a part of it. If the "alt right" were to surge in popularity and dwarf the modern conservative movement, they (similarly) couldn't declare existing conservatives to be anti-conservative. To the extent the alt-right is conservative they are both valid forms of conservatism. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Your "opponents of her brand of feminism" are the topic scholars, the highest level of expert on the topic. Topic experts define the topic.
I agree that feminism is a widely encompassing field with lots of variation, certainly not a monolith. However, the mainstream feminist movement aims to achieve equality for all women as a group, and so it is united in that sense. Sommers wants to fracture the group so that only the privileged ones can succeed. That places her in opposition to mainstream feminism.
If we were to present Sommers in the most neutral fashion, we would say that her self-definition as a feminist is sharply countered by topic experts. In fact, we would say that Sommers is an anti-feminist/post-feminist who calls herself a feminist, thus gaining the favor of right-wing social conservatives who applaud her position which agrees with their aim of retaining as much as possible the patriarchal structure of society. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching this from the sidelines for awhile, not knowing quite how to respond. Obviously, self-identification cannot be everything in the face of widespread rejection. This phrase though, "topic experts" - what does that mean in this case? Outside of some raw econometrics that connect to raw reality, feminist studies operate on epistemological idealism. Being an expert on it is simply being an expert on the state of the Nomic game your academic peers have been playing. Outside the academy, feminism is a belief system, and I don't think feminist scholars are any more authoritative about who is not a feminist than bishops would be about who's a Christian, or military generals about who's a patriot. That's a long way of getting to the point that this is garden-variety NPOV where both views should be represented. Rhoark (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's game playing in all fields of endeavor, so you cannot diminish scholarly output relative to the output of non-scholars by that argument. Regardless, we as Wikipedians are supposed to examine various sources for quality, and assigns a higher weight to higher quality. Scholarly sources in general are the highest quality. I don't think you'll have much success in your effort to diminish their authority. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's scholarship and then there's "scholarship". I'm not out to diminish anything that's not already widely recognized as unempirical. Rhoark (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Your own feelings about postmodernism (whatever that has to do with anything?!?) aside, in most of these cases we're talking about scholars who have published extensively in major academic presses, hold major professorships, etc. There's like zero question that these are some of the most high-quality sources available on the subject, period. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like their perspective or what they say, that is WP:OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is not about whether to exclude academics, but whether to treat their opinions about Sommers as fact. It's not about my feelings. It's about the limits of language and knowledge. Whether or not Sommers is "actually" a feminist is not a falsifiable proposition. What's provable is that these scholars do not consider her to be a feminist as defined within their personal argot. Evidentiary standards are a division these academics regularly point to, highlighting the tension between Sommers' views on the one hand, and the epistemic methods these scholars adhere to, variously described as post-modernism, post-structuralism, critical theory, "ways of knowing", etc.[30][31][32] While applying labels including "antifeminist", "(anti)feminist", "apostate feminist", and "post-feminist" they bemoan how Sommers' style of feminism seems to be the more influential one in mainstream culture.[33][34]. This is due not only to the isolating style of discourse in the academy, but because academic strains insist that feminism demands not only equality of the sexes, but a generalized anti-authoritarianism applied to all human relations.[35][36] Rhoark (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Again - your own personal critique/interpretation of the sources is OR, and isn't really relevant here. A reliable source is a reliable source, and these are very reliable sources using wikipedia's own standards. But for the record: personally I'm not even advocating that she should be labelled an anti-feminist in wikipedia's voice (ie, stating it as fact), I'd be in favor of attributing it. What I oppose is taking Sommers definition of herself as a feminist as fact when so many RS suggest that it's incorrect to do so. Both perspectives should be included and both should be properly attributed. I don't think we're really that far apart here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree Rhoark (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Sommers herself, and some sources, refer to her as Feminist, whereas other sources refer to her as Anti-Feminist.

A true statement that can be sourced. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Care should be taken that this is not a false balance, such as saying 'some say x, some say y' where the vast majority of sources say y (as is the case with academic sources here.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It is disappointing to see editors still engaged in some endless debate on this tedious issue. I tried discussing it myself in the past, but gave it up as too futile. There is no reason for "feminist" to have a capital "F", by the way, since it's not (presumably) a political party. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I made this edit. It's well sourced within the article, and self described. Perhaps the person who reverted can provide justification. Arkon (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the lead the way it was. It has been stable for some time, and seems neutral. With all respect to the article's subject, it does not enhance the article's neutrality for it to label her with her preferred term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Not a reason to revert. It's well sourced, and does nothing in regards to neutrality, because it's about improving the description of the subject of the article. Which is of course, the locus of dispute in the last few sections. If you would like to make a policy based argument against it, I will hold off on reverting. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed this, but there are plenty of sources describing Sommers as anti-feminist, as discussed ad nauseam in the past. That being the case, it does not improve "the description of the subject of the article" to label her an equity feminist in Wikipedia's voice, it violates WP:NPOV. Personally, I think it also unnecessarily limits Sommers' accomplishments; I do see her primarily as an author rather than as a "feminist". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the wording that was added, which was Equity Feminist, which is well sourced and unchallenged. I didn't remove "author" or anything else that limited any accomplishment, it was an addition. Arkon (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No, Arkon, I did not miss the wording you added. It is obviously untrue to describe "Equity Feminist" as "unchallenged" given the sources calling Sommers anti-feminist. It seems clearly unacceptable under WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What? Anti-Feminist is not a counter to "equity feminist", did you miss things such as the actual article on Equity feminism, and this which sites CHS heavily? Please make some policy/reality based arguments, as the sources within the article already show that NPOV is an incredibly lazy one. Arkon (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to waste my time trying to decipher semi-coherent responses. I am not sure what you think 'Anti-Feminist is not a counter to "equity feminist"' means and I am not sure I care. The bottom line is that if there are many sources calling Sommers anti-feminist, then it is a violation of WP:NPOV for the article to label her a feminist. Nothing you said addresses the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sweet! I'm not sure you know what NPOV or WP:LEDE means at this point, so we should be done here. Arkon (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Arkon, if you want the article to describe Sommers as an "equity feminist" in Wikipedia's voice, you need to get consensus for the change. You cannot force it through without agreement, as you have tried to do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I must ask as at this point you've —reverted again, do you know what WP:LEAD is, and how do you reconcile removing the description with the views section? Arkon (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to patronizing drivel and babble. I have explained what you need to do if you want to change the article's lead section; you need to persuade other editors that you are right and get agreement for your changes. You have not done that, and past discussions at this talk page indicate that you will most likely not succeed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC)P.S. One of us is using well sourced content within the article to improve the lead, one of us isn't. There certainly isn't "one" of us trying to force anything, it's you not understanding, for whatever reason, that the lead summarizes the body. And it's one of us actually having a policy based reason for our actions. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Your edits do not improve the lead, your edits violate WP:NPOV. Even if you have a source calling Sommers an equity feminist, there are probably many more sources calling Sommers ant-feminist, and as such it violates neutrality for the article to call Sommers an "equity feminist". That should be clear enough. Nothing you said in response was relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC again)You of course, didn't answer the question of why you are disregarding WP:LEAD. You haven't explained anything other than IDONTLIKEIT. You can do better, from what I've seen anyway. Arkon (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Saying NPOV like red flag doesn't get you far here, considering my edit is a summary of the body of the article. It sounds like you need to do a bunch of editing to the article (and reality), if you think such a thing is a NPOV violation. Arkon (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Describing Sommers in that light in the lede is contentious- 'equity feminist' is a bit of a misnomer if the reader does not have the context of the body of the article to understand the use of the term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why it's linked. So people can read it (oh and it's based heavily on CHS) Arkon (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been watching this nonsensical discussion for a long time. There's no need to label Sommers as an "equity feminist" in the first sentence of the lead as a primary descriptor. It is mentioned in the first line of the second paragraph and contrasted with "gender feminism" and that is enough. In short, I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. "Equity feminism" is a Sommers construction, not seen in mainstream feminist literature outside of the discussion of Sommers and her writings, so we don't use the term in Wikipedia's voice, as if it were an established concept. The term's legitimacy is strongly questioned by topic experts. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christina Hoff Sommers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Equalist

Christina is also identified as as an Equalist but while that was once aprt of her page it got quickly deleted. No mention of Equalists and her stance on it and I wonder why, I'm also interested in this back-and-forth argument about her being a feminist. Only a lone link to Equalism is still in the page despite the constant repeat of the word 'equal' all over it.

https://twitter.com/chsommers/status/435587471569858560

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11527238/Meet-the-feminist-who-is-sticking-up-for-men.html?hc_location=ufi

and I just want to leave a quote here from a feminist blog regarding 'Is Christine a Feminist or Not?'

"Feminists on the right and left like Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe, Dita Von Teese, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Naomi Wolf were denounced as anti-feminist, even though none of them want a world of unequal opportunity. Men cannot be feminists in the eyes of identitarians; their term is "male ally". What identitarians make of the fact that "feminism" was coined in 1837 by a man, the socialist Charles Fourier, I haven't found." 37.191.5.234 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Sangdeboeuf introduced what he described as "more impartial wording" here. The change included making the lead state that, "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has described Sommers as a socially-conservative 'equity feminist'." To be precise, what the Stanford Encyclopedia actually states is, "Some equity feminists are socially conservative", and then provides the citation "(Morse 2001; Sommers 2000)". I believe it may be a misinterpretation of the SEP to say that they are trying to characterize Sommers as "socially conservative". No direct statement of the kind, "Christina Hoff Sommers is socially conservative", appears anywhere in the SEP. It seems more likely that the SEP is using the book by Sommers to support the claim that some equity feminists are socially conservative than that they are trying to say that she is socially conservative. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate; I haven't read any of Sommers's books, but how could Sommers and Jennifer Morse be writing about socially-conservative equity feminists when they are apparently the only notable ones? And what about the other changes such as to the definition of equity feminism, that were reverted here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I do think that's accurate. I grant that the SEP's comment about "socially conservative" equity feminists could be understood the way you understand it, but it's something of a strained interpretation, and I doubt it's correct. Your query about how Sommers and Morse could be writing about "socially-conservative equity feminists when they are apparently the only notable ones" is something of a Non sequitur. The question assumes, debatably, that Sommers is "socially conservative", and it assumes, without evidence, that there are no notable socially conservative equity feminists other than Sommers and Morse. It is quite possible to write about people who are not notable in Wikipedia's terms, of course. It's best to simply leave a claim about a living person out when it rests on a very disputable interpretation of a given source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LABEL thing

Hey, regarding this, can we just label her as an equity feminist? It's kinda her thing. Arkon (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article more-or-less does that. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of material

I have reversed the effects of this unhelpful edit. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY was mentioned in the edit summary, but it leads to a guideline that contains nothing that would justify the edit. The only remaining rationale given was "stick with notable works", but no evidence was offered that the works that were removed are not notable. I did an EBSCO search for material about One Nation Under Therapy, and found it that it produced some 27 search results, which includes more than eighteen reviews, in both news and opinion magazines such as National Review and peer-reviewed academic publications such as Science & Education. There is more than enough material to justify an article about the book. There was rather less material available for The Science on Women in Science, but still possibly enough to justify an article. In any case, the idea that books have to be "notable" in order to be mentioned in biographical articles is a misconception with no basis in Wikipedia's policies. As per WP:NOTE, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It is perfectly appropriate to list books someone wrote in an article about them even if the books would not merit their own articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

feminist and anti-feminist

I have followed the discussion here for a while. There are sources claiming CHS is a feminist, and there are sources claiming CHS is an anti-feminist. So any attempts to add that she is a feminist, always get reverted. So why, since there is no consensus on her feminism/anti-feminism, is this allowed to be in the article? It should be removed.

"While some authors have called her works and positions anti-feminist, Sommers rejects such claims."

It is clunky language, feels tacked on, and feels like it's not NPOV, especially with no consensus. S806 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you feel this is not NPOV? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I explained it. Because there are sources describing her as a feminist, and an anti-feminist, but the only thing allowed in the article is describing her as an anti-feminist. Since we have sources for both, they should either both be in there, or neither should be in there. S806 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, read the past discussion. There was absolutely NO consensus to put anti-feminist in the article. S806 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are 3 sources referring to CHS as a feminist.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11527238/Meet-the-feminist-who-is-sticking-up-for-men.html https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-mortal/201609/is-modern-academic-feminism-harming-women https://www.bustle.com/articles/131105-19-inspiring-feminists-to-watch-in-2016-because-the-movement-is-just-getting-stronger

I would argue that there should be wording describing this non-consensus S806 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source describe the "non-consensus", as each source takes its own stance on the matter. If we tell the reader there's no consensus, we are violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, you're ignoring WP:BALANCE, which clearly states that both points of views should be described for balance. Hence NPOV. S806 (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
She is widely described as an anti- feminist. But the lead and the body of the article seem to treat this rather delicately. The lead describes her neologistic feminism clearly. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, my only point is about that specific section. It's clunky in two parts. The first one "While some authors have called her works and positions anti-feminist", yes, this is undeniable, and true, however it is also undeniable and true that some authors and scholars have described her work as feminist, and as a defense of what they claim to be feminism. The larger point with this is, feminism is kind of poorly defined, so it allows multiple people to make claims about what is and isn't feminism. The second part "Sommers rejects such claims", is sourced directly from her twitter. I don't believe (I could be wrong), that this is a valid source. WP:PRIMARY States "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". I would argue, that this may not be valid. S806 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I am wary of misleading the reader with a false equivalence, telling them that the people who describe Sommers as a feminist are as established, respected or numerous as the ones who describe Sommers as working against feminism. In the past on this talk page, I've listed 30+ scholars who have written about Sommers in the context of anti-feminism. (See Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_7#Antifeminist_references_from_scholars and Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_8#Hoff_Sommers_considered_a_feminist.) These are top-level sources that strongly establish Sommers as an antifeminist. A very few scholars call her a feminist, so there is an imbalance there, making "she's a feminist" a minor viewpoint. A big concern is that socially conservative political figures and pundits are among those who call Sommers a feminist, for the purpose of driving a wedge between feminists, to weaken the political opposition. If they classify Sommers as a feminist then they can say that feminists don't put forward a consistent narrative. This stratagem is described by some of the topic scholars, so perhaps we ought to put it into the article, that Sommers-as-feminist is a tool for political ends. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I chose one of your sources at random, and started reading. I'll quote it here. "The conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid. In the course of denouncing "gender feminism," Professor Sommers accused me of claiming that all heterosexual dating was a form of prostitution and that women would never be truly equal with men until it was possible to surgically implant.....". Clearly this source is not top-level, and may have a personal interest in how CHS is labeled. I can't look through all of them, but clearly some of your sources are poor sources. EDIT: Inserting source listed https://books.google.com/books?id=CdfgMEV3f6oC&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false S806 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"Clearly" the text doesn't fit your preferred vision of Sommers-as-feminist. The author is writing from a position of expertise and experience, and the author is a respected scholar. Your dismissal of the source is noted, but it's no less of a good source. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait... Are you actually trying to accuse me of being biased here? I've read the archives, you have fought harder than anybody to keep any mention of feminist off of this page. Please stop. S806 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Stop arguing for neutrality? Hardly. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
You've already lost the narrative once you started getting upset and assuming intent. Perhaps this would be a good read for you WP:ASG, although I doubt you will take any of it to heart. S806 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Copvio problem

Two sentences about her "numerous" TV appearances and the number of campuses she's spoken at appear copied from the listed source... which is also problematic because it's not a good, third-party source for those claims. I cannot edit this myself due to the current editing restriction; I ask that someone with editing ability handle it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the heads up. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WSJ citation

@Willhesucceed: in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=next&oldid=627228811 you added a citation to the WSJ. Did you get that information directly, or did you use an intermediate source - specifically, did you get the WSJ quote from the FAIR piece? Carte Rouge (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

NeilN, can you please revert to the STATUSQUO version? The language being edit warred over has been on the page over a year ([37]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a topic https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christina_Hoff_Sommers for discussion if this constitutes libel against BLP. S806 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
And no, it isn't status Quo, look at archive 8, this has been discussed to death, and no consensus has been achieved. It was snuck in later. S806 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I knew whatever version I protected someone was going to bring up WP:WRONGVERSION. I think everyone can live with the present version for four days. I do want to tell the editors complaining about the RFC to knock it off immediately. Seeking a broader consensus is acceptable if an editor thinks local consensus is flawed. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: You're correct. WP:IDLI but I can live with it. I feel sorry for the horse carcass though (dead, mutilated, bloody lump of horse flesh I'm too lazy to go further back). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: You posted and then removed your post. I've undone the sock's revert as per my usual practice. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Yeah sorry. I realized they weren't a sock of badmitonhist, but rather had engaged in socking here. It didn't directly fall under EVADE, so I undid my comment. But thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I still think it was Badmintonhist socking, even though the checkuser result was "unlikely" regarding that connection. The behavioral similarity and the timing are what make me think so. And the old Badmintonhist socks were all stale, so CU was doing a bit of guessing. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah. It definitely wasn't Badmintonhist socking, Bink. CU got it right. You were the one who was guessing . . incorrectly in this case. 68.14.86.118 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Occupation in the infobox

While people were discussing this summary of changes over the past few years, I noticed that her occupation was changed from "Author, university professor, scholar at The American Enterprise Institute" to "Author, philosopher". I don't think that the newer version is a particularly accurate summary of the sources or the things that make her notable - her occupation (the things the article is about, and the things that make her noteworthy), aside from author, are university professor and scholar at The American Enterprise Institute] not "philosopher". Nobody employs her as an abstract philosopher. We can go into more depth in the article, of course, but for accuracy I think her infobox should go back to the 2016 version (I'm unsure when it was changed.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support a change to Author, university professor, scholar or Author, professor, scholar (as simpler). Do not support including the employer, AEI. We should include the occupation not the role or position, and therefore the employer is not relevant.
    Notes: a) AEI is the focus of the second sentence of the lead section, so is not buried, hidden or obfuscated; b) For reference: {{Infobox writer}} suggests that the occupation field is for the type of person: novelist, short story person, journalist, etc. Not certain that that particularly helpful here, or optimal in general. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Scholar for a think-tank" is a substantially different category of occupation than eg. "scholar at a major university" (which she also holds; but we must cover both.) Her work for the American Enterprise Institute is a primary source of her notability and therefore must be listed prominently for her occupation. If you can think of another way to say "works for a think-tank", I'm all ears, but just 'scholar' is plainly inaccurate. EDIT: Looking back, it was removed in this edit with a misleading edit summary, which was probably why it wasn't noticed until now. I'm going to revert all parts of that edit aside from the categories, unless someone can give a compelling reason not to - in addition to the other issues, "philosopher" is a vague and not-very-useful description compared to what it said before. --Aquillion (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed on removing philosopher. And I'll not disagree with substantially different category of occupation (though the line is not necessarily as distinct as it might once have been; and a University without students likely appeals to a good proportion of academics). Not so certain about AEI being a primary source of notability, or that notability should be a determinant of content in any case.
    To see what we do for similar BLPs, I started at the US section of Think tank and selected a few think tanks across the political & interest group spectra (including AEI); from there looked at BLP articles for people listed as fellows/scholars; reviewing ~30. It's mixed - many have no Infobox; many have no "occupation" field; some say "resident scholar" (which seems bizarre); only a couple have "scholar at X" or similar; the plurality seemed to not include the "think tank" position (having "author", "columnist", "journalist", etc).
    Perhaps think tank scholar or think tank fellow; with "think tank" wikilinked?
    Do not object to a reversion of the edit mentioned; while a consensus is formed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose including "university professor," as she no longer holds a university appointment, unless someone has a source for one? Carte Rouge (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Support "Author, philosopher, scholar at The American Enterprise Institute" She was a philosophy professor for two decades and her published scholarship during that time is an important part of her career, it's not like a film star who's an ex-barista. Academics describing her as a philosopher: https://books.google.com/books?id=OW6uL2OXG8oC&pg=PA29 "Ethicist" i.e philosopher https://books.google.com/books?id=ZAe1JuUIkKMC&pg=PA146 Christina Hoff Sommers, like Sissela Bok, a philosopher who specializes in ethics, https://books.google.com/books?id=3UmVq6rcKxkC&pg=PA76 Commenting later on these meetings, the philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers, herself an ethicist, https://books.google.com/books?id=j34ARAWhd1cC&pg=PA56 the philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers https://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC&pg=PA172 by philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers https://books.google.com/books?id=7zoaKIolT9oC&pg=PA130 NPalgan2 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Improvement of Ideas & Views section, paragraph on views about women's studies

I don't have time to do this modification myself, but I'd say that with the mention of Christina Hoff Sommers views on women's studies departments, the current material does not suffice or really target the subject matter.

This is the paragraph in question, as-is today:

Sommers is a longtime critic of Women's Studies departments, and of university curricula in general.[citation needed] In an interview with freelance journalist Scott London, Sommers said, "The perspective now, from my point of view, is that the better things get for women, the angrier the women's studies professors seem to be, the more depressed Gloria Steinem seems to get."[33] While some authors have called her works and positions anti-feminist,[34][35][36] Sommers rejects such claims.[37]

Now, I think the following material will much better clear up and clarify not only Sommers' positions on the women's studies department but her experiences with them and what drove her, far moreso than the comment about Gloria Steinem's feelings. It presents precisely what her critique on women's studies and academia in general was, which is certainly in need of clarifying as well as citation.

The following excerpts from her interview with Bill Kristol which can be found on YouTube or via transcript here: http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/christina-hoff-sommers-transcript/ I have bolded the sections that to me appear to reflect her issue.

EXCERPT:

I assumed when I sent away for the texts that it would be like other philosophy textbooks, that this feminist theory text would be the best that was thought and said about issues that concern women. So really good arguments for and against affirmative action or surrogate motherhood or abortion.

Because I just thought it was a sacred commandment of college teaching, “Thou shalt teach both sides of the argument,” and that’s what I had always done. I never saw the classroom as a place for me to pass along my particular beliefs to students but to give them the tools to make decisions themselves.

These textbooks shocked me. They were, first of all, they were putting forward something that looked to me as a philosopher, it looked to me as a conspiracy theory about the patriarchy, and most of the, the selections were mutually reinforcing, rather than real debate. You just had – it seemed like propaganda. And naively I thought, “Well, this is a mistake.”

And I sent away for more, and I became concerned, and I went to the American Philosophical Association and gave a paper on, you know, what’s gone wrong with feminist theory.

END OF EXCERPT.

I think summarizing this material and citing it would be appropriate to explain her experience and her surmising of the state of women's studies departments when she began teaching them. This is the meat of her initial problem with those existing departments.

Further, I feel that a summary of this content would be more appropriate than the current addendum, which is:

"In an interview with freelance journalist Scott London, Sommers said, "The perspective now, from my point of view, is that the better things get for women, the angrier the women's studies professors seem to be, the more depressed Gloria Steinem seems to get."

Primarily because this almost feels like gossip rather than substantial evidence of Sommers' point of view and why she feels that way. Potentially, one could keep them both, but really the material from the Bill Kristol interview is much more representative of her experience, ordeal, and ties to the women's studies department and why it caused her to take the path she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chosenwon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_8&oldid=892960323"