Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

Lead

I think this recent edit by Dashing Leech adds too much material to the lead. That kind of material should be placed somewhere else in the article, if it is to be in the article at all. The reference to Camille Paglia could also usefully be removed from the lead. The lead at present is a mess, and needs to be scaled back. It shouldn't read as a collection of random opinions by all and sundry. Edits like this, which added a long-winded and unnecessary quotation, are frankly inept. The lead should what DHeyward calls "vague." It is only a summary of the basic points, not a place to stuff one's favorite quotations, whether positive or negative. DHeyward's inept and destructive edit should be reverted. ImprovingWiki (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "inept" are the lead you left with a reading of "Sommers' views on feminism have attracted controversy. Her approach has, at times, been positively received. However, it has also been criticized, and she has been categorized as anti-feminist by some feminist scholars." after a bunch of misguided ans misapplied quotes. This[1] was an awful lead of word salad and absolutely no content. You really think "has, at times, been positive" juxtaposed with "she has been categorized as anti-feminist" is anything close to acceptable, NPOV and BLP material? Get a grip. That was garbage and I removed it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The Steven Pinker quotation you added was quite clearly inappropriate. The lead is meant to be a brief summary of the main points of an article, and is not a place for long quotations, per WP:LEAD. Nothing in your childish post addresses that point. It is perfectly appropriate for the lead to briefly note that Sommers has been both praised and criticized. That is exactly how the issue should be dealt with, per WP:NPOV. The exact wording can be fine tuned as necessary. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not introduce it. I restored it because the hal-hearted "might be a feminist" but "not a feminist" inference was a weasel word example of idiocy. The scholars citatiob for anti-feminism was retained and the quote for support was restored. Seriously, do you edit biographies regularly on controversial subjects? I doubt it because your characterizations as "childish" and "inept" would seem to indicate a long and distinguished block log. Lay off the characterizations and stick to reliable sources. You are not very skilled in handling difficult subjects. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It does not make the slightest difference whether you originally added it or whether you simply restored it. What matters is that the quotation is inappropriate. The lead is not a place for long quotations. It is a summary of the main points of the article. Try actually reading WP:LEAD. The lead obviously needs to mention both the view that Sommers is a feminist and the view that she is not. What you call "idiocy" is actually neutrality, clearly a concept you have a problem with. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
""Sommers' views on feminism have attracted controversy. Her approach has, at times, been positively received. However, it has also been criticized, and she has been categorized as anti-feminist by some feminist scholars." is not neutral. It's not informative. It's couched and vague word salad. "Galileo's views on roundness have attracted controversy. His approach has, at times, been positively received. However, it has also been criticisized..." What a bumbling way to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Your response suggests that you haven't bothered to read WP:LEAD yet. You keep ignoring the obvious point that the Pinker quotation is inappropriate. It would still be inappropriate even if everything you said above were correct, which it is not. Christina Hoff Sommers is not the equivalent of Galileo. Her views are controversial, and it's quite appropriate for the lead to mention both positive and negative views of her and her work. If you cannot see that, you would do well to forget this article and find some other article to edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit by Maunus also appears biased and should also be reverted. I believe it is questionable under BLP, and I think Maunus should know better. His edit summary "accuracy" implies that it is somehow inaccurate to say that Sommers has been called anti-feminist by some feminist scholars, which is nonsense. Changing "has been called" to "is considered" promotes the POV of Sommers's critics. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. More than a dozen sources describing her as antifeminist is more than enough to warrant "many", indeed even saying "most" would be warranted as well since we have yet to see a single feminist author calling her a feminist, and using "some" is tantamount to lying to the reader. Cherry picking a nice quote from Pinker is of course also questionable, and generally quotes should be avoided in the lead (which is a summary of the article) unless they are of extrmely significance to the topic. Since there is a large body of literature criticizing Sommers work, and that work is summarized in the body of the text per WP:LEAD it also needs to have due weight in the introduction. You have a badly distorted idea of how WP:BLP works. It does not mean that all articles about living persons have to be hagiographies based on excluding all critical literature. You should probably read our NPOV policy to get out of this misunderstanding.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You might have noticed that I did not object to the "many" part. I agree that it is quite accurate. If you agree with me that placing the Pinker quote in the lead is wrong, you ought to remove it straight away. Getting rid of it would definitely be an improvement. However, I'm afraid it is you, not me, who has a distorted understanding of BLP. Your pompous reply does not suggest to me that you have the least understanding of my objection to your edit, and simply ignores the substance of what I said. Your edit is a biased bit of rubbish, a not-so-subtle way of trying to discredit Sommers and promote the ideology of Sommers's critics. I will be reverting it soon enough. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
As long as you have consensus on your side for any changes you make there should be no problem. Describing a point of view and promoting it is not the same.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You again ignore the substance of my objection. You used the edit summary "accuracy". That implies that the other version was somehow inaccurate. It is not inaccurate to say that Sommers's critics have called her work anti-feminist. That's a factually correct statement, and a neutral way of explaining the issue, since it makes it clear that the opinion of the critics is opinion. Saying that her work is considered anti-feminist amounts to suggesting that the opinion in question is fact. You should know better than to think that acceptable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You are quarreling over an edit summary then. Which is frankly stupid. In anycase it IS inaccurate to use the phrase "some" when by all accounts it is a majority of feminist scholars who share this view. Saying that something is "considered" is not tantamount to suggesting it is a fact, "consider" means approximately the same as "believe that something is X". Saying "has called" is inaccurate because it is not about their statement, but about their view. They dont use "antifeminist" as an ad hoc slur but as a coherent critique of her viewpoint shared by a large group of feminist scholars. Saying "has been called" reduces this viewpoint to a matter of labeling and namecalling. That is inaccurate in the extreme.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
ImprovingWiki, you had absolutely no consensus for this change. You know that the vast majority (so far all) of reliable sources describe her as antifeminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article has publicly complained about the changes I reverted in that edit, and I happen to think her concerns are reasonable. You didn't have consensus either, so your complaint is hypocritical. I'm not moved by vague and unsubstantiated claims about reliable sources. What you are saying looks like a rationale for slanting this article against its subject, and isn't in accord with the intent of BLP. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
To reply to Maunus: well, maybe it was your edit summary that was stupid in the first place. Shouldn't edit summaries themselves be accurate? I think so. I already told you that I did not object to the change of some to many. How disingenuous of you to deny that the effect of your edit is to promote the views of Sommers's critics. Saying that her critics "consider" something to be true does imply it is true if they are identified as scholars. There would be no reason to make such a change otherwise. I don't happen to consider the abuse of Sommers by her critics a "coherent critique" (a very pretentious term for what they've done). It's just name calling, and it's laughable to suggest otherwise. However, this isn't a debate forum and I won't discuss that any further. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The subject of the article hasn't complained about anything specific. More important, articles are based on reliable sources. If Rush Limbaugh starts calling himself liberal tomorrow, we'll still call him conservative. Why? Because that's how the vast majority of sources describe him. You were given many reliable sources categorizing Sommers as antifeminist. That is the majority opinion. Where are your sources? You were asked yesterday to provide some. Also please read up on WP:Consensus, it appears that you haven't quite gotten the gist of it yet. Since you are the one making the change, you are the one in need of consensus. I simply restored a stable version. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes she has, and you would know that if you had been paying proper attention. As I said, you should look carefully at her twitter page. You say that the "vast majority of sources" call her an anti-feminist. How would you know? Given the size of what has been written about Sommers, over the course of some two decades since her book on feminism made her famous, it's totally unclear how you could know that to be true. In any case, your assertions about "the vast majority of sources" are not even relevant to the edit you made. The question is not whether it reflects "the vast majority of sources" but whether it accurately reflects the particular source used in that particular passage - a question you do not address. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
But people's Twitter posts isn't how we write articles here in Wikipedia. We use reliable sources. I err on the side of caution when I say "vast majority of reliable sources". So far it looks like all reliable sources consider Sommers an antifeminist, see the list of source here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That's an ugly and stupid statement. If someone publicly complains about their Wikipedia profile, Wikipedia and its editors need to pay attention to that, if they want Wikipedia to be considered in any way ethical. I was not suggesting using Twitter as a source, and you are confusing the issue deliberately by suggesting I was. Sommers objected specifically to this edit, which is why I removed some of the changes it made. Your comment about what "all reliable sources" show "so far" is wrong, as I already mentioned a reliable source - a book by John M. Ellis that does not take the "Sommers is an anti-feminist" line. It is also irrelevant, since, as I explained to you, the issue is not what most sources show but what the specific sources being used as a statement in the lead show. You failed to show that your preferred version was in any way a more accurate reflection of the particular source used. I'm going to take this to ANI shortly, because your behavior here, and that of other editors such as Maunus, has been grossly irresponsible. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Please show me where Sommers specifically objected to the linked edit and please show me the content policy that says that we must disregard reliable sources and instead go by what someone wants included in their BLP. I see a misunderstanding of our content policies so profound that I welcome your intention to take this to AN/I. If you don't, then I will. It's troubling that you believe that it suffices if someone calls themselves XYZ. It's also troubling that you came back from a 5 year break to start these weird discussions about feminism, like the one on the Sigmund Freud page. So let's discuss this at AN/I with input from uninvolved editors. Besides, the Ellis book doesn't contradict the other reliable sources that call Sommers antifeminist. Ellis doesn't state if he considers her feminist or antifeminist or something else. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Jumping in here regarding the current lead. The "antifeminist" part needs to be earlier. Much of her reputation is for being antifeminist. Also I would say that it's not just feminists who call her that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you say if you cannot provide sources that support your position. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop with this disruptiveness. Sources were provided aplenty. See the list of sources in this section. It's you you hasn't provided any sources for your opinion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a source showing that non-feminists call Sommers an anti-feminist. Are you really going to claim that any of those sources in that list qualify? ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, do I really have to do your homework for you? See Sommers's twitter page. See her post of November 26, titled "we heart games", in which she objects to this particular edit. Are you actually unable to find twitter? Her twitter page is here. I never suggested that we "disregard reliable sources"; that's your spin on matters. I suggested that we take seriously our ethical obligations as editors and at least consider what the subject of the article says about it. It is simply unacceptable not to do this. Again, it's not even relevant, for the purposes of the content of the edit that Sommers objected to, what "most sources" say. It's only relevant what the particular source used says. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But you did suggest that we disregard reliable sources when you tried to add the feminist label repeatedly [2][3][4][5][6], arguing that it suffices if she calls herself that (which by the way she doesn't). Where is the content policy that says that we must ignore RS if Sommers objects to parts of the article? There is no source (and no consensus) for your change, so what are you talking about when you say "the particular source"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What a waste of talk page space. I changed my mind about that issue quite some time ago. I actually don't care whether the article calls Sommers a feminist or not. I don't necessarily agree with the argument for not calling her a feminist, but I do understand it and can see where those making it are coming from. I'm also perfectly happy for the article to mention that some people have called Sommers an anti-feminist so long as that is clearly presented as opinion and not as fact. So that's not an issue either. As for what I mean by "the particular source", what on Earth do you think I mean? Look at the edit, and look at the source used. There is a source. It is her book Who Stole Feminism?, a book which does not support the statements that I reverted, which were simply some editor's opinions. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
But you do care whether the article calls Sommers antifeminist or not. That is why you changed the stable lead without consensus. You mean that in her book Sommers says that she is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism? Which page? Sommers herself may not support the statement that she is known for her opposition to feminism but reliable secondary sources do. Surely you can see that contradiction between you claim that you don't insist on disregarding RS and your demand that we rely on Sommers instead of RS when it comes to what she's know for. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The lead was not stable. The change Sommers objects to was made very recently and is clearly still controversial. You have no consensus for your view either so your complaint, now as before, is hypocritical. The book does not actually support either description of Sommers, which is the problem. You seem to be confusing having a bunch of sources (some of them - like Pollitt - dubious sources) calling Sommers an anti-feminist with having sources that say Sommers is known for her opposition to feminism in American culture. It's illegitimate use of sources to jump from the one claim to the other, as they're clearly distinct. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The lead that says that Sommers is opposed to feminism isn't controversial because it reflects the RS. Read WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Your re-revert without prior discussion was a clear violation of the BRD cycle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have sources calling someone an anti-feminist, then those sources can be legitimately used to say that people have called that person an anti-feminist, and that is all. You cannot use them to say that the person is an anti-feminist, and there is absolutely no legitimate encyclopedic purpose for doing that anyway. Similarly, one cannot take sources that call someone an anti-feminist and use that to back up the statement that they are known for their opposition to feminism, which is a different claim entirely. Read WP:BLP, among other policies. Your actions violate its intent, and probably its letter. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Sommers does not get to dictate the content of this article. We reflect sources and they call her antifeminist. We can give attribution to the label, but frankly don't need to. She is indeed known for her antifeminism per the sources listed above. She can call herself whatever she wants and we'll include it. But it won't be the focus of the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommer's does not oppose 20th Century feminism, rather she is critical of certain radical schools that came to power in academia in the 1980s. She has always been a feminist. She states this clearly in her first book, "Who Stole Feminism" (1994) p. 18 “I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.” The entire book is a plea for a return to a "common sense, reality-based feminism." Her latest book "Freedom Feminism" (2013) is a manifesto for equity feminism. The themes of the book are described in her 2013 article in the Atlantic “How to Get More Women (and men) to call themselves feminists.” It is okay to note her critics. It is not okay to let her critics define her when it is clearly disputed, and negative and lacking impartiality. Her critics opinions are not more valid than hers or her supporters. --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Her critics are RS. We go by secondary sources, not primary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Critics like Lemon are not reliable sources. Named and specific criticism by reliable sources are okay. there are plenty of secondary sources that validate equity feminists as feminists. It is not okay to dismiss positive just because you don't like it. There is no "club" with a registrar and member list for feminists. They come in all shapes and sizes. The broad brush of exclusion is pathetically crude doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's TERF-like in that TERF broad brush exclusion is just as invalid. --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, your comments indicate that you have no comprehension of BLP, and in my view that means that you have nothing positive to contribute to this article. It is not true that all sources discussing Sommers call her anti-feminist, as already noted in the discussion above. Any number of writers - Camille Paglia, John M. Ellis, Steven Pinker and many others who might be mentioned - did not call her that and said positive things about her work. The article cannot legitimately say things such as "Sommers is an anti-feminist" based on those sources that do describe that way, and it is not acceptable for the article to say that Sommers is known for being anti-feminist on the basis of sources that describe her using that term. The only thing that might be acceptable as a source for the claim that Sommers is known for being anti-feminist is one that actually says so in so many words. For the article to make such a statement without such a source would violate WP:NOR, and therefore also grossly violate BLP, which requires that original research be strictly avoided. As you seem willing to ignore or twist BLP, you would do well to avoid editing this article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I understand blp well enough. Still waiting for this party reliable sources that call her feminist. WP:BURDEN. Article subjects' own words should be used with attribution. Even if you find rs calling her feminist, due weight must be given. So far, we have a dozen sources calling her anti feminist and only herself calling her feminist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And what edit to the lead is required to accommodate your view? --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
EvergreenFir obviously does not understand BLP, judging from his or her failure to respond to my points, as is necessary in what is after all a collaborative project. The user should get an understanding of BLP or stop editing here. (By the way, regarding reliable sources calling Sommers a feminist see for example Rene Denfeld's book The New Victorians, page 132. That book is as much of a reliable source as sources such as Pollitt that call Sommers anti-feminist). ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ImprovingWiki, your claims that Sommers objected to the part of the lead that says that she opposes feminism were exposed as inaccurate in the AN/I discussion. The uninvolved administrator who commented specifically told you to stop using it as a rationale for reverting content. So far you have provided one (1) source of questionable reliability (published Warner Books, edited by non-acedemic Denfeld) that calls Sommers feminist. By comparison, there are multiple scholarly sources which call her antifeminist. We go by what the majority of reliably, preferably academic sources say on the subject. And so far they call Sommers antifeminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Many of those sources are unreliable (i.e. any source identifying Sommers as a conservative is simply wrong). Others are nuanced to that she opposes radical feminists. For example, a trans inclusive feminist is likely to be labeled "anti-feminist" by trans exclusive radical feminists. "Feminist" is a broad term which makes claims of "anti-feminist" easy to find but not particularly notable or reliable. Like the term "un-American", it should be avoided as being negative in tone, nebulous as an identity and unlikely to mean the same thing in multiple contexts. We know that Sommer opposes certain views by specific feminists. We can highlight those. She objects to the term "anti-feminist" in the same way academics object to the label "un-American" if they write critical pieces on American foreign policy. --DHeyward (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"any source identifying Sommers as a conservative is simply wrong" – please read WP:RS. No, a source isn't "simply wrong" because you believe that Sommers, the resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, isn't conservative. Please stop disrupting the consensus building process with your misinformed and unsourced opinions. And no, there is no content policy that says that we must disregard reliable secondary sources just because Sommers objects to being called anti-feminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This is why it's better to cover positions than arbitrary labels by unreliable sources. Sommers is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights and a Democrat. Your entitled to our opinion that "conservative" is the appropriate label but it's clearly more complicated. Any source that broadly lumps her as conservative, or like you just did, SYNTHs a position because of her professional affiliations, should be ignored. It's not accurate and in BLPs we strive to get it right. Soundbite labels aren't cutting it and need to be removed. --DHeyward (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
They're very reliable by the standards described here. It's not "our opinion" ("Your entitled to our opinion", huh?) that Sommers is antifeminist, it's what the reliable sources say about her. It's unconstructive that you insist that we remove what reliable secondary sources say about Sommers. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing that I said was exposed as inaccurate on ANI. An admin, I JethroBT, said that I was wrong and that Sommers was complaining only about the removal of the recognition of her book by the New York Times. He was factually wrong about that, and I have now pointed out as much. Sommers did indeed object to being called anti-feminist. For proof that I JethroBT was wrong on this factual issue, see this. As far as reliable sources go, you have adopted a double standard. The Denfeld source, which calls Sommers a feminist, is as reliable or unreliable as many of those that call her anti-feminist, including the book by poet Katha Pollitt. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:I JethroBT wasn't wrong about that. And please understand once and for all: Wikipedia describes how someone sees himself or herself and then we describe how reliable secondary sources see them regardless of whether the person objects or not. By the way, did you copy the "critique of" phrasing from her profile page at the AEI? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he was. I provided evidence of that. You have provided only assertion, and anyone who takes the trouble to click on that link will see that you and he are wrong. How strange that you would first assert that Sommers didn't complain about being called anti-feminist and then suggest that her complaint does not matter. In any case, there is a serious BLP issue here, and you and the one admin who made incorrect comments about this matter on ANI refusing to see that doesn't alter the fact. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh believe me, it's not just an assertion that you need to stop using Sommers' Twitter posts as a justification to reject the use of reliable secondary sources in her article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the issue. I JethroBT stated that Sommers had objected only to having material about the recognition of her book from the New York Times removed, and had not objected to being called an anti-feminist. He was factually wrong. I showed as much. Now you are changing your story, and apparently admitting that Sommers did object to being called an anti-feminist, but are arguing that this doesn't matter. Why can't you just admit that you and I JethroBT were wrong in what you first claimed? Do you have any idea how immature your behaviour looks? ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
SY86, your vague threats are not apptreciated. The issue is that there are no reliable sources that can make such a broad characterization as "anti-feminist" with any authority (it is the same issue with "feminist"). Only specific opinions are relevant. It's like a claim that an American politician is "un-American." Easy to find but no really reliable sources and it's specific opinion. The same is true with "conservative" as it's easy to find that she is pro-gay rights, pro-choice and a Democrat. There may be people that call it "conservative" but it's a valueless label considering her views (and more of a smear) just like "anti-feminist" is a value-less label with an attempt to smear. Please stop trying to smear her with inappropriate labels. It is enough that she is offended by the label given it adds no value to the article. --DHeyward (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
DHeyward So, I think this is something worth discussing a little more. Is there a way to better capture the criticism in the lead and elsewhere across the sources that Sonicyouth86 and other have provided in a way that is more concrete than "anti-feminist"? I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably not in the lead without detail. She has been critical of various branches of feminism in academia and, in turn, others have been critical of her. Labels like "feminist" and "anti-feminist" are toxic and polemic, though, and the lead can't explore the criticism in enough detail to use them. It would be like saying Obama is "un-American" because someone used that term in a reliable source to describe immigration policy and another reliable source use "un-American" to describe his health care policies. The point isn't that people have used the term, it's that the term is so broad and also objectionable to the biographical subject. It would be much more desirable to succinctly describe the main objections that exist regarding equity/gender feminism which I believe it is argued that the distinction dissolves when it comes down to individual cases and they become the same. If that can be summarized and sourced, that would be fine. We shouldn't ever use "anti-feminist" to describe her, though, just as we should not use "conservative." The labels don't fit and the subject stridently disagrees with them. Like abortion rights, views can run the the entire spectrum and we generally defer to what the person prefers (i.e. if someone wants to be called "pro-life" even though they support abortion for incest or rape, we don't call them "pro-choice" because a third party doesn't care for their exceptions). --DHeyward (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you have avidly supported the label feminist (and Democrat) ([7][8][9][10] (btw, the SEP does not call her feminist)[11][12][13][14][15]) and that you've changed your tune after it became obvious that the academic consensus is that she is an antifeminist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Do any RS say that she's feminist? We have quite a few academic publications saying she's antifeminist. The current lead gives too much weight to Sommers' own identification and not enough to the dozen or so RS that claim otherwise. I suspect we'll need an RfC to resolve this though as no parties seem willing to budge. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't mind hearing from I JethroBT again... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@SY86, I defer to subjects labeling. "Democrat" is party registration. "Pro-choice" and "pro-gay rights" are also self-identification labels. A wiki bio is not not the place to challenge nuanced observations. Just as someones identification as "pro-life" shouldn't be a battleground about whether they are "pro-life enough." We generally let subjects define themselves and explore their views in more detail in either the article or articles on their work. For that reason, I choose to use the label the subject prefers and certainly don't use a label they vehemently oppose in the lead. It cannot be explained in the lead and should be removed. For reference, see the lead for Julia Serano. There are many sources that are critical of her views and use different labels but the lead introduces her properly and relegates criticism to her work. CHS should have a similar lead as an author and scholar - the Serano article avoids "feminist." I would have deferred to Serano (just as Sommers) but I'd also give up the "feminist" label to avoid the controversy rabbit hole that doesn't help the article and ruins the biography and misses the point about why people are interesting and notable. --DHeyward (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sonicyouth86: Let's not spend time talking about editors and focus on the arguments, or this will never get resolved. @DHeyward: I understand what you are saying about Serano's lead, but there is no criticism of her work on that article (right now). I think it's worthwhile to consider dropping the feminist/antifeminist distinction for the reasons you describe, but I think the article should include some summary of common, concrete criticisms that cause folks to describe her as antifeminist. The lead need not be free of criticism of the subject or their work, particularly if it is prevalent. It does not seem appropriate to use the lead to qualify the nature of critical commentary. For now, I think it's best we close this discussion and focus our attention to the examples you and EvergreenFir have provided below. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism should be fleshed out. I don't even mind the major criticism laid out in the lead and I think I did that in my version below. There are so many nuances of feminism (first-wave, second-wave, third-wave, sex positive, trans exclusive, etc, etc) that it's too difficult and unfair to assess a binary feminist/anti-feminist label in the lead. I have no doubt that the labelers believe their view but it's questionable as to whether that view is meaningful as a label or whether it should be explicitly fleshed out as a specific criticism. It's not hard to explain Sommers views and it's pretty straightforward to outline specific critiques. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not for you to decide, but up to reliable sources. We dont get to second guess them based on our own feeling that it is more complicated. We simply provide the significant view that exist in the literature. We dont need to label sommers antifeminist or conservative. But we do have to note that the views exist and are notable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right, we don't get to guess. Guessing would be exactly what we would be doing, though, if we use vapid terms like "anti-feminist." We'd be guessing that everybody would think it's for the same reason and we would be wrong. We should not be a mouthpiece for soundbites. There is legitimate criticism that can be noted in the lead. "anti-feminist" is not a criticism, it's a dismissive slur. If there is notable and widespread criticism that is shared by many people, it should be easy to summarize that singular criticism and the label is unnecessary. If there is widely varied criticism being lumped together under "anti-feminist" then it's a SYNTH and a BLP violation to claim there is a united front called "anti-feminist." Either way, there is no justification for the label and reliable sources have stated that using the label this way is an attempt to silence women from speaking out. (Patai and Koertge, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies, (2003)). We don't need the lead to go into the rabbit hole of "anti-feminist" labels. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. We are required by policy to follow the reliable sources. It matters not one whit if you fine the terminology adopted by reliable sources to be "vapid".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
More nonsense is to use a term that has no meaning or a term so broad that it encompasses everything. This is an encyclopedia, not an echo chamber. That Sommers can be called a liberal, conservative, feminist and anti-feminist (and has), show how meaningless those terms are when they try to distinguish subtle differences. This isn't a clear case where everyone that says "anti-feminist" means the same thing and connecting the dots because they use the same vague wording is a WP:SYNTH violation. If Sommers argues for inclusion of trans women for legal protection and is labeled "anti-feminist" by a TERF vs. Sommers arguing that title IX shouldn't be used in STEM education and labeled "anti-feminist" by a third-wave feminist in academia are two completely different uses of the word and it is very unlikely that the TERF and third-wave feminist would agree on much. We cannot SYNTH that these two uses of "anti-feminist" are the same, rather we should describe the criticism. --DHeyward (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
While I don't consider 'antifeminist' a 'slur', I think as with "misogynist", one should avoid applying such labels to people, but apply them instead to their actions and expressed viewpoints. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The antifeminist label and category are not simply the opinions of isolated observers. Instead, many scholars have discussed Sommers in the context of how she works against feminism, dismissing her personal view that she is a feminist. On the talk page of her book article, I presented a long list of scholars who tell us that Sommers is an antifeminist. Here's the list again so you don't have to click away:
  • 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[16][17]
  • Theologian Sister Rebeka Jadranka Anić, Institute for Social Research, Ivo Pilar, Split Center.[18]
  • Mary Douglas Vavrus, Communication Studies Department. University of Minnesota.[19]
  • Sociologist Michael Kimmel, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the Stony Brook University in New York[20]
  • Professor Elaine Ginsberg, City College of San Francisco[21]
  • Professor Emerita Sara Lennox, Director of the Social Thought and Political Economy Program, DePauw University[22]
  • Theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Harvard Divinity School[23]
  • Becky Francis, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Department of Education & Professional Studies, King's College London[24]
  • Professor Christine Skelton, Emeritus Professor of Gender Education in the School of Education, University of Birmingham[25]
  • Philosopher Alison Jaggar, Feminist Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder[26]
  • Sarah Projansky, Associate Dean, College of Fine Arts, University of Utah[27]
  • Farah Mendlesohn, Head of the Department of English, Anglia Ruskin University[28]
  • 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.[29]
  • Diane Railton, Senior Lecturer, English Studies, School of Arts & Media, Teesside University[30]
  • Paul Watson, Principal Lecturer, English Studies, Teesside University[31]
  • Barbara L. Marshall, Professor of Sociology, Trent University[32]
  • Nancy Berns, sociologist at Drake University[33]
  • Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Librarian, Simon Fraser University[34]
  • Myra Mendible, English Department, Florida Gulf Coast University[35]
  • Jackson Katz, Ph.D, independent scholar of gender violence prevention[36]
  • 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
  • Toril Moi, Literature and Theater, Duke University.[37]
  • Alyson M. Cole, associate professor of political science at Queens College and the Graduate Center, CUNY.[38]
Since scholars are our most reliable sources, since they define the topic, this biography must tell the reader very firmly that Sommers is an antifeminist. Of course we must also say that she considers herself an "equity feminist", and that social and political conservatives view her as a feminist. But the main scholarly view is that she fights against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a photo of Sommers back?

Since the previous photo was removed over licensing issues, a replacement seems due. I have been WP:BOLD and added the template to the Talk page. Biographies normally have a picture of the subject whenever possible, and there are numerous photos of Sommers that turn up with Google Image Search. More worrying, I have heard rumblings elsewhere that people are suspicious that the photo was only removed on procedural grounds as part of the attacks alluded to elsewhere (see other sections about Sommers disputing the article content). 76.64.35.209 (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can find an image without copyright be free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, as long as it follows all the guidelines.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

YouTube

I think her work on the Factual Feminist series should be included under career as part of her position with AEI.

"Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research[, and regularly hosts the Factual Feminist video series.]"

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd FauXnetiX (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did someone censor what I wrote on the "talk" page? It wasn't even in the main article. I added -- and I do not think its out of the bound of good taste or the rules of Wikipedia -- that Ms. Sommers has an expanded vocabulary. It was meant as a compliment and is in no way "hate-speech". I mean there is reams and reams of "talk" here. Why strike out what I wrote? --24.177.0.156 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Fix Christina Hoff Sommers' Wikipedia Page

Where do I begin? ...

  1. Criticisms are correctly reserved for a Criticism Section of the WIKI, not sporadically written across several sections.
  2. The editors need review Christina Hoff Sommers' biography in webmd.com and compare it her WIKI. The current Christina Hoff Sommers is in violation to policies demanding a neutral point of view - The comparison makes this Wikipedia page appear juvenile.
  3. Also, (but most importantly) please take note of WIKI sources to claims that Christina Hoff Sommers is an anti-feminist (Reactions need to be made):
  • 'SOURCE 3 leads to this book which states, "The third wave of feminism, of course, is no more homogeneous or unified than was the second wave, but what is disquieting is how easily some third wave concerns can be translated into a distinctly antifeminist agenda such as that put forth by Roiphe or by Hoff Sommers, all the while retaining the feminist name." The line refers to third wave feminism being defined "anti-feminist" and not Christina Hoff Sommers (nor Roiphe).
  • SOURCE 6 leads to Michael Kimmel in the heavily criticized Tikkun Magazine reviewing one of Christina Hoff Sommers' best-selling books The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. This review does not call Christina Hoff Sommers an "anti-feminist", but alludes to book's notations about Absolutist Feminism as "Misguided Anti-Feminism as Misdiagnosis". Someone interpreted the source themselves.
  • SOURCE 8 is bluntly misleading. On reading the actual Tweet, Sommers is talking about the bias of her own Wikipedia page and not making a statement. In fact she provides a URL to her own SOURCE which UNNECESSARILY proves such accusations incorrect.

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

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

It is hard to take you seriously when you start off completely on the wrong tracks 1) "criticism" sections are not the proper method for structuring articles and the lead sections are specifically to included summary of the whole article/subject INCLUDING major criticisms. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If anything, MORE needs to be written about how Sommers is described by scholars, which is that she is against feminism. See the above list of scholars who may be cited. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

those people aren't notable though. Critics of Hoff Sommers are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
A reliable source already cited in the article calls her a feminist right off the top. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable positive view of CHS

[1]

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

I am not sure "run" is the right word, but yes, the project has all types of editors and POVs. --Malerooster (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be a stretch to call the weekly standard a reliable source (at least for statements of facts on CHS). It's a very partisan, very conservative pub. If this is used, it should be attributed and given appropriate weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
So sources which smear and are clearly radical feminist and intent on smearing Sommers are OK, but the contrary are not OK? Okay.... Notable to see Wikipedia is run by SJWs, radical feminists, fools and total idiots... 77.174.128.18 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
But then why is the caveat "should be attributed and given appropriate weight" curiously absent when Wikipedians discuss partisan left-wing sources? 74.12.92.201 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Sommers, the supposedly "partisan left-wing sources" are actually scholarly sources, the most respected sources available to us. Scholars define the topic, and scholars who study feminism, writing about Sommers, are in wide agreement that she works against feminism, that her books and her career are anti-feminist. Such a wide agreement of scholars does not need attribution. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Given that this very page cites 'Tikkun' (quite controversial, and undeniably leftish) as well as 'In These Times' (described on its page as a "progressive/democratic socialist monthly magazine") as two sources for the charge that CHS is anti-feminist, I wonder how we justify including those while excluding 'The Weekly Standard' purely on the basis of it being "very partisan, very conservative." If you want to keep NPOV, find a standard and stick to it. For my part, I think that we already have three sources for the claim, each one from a university press, so there's no point in keeping the other two around? Plus, it may be an essay, but WP:CITECLUTTER seems relevant here. PublicolaMinor (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In what way is Tikkun] controversial? MarkBernstein (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
See the article. TL,DR: besides the (much disputed) accusations that their anti-Israel essays use anti-Semitic rhetoric, there's the fact that their founder and former editor-in-chief used to write letters to the editor in praise of himself and publish them under pseudonyms, pretending that they came from his readers. PublicolaMinor (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about which references you're referring to? I can't find them in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was a disambiguation page. I meant to link directly to Tikkun (magazine), which is where the source in question originated. PublicolaMinor (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not really much controversy. Any publication critical of the current Israeli government is likely to be accused of anti-Semitic rhetoric, and a minor debate on letters to the editor, nearly 20 years ago, is hardly earth-shattering news, especially compared with the Weekly Standard’s owner, Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. Note, though, that The Weekly Standard has always been closely identified with the American Enterprise Institute, our subjects’ employer. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
True, but any magazine that publishes essays denying Israel's right to exist is probably going to be at the center of a much bigger firestorm than one merely critical of Israel's policies. As for The Weekly Standard, how specifically has it "always been closely identified" with AEI besides the fact that they're both very conservative organizations located in the same city? The fact that the WS seeks out contributions from conservative scholars, many of whom work for AEI, doesn't mean anything unless there's actual institutional overlap. PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
for the frequent connection between the weekly standard and AEI, see, for example, Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're referring to the Weekly Standard lede: "Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute." How does this contradict what I said above? PublicolaMinor (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Complementary work?

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

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

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

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

That was OR, but I later check out the actual source [39], and I don't see how it really supports the idea the works are complementary either. For example the review says

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

(referring to Pollack and Gilligan). And

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

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

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

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

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

Improved Definitions Of Feminism Relative To Christina Hoff Sommers

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

Paragraph One Christina Hoff Sommers:

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

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

actually no, we do not use someone's self definition to frame topics. We frame the overall subject (in this case "feminism") as the mainstream academics frame it and place the subjects self description in the appropriate context as the mainstream academics view it of being mainstream or fringe or cutting edge or whatever. In this instance while Sommers has set up a view of "my good feminism vs their bad feminism"; that not a view that has very much traction in the mainstream analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Self definition? The source was Psychology Today [40]. The definitions were provided by 31 references. One reference being your personal favorite, Jezebel; Did you investigate the source before challenging it?
  1. Alfano, S. (2009, February 11). Poll: Women’s movement worthwhile. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965224.html (link is external)
  2. Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition. London: Chapman and Hall.
  3. Buss, D. M. (1996). Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insights into feminism and the “battle of the sexes.” In D. M. Buss and N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296-318). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Revised edition). New York: Basic Books. (link is external)
  5. Buss, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. (link is external)
  6. Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533-548. (link is external)
  7. Confer, J. C., Easton, J. E., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110-126. (link is external)
  8. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: Murray.
  9. Descartes, R. (1641/1993). Meditations on first philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
  10. DeKay, W. T., & Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual differences, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 184-189. (link is external)
  11. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved predispositions or social roles? American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
  12. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64, 758-767.
  13. Friedman, B. X. (1997). Who stole feminism? Binghamton Review, 10, 14-15.
  14. Friedman, B. X., Bleske, A. L., & Scheyd, G. L. (2000). Incompatible with evolutionary theorizing. American Psychologist, 55, 1059-1060. (link is external)
  15. Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd edition). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (link is external).
  16. Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! (…and here’s why…). Psychological Topics, 15, 181-202. (link is external)
  17. Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., Lewis, D. M. G., & Buss, D. M. (in press). Sexual exploitability: observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior. (link is external)
  18. Kuhle, B. X. (2012). Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 39-43. (link is external)
  19. Mealey, L. (2000). Sex differences: Developmental and evolutionary strategies. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (link is external)
  20. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking. (link is external)
  21. Profet, M. (1988). The evolution of pregnancy sickness as protection to the embryo against Pleistocene teratogens. Evolutionary Theory, 8, 177-190.
  22. Profet, M. (1992). Pregnancy sickness as adaptation: A deterrent to maternal ingestion of teratogens. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 327-365). New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. Ryan, E. G. (2012, May 24). How to look dumb and slutty enough for a one night stand. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/5912975/how-to-look-dumb-and-slutty-enough-for-a-one-night-stand (link is external)
  24. Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., McKibbin, W. F., & Starratt, V. G. (2007). Absence makes the adaptations grow fonder: Proportion of time apart from partner, male sexual psychology, and sperm competition in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 214-220. (link is external)
  25. Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9, 228–248. (link is external)
  26. Sommers, C. H. (1994). Who stole feminism? New York: Simon and Schuster. (link is external)
  27. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press. (link is external)
  28. Vandermassen, G. (2004). Sexual selection: A tale of male bias and feminist denial. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 11, 9-26.
  29. Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who's afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
  30. Vandermassen, G. (2008). Can Darwinian feminism save female autonomy and leadership in egalitarian society? Sex Roles, 59, 482-491.
  31. Vandermassen, G. (2011). Evolution and rape: A feminist Darwinian perspective. Sex Roles, 64, 732-747.
--j0eg0d (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Psychology Today lists some references -- but those references are copyright by the journal. TRPoD is correct: the subject’s esoteric attempt to redefine the term "feminism" has gained no traction outside a particular corner of right-wing extremism and need not be followed here. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
References are never copyrighted. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Your comments cross the line into soap boxing, Binksternet. Please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. I don't believe that you're correct, but I am not going to try to argue with you. Just keep in mind that if it comes to an extended argument over the application of WP:BLP, those comments won't help you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no question of BLP violations in representing what is documented by dozens of highly qualified academics [41]. BLP is not a whitewash that prevents presentation of well documented criticism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
That biographical articles can (even should) mention criticism of living people when documented by reliable sources is not at issue. I am simply noting to Binksternet that endlessly demonstrating personal hostility to a living person on the talk page of the article about them isn't going to help in the context of an extended dispute over application of BLP - a reasonable point you would also do well to note. Binksternet's views could be taken more seriously if he were to go the trouble of documenting favorable commentary on Sommers's work by scholars, something that he has notably not done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet seems to be merely repeating what is in evidence in the [42] dozens of academcic's sources] that they have previously presented and appear to be continually ignored by people who wish to present the world of feminism as if is it circumscribed by Sommers, when the sources clearly identify such a circumscription as being not only out of the mainstream of feminism, but anti-feminism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The people who praise Sommers' ideas are typically social conservatives or reactionaries writing to uphold their beliefs. These folks also call Sommers a feminist. The ones that say Sommers is an antifeminist are scholars studying feminism. Which group should we say is correct? Of course the unified mass of scholars holds greater weight than politicians or journalists or other observers of society.
The tactic of diminishing me because of my stance is not going to work. I go by the sources; Wikipedia also goes by the sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There are in fact many lines of feminism. But there are no major lines of feminism that see Sommers' "my feminism is good, your feminism is bad" as being a major line of feminism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses Sommer's Equity Feminism as a branch of Liberal Feminism [43]. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
with a big caveat: "Note that there is dispute over whether classical-liberal or libertarian feminism (the Sommers "Equity Feminism") ought to be considered a version of liberal feminism (see section 2.7))" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
"To summarize, critics suggest that classical-liberal or libertarian feminism is not adequately supported by a consequentialist case; fails to recognize our obligations to those who cannot care for themselves; hides from view the way in which the work of care is distributed in society; denies that state power should be used to ensure equality of opportunity for women and women's equal standing in society; and (cultural libertarianism excepted) is uncritical of traditional social arrangements that limit and disadvantage women. For reasons such as these, some have argued that classical-liberal or libertarian feminism counts as neither feminist nor liberal (Minnich 1998; see also Freeman 1998)"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's the controversy, yes. but they made the call to list it as a branch of feminism. To be honest, I don't think it is a big deal - Sommers doesn't describe herself as a feminist on her official bio, [44], so if it is not worth highlighting there, I don't see it as a core issue. But while I see it as a minor issue, there are clearly notable academic works that view her equity feminism as a (controversial) branch of feminism. It isn't the case that it has been discredited as feminist thought, but is instead an ongoing and unclear debate. Back when this was first an issue I did some digging with the intent of determining if she was widely regarded as anti-feminist, but I found that it was a lot more complex than that. She can be regarded as anti-feminist, but also as feminist and as postfeminist depending on the paper. - Bilby (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A very large number of rs also describe her as antfeminist though. You're trying to oversimplify a rather complex and contentious debate in a way that is not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
"I agree she is a feminist" sounds like a personal view to me, XGustaX. It certainly does not mean the same thing as, "Reliable sources call Christina Hoff Sommers a feminist". I see that while you warned me for edit warring, you are now edit warring yourself and against multiple users too. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The lead was already neutral before your edits. It noted that some scholars see Sommers as an anti-feminist, but that she disagrees with them. That's fine. Edit warring to try to change it is inappropriate, especially as you have now violated WP:3RR. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Another source discussing the "equity feminism" vs "gender feminism" stuff is this. The source is sympathetic to the former viewpoint. It simply calls her "philosopher" and "equity feminist". Ultimately, it is hard to define a term as broad as "feminism". One should present what the term means rather than quibbling over labels. One can say that she self-identifies as "equity feminist" while some others call her anti-feminist or whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholars tally

At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christina_Hoff_Sommers Binksternet linked to Special:Diff/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christina_Hoff_Sommers which is a list now archived just above Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_5#Can_we_get_a_photo_of_Sommers_back.3F. Is there any way to add more detail to this to see if it supports B's claim that these authors call her antifeminist and dismiss she's a feminist and say she's working against feminism? Like every single one of them says all 3 things? Although some books/pages are linked there's no quotes, and the first 5 are just the names of Kinahan/Schreiber/Bauer/Rhoades/Hammer with no guide as to what we need to read to verify the claim. Before figuring what word to assign to the relative quantity of scholars saying something about Sommers it would be nice to get a more specific idea of what exact number are saying what things first. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Having looked into what is currently after the (second) "some feminist scholars" statement (anchored the first one to the second to avoid people claiming the first is unsourced) three authors certainly qualifies as "some" although given that it would be 1 extra character to write "three" or three fewer characters to write "3" I'm not sure why we use "some" at all. For now perhaps it's good to keep the statement flexible so that more sources can be added?

Right now the references to a 6th chapter by Vint in a 2010 book by Mendlesohn, a 2nd chapter in a 2001 book by Projansky, and a 4th chapter in a 2014 book by Anderson. Huh... you know, I'm going to flip it so Projansky is mentioned first so that the cites are in chronological order...

Of the three authors I could only find an article about Sarah Projansky, the 2001 author. Vint's editor Farah Mendlesohn has a page but since the statement is in a chapter written by Sherryl Vint it is her credentials we should weigh. Could find no page for Kristin Anderson or Kristin J. Anderson page.

Given that Projansky has the earliest-cited work and seems the most notable, starting with her, she is in University of Utah and holds a dual professorship in "gender studies" and "film and media studies". She got a PhD in film studies in 1995 in University of Iowa. In terms of the word "scholar" I see it twice in her article: both under her co-editorship of "Enterprise Zones": "Enterprising Zones was the first critical, scholarly look at Star Trek" and "Readers will discover the unique changes of cultural studies scholarship and how it enables to appoint a powerful phenomenon such as Star Trek." The only thing is, I'm not sure if she worked on this book in 1996 or 2006, five years before or after the 2001 book. So I don't know if we can rely on this as what makes her a scholar until we know if EZ made her a scholar before or after writing the statements.

Should we rely on the awards that Watching Rape won to establish her as a scholar? There is:

  • January 2002: Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Women's Caucus Emily Toth Award for Excellence in Feminist Studies of Popular Culture
  • November 2002: National Communication Association, Critical/Cultural Studies Division

The second case seems like it might be incomplete and missing the award name... anyway it says she's been a member of the NCA since 1997, can't see any mention of her being a PCA/ACAWC though.

In struggling to understand what the criteria is for "scholar" I wonder if we could refer to more clearly known achievements. Like for example "film studies doctor" since she got a 1995 doctorate in film studies.

I'm not even going to touch the other two since their lack of articles makes it way harder to research them, something to deal with if we can resolve how to discuss Projansky. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_5&oldid=1142756182"