Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC about the Melanie Kirkpatrick quote[edit]

There is no clear consensus.

Some points raised:

  • Introduces bias inappropriately (PEACOCK) — that the inclusion violates this particular subset of NPOV is somewhat unconvincing to me. The PEACOCK, WEASEL, et al. provisions are typically reflective of situations where qualifiers (or rather lack thereof) are used to apply Wikipedia's voice as a specific positive or negative criticism (e.g., "she is an amazing author" as opposed to "Jones described her as 'an amazing author'). Here, it's clear the quote is coming from someone else and is presented in a style that's relatively reflective of the what-you-should-do / "just the facts" example in PEACOCK. That said, it's debatable whether detailed praise/criticism is even appropriate during summary-rollup of a main article when it's on the author's page. This is probably why some involved in the discussion have likened it to critic-praise excerpts in hardcover jackets.
  • Prior consensus said it's fine. This is also a bad argument, as consensus can change, even moreso when an RFC, which has greater community visibility and reach than a talk page discussion, is involved. If anything, an RFC is typically more reflective of community consensus than prior talk page discussions (sock input notwithstanding).
  • Inclusion is/isn't undue weight in context and/or issues of summary style and/or MOSQUOTE NPOV issues — these are the more convincing (but not as loudly/clearly presented) arguments to me, given how substantial/complex Who_Stole_Feminism?#Reception appears to be. This is a problem that frequently arises with direct quotes as a whole, as many quotes have a polarizing/opinionated nature to them and frequently beg for a "balancing quote" to follow them (as is the case here). It's also clear even from this discussion that the general reception of the book, itself, is something that requires a deeper dive, and it might be—is proving to be—problematic to reduce it all while maintaining appropriate balance.
    It might be sufficient (and more neutral) to simply non-specifically point out that the reception of the work has varied, and/or it might be appropriate to point out that it continues to spark varying responses well after its original publication. Those are relatively incontrovertible assertions that are probably safe to say in Wikipedia's voice, and they encourage the reader to find out more by reading the main article. Alternatively, the most major points which have drawn criticism (whether good or bad) could be enumerated neutrally (e.g., "Critical reception has varied on several aspects, from the extent to which she discusses helium to how she portrays helium's voice-altering side effects"), but I have a feeling that, too, could easily turn into a bit of an exercise unless care is taken. *shrug*.
--slakr\ talk / 03:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the quote from Melanie Kirkpatrick be included?

She wrote that the book Who Stole Feminism? shows a "lack of a political agenda. ... Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another."

The quote is from a 1994 book review published by the Wall Street Journal. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A non-neutral request to vote on this in violation of WP:CANVASS was posted at https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/84mead/based_moms_wiki_page_is_in_the_process_of/ Carte Rouge (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • No, because it is empty praise that doesn't help the reader understand the ideas presented by Sommers. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES, I have to say, this is a blatant and obvious attempt to abuse RFC to try to overturn the consensus already achieved. You couldn't achieve consensus, so you attempt to lure other people over and try to gain consensus that way. ALL USERS, consensus has been achieved, read above topic for details. S806 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Sock vote struck. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. "Empty praise", or perhaps "marketing blurb". Doesn't help the reader in any real way; this is an encyclopedia, not Amazon.com. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Simply because an RFC should not be used to overturn consensus arrived at through normal talk page discussion, as already noted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should be kept in. Binksternet, why can't you accept that this was already decided in the above topic? Why make a new topic to try to win this round after you lost the first battle to take it out? As Binksternet has lied many times in the previous section, this isn't a marketing blurb, but rather a real review. Binksternet has demonstrated many times that he wants all positive reviews removed from the page, and only negative reviews to stay. ProtoNexus (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Striking sock vote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you hear about this discussion? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been talking here for a while. Stop accusing people. Read the fricken history. Plus Bink put out a RFC, he's inviting outside people to comment. ProtoNexus (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your first edit was 5 days ago. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what we do? Harass new users? Am I not allowed to participate in discussion? Do you also harass IP editors? WP has a policy against that by the way. ProtoNexus (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very loose definition of harassment. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the current form While a notable opinion, the current quote is cited to the WSJ, while it appears that the actual source is the book jacket. I was canvassed to vote here. The canvasassing was highly biased (specifically asked me to vote "yes,") and targeted people who were likely to vote "yes" (Gamergaters). Carte Rouge (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected the citation (in mainspace) and added likely useful excerpts from WSJ using |quote=. Politrukki (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Yes Wikipedia doesn't subscribe to the "butthurt principle," that is, it doesn't ignore consensus just because one editor doesn't like the results. Lithorien Talk • Changes 15:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Ignoring the blatant attempt at bypassing consensus, the quote points out that at least according to one reviewer at the time, the author was considered apolitical and factual. Considering there seems to be an attempt to paint her otherwise, the quote is apt. KiTA (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:PEACOCK applies. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - including this doesn't impart any information to the reader about 'based mom' (that is such a creepy nickname). PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both or neither. WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies we have. If we want to include comments from negative reviews, we need to include comments from positive reviews, given that there are some of each. Or we can write that there was a positive review in the Washington Post, and a negative review in FAIR.org. But WP:PEACOCK does not mean "only write quotes from negative reviews". --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partly – I could see the first part about not having a political agenda being paraphrased, because it does make a clear statement, and "lines up her facts" is pretty good, again, a statement a particular quality of the book, but "shoots one bullseye after another" is pure WP:PEACOCK. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the contents of the book, whereas the negative quotation from Flanders, while harsh, does have some specifics. If anything, we should track down the full review and see if there are other details that could be quoted. Because yes, we should reflect the reliable sources, but we need a meaningful quotation. As an aside, describing the Hudson Institute as conservative and FAIR as progressive could add some useful context. —Torchiest talkedits 20:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there's an article about the book, if the quote summarised critical opinion about the book, it might make sense, but why duplicate 'reactions'? Especially so as the quote is uninformative. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – per WP:NPOV. However, I do think that the latter part is suboptimal, and could be replaced with something more informative like (according to Kirkpatrick),
    (a) Sommers exposes "the divisive ideals of today's radical feminists",
    (b) Sommers debunks "several well-publicized 'facts' about women's health and education issues", or
    (c) Sommers "urges a return to classical liberal feminism".
    Some editors have opposed the content per WP:PEACOCK, but such arguments are invalid because Kirkpatrick is quoted directly and attributed in the text. Politrukki (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – "lack of a political agenda" is significant, and "simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another" is necessary to balance the FAIR's claim that the book is "filled with [...] errors and unsubstantiated charges" which we include. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Too blurby. Just say that Kirkpatrick in the WSJ gave it a positive review. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (invited by the bot) I weighed some conflicting factors: Probably a strong yes by Wikipedia rules. Then: Regarding information content, it's sort of praise-like but does provide information. Probably should be expanded a bit. Also, all of the book review content is one or two steps removed on directness of wp:relevance, so it should meet a higher bar to go in. It's about what someone else thinks about a book that she wrote. I didn't get in deep enough to evaluate the objectivity and expertis of the source with respect to the book. Finally, even with this, other than this, the review of this book section seems biased the other way. More words / development is given to a lower grade sourse that disliked the book. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think we're missing the forest for the trees here. There's plenty of content in Who Stole Feminism? that isn't adequately discussed here in good summary style. Daask (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • I would much rather see a quote that tells the reader something specific about the ideas that Sommers presents in her book. The selected quote is book-jacket puffery which was chosen by the publisher to promote the book. It was added to the article with the same wrong date, July 1, that the book publisher used.[1] But the review is actually from July 14.[2] So the person who added it was taking it from the publisher's promotional materials, which calls into question the neutrality of the selected quote. If someone here can access the full review on Proquest, or retrieve an archived copy of the Wall Street Journal, then it would be great to offer the reader a more substantial quote, addressing one or more of the ideas in Sommers' book. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL of course it should be included. We already discussed this in extreme depth. You know the consensus is it shouldn't be removed. S806 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please verify the quote in question is accurate? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is FAIR described as "progressive" in the same location that the Hudson Institute, which is conservative, is not given an ideological identifier? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are either one of them given an ideological identifier? Seems like a dog whistle to suggest one or the other should be dismissed. KiTA (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's classic well poisoning. That's all. Lithorien Talk • Changes 15:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • @S806: You removed the verify source tag. Have you reviewed the WSJ source? Carte Rouge (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tag should remain in place until someone can review the source. I'm not on Proquest; anybody who is, can you please check it out, ideally by copying the review here? Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a copyright violation? KiTA (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think not, since the text would be placed for here for instructional purposes, not featured in mainspace. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet and KiTA: I believe that if we were to substantially reproduce the work here it would still run foul of copyright, even though it is not in mainspace. Relevant PAGs that I could find are: Wikipedia:COPYVIO, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. On previous occasions, I've seen a couple of editors review the content offline & make suggestions for pull quotes. I'm happy to review & suggest, but I don't have ready access to the NY Library (it's a long walk and I'd get very wet) and am not yet inclined to paying for access from Factiva.com. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job "Binks". Way to turn this whole thing into a fiasco. It's a complete sh*tshow. And we're no closer to resolving a once resolved issue. ProtoNexus (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


'Reviewing the book in the Wall Street Journal (7/1/94), Melanie Kirkpatrick enthused: “One of the strengths of Who Stole Feminism is its lack of a political agenda…. Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bullseye after another.”'
S806 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's appropriate here to cite the WSJ if you aren't using the WSJ as a source? It wouldn't be appropriate in academic works, at the very least. Carte Rouge (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) PS: It's actually textbook plagiarism: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/rhetoric/integrity/pitfall4-intermediate-sources.html Carte Rouge (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's actually textbook plagiarism:" Quoting a source isn't plagiarism. If it was plagiarism, Wikipedia couldn't exist. It relies on being able to quote sources, both word for word, and paraphrasing quotes. As long as sources are well stated, there is no issue. Either we trust the source, and assume the both reviews are good, or we don't trust the source, and both negative and positive reviews are bad. S806 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is textbook plagiarism to read source A, which says Source B said "blah blah" and write Source B said "blah blah." (citation: Source B). You need to cite source A. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No no no no no, We now know the source exists, we are allowed to quote from physical mediums, Ny public library has archives of the WSJ in 1994 if anybody is inclined. I'm sorry, but everything you say is wrong about how WP uses sources. S806 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's textbook plagiarism, unless someone has actually looked at the WSJ piece - they should, and if they did, I'm fine with the citation. Using FAIR's research without citing FAIR is the problem here. We can't cite the WSJ without someone looking at the WSJ. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop using legal threats WP:PLAGFORM. Sourcing both is not plagiarism. S806 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Plagiarism isn't a crime, so there's not legal threat. As long as you acknowledge the intermediate source, there's not an issue, but right now the intermediate source is not acknowledged. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) PS: In fact, your link includes this problem - "Copying from a source acknowledged in a poorly placed citation." Carte Rouge (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, the invocation of WP:NLT is overkill here. Good faith concerns about copyright aren't legal threats unless there's a "I'm going to sue" aspect contained in the post. Second, writing (for example), A New York Times editorial stated "The president of the United States is a racist" and using this source is not plagiarism. --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Seems to be a major misunderstanding of WP:SECONDARY. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't understand my point. I don't have a problem with "The WSJ said blah blah blah (source: FAIR)." I do have a problem with "The WSJ said blah blah blah (source: WSJ)," if no one has read the WSJ. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The specific policy being violated here is Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right about that. But I trust that Id4abel correctly located the reference through ProQuest, albeit at the book article rather than here at the biography. Id4abel appears to be a diligent, good faith editor. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carte Rouge and Binksternet: I have verified the quote. The article is an uncritical summary of Sommers, with the quoted paragraph being Kirkpatrick's only original contribution. I think the ellipses are appropriate. The full paragraph is this:

One of the strengths of "Who Stole Feminism" is its lack of a political agenda. Ms. Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bull's-eye after another. She's pursuing the Susan B. Anthony agenda. "I have written this book because I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become," she asserts. She urges a return to classical liberal feminism -- a belief that women deserve fair and equal treatment. As Ms. Sommers is quick to point out, this is an ideal that America hasn't fully achieved, but we've made great strides and we're working on it. In exposing the divisive ideals of today's radical feminists, "Who Stole Feminism" is one step closer toward that goal.

The article has a footnote indicating: "Ms. Kirkpatrick is assistant editor of the Journal's editorial page." Ping me if you need anything more. Daask (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying the quote. To me, it looks like Kirkpatrick's meatiest offering is that Sommers' book exposes "the divisive ideals of today's radical feminists". Kirkpatrick's other themes are contradictory or absent, with a supposedly apolitical book advocating change, and no support whatsoever for Sommers putting forward a sort of Susan B. Anthony-style agenda (getting American women the vote was 74 years accomplished when the book was published.) Kirkpatrick is free to believe what she will, but we are also free to select her firmest statement about the book. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC changes[edit]

Since there was no consensus, I've removed both the Kirkpatrick quotation and the one by Laura Flanders. The burden to achieve consensus is on those favoring inclusion. My own view is that a bio isn't the place for dueling soundbites about a book, and there are better sources for commentary in any case. Since both quotations already exist at Who Stole Feminism?, they are redundant here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Flanders's criticism of the book is relevant to a discussion of Sommers's biography inasmuch as Sommers responded to it. There is no reason a biographical article should not mention criticism of someone's book and what the author had to say in response to it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, Flanders' remarks are already included at Who Stole Feminism?, where I've also just added the info on Sommers' response. Repeating the same material here would be an unnecessary content fork. If we're writing that section in summary style, then only the most important details should be retained. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia that needs to save on space. There is no reason a given fact or piece of information should not be mentioned in more than one article if it is relevant to more than one article. That Flanders' remarks are mentioned somewhere else is decidedly not a reason for not mentioning them in the article on Sommers. I fail to see why Sommers responding to criticism of her work is unimportant for an article about her. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So do we mention every single instance of Sommers responding to criticism of her work? Where do we draw the line? Your edit just added back that "Sommers responded to FAIR's criticisms in a letter to the editor of FAIR's monthly magazine". What does this tell the reader about Sommers as a person? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a relevant response if Sommers had made so many responses to criticism of her work that it would be unreasonable to include them in the article. I see no evidence of that. I also see no reason to believe that readers of an article about Sommers wouldn't care about her responding to criticism of her work. Mentioning it provides readers interested in her with a starting point to investigate controversy about her work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question: what does it say about Sommers as a person? Readers interested in investigating the controversy can just as easily find that information in our article about the book. Any such controversy that isn't suitable for a neutral summary of that article would be unduly weighted in this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources[edit]

I don't see how refs for § Other work can all be "neutral" when only two out of eleven are independent sources. (This is a problem in other sections as well.) At the very least, using so many refs with direct connection to Sommers herself could introduce undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are neutral because they are simple statements of fact. She has written for Time (see her profile on Time), was on the board of advisers for FIRE (see FIRE's list of advisers), etc. These aren't opinions about her, but simple statements of who she has worked for. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the issue of due weight. Articles aren't indiscriminate collections of facts, nor are we here to plug Sommers' writing. Why should readers care that she's written for these publications and served on these boards, etc.? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because any biography in an encyclopedia would cover details such as the subject writing for significant publications? - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Sommers is a writer, so obviously she's going to have her writing published somewhere. Hundreds of people have written op-eds for Time, for example, from Scott Adams to Robin Wright. And that's not counting pre-Web issues. Does this factoid belong in all their bios? Without independent sources commenting on any of these writing gigs, it just looks like filler, and doesn't tell us anything about Sommers as a person. I would put the most pertinent links in an external links section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course she is going to be published somewhere. As an encyclopaedia, we should be stating where, rather than leaving it as a mystery to the reader. But rather than go through this mess again, I'll spend the few minutes it will take to add third party sources. Hopefully we can drop it then. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty dubious about this USA Today source, which states, "This story originally appeared on the USA TODAY College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017". Student journalism can be reliable, as can newsblogs, but in this instance I think we have better sources and can drop this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this piece in Bustle is clearly an opinion piece, and thus not usable per RS guidelines, in addition to the site's questionable reliability overall – see WP:RS/P#Bustle. This is a BLP, so high-quality sources are extra important; poorly-sourced material should always be removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You insist that we can't use primary, absolutely reliable sources because you need secondary sources to show importance. When a secondary source is added, you remove it because you feel that it is unreliable, even though we have absolutely no question that it is accurate for the claims it is being used. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed by how you are handling this. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Given Sommers' controversial work, I think high-quality sources are a must, as per WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it would be easy, but then I didn't think it would be all about unilateral decisions, either. I guess it is good to learn new things - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've since restored the material with different (I hope better) sources. So the end result was an overall improvement to the article. I call that a success. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to this, my copy of the article lists The Washington Post, but the copy you have linked to does not. - Bilby (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found the problem. I was referencing the print version, which includes the Washington Post, not the web version as you linked to. I'll add it back, but I'll make sure to use the print reference as a separate ref in order to address any concerns. (Edit: I found the original online archived version and used that. All fixed now.) - Bilby (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title IX, marriage, abortion[edit]

Sommers has written about Title IX and the shortage of women in STEM fields. She opposes recent efforts to apply Title IX to the sciences[1] because "Science is not a sport. In science, men and women play on the same teams. ... There are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms."[2] Sommers writes that Title IX programs in the sciences could stigmatize women and cheapen their hard-earned achievements. She adds that personal preference, not sexist discrimination, plays a role in women's career choices.[3] Sommers believes that not only do women favor fields like biology, psychology, and veterinary medicine over physics and mathematics, but that they also seek out more family-friendly careers. She has written that "the real problem most women scientists confront is the challenge of combining motherhood with a high-powered science career."[2]

Sommers supports legally recognizing same-sex marriages[4] and has called abortion "a fundamental moral dilemma".[5]
  1. ^ "AAUW Celebrates 38th Anniversary of Title IX With Calls for Grater Enforcement Archived September 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine", American Association of University Women, June 2010
  2. ^ a b Christina Hoff Sommers, "The Case against Title-Nining the Sciences", AEI.org, September 2008.
  3. ^ Christina Hoff Sommers, "Is Science Saturated with Sexism?", AEI.org, February 2011.
  4. ^ "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both". RealClearPolitics. April 22, 2014.
  5. ^ Christina Hoff Sommers (July 6, 2017). "Christina Hoff Sommers (Feminist): Abortion is a Fundamental Moral Dilemma" (video). Retrieved July 6, 2017 – via YouTube. I look at this issue, as a philosopher, and it's a fundamental moral dilemma[permanent dead link]

I've removed these two paragraphs, which lack any independent, reliable sources. As such, any statements about what Sommers believes and supports are unduly weighted if not simply original research. Source #1 is unrelated to Sommers; #4 is an open letter that Sommers signed along with dozens of others; #5 is a self-published video; the others are Sommers' own writing and therefore primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC) (formatting corrections 07:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Just checking, but did you check for sources before you removed them? I'm confident that they will be available. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that nobody bothered to add any in the last 10 years. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So that would be a no, then. Ok. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above material was almost immediately re-added by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. I've removed it again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist? Postfeminist? Antifeminist?[edit]

I've started going through the talk archives, looking for reliable, academic sources that comment on how Sommers' work relates to the feminist movement overall; below are some sources that I think could be used to expand the article's treatment of her work vis-a-vis feminism, antifeminism, postfeminism, etc. Anyone is free to add to this list, but please limit selections to peer-reviewed or other scholarly works from well-known academic publishers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also the list of sources at Talk:Who Stole Feminism? § NPOV issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of authors[edit]

Kristin J. Anderson[edit]

  • "Many of the more high-profile anti-feminists ... argue that feminism did what it was supposed to do and those who now hang on to a feminist movement are only trying to surpass men. Christina Hoff Sommers [is] one of the main purveyors of this point of view" —Modern Misogyny: Anti-feminism in a Post-feminist Era; see also "Antifeminism", Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World (2011)

Chris Atmore[edit]

  • "If I had to rank [self-described] media feminists according to their proposals of a reactionary agenda, beginning with the most conservative, I would list [Christina Hoff] Sommers (the most clearly tied to a broad, right-wing, anti-PC response, for which 'backlash' does seem apt)" —in New Versions of Victims: Feminists Struggle with the Concept (Sharon Lamb, ed.)

Becky Francis & Christine Skelton[edit]

Elaine Ginsberg & Sara Lennox[edit]

  • "Sommers' equity feminism repudiates feminism's vision of a larger social transformation; her feminism is content, once women get what men have, to reconcile itself with the world as it is. However one judges Sommers' claim to being a feminist herself, that is the contribution her book [Who Stole Feminism?] makes to a grander conservative agenda" —in Anti-feminism in the Academy, summarized in Women's Studies: A Recommended Bibliography

Amanda Goldrick-Jones[edit]

  • "Sommers is considered by many anti-violence feminists and activists as a conservative whose views undermine feminist struggles against male violence" —Men who Believe in Feminism

Rhonda Hammer[edit]

  • "There is a growing cadre of antifeminist pseudofeminists such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Katie Roiphe"
  • "Hoff Sommers begins her text with the classic projection—shared by many of her pseudofeminist cohort—that the gender feminists sow division in the movement" —Antifeminism and family terrorism : a critical feminist perspective

Michael Kimmel[edit]

  • "By far the most sustained fullisade against feminism as the cause of boys' woes comes from Christina Hoff Sommers, formerly a philosophy professor and now a resident anti-feminist pundit at the American Enterprise Institute" —in The Problem with Boys' Education: Beyond the Backlash

Peter Loptson[edit]

  • "Christina Hoff Sommers is a philosophical critic of what she calls gender feminism ... her gender-feminist opponents deny that she is a 'real' feminist. But there seems no reason not to accept her at her own self-description as an equality liberal feminist" —Theories of Human Nature

Barbara L. Marshall[edit]

  • "Another sort of antifeminist critique has emerged from a liberal individualistic perspective, which critiques what it calls 'gender feminism'. Christina Hoff Sommers (1994) coined the term gender feminism in opposition to equity feminism" —in Handbook of Constructionist Research

Patrice McDermott[edit]

Martin Mills, Becky Francis, & Christine Skelton[edit]

  • "The other strand of anti-feminist men's politics to be found in many of the discourses shaping the current gender and education policy moment are often referred to as 'men's rights' ... see Farrell, 1993, and Hoff Sommers, 2000, for examples of these politics" —"Gender Policies in Australia and the United Kingdom", in The Problem with Boys' Education: Beyond the Backlash

Sarah Projansky[edit]

  • "Another assault on feminism within postfeminist discourses comes from antifeminist (self-defined) feminists, such as ... Christina Hoff Sommers ... While these authors often define themselves as feminist, their perspectives are simultaneously antifeminist because they call for the 'death' of (another version of) feminism in the process of articulating their own feminism" —Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture

Lise Shapiro Sanders[edit]

  • "Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Sylvia Ann Hewlett have all been criticized for their postfeminist leanings, even as they purport to advance feminism's goals" —in Third Wave Feminism: A Critical Exploration

John A. Weaver[edit]

  • "Sommers has allowed herself ... to be used by [conservative] political organizations who want to discredit the feminist movement ... Here, in her quest to 'get the truth out,' Sommers finds herself the patsy in a movement bent on twisting information and denying the existence of any gender problems" —Rethinking Academic Politics in (re)unified Germany and the United States

Mary D. Vavrus[edit]

  • "In much public discourse, feminism has become a scapegoat social movement ... constructed as being so extreme and counterproductive to women's lives as to be laughable. This perspective was propagated ... by very positive media coverage given to Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers, two self-proclaimed feminists who have written anti-feminist tracts" —Postfeminist News: Political Women in Media Culture

Discussion[edit]

What, exactly, do you want support on? That there are sources critical of Hoff Sommers? - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I stated my purpose clearly above. (Expanding the article's treatment of her work vis-a-vis feminism, antifeminism, postfeminism, etc.) Which part do you find unclear? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the expansion is that we're discussing. You have a general "let's expand her work" and a list of one-sided sources, but so what? What do you propose to add? - Bilby (talk)
I'm holding off on specific proposals in case additional sources appear. If you're concerned that the above are "one-sided", which other reliable, scholarly sources would you suggest? Do you have specific doubts about the reliability of any of the above sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have doubts that the sources listed above reliably express the views of the authors? No. Do I feel taht a list of sources largely collated to argue that Hoff Sommers is viewed as antifeminist are necessarily representative of her overall impact on feminism? Of course. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically worded the initial statement neutrally and left it open-ended to avoid such an assumption. Once again, where are the sources with a contrary view? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that by "contrary view", contrary to what? What are we trying to say? Are we discussing her arguments? Her impact? How she is characterized? Is this to expand "Ideas and Views"? To Create a new section on something else? Are we just randomly sticking together sources that make some mention of her, irrespective as to the context? - Bilby (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the point seems pretty clear to me: numerous high quality RS characterize Sommers as an anti-feminist and take issue with her own self-characterization as a "liberal" or "equity" feminist. I think the argument being made here is that the article currently places undue weight on her own self-characterization as a "feminist" of any kind, and insufficient weight on a large body of scholarship which describe her as an anti-feminist. It's not exactly the first time this has come up: the point (which I agree with, FWIW) has been made before. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We went over this in detail over many weeks, including at BLPN. If that is the intent of this, what was the value of all that effort we put into it before? We already adequately cover those views. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing her arguments? Her impact? How she is characterized? Yes, yes, and yes. The article currently devotes a single paragraph to reception of her work. As you can see, there are many more high-quality sources to draw on, so I think the existing material should be expanded to give these additional sources due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to give sources "due weight", rather than issues? - Bilby (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I meant the issues and viewpoints contained in the preponderance of reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in evaluating that, when there are so many sources to pull from. Should we read every source? It would be easier to look for sources which discuss Sommers in regard to particular aspects fo her views, as then we have something we can work to. And if we're doing this, we need to ensure that the sources are balanced, which is a challenge with Sommers. - Bilby (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, your suggestion is needlessly complicated. To present a balanced view of Sommers, all we need to do is tell the reader what these sources are saying about her. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why those sources? Why not other sources? Do you wish to read every source published that mentions Sommers and summarise them? You need some sort of framework to work within.Do you really think that it is more complicated to look into how particular views of Sommers are covered than to read everything and work out how to summarise them all? - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is that you are throwing more obstacles in the way because you don't like the proposed material. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is barely any proposed material to not like. When looking into a topic, you need to keep it manageable. If the topic has a limited number of publications, you can do a literature review looking at the topic in general. But if it has thousands, as is the case here, you need some structure. Google Scholar, for example, has 4,950 hits for Hoff Sommers. Google Books turns up another 300+. Even if we assume that 2/3 aren't of any use, that's still a lot of reading. To survey the literature like that is going to take forever. But if it is narrowed down to a topic - for example, what do people say about her views on male education - it becomes manageable. The risk is that we only look at a few and claim that this is representative, which would be iffy even if done randomly. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)s[reply]

@Bilby: a large number of hits on Google Scholar doesn't mean that all or most of the results are about Sommers herself in any depth. I specifically narrowed [it] down to a topic by looking for coverage about Sommers' work vis-a-vis feminism. Once again, which other sources do you propose we use? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a long time ago. If you want to use the list of authors you have provided as possible sources to make claims about their individual views, then that's great. If you are looking for a list of authors to use to draw general conclusions about Hoff Sommers and the way she is viewed, then that is a literature revierw and we can't do that. - Bilby (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&oldid=1211853314"