Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.


This Men's rights related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Involvement with AVFM?[edit]

Ugh, another article for the long, long crap-cleanup list. :( Let's say I'm not terribly surprised at both major contributors to the article and the slant it had after each one's edits...

Anyway, the current text states that "She's also writing for the MRA website A Voice for Men". Is she actually an active contributor, or are they just republishing her pieces with/without permission? The post linked in the source, "Masculinity Is More Than a Mask", was originally published as an opinion column in Time three days before being re-published on AVFM.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Two of her articles appeared on AVFM so far, both after they were first on TIME. I'll go and rewrite that part. Typhoon (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That still needs fixing, because now the statement in the article appears to contradict the source cited, including its very title. Better link to AVFM's author category directly and mention the Time columns in the footnote.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What does equity feminist mean?[edit]

I never understood that term. Tried Googling it. Just wanted to know for my own understanding. Can someone please add a section to this article explaining, in detail, what equity feminism even means? Only because, maybe there are other people out there who are confused too, and this seems like the right wiki to explain that sort of thing to the uninformed. Parogar (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, equity feminism was a term invented by Sommers in order to pretend that she was a 'good' feminist, in contrast to all those 'bad' feminists. The definition seems to be along the lines:
"All those changes in society that feminism has already wrought, that we accept and even take for granted, they're all good feminism, i.e. equity feminism. All those things that feminists are still campaigning for, those are taking things too far and bad feminism. I'm a conservative who realises that opposing everything that feminism has already done won't win over the people I want to win over, so instead I rebrand my conservatism as 'equity feminism' and hope no-one pays any attention to the reactionary behind the curtain. Anyone who doesn't believe that we are already living in a post-misogyny utopia is clearly one of those nasty radical feminists, and not a good, wholesome, equity feminist like me." Queexchthonic murmurings 10:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I can gather it is a branch of feminism the believe in legal equality between men and women but, absolutely nothing past that. DEMONcaberet (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Do we allow artistic representations like this one?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea; the pic won't display for me. ConfusedLiberal (talk)

Jesus F****** Christ![edit]

She is also positively referred to by the notorious mass-murderer and anti-feminist

Are you kidding me?! This site is a joke-anyone who disagrees with its views, no matter how slightly, even if they are a feminist, is compared with mass murders..It's like when fundies say 'Adolf Hitler and Stalin were athiests!!!' And the pages on Anita Sarkeesian and The Amazing Atheist as well as the 'responses' to Thunderf00t's videos are just a complete joke. This site is no better than Conservapedia now. Fredrich Neitzere's quote omes to mind: 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.' Ironically, this site seems to have started out as anti Religion but has embraced the newest Religion on the block-modern feminism, who's Satan is the patriachy and where women like Anita Sarkeesian are the Christ figure-always persecuted even when they're being rewarded with eternal bliss (or half a million dollars). I'm never coming here again. And to those of you who will likely reply 'Good-we don't want you here anyway', I'm glad, because to be wanted by people like this, to be held in high esteem by them, would be a far, far greater insult than that. So goodbye, 'Rational'wiki, until you denounce ALL Religions.--Thedoctor81 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's not very nice. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 20:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly I struggled reading this...but the gist that I gathered is that just because someone quoted a person in this article we shouldn't say what the credentials of that person was? Or is it the part where you fell off the cliff with "Feminism is a religion"? Yea, ya lost me for sure. Trick (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Take a shot.--Madman (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Eh, leave the drinking game for new users and IPs who do drive-by "RATIONALwiki" stuff. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
(triple EC)To anyone anti-theistic, "X is a religion" suggests problems. But the thing is, they suggest a specific class of problem. Notably that X suggests unsubstantiated supernatural claims, usually asserting an authority derived from those claims. Make a better argument, please. Please. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I was exaggerating when I said Feminism was a Religion but I was rather annoyed at the time of writing so obviously I would say things that were exaggerations. Thedoctor81 (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Didn't notice this reply. "Exagerated" is an odd way to put it. I get that you're diplomatically trying to withdraw the objection, but I'd like you to learn a lesson from this and not use this terrible argument structure ever again. No statement is wrong on the basis that it comes from religious grounds. Accusing random shit you don't like of being a religion that you full-well know isn't is a bad thing. I'd sincerely appreciate if you took this chance to reconsider what lead to make the argument in the first place. If you felt like restating your position without this particular fallacy, I'd certainly love to hear it. It seemed like a lynchpin to me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Dude, it's "Friedrich Nietzsche". If you're gonna quote a prominent philosopher to look smart at least don't misspell their name into oblivion. (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I removed the part about Breivik as completely unnecessary. Her positions are self-evidently... out there enough that it's unnecessary to resort to guilt-by-association fallacies. It's a bit like attempting to discredit Barack Obama because Robert Mugabe approvingly spoke of him a few times, or using the bizarre thing several crazed dictators seem to have/have had for Condoleezza Rice against her. It's entirely possible to be harshly critical of Sommers without resorting to what outside observers will most likely perceive as red-faced hysterical screaming. The MRA thing is more relevant, and something that is to a degree within her control—whereas there was no way she could have known what Breivik's giant screed would contain before his rampage, she's obviously aware of how the crazy section of the MRA landscape is using her work—so I left that in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously saying "this is bad because Breivik supports it" is just as valid as saying "this is bad because Hitler supported it". Still though, if you have people like Breivik or Hitler supporting a certain stance, I'd see that as a proper reason to double-check the merits of that stance. (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What is going on with these references[edit]

Roughly half are ad-hom, which we need only one of, max. The others are fine but should be drilled down to a proper format... Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers on The Rubin Report[edit]

What are your thoughts on Sommers's latest interview? (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Blundering into Feminism[edit]

What is wrong with this as a topic? Arrogant? Perhaps. Supercilious without justification? I think so. Finally, we are not the arbiters of what is appropriate feminism. This section Lists two actions that the author thinks are admirable, but goes on to criticize even for those actions because of what? None of this is pertinent if you actually want to denigrate the subjects reputation. It is sour grapes to say " Well she did a couple of good things but her motives were bad so it doesn't count." If it doesn't count as good why mention it? It's not actually bad. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Editor here. As the other user said, the point is to show that Hoff Sommers' actions, despite being outwardly benign, are far from so in practice. It is very important to realize that she's nothing more then a pawn for the American right. From the moment she stepped onto the scene in 1994, it has been clear to everyone that isn't inside the right-wing echo chamber that she's nothing more than an anti-feminist poser. She basically created the modern MRA movement and turned legitimate men's issues into ammo for fighting the rise of feminist movements. Go on her AEI playlist (the "Factual" Feminist). All of her work is designed to denigrate feminist concepts in the most pseudoacademic way possible. All of her so-called escapades into rationality are motivated by pure partisanship. She's not a feminist, never was a feminist, never will be. This entire RationalWiki article is designed to show that. That's why I made all those edits. Hawaiianred (talk)
The point is to show that even when she ventures into stopped clock territory, it's not genuine in the slightest. When her actions are that dubious and quick to change at the drop of a hat, it only underscores all the earlier complaints levied against her. Furthermore, if we can't judge what is actual feminism either, that's asinine. It would render her invulnerable to criticism despite being widely known as a questionable figure of feminism, shit, why even bother having articles on feminism at all if we're randomly going to pull special pleading out of the hat? This is straight up concern trolling. James Earl Cash (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

How her association with the American Enterprise Institute influences her "feminism": You forgot to show how the A. E.I does that. You have begged the question entirely. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers works for an institution that has, in the past, taken money from foreign governments in exchange for academic legitimacy. You may call this guilt by association, but this is very common in the right-wing think-tank sphere. I could link the Powell memo, but it seems you have your head so far up your ass you can't really see truth from lie. Seriously, has CHS ever promoted feminism other than to engage in concern trolling? Has she done anything to help Middle-Eastern women other than infantilizing them in a cultural imperialist kind of way? Has she put herself on the line to promote feminism in the ME? The answer is no, she hasn't. Her entire schtick is designed to delegitimize American feminism while offering subtle justifications for American intervention in the Middle East. She's a neo con. Seriously. I'm starting to believe you're something of an anti-feminist sympathizer given your utter lack of knowledge of her true motives. She's jumped on every anti-feminist bandwagon, going as far as "criticizing" #metoo with the usual "muh due process" and "muh witch hunt" that seems to play into the cop-worshipping conservative psyche. Hawaiianred (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure man! And we should treat Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as completely normal commentators, their past actions and connections to Fox News be damned. Never mind that this article is chock filled of her dubious actions, but no, let's still take her at face value.
is this guy for real. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash Yeah, person, real. Get an administrator to agree with you or stop reverting other edits. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Buddy, you're the guy removing relevant edits to begin with. The two of us have provided evidence as to why it should stay, but no, you're gonna be stubborn anyway, even in the goddamn talk page. Stop trolling around (again) Ariel. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not your buddy. I'm an administrator here. Get an administrator to agree with you, because I don't.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You're an obnoxious sysop that lost his shit over the section about Laci Green being red pilled and pre-emptively blocked me without warning or explanation when I was reverting your baseless claims that there were no citations, to the point that another user immediately took you to task for it. Then Love and even Fuzzy had to weigh on the article in question because of your dicking around. And now you're adding the same euphemisms and wishy-washiness to this article in the name of "balance" despite the enormous weight of the claims presented here. This article still has room for improvement but not with meaningless platitudes like, "Some say," and speculation like, "perhaps it's because..." You ain't the head honcho here so quit acting like it. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be serious. You do a shitload of begging questions and very little work. I told you to get an administrator to agree with you. That's not too hard if you were being rational. I don't want to fight about it with a sane person.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

So you've admitted to actually lording your admin powers over the article despite there being waves of evidence to support the section which started this spat to begin with. Fuck me, you're actually going to write off how a right wing movement like Gamergate supports her when she does something they like and quickly turns on her when she does something as banal as stick up for Michelle Fields? Ditch your euphemisms and speculation. It has no place in an article like this where everything else written about her justifies its presence. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe some reference to gamergate is appropriate. The old version didn't mention what they liked. How do you poll #Gamergate to find out what they like? Moreover, why does it matter? They like oxygen? No? Maybe a beer now and then? The implicit association is specious by itself.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I'd say Gamergate's reaction is appropriate when even just supporting a woman from being abused by a guy gets such a harsh reaction from right wingers she's supported in the past. The rest of the section speaks for itself. Seriously, the only reason Hawaiianred added the AEI to the headline because you were being so deliberately obtuse about how sketchy her connection to real feminism is and her ulterior motives whenever she does something "good." James Earl Cash (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. You want it the way it was because that's what you want. That's about it then?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it do you? Doesn't it strike you as completely abnormal that a movement who literally worshiped the ground she walked on immediately does an about-face when she "supports" Michelle Fields? Doesn't it strike you as odd that a woman who devoted her entire career to delegitimizing the cause of sexual assault victims like Fields only supports her when there's a very clear political motive? She's delegitimized the feminist concept of toxic masculinity, only to then use the concept in some form (calling it "amoral masculininty") when discussing Donald Trump. It seems to elude you, but CHS' entire schtick is to frame anti-feminist discussion in a way that appeals to right-wingers. They glorify masculinity, so she strawmans feminist criticisms of it. They believe there's no such thing as discrimination, so she promotes neurosexist bigotry about women in STEM fields. Do you not see a pattern here? Watch her entire slew of AEI "Factual Feminist" videos. Then again, I don't think you're knowledgeable enough about social justice theory given James Earl Cash just showed that you wanted "balance" on an article about Laci Green despite her association with reactionary d-bags. Hawaiianred (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. I am not arguing against your point. I am arguing that you have been uncertain about the point you have been trying to make. You have made nothing like a reasoned argument supporting your hypothesis. e.g., You expect the reader to know who Fields is. You constantly beg questions. I don't mind that you have an ideology. Try and explain what you are claiming and give valid references. These articles are not dictated by specialists in social justice theory. If I read what you have written and it doesn't make sense to me, I'm supposed to question it. If you don't change my mind then I will remove it. Other sysops can have their say. I wouldn't oppose any one of them.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Quit sealioning around. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it backwards again m8. You're a sysop and you're this much of a dillweed. People are watching you do this stupid shit, you know that right? I swear, you are the next BoN. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ariel strikes me as a stereotypical both-sides-ism promoter despite the fact it is very clear which side Sommers is on. She knew she's have the trolls unleashed on her if she supported Fields, yet she did it anyway. How can she not know this if she literally supports a harassment mob? The only reason she's do this was because she's an academic whore under orders from her pimps over the AEI to try and delegitimize Trump, a character the AEI has opposed since his appearance on the Republican scene. Neoconservatives sing her songs of praise, and most of them have supported Hillary or McMullin. How can he not see this unless he's being deliberately disingenuous. Hawaiianred (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You strike me as a nice young person, full of ideological enthusiasm, and that's great. You have not proven in any way that CHS adopts the positions of her employer without hesitation, which is what seems to be your main point. I don't quite see why you would want to do so, as a nice young person, why you would want to smear a female academic as a "whore." Why not just describe what she has done and said with a little accuracy. That would be enough for me.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Personally I don't even give a shit about the AEI, as much of a sketchy outfit as it is. You were actually enough of a moron to not get the point of ulterior motives to begin with and now you're shifting the goalposts to make it about the AEI when people called you out. No wonder people here can't stand your sorry ass. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse I think this section has specious content. Do we think feminist-acts = good-deeds? I don't think doing something decent is evidence of pretending to be a feminist. Do we suppose that non-main-stream feminists are all immoral? The section is not well reasoned. Sommers is not pretending to be a main-stream feminist. It seems that anti-main-stream-feminism = anti-feminist. Can there be such a thing as conservative feminism? Every form of feminism argues that the others are wrong in some way.Ariel31459the Hypocryphal

A.E.I Section revision[edit]

"Christina Hoff Sommers' affiliation with the American Enterprise institute seems to dictate her opinions." Evidence? We could take your word for it, I guess.

"Her tendency of skeevy behavior (like identifying as a Democrat despite working for a hard-right think tan(k)) seems to confirm that." It is not Skeevy to be a member of any legitimate Party no matter who you work for.

"it's profoundly unlikely that these are being done out of the goodness of her character and are motivated by her politics." That's pure speculation. How do we know what she really thinks?

"Being part of the neoconservative intelligentsia," Why not just "conservative"? Neoconservative is a buzzword for the warhawks. I think she says the Iraq war was a mistake. Neocons don't do that.

"Moreover, her employer's stance on foreign relations might be why she seems to care about Malala. As referenced above, she makes little to no reference to Saudi Arabia's patriarchal oppression of women on her Twitter account." But she has criticized the Saudis

The last paragraph is ad hominem editorializing with no references.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything else here has been proven multiple times before because you're here to JAQ off, etc. But I just clicked on that interview link and there isn't a single mention of Saudi Arabia. Ba-dum-tish. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I put the wrong link above. It's fixed now.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay I looked at the link and it's a link to somebody else's article to begin with. Even then I wouldn't necessarily call that criticism of the Saudis, at not anything that counts in any major capacity. Feels like a token attempt to look like a feminist. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I plan on reverting the edit later on today, unless you care to fix the problems.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The only debateable "problem" is about her not criticizing the Saudis or whatever. The rest of the evidence stands to show how two faced she is though. Some of the stuff about the AEI can be removed considering it's been documented already numerous times throughout the article and is written here as to to appear speculative, but yeah, there's nothing wrong in noting how her views are two-faced. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is essentially a stopped clock section, no different from something you'd see on any other whackjob. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Two Points[edit]

First. people on the far left (Socialists, Marxists, Communists, and Left-Anarchists) all call themselves leftists. What is a rightist? Just say "the far-right". I hope this isn't too pedantic.

Second. FIRE at least seems like a principled organization. They defended the ethnic-studies professor that referred to the people that worked in the World Trade Center as "Little Eichmanns" along with PETA, and religious conservatives. At least, on their social media they decried the prohibition of the student who passed out fliers saying "Capitalism Kills" on campus. — Unsigned, by: 2600:8804:7501:1900:8c5:75c4:c66a:405e / talk

"who relented to Aziz Ansari's advances under fear that she would be attacked by him"[edit]

um...what? Since when was that the read on the issue? (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The Least Rational Feast On The Rational Wiki[edit]

WOW. This was bad. I don't think I've ever seen a more slanted, biased, poorly sourced, and factually incorrect wiki entry than this one. Let's get started on "'Rape Hysteria,'" since this seems to be the only section that at least attempts to represent her quotes.

  1. The few sentences referencing citation 23 are missing context.
  2. That's not at all what she criticized the CDC study for.
  3. The CDC has not constructively criticized that survey. In fact, data from the NCVS 1995 correlates with rape numbers in the 2000 CDC study cited.
  4. The BJS has stated that approximately 1 in 53 college women, not 1 in 40, will be sexually assaulted.
  5. She links to another Time article by Cathy Young[20] (which in turn links off to its own sources) to prove that rape surveys are biased. Young can't prove it Well no shit, there are about a billion out there. Now, I can explain in more detail later why the Campus Sexual Assault (2007) study is unreliable and does not prove that 1 in 5 or 1 in 7 women will be victimized.
  6. Young makes the criticism that his survey got a low response rate, although "low" in this case does mean a few thousand students for whatever that's worth. Young would be right. The study had a very low overall response rate of 40 percent, much lower than other more reputable studies. Also, the "few thousand students" interviewed were literally from two colleges. Seriously. Not entirely representative.
  7. The part where Cathy Young "zeroes in" on the CSA is not backed by any sources.
  8. Good bloody lord BURN THIS WITH FIRE.

--Walle637 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Shiny Penny[edit]

I am surprised that the article did not suggest that Christina Sommers was in some way connected to "Big Oil" and "Big Tobacco" as well. Whenever someone has a different position on a subject - it now seem normal to attack every aspect of that person first - and then, if possible, attack their position. To heck with facts! The vehemence of the attack usually indicates a weak basis for the very belief they are espousing. They need to lash out at anyone who dared tarnish their "Shiny Penny". Christian Sommers did not tarnish feminism - it was already tarnished! — Unsigned, by: Donaldfromottawa / talk / contribs

Maybe hypocritical?[edit]

The article accuses her of being a "DINO" and a "feminist in name only" to which I believe that it's an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy that is pointed out everywhere on the wiki. Maybe we could try to revamp it into something else that calls her hypocritical instead of accusing her of a term we've pointed out as fallacious? - RockfordRoe (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can say they are a feminist, just like anyone can say they are a democrat. Both terms are indefinite enough to make debating the associated claims no more than a quibble. Some people like that kind of argument. I don't see the point of it. I guess there are conservative feminists. Certainly radical feminists are unlike most and still are considered to be feminists.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ikanreed's "You're abusing that fucking fallacy" corner[edit]

Today's discussion: No True Scotsman.

No true Scotsman is a fallacy used to justify assertions of universal truth in the face of counter-examples. You say all "x are y", but I say "z is x, z is not y", and you say "well z is not actually x" it's post hoc rationalization, and your universal truth isn't so universal.

To say that a person takes on a label for themselves, but don't really match with the goals, beliefs, or qualities of that label, is, rather than a defense of a universal statement disproved by counter-argument, an accusation of dishonesty about the person. This can be done in the service of a No True Scotsman fallacy. We could be saying "No feminists are misogynists" and excluding this misogynist ass from the label to help justify that to ourselves. But the actual words, as written in this article, make no such universal arguments.

The lesson of "You're abusing that fucking fallacy" corner is that, when calling out fallacies, you should remember that fallacies are invalid deductions. Conclusions that you can't draw reasonably from the evidence and logic at hand. So please, spare us a strawman, and use fallacies in the correct context. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Inconsistency is not fallacious. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)