Short Random Musings About Christina Hoff Sommers

Why would anybody want to talk to Christina Hoff Sommers about anything? Moreover, why would a feminist blogger want to do that? Even more than that, why would anybody refer to her as a “scholar”? I mean, I understand the value of a debate but you need at least a marginally rational opponent to engage in a dialogue. And rational Sommers is not.

I’ve read two books by this person (this one and this one), from start to finish, so I’m not judging her based on rumors. When I was reading the books, the question that was foremost on my mind was, “How come this person is not being taken care of in a mental institution and is allowed to roam free?” I’d be scared to be in one room with her because people who suffer from such intense delusions are unpredictable.

 

19 thoughts on “Short Random Musings About Christina Hoff Sommers”

  1. I don’t mind listening to reasoned arguments from other political camps, but any one who works for the American Enterprise Institute is just a paid shill, not unlike a Fox news head. They speak not their convictions but their convenience.

    Like

    1. Because she wrote at least two very crazy books. Every sentence in them had to be written by a delusional person. Alternatively, she might have been writing in the fantasy genre and I misunderstood.

      Like

    1. And now let me, an Amazon fanatic and one of the top reviewers, explain how the review system works. 🙂 In order to leave a negative review to a book by a persona with a huge political following, you need to prepare for your rating to be destroyed and fanatics to eviscerate you. Since the good ratings at Amazon can translate into significant financial benefits, many people don’t risk it.

      Like

  2. I haven’t read any of her books, but I have heard excerps, and take no issue with the views that I have heard.

    Like

    1. This is just a tiny little portion of her lies and stupid statements:

      Sommers also retells the story of the English professor at Pennsylvania State University who “took offense” at Goya’s The Naked Maja, a reproduction of which was hanging in her classroom. According to Sommers, who sources only the Pottsville Republican, the professor “filed formal harassment charges” and got the painting removed. The professor, Nancy Stumhofer, says she never objected to the painting but to male students’ comments about it while she tried to teach. “I never claimed I had been sexually harassed by the painting,” Stumhofer pointed out in Democratic Culture (Spring/94). Nor were formal charges were ever filed.

      In arguing against feminist claims that wife-beating was tolerated in English common law, Sommers quotes the 18th Century legal historian William Blackstone: “The husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife….” The ellipsis conceals a Latin phrase that Sommers either didn’t bother to translate or decided to ignore. In English it reads: “other than that which lawfully and reasonably belongs to the husband for the due government and correction of his wife” (Linda Hirshman, L.A. Times op-ed,7/31/94). In other words, the complete text says the exact opposite of Sommers’ partial quotation.

      http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1246

      And the absolute best from Sommers: “There are a lot of homely women in women’s studies. Preaching these anti-male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches–they’re just mad at the beautiful girls.”

      This is, of course, coming from a woman who is heart-stoppingly ugly. If anybody is mad at the beautiful successful girls, it’s her and she just pants with impotent rage because nobody would even consider having sex with her unless huge amounts of money were involved. What a stinky, vile, stupid old hag she is.

      Like

      1. I didn’t find her “heart-stoppingly ugly.” Besides, calling her such doesn’t make you appear any more lucid. You did better when you cited the flaws in her book.

        I have read “Who Stole Feminism?” and have not found the vitriol you describe, nor the preponderance of flasehood you imply. The book is a catalog of aggregiously disturbing behavior of “gender feminists” [Sommers label] mostly on college campuses. It is not particularly scholarly since it focuses primarily on anecdotal evidence. That flaw, alone, makes the book less worthwhile than a more rigorous study.

        To address your citations: Sommers book does discuss the historic right of men to chastise their wives – by beatings if necessary – while discussing the Woman’s Rights Convention held in Seneca Falls, New York, back in 1848. Also, your refutation of one anecdote (the Goya work) is a weak response to a weighty litany of anecdotes. Still, we’re merely discussing anecdotes.

        “Who Stole Feminism” has even less philisophical argument than John Norman’s fictional “Gor” novels – also a response to feminist largesse. If you’re gonna pick an enemy, you should pick somebody who’s unintentionally established an entire subculture dedicated to the practical enslavement of women. Regardless of the quality or truth of her arguments, Sommers isn’t a worthy opponent.

        Like

        1. “I have read “Who Stole Feminism?” and have not found the vitriol you describe, nor the preponderance of flasehood you imply. The book is a catalog of aggregiously disturbing behavior of “gender feminists” [Sommers label] mostly on college campuses.”

          – And on which campuses have you observed anything like what she is describing? Because I worked at 4 very different schools in North America and know for a fact that everything she is describing is a figment of her diseased imagination.

          “Also, your refutation of one anecdote (the Goya work) is a weak response to a weighty litany of anecdotes. ”

          – I can tell you a litany of anecdotes about how pink giraffes are overrunning American campuses. Will you take them seriously?

          Like

      2. ‘The husband … by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children…for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife [other than as lawfully and reasonably pertains to the husband for the rule and correction of his wife]. … But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-1685], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband’…’Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehaviour.’

        Like

  3. bloggerclarissa :
    “I have read “Who Stole Feminism?” and have not found the vitriol you describe, nor the preponderance of flasehood you imply. The book is a catalog of aggregiously disturbing behavior of “gender feminists” [Sommers label] mostly on college campuses.”
    – And on which campuses have you observed anything like what she is describing? Because I worked at 4 very different schools in North America and know for a fact that everything she is describing is a figment of her diseased imagination.

    Northwesten University, Evanston, Illinois, 1989. As an undergraduate, during “freshman orientation week” I attended a presentation whose subject was the preponderance of female stereotypring in mass media, especially advertising. The presentation used primarily cosmetics ads, weight-loss ads, and “feminine-product” ads similar advertising to advance the position that women were being objectified. What I found curious at the time – and still do – is the failrure to recognize that the ads were aimed at women and that male preference wasn’t a factor in the effectiveness of the advertising. Even in my silence as the ONE man in attendance, there seemed to be a resistance to sharing personal stories when these were requested – an issue about which the presenter communicated she was upset.

    “Take Back the Night” was observed while I was on campus – perhaps they started it while I was there. It was not a “gender inclusive” event while I was on campus, although I think the University is better about inclusivity these days.

    The term “walk of shame” may have origin at Northwestern. The campus is divided into a north and south campus where the fraternities and sororities are located. Originally part of an effort at segregating the students, it instead generated the necessity that women attending late-night parties at fraternities would then walk 20 minutes south the next morning in the previous night’s clothing. This has become “unacceptable” terminology on campus, despite the fact that it’s use originated with women, not with men (who would be all to happy to stay the night at a sorority house).

    I’ve got more, but as you’ve already established, they’re just pink giraffes and should not be taken seriously.

    Like

    1. What do these anecdotes you just share suggest to you? Surely, not that ugly, angry feminists rule American campuses?

      To me, they suggest that campuses are a place for discussions, debate and political activism. I see no ugly, resentful women’s studies departments scheming to oppress male students in any of these stories.

      As for the presentation, you describe, anybody should be allowed to present on the topic of their interest and using the methodology of their choosing. Then, everybody else should be free to respond with their own research. What’s so scary or weird in these normal working of a university? Even if the presentation was crap, so what? I have attended tons of crappy talks in my field and somehow don’t feel oppressed by that.

      As for the march, it only makes sense to discuss it if you proposed to organize a gender-inclusive march of your own and were denied permission. Otherwise, I don’t see a problem. Sororities and fraternities are not gender inclusive. Is anybody bothered by that?

      Like

        1. It’s a strange person, indeed, who, in this day and age, would still defend the vile, corrupt and stupid Larry Summers. Have you been following the news, buddy? Are you aware what Summers has done to the economy of this country?

          Like

  4. Here’s a good article refuting Hoff-Sommers’ complaints on how feminists ignore unfairness against boys in the classroom:

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/sommers2.html

    A good quote:

    Sommers accuses the AAUW of failing to publish data that show that students perceive that teachers favor girls over boys. Yet, in reporting this data herself, she cites an AAUW publication (124)! Although she falsely labels the data “unpublished,” what she really means is that the AAUW did not report this data in their executive summary of their published study.

    In fact, the study Hoff-Sommers was complaining about did mention instances in which boys were disadvantaged (for example, the study “warns that boys may be misplaced and stigmatized in special education programs because their behavioral problems are misdiagnosed as learning disabilities”), but if she admitted that, she’d have nothing to complain about.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.