Christina Hoff Sommers

If you are a tat naïve, you would believe that feminism is only about the campaigning battles for women to have the same rights (and responsibilities!) as men. Well: wake up!

I first read this in 2022 (that is, nearly three decades after it was first published) and, oh boy! What a big warning to us all that was... and which wasn't heeded. Contemporary feminism indeed has nothing, but, really, NOTHING, to do with its historical ideological roots. It's no longer about a fight for equity. It's show more about pitting women against men, by relying on bogus politico-social models, framing us all as some sorts of unified blocks and demographics, with women being 'oppressed' and 'marginalised' by male supremacists (me, and, if you're a man reading this, you -yes, *you*!) solidly battling to ensure that the patriarchy remains. Is that male bashing jeremiads and populist bollocks? You bet! And yet, as the saying goes: 'if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.' Well, eh hi, eh ho, Christina Hoff Sommers was paying attention... As far back as 1994!

She here denounces this new wave of feminism, firmly rooted in radical ideas of the 1970s, and, offshoots of neo-Marxist thinking applied to gender dynamics. She doesn't, though, calls them 'radical feminists', but, 'gender feminists' instead:

'The gender feminists... believe that all our institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, perpetuate male dominance.'

Now, of course, one can laugh out loud at this idea that women in the Western world (especially White women) are 'oppressed'. One can laugh out loud at the idea that women had absolutely no responsibility whatsoever in co-creating the patriarchy (then as now). And, one can laugh out loud at the idea that victimising women will contribute in any way to empower them, instead of, well, creating whole generations of self-centred and hypersensitive 'victims', indulging in 'booh-wooh-wooh'. The joke, though, would be on you...

This is not funny, and for a very simple reason: how on earth can such ideologues portray women as 'oppressed', and men as their oppressors, when the reality reflects everything but (not that sexism doesn't exist -it does!- but, to claim that we are living in a patriarchy is as ridiculous as to claim that we are living in a gynocracy -for, yes, there are arguments to be made for that one too...). Well, quite simply: fake it.

What is striking with this book is not only the time the author takes (painstakingly) in debunking false statistics, piling up upon false statistics, and more false statistics (from the supposed 'gender' pay gap to domestic violence and the 'casualties' of the beauty industry); false statistics which, nevertheless, have been peddled by idiotic mediatic outlets more concerned about selling sensationalist headlines than facts (the issues with what has been dubbed 'churnalism' have been outlined enough elsewhere...). What is striking is how such ideologues managed to control the academic fields, in universities especially (where their postmodern disregard for the scientific method makes for a chilling exposé...) and, from there on, disseminate their ideas all over the cultural landscape (medias, politics, gender activism). Women, truly have betrayed women; for, let's not kid ourselves: this is not about men and how men are being perceived in this scaremongering misandrist worldview but, about women themselves, and how, by exposing how they are being lied to, they are being everything but 'empowered'.

No doubt, this book will be dismissed by the male bashing activist who believes that, somehow, she is 'oppressed' by a misogynistic society (and, spoiler alert: the chances for her to be a White middle or upper class 'bourgeoise' are very high indeed...). If you care about science and the scientific method, though, let alone are concerned about how radical populists can easily hijack from academia to the medias and, therefore, the 'official' narrative, then this an absolute must-read.

Eye-opening. show less

Nothing much new here, but it never hurts to focus some light on the rather glaring, obvious problems of our culture.

I earned a degree in Psychology back in the day and I recognized a very absurd trend going on. It's called being a one-trick-pony. Most of the serious practitioners of psychology realize that no single situation or psychological issue can be solved with a single tool. To do so, or think so, is beyond stupid. Situations change and people differ. Not only do they differ, but any show more single person might need a wide range of tools used at different times -- or even NO TOOLS AT ALL.

Self-reliance, resiliency, and adaptability must be sought after, brought about on a patient's own terms. It is not something that can be forced on anyone. It's not an externality.

This book, however, highlights the amazing absurdity of the notion that we're all sniveling brats and we're all broken people. If we go by real numbers, real PTSD in the population very small. Having some temporary issues one way or another is NOT PTSD. Just like having clinical depression over years is not the same thing as having a week of the blues.

There's a great analogy in the practice of the Law. It's called leading the witness. If you come at people with an assumption that they MUST have PTSD, you're providing the person with a narrative that they will try to shoehorn themselves into. If left alone, that person may never have ever SEEN themselves as a trauma victim.

And yet, over the years, we see more and more therapy-isms creeping in, everywhere we look. Are you depressed? Are you traumatized? How do you know? Come get therapy! Come on, you KNOW you're all messed up, right? COME GET THERAPY.

Does this sound like a sales pitch to you? Like there are a lot of snake-oil salesmen (and women) masquerading as legitimate therapists trying to convince YOU that you NEED therapy so they can make some money? Justify their own jobs? Justify the huge huge numbers of specialized PTSD therapists that are funded by well-meaning but thoroughly duped government agencies who now believe that the WHOLE FREAKING SOCIETY is on the verge of mental collapse?

Hmmm. Maybe it is just that. A trend not supported by real numbers. Just like the pharmaceutical industry that pumps out and encourages the total drugging-up of our children based on massive overdiagnosis of Hyperactivity or Depression. It boils down to one maxim: follow the money. Who is profiting most? Then look at the people who insist that the problem is pervasive.

Then ask people candidly if they're really having a problem or if they're following a narrative. Most people don't want to dwell on the bad things. A little repression is actually very, very good. That's why we forget about our last flu. Or about the real pain during childbirth. Or that time we passed a stone.

Do you REALLY want to relive that experience? Over and over and over? If you do, then hell... that's sick. It's better to forget.

And yet, enabling this therapism provides us with exactly this same effect. It helps us relive the trauma over and over and over. Some people do need this kind of psychological toolset. I'll never say otherwise. But it is a single tool usually only used ONCE when unconscious effects are preventing someone from functioning in real life. When it comes to light, it should not be dwelled upon. It should be understood and boxed away. Send it to the same place where you sent the memory of your kidney stone.

Otherwise, you'll keep it fresh. Who wants to keep their trauma fresh, anyway?

We are strong. We are all as strong as we want to be. Don't enable weakness if you have a choice. Be resilient. :) show less

It's always an eye-opener when a really good look at statistics shows some glaring errors in widely held assumptions. It's even more of an eye opener to realize that some of your own carefully held assumptions are wrong.

This book, published in 2001, seems kind of political and reactionary, but that is only the fault of the title. The contents are much more revealing.

Feminism is political. This should not be surprising. We see it everywhere. Some a***holes take it way too far. What we have in show more America's school systems (and probably quite a few other places as well) is a climate where we are told that girls are being held back by the patriarchy, that their voices are not being heard, and that all boys should be more like girls.

No joke. I was in the school system when this was really getting started. I bought into it, myself. Even thought of myself as a feminist. Yes. I'm a white male feminist. Or, at least, I thought I should have been. I kept trying to be more feeling and thoughtful and in touch with my feelings. I valued cooperation over competition. I felt bad because I was a boy. Boys are violent. Boys are rapists. Boys the embodiment of the patriarchy that has done so much to transparently ruin women.

I was indoctrinated. And I bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

So what do I learn here? I went through college and got a degree in Psychology and English Literature in the mid 90's and learned a lot about education. The big keys were inclusion and tolerance and above all, making sure that women have all the benefits that had been taken from them in the past. I thought I approved of this.

I also found myself not being heard. I, as a male, surrounded by hundreds of academic studies revolving around a certain Carol Gilligan, then a superstar of feminist studies and the leader of the movement to change all our schools into this bright feminist ideal, was quoted everywhere. I didn't bat an eyelash. I studied more feminists and wanted to see more equality between the sexes. I got upset with every revelation of rape, abuse, and wage differential.

So, after all this time, thinking that it's only individual bad apples who like to say things like "murder all men", I held to my beliefs anyway.

So what do I believe after realizing that Carol Gilligan had fudged research data, hid sources, and used a very limited several thousand student sample in her study? Remember, she was the foundation of hundreds of similar papers and books that became the forefront of a full politicized movement. A movement that transformed almost every school in the nation based on faulty data.

A later study using a hundred thousand samples show a very different picture, and yet the weight of the political movement could not be stopped.

What did it report?

Little things like girls are twice as likely to be heard in class. That boys are much more likely to give up an not take tests like the SAT or the ACT, leaving only the very confident to take the tests, whereas girls almost always take them. That girls are more confident and self-reported happy in schools than boys.

And it didn't stop there. I went to many many in-school campaigns brought up in this book. Campaigns with a clear agenda where I was told about date rape, bullying (that was always bent toward unwanted sexual advances to girls), talking about my feelings, being inclusive, and never, ever, ever violent.

Remember, this is 2001 when the book came out. We were already seeing a whole generation of boys be told to be just like girls. That we should all be ashamed of what and who we are regardless of what we may or may not have ever done. I knew a lot of them that took it to heart like I did. Who bought the indoctrination.

Of course, after about 12 years of this, we get a complete eroding of value systems and a complete blindfolding of the educational system as to what BOYS ARE. They respond very differently to teaching techniques as compared to girls. It's NOT all learned. They're rambunctious. They do need strict limits and precise indoctrination into values. They respond to active play much stronger than girls, learn from scuffles and a lot of competition AND form very strong and beneficial ties with other boys through it. This is real. And yet the system is devoted to wiping out all the things that most boys are, naturally.

I'm speaking in general terms and ignoring outliers.

And it's getting worse. It's an ideology that ignores basic reality.

You know what opened my eyes back in the day? Fight Club. For how amazingly F***ed-up it was, it absolutely spoke to me on many other levels. It was the repudiation of all the indoctrination I had gone through.

I still don't want to hurt anyone. I still believe in equality. But by the actual numbers and the harmful teaching practices and the direction all this is taking us, I now fully agree with the conclusion.

Boys (and of course, men) are well on the way to becoming the "second sex". Just look at some of the stats in this book already and you'll see. College grads make more money, but 38% of men go in while 51% of women do. That margin has probably increased in the near 20 years since this book was published.

I'd love to see how many men are severely depressed or have gone through long periods of depression, listlessness, and despair after going through the school system. I know I did. I also improved a TON after getting into college. I was surrounded by a much healthier atmosphere.

I bought into the lies. I didn't realize I was being downgraded just because I was male. I wonder if a lot of this is the direct cause of some men's backlash. Anger, turned to violence, after having so many of their natural play and learning impulses quashed, being told that they were all rapists in training, that most of our natural desires were not to be channeled into appropriate directions, but told that they were simply and baldly BAD.

Of course, I'm not saying that we're all unaccountable to our own actions. Of course we are. But I'll admit that I am rather angry that I have not had any positive male role models.

I was brought up to be a girl. I love women. I thought that was okay.

It's just a shame... this dog was taught to use the kitty-litter box and meow for affection. show less

"Why are certain feminists so eager to put men in a bad light"? This is one of the first questions asked by Christina Hoff Sommers, philosophy professor & equity-feminist (as she calls herself) in the preface of the book "Who stole feminism?". Sommers makes many interesting points in her book, mainly that gender-feminists are different from equity-feminists: the latter are more mainstream, don't hate men, believe women have come a long way, & oppose the "male hegemony" talk that show more gender-feminists believe in.

So far, so good....Sommers continues by putting in the spotlight certain studies & reports, all produced by gender-feminists, & proves (or attempts to prove) their fallacy. Good examples of biased studies are the March of Dimes study, the "women self-esteem" study, the depression study & some others, which all prove to have fatal flaws in their reasoning. One valid point that Sommers makes is that radical feminism is a little bit like religion- it tends to accept no criticism, & it tends to see all things through a specific, coloured lense. This is the lense through science itself is seen, as is literature, & even art (which thrives, necessarily, through freedom of expression & cannot & should not be stifled, whatever the reason).

Sommers mentions linguistic reform (a funny example is the ludicrous word "ovular" in place of "seminar"), women's studies classes, & - most importantly- the dangerous idea that western civilization itself, & scientific thinking has something inherently "masculine" about it, whereas "feminine" thinking is "emotional" & "connected". What certain gender-feminists propose, in a word, is that there is a "female way of knowing" which seems dangerously close to phallocentric beliefs: "women think differently, are made for different roles, so they should stay home & raise the kids" etc. So, Christina Hoff Sommers has a point: every social movement has to be able to take criticism, both from within & (most importantly) from outside. On the other hand, Sommers mostly mentions only extreme cases of gender-feminism, & I'm sure there are voices of dissent within the feminist movement, which she fails to aknowledge (except in cases such as Camille Paglia's opinions, which are hardly orthodox feminist opinions).

My major complaint with the book is this: at some point, Sommers mentions how Susan Faludi (a good example of her own definition of gender-feminim) has "painted herself into a position that allows no room for criticism". But how guilty is Sommers of the same sin? Her whole book is full of evidence of one, & only one central thesis. Yes, she says she's a feminist, but she never talks about real problems of real women: she mostly points out how far women have come. It's not enough to just mention that equity feminists have different, more mainstream opinions. She should be able to point out how equity feminists go about achieving change, what their activities & plans are when it comes to fighting for even more equality for women. Unfortunately, Sommers never really gets into this issue.

Also, parts of her own statistics & arguments are flawed, as flawed as some of the gender-feminists' reasoning. For example, she mentions "probably 100 women dying from anorexia a year in the US" (as opposed to the much higher numbers that Naomi Wolf had cited in the Beauty Myth- numbers that she later admitted were wrong): 100 women is definitely not the correct number either though, since most women who die of anorexia complications have a different etiology in their death certificates. So, sadly, Sommers also "overlooks evidence that does not fit her puzzle", as she accuses most gender-feminists of doing.

"Who stole feminism" is a well-written, well-researched book, which, yes, has a political goal, & no, does not present the whole picture. I refuse to accept that gender-feminists (as Sommers calls them) have black & white ways of thinking, as I also refuse to accept that the same is true for any group of people. I'm sure there are different ways of thinking within the feminist movement, & I'm also sure that there must also be extreme, radical feminists who tend to alienate maistream women: but these radical feminists do not represent today's women's movement, as Sommers seems to imply, nor do they have nearly as much power as she shows them to. The book is interesting but in parts exaggerated, probably to prove a point & to leave no room for doubt. Sadly, this is exactly what the author accuses the gender-feminists of doing, & she falls into the same trap herself. show less