Dear Readers,
As a conservative feminist, I am often invited by members of the Federalist Society to speak at their law schools and take part in debates. Bridget Crawford, a moderator of the Feminist Law Professor blog, has kindly offered me the opportunity to post one of my lectures.
I will also take this occasion, once again, to correct a false allegation that was made about me. On September 2, 2008 an entry on this blog mentioned that I had once called women’s studies professors “homely.” I never said any such thing. Fifteen year ago, an Esquire magazine writer misquoted me, made it up or confused me with someone else. When Washington Post writer Meg Rosenfeld did a profile of me in 1994, she asked the writer about the quote. He said his notes had gone missing (Washington Post, 7/7/1994.) The fact is: they never existed. No matter how many letters I write correcting the fabrication, it seems never to go away. I don’t mind being criticized for things I truly say and believe, so I welcome reactions to the lecture pasted below.
I hope you find merit in the lecture. In general, it elicits a good reaction from feminist students and professors. This past November I had a productive and civil debate with a feminist law professor at Penn State. On the other hand, when I spoke at Hamilton College two weeks later, a young woman fled the room close to tears and called me the “most disgusting person” she had ever met in her life. I sincerely hope you react more like the Penn State professor than the Hamilton undergraduate. My general outlook on feminism is always evolving, so I will take any criticism or advice you offer to heart.
Sincerely,
Christina Hoff Sommers
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
What’s Wrong and What’s Right with Contemporary Feminism?
Lecture by Christina Hoff Sommers*
For the past two decades I have devoted myself to studying the influence of feminism on American culture-—with a special focus on campus feminism. In the next 35-40 minutes I’ll give you the best information I have on this topic.But, of course, information is never the whole story; I have a point of view and you’ll hear about that as well.
This evening I will be arguing that contemporary feminism has taken a wrong turn. In my view, the noble cause of women’s emancipation is being damaged in at least three ways by the contemporary women’s movement. [1] First, today’s movement takes a very dim view of men; second, it wildly overstates the victim status of American women; and third, it is dogmatically attached to the view that men and women are essentially the same. In the time I have with you, I will try to explain and justify these criticisms, and conclude by offering what I think is a reasonable and humane alternative to current feminism. I will also extend an olive branch to the feminists I criticize. But first a few words about my background.
Before the early 1990s I was a feminist academic in good standing. I was invited to feminist conferences and asked to review papers for a feminist philosophy journal. My courses at Clark University were cross-listed with Women’s Studies. That all changed in 1994 when I published a book entitled Who Stole Feminism? The book was strongly feminist, but it rejected the idea that American women were oppressed. For the most part, feminism had succeeded, I said. By the nineties, I argued, American women were among the freest and most liberated in the world. It was no longer reasonable to say that as a group women were far worse off than men. Yes, there were still inequities, but to speak of American society as a “patriarchy” or to refer to American women as second class citizens was frankly absurd.
In the book, I showed how feminism was being hijacked by gender war eccentrics in the universities. And when I say eccentric I mean it. To give one quick example, one of my colleagues in feminist philosophy referred to her seminars as “ovulars.” [2] She rejected the masculinist “seminar” because the root of that word is associated with, well, the very essence of male power. It is actually very funny when you think about it. But this woman was not kidding.
When Who Stole Feminism? was first published, some prominent feminists actually agreed with what I had to say: I even received some fan mail –- but not much. For the most part, the feminist establishment was outraged. I was quickly subjected to a colorful attack for my heresies. Many feminist leaders and writers remain convinced that the United States is an oppressive patriarchy. They did not appreciate my plea for moderation. Some called me a backlasher, a traitor to my gender, anti-woman. One angry critic referred to Margaret Thatcher and me as “those two female impersonators.”
Just as an aside, I should tell you that all of this notoriety has not been easy for my parents — who are veryliberal and dismayed to find their daughter reviled by people they admire — like the feminist leader Gloria Steinem–or, much worse, admired by people they regard as diabolical. (My father was driving along a country road in Vermont when he heard conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh praise something I had written. He almost smashed into a snow bank.) But of course, whatever their reservations, my parents remain loyal fans. When a columnist from Playboy magazine interviewed me, my father was eager to get hold of that issue. The problem was how do you buy a copy of Playboy when you are an old-fashioned gentleman, living in a small Vermont town where everyone knows you.
He solved the problem by quietly crossing the border into Keene, New Hampshire where no one knew him. He was still more than a little embarrassed: feeling the need to explain himself to the sales clerk he told her, “It’s OK, I’m only buying this because my daughter’s in it.”
Well, anyway — I am not a backlasher, a traitor, anti-woman or a female impersonator. What I am is a philosophy professor with a respect for logic, clear thinking, rules of evidence and –- I hope –- a strong sense of fairness. In fact, I think it’s my bias toward logic, reason, and fairness that has put me at odds with the feminist establishment.
I am not here to urge you to reject old-fashioned classical feminism of the sort that won women the vote, educational opportunity and many other freedoms. I am a passionate supporter of that style of feminism, which I call equity feminism. An equity feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone—-fair treatment, respect, and dignity. Equity feminism promotes harmony and good will between the sexes and it can lead to a much saner, happier and more ethical world.
[lecture continued here]
In response to one of my blog posts, Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute commented with a correction. We subsequently corresponded by email. I am delighted that she has taken me up on the invitation to do a guest post her at Feminist Law Profs.
As I tell my students, I sincerely believe that some of our greatest opportunities for learning come when we engage in reasoned discourse with people whose viewpoints are different from our own. I agree with some of Professor Sommers’ ideas; I disagree (sometimes strongly) with others. But I welcome and appreciate the contributions she makes to the ongoing conversation about the significance, implications and future of feminism.
Here are my three immediate thoughts. First, to the extent Professor Sommers is pointing out factual inaccuracies in the literature, I agree with her that that’s an important thing to do. No one benefits from myths being propogated. I’m still always concerned though that anecdote is mistaken for data, so I am skeptical (although willing to be convinced) that this is a widespread problem.
Second, I strongly contest her theories about feminist hatred of men. For the past two decades, I’ve now been a very outspoken feminist man on three very different university campuses, within one prominent feminist legal advocacy group, and as a frequent blogger on this blog. With the advocacy group I worked for for 7 years, I worked with many other feminist legal advocacy groups. In none of these settings was I ever once treated in any way that made me feel that the (mostly all, but not exclusively so) women hated me or men generally. They (as do I) hate men who do bad things to women (and other men). But, there is no general hatred of men. Sommers’ claims to the contrary are just wrong. In fact, I often found (and still find) myself in a position I didn’t want to be in — being praised for my feminist work because of the work but also because I was a man. I appreciate the first part of that but feel like the second part is wrong-headed and unnecessary.
Third, there are certainly differences between men and women. But, those differences are often overblown by people who state them almost as categorical rather than what they often are: for a given characteristic that people say there is a difference for, given a room of 100 men and 100 women, you’ll probably find 52 women and 48 men with one disposition and 48 women and 52 men with the other. Sure, that’s a difference, but is it a difference you want to base any kind of policy judgment on? Sommers cites a 1998 compilation of scientific studies on difference. I suggest she look at this 2005 meta-analysis from Janet Shibley Hyde coming to the opposite conclusion. To the extent that Sommers’ claims are based on fact, she’d be well-served including Hyde’s more up-to-date research in her analysis.
I got to the sentence that says:
In fact, I think it’s my bias toward logic, reason, and fairness that has put me at odds with the feminist establishment.
And I decided to stop reading. Maybe she didn’t call Women’s Studies Professors “homely” but I can certainly see why people might assume she had.
Bridget–thanks for posting this. I read the speech all the way through. My question for Prof. Sommers is this: since you say that you “Well, I don’t actually deny” that “women in the United States continue to a face serious sexist discrimination,” what do you think the goals of U.S. feminism should be? I agree with you that on balance, American women are better off than their counterparts in many places around the world. Since you say that things aren’t yet perfect for women even in “equity feminist” terms, what is the unfinished business of feminism here in the U.S.?
I would say that the problems Prof. Sommers cites in the law textbook on domestic violence are a problem of peer review, not inherent problems in the scholarship on domestic violence. (I have to say that historical citation to the “rule of thumb” had me rolling my eyes–but so what? It’s tangential to the actual subject of the book. I certainly wouldn’t toss something like that in my scholarship, but then, I don’t write textbooks, which are written for more general audiences.) I think perhaps the essentially interdisciplinary nature of domestic violence law may also be the caue of some of these groaners. I haven’t read this book, but I’m guessing that the author uses information and ideas from history, sociology, criminology, medicine, and the law–and perhaps lots of others I’ve left out. Errors should be corrected–I’m sure the author of the text would be grateful to have them pointed out to her so that she can verify and/or correct the misinformation.
Ditto to David and Ann. And it’s interesting at the end (unfortunately I, unlike Ann, persevered), when a gentle interlocutor asks Sommers if she has anything good to say about any feminist, she mentions Eve Ensler’s and Catharine MacKinnon’s offshore projects. More of the rightwing meme that American feminists are hypocrites for not attacking the Taliban enough.
Sommers also intones that men are better at the usual stereotypically assigned tasks (spatial perception, math, etc.) while women are better at verbal tasks. Even if this dichotomy is correct, we’re left waiting for her to explain why women don’t control publishing and most branches of the academy, including law schools, the way men control the manufacturing sector and science/engineering in academe.
Women don’t want power and success enough to try for them, you say, Dr. Sommers? Well then, careerism and brute shoving have pushed out that innate “verbal” superiority. You’d think she’d mind.
Dear Ms. Sommers,
I am a second-year evening law student. During the day, I teach young women at an inner-city high school in New York. I have been teaching for fifteen years and was for five years a grade school prinicpal in this same community. I witness first-hand the oppression and exploitation that young women experience. Their narratives are real;and each young woman’s story is proof that gender inequality is ever present in our society. May I suggest that you simply scroll down on this blog to a documentary posted earlier. It is entitled, “Black Woman Walking.” I suggest that this documentary could have taken place in many parts of the United States.
You seem to take issue with the concept of equality of outcome. Yet isn’t that the measure of equality of opportunity. Aren’t the two integrally related?
Finally, you mention that you speak on behalf of the Federalist Society. This in itself makes me question your professed goals of equality for women. As a law student, I have found the statements and beliefs of this group to be inimical to values of equality and fairness. As you have done in your posted speech, Ms. Sommers, the tenured law professor at my school who represents the Federalist Society speaks in over-broad and dishonest generalizations. As you have done with Eve Ensler, this professor too has appropriated and misused the writings of scholars such as Robin West and Regina Austin to support his skewed views. Few things are more intellectually dishonest than that.
Sincerely,
Barbara Burke
I also got to “In fact, I think it’s my bias toward logic, reason, and fairness that has put me at odds with the feminist establishment” and rolled my eyes. But I did finish the article.
Near the end, Sommers urges all feminists to work together to help women who have it worse in other countries. It would be amazing if that could happen, and civil conversations only help. Yet, I disagree that the onus is only on liberal feminists to “make room for” “moderate and conservative” feminists in this collaboration. I think it has to work both ways.
For instance, I can acknowledge that Sommers makes some good points that should be addressed, especially with respect to correcting errors in textbooks. Yet, “moderate and conservative” feminists also have some work to do if we’re going to be able to collaborate. To be general here, moderate and conservative feminists are pretty good at perpetuating misinformation about what mainstream feminism is. I commend Sommers for being one of the more civil, yet some of her criticisms of feminism are nothing more than ridicule (the “seminar”/”uvular” example), inaccurate representations (eg- feminists hate men), and uptightness about graphic sexual descriptions (in Vagina Monologues). These critiques are subjective and just aren’t really legitimate.
[...] few days ago Christina Hoff Sommers guest posted a lecture here, and referred to “a productive and civil debate with a feminist law professor at Penn [...]
[...] under: Christina Hoff Sommers — Tags: christina hoff sommers — Ampersand @ 11:45 pm Feminist Law Professors has posted the text of a lecture by Christina Hoff Sommers, entitled “What’s Wrong and What’s Right [...]
[...] instead of Seminars? Posted by Ampersand | January 12th, 2009 | Crossposted from Blog By Barry Feminist Law Professors has posted the text of a lecture by Christina Hoff Sommers, entitled “What’s Wrong and What’s Right [...]
[...] the flames of my undying fascination with conservative feminists, Christina Hoff Sommers has posted a lecture on the Feminist Law Professors Blog. I’m reading it now, will update later with thoughts. [...]
[...] Ampersand @ 12:53 am Self-described “conservative feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers delivered a speech outlining her primary objects to contemporary feminism. Item one: “Today’s movement [...]
[...] from Blog By Barry Self-described “conservative feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers delivered a speech outlining her primary objects to contemporary feminism. Item one: “Today’s movement [...]
[...] In a speech, self-described “conservative feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers said: Let me turn to my second major objection to contemporary feminism: its reckless disregard for the truth. In doing research for my books, I looked carefully at some standard feminist claims about women and violence, depression, eating disorders, pay equity and education. What I found is that most –- not all —- but most of the victim statistics are, at best, misleading –- at worst, completely inaccurate. [...] [...]
[...] In a speech, self-described “conservative feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers said: Let me turn to my second major objection to contemporary feminism: its reckless disregard for the truth. In doing research for my books, I looked carefully at some standard feminist claims about women and violence, depression, eating disorders, pay equity and education. What I found is that most –- not all —- but most of the victim statistics are, at best, misleading –- at worst, completely inaccurate. [...] [...]