College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Is the future of feminism conservative?

At least one feminist author thinks so

By Nicholas Joy

|

Published: Friday, December 4, 2009

Updated: Friday, December 4, 2009

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist who believes the women’s movement has taken “a wrong turn,” and she is willing to court controversy to say so. On October 28, Hoff Sommers discussed “conservative feminism” in the Ames Courtroom. The talk was co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Abigail Adams Society.

Hoff Sommers’ books include Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. She advocates “equity feminism,” which focuses on securing equal legal rights for women.

Hoff Sommers sees her views as being rooted in the tradition of classical liberalism.

“Equity feminism promotes harmony between the sexes. It is not new,” she said. “I’m not here to ask you to reject classic equity feminism.”

According to Hoff Sommers, the modern feminist movement has been appropriated by “gender war eccentrics” who want to “knock down doors that are already open.”

“If you looked at men and women together, it would be hard to say who is better off,” she said. “There are still unresolved equity issues, but the real 21st Century challenge is outside this country.”

This challenge, she said, is the liberation of women in the developing world, which she called “the human rights challenge of our time.”

“There is something wrong with feminism on campus,” she said. “We need to turn the focus to other parts of the world.”

Hoff Sommers categorized modern feminist theorists as believing in “what they call a sex-gender system,” in which “every institution in our society bears the imprint of patriarchy.” She took issue with this theory.

“I read that and just do not recognize the society we live in,” she said. “It is too dramatic and negative about our society.”

Hoff Sommers said that modern feminist theorists have bolstered their views with urban myths and “egregiously false information.” She said she had found that many commonly cited statistics, such as that violence against women increases 80 percent on Super Bowl Sunday, did not have any basis.

“Over and over again, you could count on theorists to overstate,” Hoff Sommers said. “The truth is so much more complicated. If you want to help women, help them by using the truth.”

According to Hoff Sommers, the feminist movement has also become increasingly hostile towards men, “implicating an entire gender.” It does so by focusing on the bad behavior associated with “aberrational masculinity” rather than what most men are like.
 “We get the worst-case male standing for masculinity,” she said.

This attitude, Hoff Sommers said, is partly the reason why the increasing plight of American boys has largely been overlooked.

“American young men are underachieving, underperforming,” Hoff Sommers said. “The gap favoring girls is getting close to a chasm.”

She cited statistics to support the notion that American girls are succeeding while boys struggle, saying that leading veterinary schools are 80 percent women and that women have taken over the social sciences and biology.

To the extent that women remain underrepresented in areas such as the sciences, Hoff Sommers said that, while a better job could be done of encouraging young women to enter these fields, general preferences between the sexes could be at issue.

“I accept the fact that the sexes are different, different but equal,” she said. “What you want for women is dignity, equality but not sameness.”

She cited polling data that showed that, “under conditions of freedom,” 20 percent of women are “careerist,” 20 percent “just want to stay at home,” and 60 percent want both. In contrast, when men are polled, 80 percent are careerist, 20 percent want to balance careers and homemaking, and “a tiny percent want to stay at home.”

“Women who embody stereotypes should not be made to feel bad,” she said. “20 percent will defy the stereotype – that’s why we need equity feminism. But 80 percent will embody the stereotype.”

When Hoff Sommers first published her views of the modern feminist movement, she said that her “colleagues were outraged,” and she was subjected to a “colorful attack” by the feminist establishment.

“I am not a backlasher, a traitor, an anti-woman,” she said. “I am a philosopher.”

Despite her issues with the modern feminist movement, Hoff Sommers believes that organizations such as the National Organization for Women were integral to improving the lot of women in America and can still perform an important role.

“Those organizations were essential, but they’ve been here a long time,” she said.

Hoff Sommers hopes that the women’s movement will recast itself in the future.

“I don’t think we should reject contemporary feminism,” she said. “We should reform it.”

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

6 comments

Sage99
Tue Dec 8 2009 14:01
“If you looked at men and women together, it would be hard to say who is better off,”

I don’t find it hard at all. It is women who are very considerably better off.

Reply to Tom Dec 14.27

A very good post Tom, and useful information. You have made a strong case for the fact that it is women who dominate western society today, which is something feminist deny. I have taken a copy and would like to use it in future comments. If you rather I didn’t, just say and I will delete it.

Sage99

Reinholt
Mon Dec 7 2009 17:56
Clearly, someone who opens with insults and no statements of fact must be arguing from a strong position!

You should be ashamed of yourself; argue with facts and reason, or don't speak.

Tom
Mon Dec 7 2009 14:27
For anyone who is growing up in today's America: it is clear that the country is a female-dominated matriarchy: men have no reproductive rights (women get pregnant and can just drop the baby at the nearest hospital, but men are stuck with 18 years of child support, whether they want it or not), no property rights (ask anyone who is paying alimony or child support to the tune of several thousands $ per month), no parental rights (men are de-facto sperm donors in today's family law), and no rights to due process (ask anyone who has been arrested and detained on fake, unsubstantiated domestic violence charges, usually just before a divorce).

In addition, cuckolding is not only tolerated but also rewarded by requiring the duped father to pay child support. Personally, I consider cuckolding as a crime equivalent to rape (you may not agree with it, but I am sure that many men feel about it the same way). Not only is that crime tolerated, but the very victim of it is punished and humiliated by our feminist judicial system.

In addition our culture is predominantly anti-male: men's sentences for the same crime are ~200% higher than women's. Look no further than Chris Brown vs Tiger Woods to see the double-standard and hatred against males. Chris Brown beat up Rihanna and got ostracized by the entire country. Tiger's wife beat Tiger up and got praised and acclaimed by nearly every media outlet in the country, while domestic violence was barely mentioned and the police didn't bother investigating it (even though, they are technically obligated to do so); finally Tiger ended up apologizing and topping-up his pre-nup with a few millions because he cheated (how does cheating justify domestic violence? weren't we told that domestic violence was always wrong? should we not arrest all the men who beat up their wives because she cheated on them, from now on?)

Men make 80% of people who commit suicide, 90% of the homeless, and over 80% of prison inmates. They account for the bulk of workers who lost their jobs during the last recession as well as high-school drop-outs.

It is a women's world, and it is men who now need a helping hand!

I am very suspicious about the claims that women were oppressed in the past. We were lied to, about domestic violence (men are just as likely to be victims), the rape epidemic (no, 1 in 4 women will not be raped on campus, not even remotely close), sex trafficking (it doesn't exist), the wage gap (it disappears after controlling for women's own choices). Why should we trust the same people who came up with all those vicious lies and believe their interpretation of what happened hundreds of years ago? I have had this conversation with many feminists and I haven't seen any proof yet that women were discriminated against: yes, there were some anachronistic laws at the beginning of the Industrial Age, but they were a left-over from the previous age, not some kind of anti-female conspiracy. As a matter of fact: at every time of history, it seems that women were always favored, protected and provided for by men; the kitchen was the safest and best place to be a few hundred years ago - I would gladly invent a time-machine and send some feminists back into the 17th century and watch them enjoy their "career" working in a mine, fighting wild animals and working all-day in a field.

Sage99
Sun Dec 6 2009 14:54
I believe that it is a waste of time arguing with any feminist woman and the reason why the balance of power has shifted so much to women is not examined. But I think I may have the answer. Please read on.

The male contraceptive pill; and freedom for men -

The male pill is on it’s way, and will be with us in less than 5 years, if not from the US or Britain, then from China and India.

The pill for men will be the biggest step for freedom that men have ever had - freedom from the serfdom imposed by fatherhood. So if the present tyrannical feminist British women want their babies, they will have to offer a far better deal to men than at present.

For example -

The present marriage laws, and the infamous and secret ‘family courts’ will have to go, and quickly, and the dictatorial marriage and ‘common law’ marriage expectations drastically changed.

The constant demeaning of masculinity, particularly on TV in programs such as ‘One Foot in the Grave’, ‘Men Behaving Badly’ and the present ‘soaps’ in general, where men habitually behave in an infantile manner, and are presented in an appalling way, will have to be recognised as highly offensive to men, and dispensed with.

The most powerful of the British feminist weapons - the wild and malicious accusations of ‘rape’ and ‘child sex’ - will have to be brought back under civilized law where the accuser will be required to have hard evidence and be held responsible for their actions, both in the making of the accusation, and their part in the incident. The male sex drive is an extremely powerful force, and a woman who provokes it to the point where a man loses his self-control has only herself to blame. The accused will have to be considered innocent until - and if - proven guilty.

The female contraceptive pill in 1960s Britain gave British women direct power over sex availability for the first time in human history; and she has used this power - unwisely - to assert a position of dominance over men in which she has reduce them to a level of disadvantaged cowed subservience - and infantile behaviour in an attempt to present themselves as children entitled to the protection of their maternal instinct - and to disadvantage them in every way possible.

The ‘Mad Maternal Instinct’ - the all powerful evolutionary force in women that regards masculine Men as simple mating objects when in lust, and when not, as dangerous predators to be avoided or driven off and away from the precious family group.

Once the power of the 1960s female pill is counterbalanced by the male pill this yoke of female dominance will be flung off with surprising speed, and retribution and revenge on the British feminist female - and feminist male - will be wreaked, as some wiser and more sensible women have been aware of for some time.

Sage99

Your name
Fri Dec 4 2009 23:54
Anyone that doesn't recognize the blatant sexism of modern American feminism is truly an idiot.
Stephanie
Fri Dec 4 2009 18:00
Anyone who posits that millennia of oppression can be reversed in a matter of a few decades is not a "phiosopher." She is an "idiot."






log out