Scan barcode
benhourigan's review against another edition
4.0
It is perilous even to speak of feminism today if one does not agree with its radical adherents, now populating the opinion pages of The Guardian or Australia's Daily Life with essays claiming that women are universally victims of a male conspiracy known as patriarchy. This is especially so if you are a man, and a man who loves women—with the simplistic equation current that critics of feminism must be misogynists (i.e. women-haters)—you become viewed as an enemy of women, and the women you love may turn against you.
Christina Hoff Sommers' 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? is remarkably pertinent in this climate, some nineteen years later, for it offers the apparently forgotten prospect that one might be a critic of some feminism or feminists, but a supporter of others. In fact, it offers the forgotten prospect that there are multiple feminisms, and that while one kind may be collectivist, doctrinaire and illiberal, there is another that is liberal, inclusive, and in favor of equality and the full complement of rights for all. Elsewhere Sommers speaks of "freedom feminism"—here she calls the good feminism "equity feminism" and the bad "gender feminism."
While this distinction is perhaps Sommers' major gift to readers, the other gem is chapter 5, "The Feminist Classroom," which covers the gender feminist model of education as ideological indoctrination, and its advocates' at least occasional use of intimidation tactics such as "defense guarding," which Sommers describes as "extremely reminiscent of fascism, of brown shirts." The tactics and experiences recounted therein may seem familiar to humanities students (and former students) in other disciplines theoretically or institutionally dominated by Marxism or other forms of extreme opposition to the status quo that view all means as justified in the fight for their ideals. Still more familiar may be the experience of some that if they speak out against a political opinion viewed by some as self-evident, orthodox, or "what all good people believe," they will be ostracised and shamed.
In its use of these tactics of indoctrination, intimidation, and social pressure, gender feminism is concerning not necessarily in its sexual politics, but as a movement that irrespective of its content, is illiberal and respects neither the autonomy of those who are not part of it, nor the possibility that a person of good character may rationally and acceptably hold a different and defensible view.
The remaining value in Sommers' book is as a catalog of areas in which ideologically motivated gender feminist researchers have made selective use of statistics to fabricate a case for ongoing universal female victimhood even in a scenario where a prior generation of equity feminists had already won almost total legal equality and material equality of opportunity for men and women. She devotes particular and effective attention to dissecting and debunking gender feminists' inflated (but seldom questioned) estimates of the incidence of rape and other forms of sexual violence, and their claims that girls are disadvantaged in education.
In this regard, Who Stole Feminism? has much in common with Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, which is also in large part a sourcebook for those who find the gender feminist critique of our society unconvincing and are looking for the counterexamples to the myth of female victimhood that they instinctively know must be there. Here, Sommers' is the better book: she is wittier, and happy to draw amusement from the eccentricities and irrationality of the gender feminists she criticizes. There is also, here, none of the perhaps unavoidable feeling of self-pity in Farrell's book, which is full of cries of "but men suffer too!" (and yet, it is one of Farrell's points that we have been wrongly conditioned to view the openly suffering man as unattractive).
If one is looking for an alternative to what one may suspect is the distorted view of sexual politics presented by the gender feminist commentariat, this is an excellent place to start, not least because Sommers reminds us that in spite of its many illiberal proponents, there was once, and remains, much that is laudable in a certain kind of feminism that is rigorously focused on the pursuit of rights and equality.
Christina Hoff Sommers' 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? is remarkably pertinent in this climate, some nineteen years later, for it offers the apparently forgotten prospect that one might be a critic of some feminism or feminists, but a supporter of others. In fact, it offers the forgotten prospect that there are multiple feminisms, and that while one kind may be collectivist, doctrinaire and illiberal, there is another that is liberal, inclusive, and in favor of equality and the full complement of rights for all. Elsewhere Sommers speaks of "freedom feminism"—here she calls the good feminism "equity feminism" and the bad "gender feminism."
While this distinction is perhaps Sommers' major gift to readers, the other gem is chapter 5, "The Feminist Classroom," which covers the gender feminist model of education as ideological indoctrination, and its advocates' at least occasional use of intimidation tactics such as "defense guarding," which Sommers describes as "extremely reminiscent of fascism, of brown shirts." The tactics and experiences recounted therein may seem familiar to humanities students (and former students) in other disciplines theoretically or institutionally dominated by Marxism or other forms of extreme opposition to the status quo that view all means as justified in the fight for their ideals. Still more familiar may be the experience of some that if they speak out against a political opinion viewed by some as self-evident, orthodox, or "what all good people believe," they will be ostracised and shamed.
In its use of these tactics of indoctrination, intimidation, and social pressure, gender feminism is concerning not necessarily in its sexual politics, but as a movement that irrespective of its content, is illiberal and respects neither the autonomy of those who are not part of it, nor the possibility that a person of good character may rationally and acceptably hold a different and defensible view.
The remaining value in Sommers' book is as a catalog of areas in which ideologically motivated gender feminist researchers have made selective use of statistics to fabricate a case for ongoing universal female victimhood even in a scenario where a prior generation of equity feminists had already won almost total legal equality and material equality of opportunity for men and women. She devotes particular and effective attention to dissecting and debunking gender feminists' inflated (but seldom questioned) estimates of the incidence of rape and other forms of sexual violence, and their claims that girls are disadvantaged in education.
In this regard, Who Stole Feminism? has much in common with Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, which is also in large part a sourcebook for those who find the gender feminist critique of our society unconvincing and are looking for the counterexamples to the myth of female victimhood that they instinctively know must be there. Here, Sommers' is the better book: she is wittier, and happy to draw amusement from the eccentricities and irrationality of the gender feminists she criticizes. There is also, here, none of the perhaps unavoidable feeling of self-pity in Farrell's book, which is full of cries of "but men suffer too!" (and yet, it is one of Farrell's points that we have been wrongly conditioned to view the openly suffering man as unattractive).
If one is looking for an alternative to what one may suspect is the distorted view of sexual politics presented by the gender feminist commentariat, this is an excellent place to start, not least because Sommers reminds us that in spite of its many illiberal proponents, there was once, and remains, much that is laudable in a certain kind of feminism that is rigorously focused on the pursuit of rights and equality.
agarocks's review against another edition
2.0
Half of this book is an interesting evaluation of feminist studies, their methodology and value. (First chapter, the Self-Esteem study chapter, and so on). I wish the entire book was like this — in that case, it would make a very interesting read to all academic-oriented and feminist-oriented readers on knowing how to improve and deliver proper results without bending the reality.
But the other half is just musings of the author with very little value and constant mockery of other feminist scholars. CHS repeats herself multiple times, doesn’t dig in the values and virtues of third wave feminism, and mourns post-modern approaches of questioning of the enlightenment era.
She admits that there is value in rediscovering forgotten female authors and scientists, making history a little more equal and realistic, but quickly leaves this point in favor of pointing out straw-woman arguments on how ‘history should be 50/50’ and ‘to know nature is to rape it’.
Looking into every field and every group you can find weird, cooky individuals, but CHS claims that those groups ‘stole’ feminism, despite considering herself a classically liberal feminist.
Feminism, academic and social, should not be free of criticism, but this book does not present an interesting, valuable way to do it.
But the other half is just musings of the author with very little value and constant mockery of other feminist scholars. CHS repeats herself multiple times, doesn’t dig in the values and virtues of third wave feminism, and mourns post-modern approaches of questioning of the enlightenment era.
She admits that there is value in rediscovering forgotten female authors and scientists, making history a little more equal and realistic, but quickly leaves this point in favor of pointing out straw-woman arguments on how ‘history should be 50/50’ and ‘to know nature is to rape it’.
Looking into every field and every group you can find weird, cooky individuals, but CHS claims that those groups ‘stole’ feminism, despite considering herself a classically liberal feminist.
Feminism, academic and social, should not be free of criticism, but this book does not present an interesting, valuable way to do it.
jasperburns's review against another edition
4.0
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
meme_too2's review against another edition
5.0
Wow! I need to open my eyes more. Ms. Sommers believes, and has skillfully documented, how "Gender-Feminists", who are angry men-haters, have manipulated our world into believing all the injustices against women.
Did you know that the "Self-Esteem" craze is a complete myth? The original survey showed absolutely no abnormal issues with self-esteem in school age girls, but was trumped up by a group of women who decided to make it an issue. This one FALSE myth has created our problems with Anorexia, Plastic Surgery, Depression, Suicide, and many other very sad debilitating issues we face today.
And she uncovers others as well.
Did you know that the "Self-Esteem" craze is a complete myth? The original survey showed absolutely no abnormal issues with self-esteem in school age girls, but was trumped up by a group of women who decided to make it an issue. This one FALSE myth has created our problems with Anorexia, Plastic Surgery, Depression, Suicide, and many other very sad debilitating issues we face today.
And she uncovers others as well.
eososray's review against another edition
3.0
My overwhelming take of this book was that is was extremely dated. Can't say as I knew anything about what the feminist movement was doing in the early 90's and I certainly don't know much about it now.
Somehow this book comes across as sounding the alarm for something that didn't manifest. Or maybe that she is so immersed in this academic feminist movement that she doesn't realize that the rest of us didn't/don't care.
All that said, I did actually like the book. I agree that some of the feminist movement spends way too much time judging women for not agreeing. On children, motherhood, careers, prostitution, porn, marriage, etc. And then spends even more time blaming the patriarchy for the independent choices that women make for their lives because, they must have been brainwashed if they would do something so demeaning.
I do think that those immersed in the women's studies are likely out of touch and possibly there is a bit of brainwashing going on but is that really unusual? College and University are a time to find your voice and test out what you really think, it has always been full of teachers that thought out of the box.
It was interesting to read, made me think, offered some alternate ideas and helped me coalesce some thoughts I had floating around.
Somehow this book comes across as sounding the alarm for something that didn't manifest. Or maybe that she is so immersed in this academic feminist movement that she doesn't realize that the rest of us didn't/don't care.
All that said, I did actually like the book. I agree that some of the feminist movement spends way too much time judging women for not agreeing. On children, motherhood, careers, prostitution, porn, marriage, etc. And then spends even more time blaming the patriarchy for the independent choices that women make for their lives because, they must have been brainwashed if they would do something so demeaning.
I do think that those immersed in the women's studies are likely out of touch and possibly there is a bit of brainwashing going on but is that really unusual? College and University are a time to find your voice and test out what you really think, it has always been full of teachers that thought out of the box.
It was interesting to read, made me think, offered some alternate ideas and helped me coalesce some thoughts I had floating around.
chirson's review against another edition
1.0
There are moments when Sommers makes some valid points about the necessity to check research more thoroughly and about feminist overzealousness that results in essentialism (women have better ____ skills; women are more empathetic etc.). Unfortunately, that is lost under a deluge of bile and such pearls as the aforementioned "feminist college will turn your daughters gay, deprive them of religion and morals and turn them against you." Her arguments against Foucault are mostly quotes from others and show that she either did not actually read him, or failed to understand him, or willfully misrepresents his points. I also appreciate how quick she was to decide that Naomi Wolf will be universally hated by feminists for publishing Fire with Fire - while there has undoubtedly been a lot of (valid) criticism of that book, the edition I own boasts an enthusiastic blurb from the much-maligned Steinem, whom Sommers considers to be the exemplary "gender-feminist".
I did not much care for the America-the-Great-Liberal-Country-of-Liberty-and-Equality spiel. But, overall, I'd say I hated it a little less than I did Badinter's "We the French Women Are Not Some American Prudes."
Other highlights: being forcibly finger-fucked (after consensual sexual activity that did not involve penetration) is not rape, it's "a boy misbehaving". 1 woman raped in 20 equals low rape rates. (The bad type of) feminists get all the funding and spend it on evil curriculum reform designed to deprive youth of education.
Sommers has a rosy view of American society (apart from the short moment when she admits that it has violence issues - and a bad education system) and a very bleak view of feminists. She does not manage to prove that either of them is justified.
I did not much care for the America-the-Great-Liberal-Country-of-Liberty-and-Equality spiel. But, overall, I'd say I hated it a little less than I did Badinter's "We the French Women Are Not Some American Prudes."
Other highlights: being forcibly finger-fucked (after consensual sexual activity that did not involve penetration) is not rape, it's "a boy misbehaving". 1 woman raped in 20 equals low rape rates. (The bad type of) feminists get all the funding and spend it on evil curriculum reform designed to deprive youth of education.
Sommers has a rosy view of American society (apart from the short moment when she admits that it has violence issues - and a bad education system) and a very bleak view of feminists. She does not manage to prove that either of them is justified.
rotorguy64's review against another edition
3.0
Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women hasn't aged very well, in my opinion. Twenty years ago, reading about all the stupid and immoral antics pulled under the name of feminism might have been shocking, but not so much nowadays when "check your privilege" has become a widespread joke. Everyone who reads this book has probably already made up his mind that modern feminism is a cancer, and will only have this view affirmed. Beyond this insight, there's not much that Who Stole Feminism? can teach you. It is just too light on philosophical questions. Sommers outlines the differences of equity- and gender-feminism, criticizes the "female epistemics" proposed by gender-feminists, and that's about it. You will gain zero philosophical insights that are not directly related to questions concerning feminism, and even those insights will be rare and superficial. Considering that Sommers is a professor of philosophy, I expected a lot more.
On the plus side, Who Stole Feminism? is very thorough and exhaustive as a source. If you want to look someone or something particular up, give Sommers' work a try. Her accounts are not just detailed, they are also surprisingly fair, with her giving credit where it's due and even going out of her way to point out when a feminist has been civil or friendly. She's not trying to push a narrative in which all feminists are the devil incarnate, to the point where she sometimes steers to the side of being too benevolent, at least in my opinion. She is also very in-depth when it comes to deconstructing specific empirical claims from feminists. Her tenacity in tracking down studies quoted by feminists and cross-checking what these sources actually say is particularly impressive and even inspiring.
All in all, I can say that while I didn't enjoy this book and didn't feel a lot wiser for having read it, I greatly appreciate it as a source. If you're really aspiring to be an expert on gender-issues, however, you should probably fully read it.
On the plus side, Who Stole Feminism? is very thorough and exhaustive as a source. If you want to look someone or something particular up, give Sommers' work a try. Her accounts are not just detailed, they are also surprisingly fair, with her giving credit where it's due and even going out of her way to point out when a feminist has been civil or friendly. She's not trying to push a narrative in which all feminists are the devil incarnate, to the point where she sometimes steers to the side of being too benevolent, at least in my opinion. She is also very in-depth when it comes to deconstructing specific empirical claims from feminists. Her tenacity in tracking down studies quoted by feminists and cross-checking what these sources actually say is particularly impressive and even inspiring.
All in all, I can say that while I didn't enjoy this book and didn't feel a lot wiser for having read it, I greatly appreciate it as a source. If you're really aspiring to be an expert on gender-issues, however, you should probably fully read it.
leelulah's review against another edition
2.0
This book has some very important points on how radical and liberal feminists alike distort statistics, this is its strongest point, and basically the only reason I didn't give it one star. Now, it's not her fault that this book is outdated, for it covers nothing about queer theory which was just gaining momentum in the 90s.
But, although she defines herself as a feminist of the classical liberal stance: she never defines gender, her definition of radical feminism is too loose and it allows for the inclusion of people like Gilligan (who thought women were inherently more peaceful, something a radical feminists would reject for it was based on a "nurturing stereotype"), Peggy McIntosh (with her "women and POC think differently", again, some kind of essentialism that radical feminists would reject) De Beauvoir (who hated lesbianism), Steinem (who has some incredibly liberal stances).
Similarly, it's good that she provided some examples of Russian survivors of communist regimes, and research on violence in lesbian relationships. Then, she had to endorse Paglia (it's not wise to do that, she's a liberal feminist, she supports everything Hoff Sommers would find disgusting and denies difference by thinking she "understands men" because she's a lesbian).
Here are some major mistakes:
a) Quoting an irresponsible college student's joke (on a handed assignment) about not being able to answer polls because of being a womanizer as an "innocent" joke when that involved a serious assignment, regardless of whether the teacher was a feminist.
b) Although she only portrays the Catholic Church in a bad light once, referring to a group linked to the heretical Catholics for Choice, she makes it up by showing how radical feminists hate the mindset of religious women and see them as oppressed.
c) Quoting an incident happening in an interview between a Playboy columnist "defending fatherhood" and the uproaring laughter of radfems is quite a sad example. As much as radical feminism disavowed marriage, Playboy made sure to destroy it by having generations of men too worried about their sexual satisfaction to care about women's integrity.
d) "Women don't need to be liberated from their desire for rough sex and make up" sounds too liberal feminist for my sensibilities. Surely she wouldn't be writing the first part of this paraphrasing if she did this book now. As for #2, makeup sometimes is worn out of peer pressure, especially among teenagers. The idea is that it shouldn't be. Similarly, ironically, a lot of men object to it on the grounds that it is "artificial" (and here they would agree with liberal feminists) but do not oppose to another equally artificial and possibly more misleading beauty practices such as heels or shaving your skin... eh.
I wouldn't put it in the grounds of "being liberated", but basically not peer pressured to do it, that would be a good start.
e) Her vision of classical liberalism is too romanticized: here comes the reminder that John Stuart Mill, despite his defense of women's rights, was an utilitarian. Locke, had some faulty epistemology, as did Descartes. And don't get me started in her implicit praise of Darwin which is, philosophically speaking, a very materialistic and reductionist explanation for human motives that plagues New Atheism.
I still respect Sommers for providing some common sense, but these were too many failures that did not allow me to rate the book higher.
But, although she defines herself as a feminist of the classical liberal stance: she never defines gender, her definition of radical feminism is too loose and it allows for the inclusion of people like Gilligan (who thought women were inherently more peaceful, something a radical feminists would reject for it was based on a "nurturing stereotype"), Peggy McIntosh (with her "women and POC think differently", again, some kind of essentialism that radical feminists would reject) De Beauvoir (who hated lesbianism), Steinem (who has some incredibly liberal stances).
Similarly, it's good that she provided some examples of Russian survivors of communist regimes, and research on violence in lesbian relationships. Then, she had to endorse Paglia (it's not wise to do that, she's a liberal feminist, she supports everything Hoff Sommers would find disgusting and denies difference by thinking she "understands men" because she's a lesbian).
Here are some major mistakes:
a) Quoting an irresponsible college student's joke (on a handed assignment) about not being able to answer polls because of being a womanizer as an "innocent" joke when that involved a serious assignment, regardless of whether the teacher was a feminist.
b) Although she only portrays the Catholic Church in a bad light once, referring to a group linked to the heretical Catholics for Choice, she makes it up by showing how radical feminists hate the mindset of religious women and see them as oppressed.
c) Quoting an incident happening in an interview between a Playboy columnist "defending fatherhood" and the uproaring laughter of radfems is quite a sad example. As much as radical feminism disavowed marriage, Playboy made sure to destroy it by having generations of men too worried about their sexual satisfaction to care about women's integrity.
d) "Women don't need to be liberated from their desire for rough sex and make up" sounds too liberal feminist for my sensibilities. Surely she wouldn't be writing the first part of this paraphrasing if she did this book now. As for #2, makeup sometimes is worn out of peer pressure, especially among teenagers. The idea is that it shouldn't be. Similarly, ironically, a lot of men object to it on the grounds that it is "artificial" (and here they would agree with liberal feminists) but do not oppose to another equally artificial and possibly more misleading beauty practices such as heels or shaving your skin... eh.
I wouldn't put it in the grounds of "being liberated", but basically not peer pressured to do it, that would be a good start.
e) Her vision of classical liberalism is too romanticized: here comes the reminder that John Stuart Mill, despite his defense of women's rights, was an utilitarian. Locke, had some faulty epistemology, as did Descartes. And don't get me started in her implicit praise of Darwin which is, philosophically speaking, a very materialistic and reductionist explanation for human motives that plagues New Atheism.
I still respect Sommers for providing some common sense, but these were too many failures that did not allow me to rate the book higher.
numjin's review against another edition
4.0
I took a very long time for me to finish this book. I listened to the audiobook, I found the narrator okay - she interesting sounded so much like Christina in how she pronounced words. I don’t know if I would have enjoyed the book more if she had read it herself.
It’s very informative but a little dry.
It’s very informative but a little dry.