Scan barcode
A review by leelulah
Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women by Christina Hoff Sommers
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 Now, it's not her fault that this book is outdated, for it covers nothing about queer theory which was just gaining momentum in the 90s.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.