Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hoff Sommers considered a feminist[edit]

A quick search revealed four reliable sources classifying Mrs. Hoff Sommers as a feminist:

I suggest you compromise on Breitbart's "equity feminist." If not you prove 86.166.231.128's point about Wikipedia's bias to a t and need to to think hard about WP:BALASP. 82.221.105.73 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is not WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware you made this comment a separate topic? It looks like it should be replying to Binksternet in the discussion above. 87.49.185.11 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite aware. You listed four sources, saying they're reliable. You specifically mention Breitbart in your final point. Just informing you that Breitbart is not a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If Breitbart is not reliable, why are there more than 400 pages on Wikipedia citing them as a source? https://www.google.com/#q=breitbart.com+site:wikipedia.com 2602:FFC8:2:104:0:0:0:9 (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody is cherry-picking their sources, ignoring the ones that they don't like. I'm going to delve into the talk page archives to show you a very large number of scholars who say that Sommers is working against feminism:
  • 12345
  • Toril Moi writes that Sommers is "one of America's leading feminist bashers."[1] Philosophy professor Tom Digby writes puts Sommers' self-described feminism in scare quotes, saying that she wrote "a series of antifeminist articles."[2] Sue Hatt, Linda Watson-Brown et al write that Sommers is among the so-called "free market feminists" who advocate women to "stay in their place and maintain the accustomed distinction between the public world of paid employment and the private world of domestic caring labour."[3] Leola A. Johnson writes that Sommers is one of the "new antifeminists" who have replaced Phyllis Schlafly as the "most visible antifeminists" in the U.S.[4] Elisabeth Armstrong of Smith College says that Sommers reports but ignores critically important statistics which disprove her whole theory: "Sommers cites statistics which reveal most young women's support for a strong women's movement to fight for women's equal rights and equal pay. Even in the face of this evidence, she draws the assumption that feminism is a movement dying a natural death, though she simultaneously credits its demise to the favorable conditions faced by women in the United States."[5]
  • Linda Watson-Brown says that a handful of "those writing from a free market feminist perspective", including Sommers, describe how women should "keep the home fires burning, stay in their place", and maintain traditional gender roles.[6]
  • “While she calls herself a feminist, her background reflects a very different story, and a long history of promoting ultraconservative causes.”[7]
  • Professor Anne-Marie Kinahan of Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada
  • Political scientist Ronnee Schreiber of San Diego State University
  • Professor Dale Bauer, Department of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
  • Dean Emerita Katherine Rhoades of the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
  • Professor Rhonda Hammer, Department of Gender Studies, UCLA
  • Kristin J. Anderson, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Houston-Downtown[8][9]
  • Theologian Sister Rebeka Jadranka Anić, Institute for Social Research, Ivo Pilar, Split Center.[10]
  • Mary Douglas Vavrus, Communication Studies Department. University of Minnesota.[11]
  • Sociologist Michael Kimmel, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the Stony Brook University in New York[12]
  • Professor Elaine Ginsberg, City College of San Francisco[13]
  • Professor Emerita Sara Lennox, Director of the Social Thought and Political Economy Program, DePauw University[14]
  • Theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Harvard Divinity School[15]
  • Becky Francis, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Department of Education & Professional Studies, King's College London[16]
  • Professor Christine Skelton, Emeritus Professor of Gender Education in the School of Education, University of Birmingham[17]
  • Philosopher Alison Jaggar, Feminist Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder[18]
  • Sarah Projansky, Associate Dean, College of Fine Arts, University of Utah[19]
  • Farah Mendlesohn, Head of the Department of English, Anglia Ruskin University[20]
  • VèVè Amasasa Clark, Academic Senate, University of California. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Professor Shirley Nelson Garner, Department of English, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Minneapolis. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Margaret Higonnet, Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of Connecticut. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Ketu H. Katrak, Professor of Drama, University of California, Irvine. Editor, Antifeminism in the Academy
  • Writer Laura Kipnis, Guggenheim Fellow.[21]
  • Diane Railton, Senior Lecturer, English Studies, School of Arts & Media, Teesside University[22]
  • Paul Watson, Principal Lecturer, English Studies, Teesside University[23]
  • Barbara L. Marshall, Professor of Sociology, Trent University[24]
  • Nancy Berns, sociologist at Drake University[25]
  • Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Librarian, Simon Fraser University[26]
  • Myra Mendible, English Department, Florida Gulf Coast University[27]
  • Jackson Katz, Ph.D, independent scholar of gender violence prevention[28]
  • Deborah Holdstein, Professor of English, Columbia College Chicago. Challenging Perspectives: Reading Critically about Ethics and Values, page 501. ISBN 9780618215034
  • Valerie L. Scatamburlo, York University, Toronto. Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness, page 107. ISBN 9780820430126
  • Patrice McDermott, Vice Provost of University of Maryland Baltimore County. Third Wave Feminism, page 187. ISBN 9780230521742
  • James P. Winter, professor of communication studies at the University of Windsor, writes about "a broader framework of pro-patriarchal spokeswomen, or professional apologists for the status quo" and he lists Katie Roiphe, Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers. Mediathink, page 42
  • Alyson M. Cole, associate professor of political science at Queens College and the Graduate Center, CUNY.[29]
And check out the archived discussion at Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_7#Antifeminist_references_from_scholars. A handful of sources saying Sommers is feminist does not successfully counteract the myriad of sources describing her as working against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Binksternet, you should stop misrepresenting Toril Moi as if she says Sommers is an anti-feminist. She outright describes Sommers as a feminist in that same book you linked to. "On the back cover of Young’s Ceasefire!, Sommers thoughtfully provides an enemy, proclaiming the book a “brilliantly reasoned indictment of the radical feminist establishment.” Sommers, incidentally, is the only other feminist singled out for praise alongside Roiphe by Camille Paglia (Vamps and Tramps xvi)." What's more, your conflating "working against feminism" with her not being a feminist. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This has all been discussed several times before, with the exact same points being mentioned. And the fact that you question Binksternet's interpretation of that one source does not negate the dozens and dozens of other high-quality, academic sources out there that primarily classify Sommers as an anti-feminist. But FWIW (and as I've said at least 2-3 times on this talk page already), I think it's quite clear that Moi is suggesting that Paglia classifies Sommers as a feminist, not classifying her as a feminist herself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree, Moi clearly calls people anti-feminist in her book but does not do so for Sommers. And in turn she calls Sommers a feminist in one of her notes. I think people are synth'ing their positions onto Moi. And in turn I highlighted that statement because it's pretty apparent that Binksternet is doing the same thing, cherry-picking sources, and even goes a step further into cherry-picking parts of a source that only fit a prescribed narrative. If we have so much about how Sommers is an anti-feminist, how about we get those details into the article. Then we can worry about the correct application of labels. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Moi describes Sommers in "How Feminism Became the F-Word" in a section with the header "Disenchanted Feminists". She discusses a series of people who are working against feminism, describing the lot of them as "feminists, ex-feminists, or self-styled feminists wanting to remake feminism in their own image..." She puts Sommmers' equity feminism into that group of self-styled feminists who are trying to remake feminism. She says these people, including Sommers, all start by attacking feminism. She describes Sommers as "one of America's leading feminist-bashers", ridiculing Sommers' circular argument. Finally, Moi groups Sommers and the others she was talking about as "malcontent feminists and ex-feminists, or women with various ideas of how to change feminism, [who] furthered the conservative feminist-bashing agenda." Basic reading comprehension allows one to see that Moi describes Sommers as working against feminism.
If by "cherry-picking" you mean my work in looking up myriad scholarly sources, then we have a problem. The notional cherries appear to be the greater proportion of the harvest. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This argument strikes me as similar to the way some American conservatives deride criticism of America as unpatriotic and un-American.
Feminism is not a monolith: Gloria Steinem doesn't become un-feminist by disagreeing with Valerie Solanas' interpretation of feminism. Neither does Solanas become un-feminist by promoting it.
Feminism is ever-changing: Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug are feminist icons. Summers' version of feminism mirrors theirs more closely than, for example, Jessica Valenti's does. That neither makes Sommers un-feminist or Valenti un-feminist.
The argument seems to be that to qualify as a feminist, one must subscribe to whatever the most popular interpretation of feminism is at the time. And if the popular tenets change, the same beliefs that explicitly qualified you as a feminist may now explicitly disqualify you. That's an unreasonable standard.
We should of course make the popular interpretation clear, and draw distinctions between it and the subject's interpretation. We should even include the popular version's criticism of the subject, properly weighted, but when it comes to unattributed statements of fact, no one interpretation holds claim over the ideology or the right to dismiss earlier or contrary interpretations as un-feminist. Self-identification and a belief in core tenets of a recognized version are all that's required. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-identification is an interesting point to tell the reader but it is not a defining point when many high quality sources contradict it. And it's not just that Sommers criticizes feminism, it's that she actively works to undermine its advances, and openly embraces the reactionary social forces which oppose it. She fabricates false arguments and ignores contradictory evidence. As such, she's a tool for reactionary social movements. That's what all the scholarly sources say about her. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-identification is indeed not the primary point - primary is alignment with any recognized version of feminism. I hope my earlier comment illustrates her alignment with (historically) the most popular version of feminism.
Again, your use of "it" is incorrect as it implies universal agreement among feminists. More correctly you should have said:

And it's not just that Sommers criticizes third wave feminism, it's that she actively works to undermine it's advances third wave feminism, and openly embraces the reactionary social forces which oppose it third wave feminism ... That's what all the third wave scholarly sources say about her.

That's a reasonable summary and good argument that we not qualify her as a 3rd wave feminist. However: no one is proposing we do, as far as I can see. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You're off by one wave. This book says Sommers is third wave, that is, part of the group that says feminists should celebrate the advances already made, and that there is no longer any oppression of women by men. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This books says that there is no agreement about the meaning of "third wave feminism", nor is there any agreement about who is or is not third wave. The author, Ednie Kaeh Garrison of UC Santa Barbara, says the term is used by "those who have no real clear sense of what feminist ideology, feminist praxis, feminist movement or feminist identity have meant across time and place." The term is based on a fatal misconception about feminism. Two pages later, the author says that the antifeminist Sommers is not working to change feminism from within, but is "launching a moral attack on feminist cultural authority", which serves her reactionary social stance. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and the major sources in our own article offer a contrary description of third-wave feminism. All further evidence of the subjectivity of these terms and their diverse and sometimes contradictory qualifications. This broad range of valid, feminist interpretation is precisely why we shouldn't allow supporters of one interpretation to disqualify supporters of another from the entire category broadly. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


More scholarly sources:
  • Ednie Kaeh Garrison, Feminist Studies, UC Santa Barbara. Sommers is an antifeminist, part of a group that is "launching a moral attack on feminist cultural authority".
  • Shelley Budgeon, Political Science, University of Birmingham, UK. Sommers is a "post-feminist", part of a libertarian backlash against second-wave feminism. Such post-feminists ignore the lasting effects of historical male dominance, they say that "particular advancements made by some women" are representative to a much greater degree, and they work to banish the feminist voice from public debate, to make feminist questions private again, as a return to the old status quo where individual women lost their arguments with men. Such post-feminists are lauded by advocates of patriarchy.
  • Sherryl Vint, English Department, UC Riverside. Sommers puts forward "a distinctly antifeminist agenda" which skews any legitimate concerns that were voiced by third wave feminists. Sommers is criticized for "retaining the feminist name", the term she uses to describe herself. Sommers makes the mistake of generalizing from her own privileged success a much wider victory by women in society, a stance which belies the continuing systemic discrimination seen by many others.
  • Leslie Heywood, English Department, Binghamton University; Jennifer Drake, Psychology Department, Brooklyn College. Heywood and Drake describe Sommers as a "conservative postfeminist" in the Foreword of their book Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism. Sommers splits feminism into two camps as part of her divide-and-conquer strategy, to roll back feminist advances. In her own book, Heywood says that Sommers claimed consensus for her brand of gender feminism "simply has no basis." Heywood says that Sommers' viewpoint that second-wave feminism is a separatist movement couldn't be more wrong, as disproved by written works from Linda J. Nicholson, Marianne Hirsh, Evelyn Fox Keller, Sayla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell and Nancy Fraser. Heywood says that right-wing speakers and thus the mainstream media have welcomed Sommers and her undermining of feminism, as it fits in with the right-wing attack on multiculturalism, affirmative action, and other liberal reforms.
  • Carolyn Sorisio, 19th century literature, West Chester University. Sommers uses "impossibly trite" caricatures of feminism to undermine feminist cohesion, saying, for instance, that women "are not a tribe. We're not a class. We do not have a shared vision."
  • Rebecca Stringer, Gender Studies, Department of Sociology, University of Otago, New Zealand. Sommers is one of a group of women who are constructing the idea of "victim feminism" as an attempt to redefine and undermine the victories of second wave feminism. Stringer calls this an "ur-narrative", that is, a fabricated version of reality. Stringer says that Sommers' invention of "gender feminism" is based on two false claims: that second-wave feminists are committed to a view that women passively become victims, ignoring the agency of women, and that the structural oppression of patriarchy is no more. Tellingly, in using Sandra Lee Bartky's feminist theory of the victim to prove Sommers' point of passivity, Sommers ignored Bartky's description of women as completely responsible for their actions.
  • Kellie Bean, Academic Dean at Lyndon State College. Sommers claims success for her brand of "equity feminism" despite the "basic statistical truths" which contradict her narrative, for instance the lower wages of women, the smaller percentage of women politicians, the even lower wage of African-American women and Hispanic women, and many more examples. Sommers ridicules second wave feminism to isolate and exclude it from debate. Sommers has made a career out of opposing feminism.
I'm sure I can find more scholars who describe Sommers as antifeminist; this list isn't at all complete. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I expect you can. I said initially: the current majority interpretation of feminism opposes Sommer's interpretation. That's indisputable. It doesn't change the fact that her interpretation (like theirs) is one of many, valid and historically supported interpretations. Summers feminism is similar to Camille Paglia's feminism (whom we identify as a "militant feminist") is similar to Friedan's feminism, is similar to Simone de Beauvoir's feminism - all undoubtedly feminists. These and similar papers do nothing to disprove that. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually Sommers has distanced herself from de Beauvoir. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point. It prompted me to read this, https://www.aei.org/publication/not-lost-in-translation/, thanks. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few of these scholars are saying that Sommers does not put forward a valid view of feminism, as it is founded on falsehood and misinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised to see opponents of her brand of feminism being critical. Feminism is not a monolith, no one brand gets to decide who is and is not a part of it. If the "alt right" were to surge in popularity and dwarf the modern conservative movement, they (similarly) couldn't declare existing conservatives to be anti-conservative. To the extent the alt-right is conservative they are both valid forms of conservatism. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Your "opponents of her brand of feminism" are the topic scholars, the highest level of expert on the topic. Topic experts define the topic.
I agree that feminism is a widely encompassing field with lots of variation, certainly not a monolith. However, the mainstream feminist movement aims to achieve equality for all women as a group, and so it is united in that sense. Sommers wants to fracture the group so that only the privileged ones can succeed. That places her in opposition to mainstream feminism.
If we were to present Sommers in the most neutral fashion, we would say that her self-definition as a feminist is sharply countered by topic experts. In fact, we would say that Sommers is an anti-feminist/post-feminist who calls herself a feminist, thus gaining the favor of right-wing social conservatives who applaud her position which agrees with their aim of retaining as much as possible the patriarchal structure of society. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching this from the sidelines for awhile, not knowing quite how to respond. Obviously, self-identification cannot be everything in the face of widespread rejection. This phrase though, "topic experts" - what does that mean in this case? Outside of some raw econometrics that connect to raw reality, feminist studies operate on epistemological idealism. Being an expert on it is simply being an expert on the state of the Nomic game your academic peers have been playing. Outside the academy, feminism is a belief system, and I don't think feminist scholars are any more authoritative about who is not a feminist than bishops would be about who's a Christian, or military generals about who's a patriot. That's a long way of getting to the point that this is garden-variety NPOV where both views should be represented. Rhoark (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's game playing in all fields of endeavor, so you cannot diminish scholarly output relative to the output of non-scholars by that argument. Regardless, we as Wikipedians are supposed to examine various sources for quality, and assigns a higher weight to higher quality. Scholarly sources in general are the highest quality. I don't think you'll have much success in your effort to diminish their authority. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's scholarship and then there's "scholarship". I'm not out to diminish anything that's not already widely recognized as unempirical. Rhoark (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Your own feelings about postmodernism (whatever that has to do with anything?!?) aside, in most of these cases we're talking about scholars who have published extensively in major academic presses, hold major professorships, etc. There's like zero question that these are some of the most high-quality sources available on the subject, period. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like their perspective or what they say, that is WP:OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is not about whether to exclude academics, but whether to treat their opinions about Sommers as fact. It's not about my feelings. It's about the limits of language and knowledge. Whether or not Sommers is "actually" a feminist is not a falsifiable proposition. What's provable is that these scholars do not consider her to be a feminist as defined within their personal argot. Evidentiary standards are a division these academics regularly point to, highlighting the tension between Sommers' views on the one hand, and the epistemic methods these scholars adhere to, variously described as post-modernism, post-structuralism, critical theory, "ways of knowing", etc.[30][31][32] While applying labels including "antifeminist", "(anti)feminist", "apostate feminist", and "post-feminist" they bemoan how Sommers' style of feminism seems to be the more influential one in mainstream culture.[33][34]. This is due not only to the isolating style of discourse in the academy, but because academic strains insist that feminism demands not only equality of the sexes, but a generalized anti-authoritarianism applied to all human relations.[35][36] Rhoark (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Again - your own personal critique/interpretation of the sources is OR, and isn't really relevant here. A reliable source is a reliable source, and these are very reliable sources using wikipedia's own standards. But for the record: personally I'm not even advocating that she should be labelled an anti-feminist in wikipedia's voice (ie, stating it as fact), I'd be in favor of attributing it. What I oppose is taking Sommers definition of herself as a feminist as fact when so many RS suggest that it's incorrect to do so. Both perspectives should be included and both should be properly attributed. I don't think we're really that far apart here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree Rhoark (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed solution[edit]

Sommers herself, and some sources, refer to her as Feminist, whereas other sources refer to her as Anti-Feminist.

A true statement that can be sourced. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Care should be taken that this is not a false balance, such as saying 'some say x, some say y' where the vast majority of sources say y (as is the case with academic sources here.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It is disappointing to see editors still engaged in some endless debate on this tedious issue. I tried discussing it myself in the past, but gave it up as too futile. There is no reason for "feminist" to have a capital "F", by the way, since it's not (presumably) a political party. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I made this edit. It's well sourced within the article, and self described. Perhaps the person who reverted can provide justification. Arkon (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the lead the way it was. It has been stable for some time, and seems neutral. With all respect to the article's subject, it does not enhance the article's neutrality for it to label her with her preferred term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Not a reason to revert. It's well sourced, and does nothing in regards to neutrality, because it's about improving the description of the subject of the article. Which is of course, the locus of dispute in the last few sections. If you would like to make a policy based argument against it, I will hold off on reverting. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed this, but there are plenty of sources describing Sommers as anti-feminist, as discussed ad nauseam in the past. That being the case, it does not improve "the description of the subject of the article" to label her an equity feminist in Wikipedia's voice, it violates WP:NPOV. Personally, I think it also unnecessarily limits Sommers' accomplishments; I do see her primarily as an author rather than as a "feminist". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the wording that was added, which was Equity Feminist, which is well sourced and unchallenged. I didn't remove "author" or anything else that limited any accomplishment, it was an addition. Arkon (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No, Arkon, I did not miss the wording you added. It is obviously untrue to describe "Equity Feminist" as "unchallenged" given the sources calling Sommers anti-feminist. It seems clearly unacceptable under WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What? Anti-Feminist is not a counter to "equity feminist", did you miss things such as the actual article on Equity feminism, and this which sites CHS heavily? Please make some policy/reality based arguments, as the sources within the article already show that NPOV is an incredibly lazy one. Arkon (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to waste my time trying to decipher semi-coherent responses. I am not sure what you think 'Anti-Feminist is not a counter to "equity feminist"' means and I am not sure I care. The bottom line is that if there are many sources calling Sommers anti-feminist, then it is a violation of WP:NPOV for the article to label her a feminist. Nothing you said addresses the point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sweet! I'm not sure you know what NPOV or WP:LEDE means at this point, so we should be done here. Arkon (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Arkon, if you want the article to describe Sommers as an "equity feminist" in Wikipedia's voice, you need to get consensus for the change. You cannot force it through without agreement, as you have tried to do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I must ask as at this point you've —reverted again, do you know what WP:LEAD is, and how do you reconcile removing the description with the views section? Arkon (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to patronizing drivel and babble. I have explained what you need to do if you want to change the article's lead section; you need to persuade other editors that you are right and get agreement for your changes. You have not done that, and past discussions at this talk page indicate that you will most likely not succeed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC)P.S. One of us is using well sourced content within the article to improve the lead, one of us isn't. There certainly isn't "one" of us trying to force anything, it's you not understanding, for whatever reason, that the lead summarizes the body. And it's one of us actually having a policy based reason for our actions. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Your edits do not improve the lead, your edits violate WP:NPOV. Even if you have a source calling Sommers an equity feminist, there are probably many more sources calling Sommers ant-feminist, and as such it violates neutrality for the article to call Sommers an "equity feminist". That should be clear enough. Nothing you said in response was relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC again)You of course, didn't answer the question of why you are disregarding WP:LEAD. You haven't explained anything other than IDONTLIKEIT. You can do better, from what I've seen anyway. Arkon (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Saying NPOV like red flag doesn't get you far here, considering my edit is a summary of the body of the article. It sounds like you need to do a bunch of editing to the article (and reality), if you think such a thing is a NPOV violation. Arkon (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Describing Sommers in that light in the lede is contentious- 'equity feminist' is a bit of a misnomer if the reader does not have the context of the body of the article to understand the use of the term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why it's linked. So people can read it (oh and it's based heavily on CHS) Arkon (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been watching this nonsensical discussion for a long time. There's no need to label Sommers as an "equity feminist" in the first sentence of the lead as a primary descriptor. It is mentioned in the first line of the second paragraph and contrasted with "gender feminism" and that is enough. In short, I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator. Kingsindian   02:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. "Equity feminism" is a Sommers construction, not seen in mainstream feminist literature outside of the discussion of Sommers and her writings, so we don't use the term in Wikipedia's voice, as if it were an established concept. The term's legitimacy is strongly questioned by topic experts. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading this talkpage...[edit]

I am reminded of Ahmadiyya. See how much of the lede is devoted to the more mainstream (and vastly more numerous) viewpoint on/of them? One line. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What is it you believe to be the mainstream stuff that's missing? Arkon (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christina Hoff Sommers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Equalist[edit]

Christina is also identified as as an Equalist but while that was once aprt of her page it got quickly deleted. No mention of Equalists and her stance on it and I wonder why, I'm also interested in this back-and-forth argument about her being a feminist. Only a lone link to Equalism is still in the page despite the constant repeat of the word 'equal' all over it.

https://twitter.com/chsommers/status/435587471569858560

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11527238/Meet-the-feminist-who-is-sticking-up-for-men.html?hc_location=ufi

and I just want to leave a quote here from a feminist blog regarding 'Is Christine a Feminist or Not?'

"Feminists on the right and left like Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe, Dita Von Teese, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Naomi Wolf were denounced as anti-feminist, even though none of them want a world of unequal opportunity. Men cannot be feminists in the eyes of identitarians; their term is "male ally". What identitarians make of the fact that "feminism" was coined in 1837 by a man, the socialist Charles Fourier, I haven't found." 37.191.5.234 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)