In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The CHS Canon

Lauren

As requested on the wishlist, Jeff Goldstein sent me the Christina Hoff Sommers canon for Xmas. I am now under the charge of reading Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys over my Xmas vacation.

If I don’t get so angry that I throw the books in the driveway and back over them four or five times in the Jeep, I’ll likely do a brief series on my reactions to the books. I don’t have the time for hard research into her claims, but after ripping on CHS for being one of the primary sources for the public outcry against feminism, I think it’s only fair that I read her work instead of relying on secondary documents.

The plan is to start with WAB, as I’ve been thinking about boys and the educational process due to my time in the classroom.

UPDATE: Read the first question and answer.

25 thoughts on The CHS Canon

  1. FYI, Christina actually did do a lot of work to research her books. She didn’t rely on hearsay; she contact actual “sources” of statistics and was told that they had been portrayed wrongly in college textbooks and media. A cut above Phyllis Schlafly, who tends to emote more about “the feminists are always wrong.”

    That’s not to say that the book won’t make you angry or that 100% of her stuff is accurate, but I’m just letting you know in advance that it’s not just conservative platitudes (She’s actually a registered Democrat I believe).

    Please post and let us know what you think!

  2. Oh and btw good for you for actually reading stuff that is outside your comfort zone. We become better writers by reading stuff on both sides.

  4. Regarding the interview you link, it really takes some doing to go into an interview with the Dartmouth Review and wind up sounding like the deranged ideological one. Whatever her criticisms – and she is at least the more rational of the anti-feminists – she seems to have slid into this reactionary, name-calling vagueness like the rest of the anti-feminitsts:

    “academic feminism is the intellectual arm of the women’s movement and that has tended to to make it very political to the point of making it not merely political but highly partisan, representing a narrow political view point”

    “the campus functions as a one party system because the cultural left has a monopoly. They won’t let anyone else in if they can help it and they are hostile to criticism”

    “Contemporary feminism is tied up in just about every grim fad.”

    “the reasonable feminism on the campus has been hijacked by a group of rather eccentric women who view American society as oppressive and patriarchal.”

    “there are a lot of people that are hypersensitive and chronically offended, but Women’s Studies is a magnet for them.”

    Yeah – the worst thing about those crazy feminists is that they believe there’s such a thing as gender-based oppression and patriarchy. How eccentric!

  5. I think it’s odd that she’s an “expert” in deconstruction, but characterizes it as a method to “uncover the political agenda and say the class or gender allegiances of the author.” Umm, by that point in the history of critical theory wasn’t it pretty well established that the text exists outside of the author’s intention?

    And the whole bit about criticism and anti-intellectualism? Zwuh? How should we examine the text instead? The anti-intellectual nature of deconstruction is predicated on the fact that we’re cynical before admirable, according to her. So should we ignore any political contents and base our reading on how the words sound pretty together?

    Wow. I also don’t think I’ve ever met a literature professor that’s told me there’s only one way to read a text, like she insinuates. They produce a reading, not the reading. If they do otherwise that’s a weakness in the professor, not in feminism or women’s studies or deconstruction.

    And the whole bit about the “mitosis” of feminism? How horrible that academics acknowledge that the experience of women in different cultural positions may have different experience and concerns! Clearly, we all need to be exactly on the same page.

    Hopefully she’s got a bit more to back herself up then evident in this interview, cause this stuff seems pretty weak.

  6. Umm, by that point in the history of critical theory wasn’t it pretty well established that the text exists outside of the author’s intention?

    No.

    It was asserted to be so — and celebrated by some for being so — but it is most certainly not so.

  8. Really Jeff G? Most certainly? That’s pretty certain! How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

    That aside, calling deconstruction a method of uncovering “political agenda” or “class or gender preferences of the author” is pretty odd, considering that deconstruction is often used to examine how a text may subvert or resist an author’s stated intention. (Author here taken to be an entity within the text itself, rather then the actual person who wrote whatever is being deconstructed.) The whole idea of deconstruction “calls into question… the presence of a fulfilled and actualised intentionality, adequate to itself and its contents,” in Derrida’s own words. I guess she could mean that deconstruction is used to discover the author’s true intention, aside from any stated intention, but again that would seem pretty odd considering that any author after a reading is going to be a reconstruction from an existing text, an entity without intentions since it’s a textual construction anyhow.

    Anyhow, she may mean it in a more nuanced way then I’m reading it, and I recognize it’s an interview, but still, it’s an odd thing for a deconstructionist to talk about uncovering intentions of an author using deconstruction. I’m more interested now in how you claim, full stop, that the text isn’t severed from its author’s intention. How is that again?

  10. UPDATE: Read the first question and answer.

    Done.

    Marginalized? “Conservative women, politically moderate women, libertarian women, traditionally religious women, have all been thoroughly marginalized?” Gee, I can’t imagine why they’d feel that way. It’s not as though your conversations on this issue are taking place primarily with a man or anything. You and Jill have plenty of conservative, libertarian, and/or religious women participating here, right?

    Right.

  11. Ilyka, it was nearly a direct quote from, uh, particular conversations we’ve been having about feminism recently with, uh, certain people. I found a talking point.

    I also found out that I was misspelling her name for three years.

  12. That aside, calling deconstruction a method of uncovering “political agenda” or “class or gender preferences of the author” is pretty odd, considering that deconstruction is often used to examine how a text may subvert or resist an author’s stated intention.

    Well, I suppose from one point of view it seems odd — though I would remind you that many arguments asserting that a text is subverting or resisting the author’s stated intention is in fact nothing more than an argument that the author’s unconscious intentions are being teased out, that the author is in the thrall of such (pick your paradigm — archetypal memory, psychosexual desire, dialogical webs, subjugation in the power dynamic inscribed by the cultural master narrative). So from that perspective, it doesn’t seem quite so odd — the political agenda need not be stated overtly to be intentional in the semiotic sense.

    But I’m not quite sure CHS was using it that way.

    As to your initial question — how did I come to that particular conclusion — well, I accept the notion that language works through a system of signs, passed on as signifiers, between agencies (or assumed agencies). From there it was quite simple to reach the conclusion I did.

    In fact, you seem to have reached the same conclusion. You write:

    I also don’t think I’ve ever met a literature professor that’s told me there’s only one way to read a text, like she insinuates. They produce a reading, not the reading.

    Of course there are many ways to read a text. But what you are hoping to do with the text will dictate how you read it.

    Not every reading is of the “same” text — though each reader may begin with the same set of signifiers.

  14. Both of those books are so disappointing. I am sort of amazed that she has allowed herself to be bought out by the Heritage Foundation and go around defending the shitty lot that men have been given in the U.S. Ugh.

  15. First off, sorry for the slow response. I spent the day travelling home for break.

    Well, I suppose from one point of view it seems odd — though I would remind you that many arguments asserting that a text is subverting or resisting the author’s stated intention is in fact nothing more than an argument that the author’s unconscious intentions are being teased out, that the author is in the thrall of such (pick your paradigm — archetypal memory, psychosexual desire, dialogical webs, subjugation in the power dynamic inscribed by the cultural master narrative). So from that perspective, it doesn’t seem quite so odd — the political agenda need not be stated overtly to be intentional in the semiotic sense.

    Right, I recognize that deconstruction means different things in different contexts. I suppose I was just thinking about it in the Derridian sense, though I’m sure its probably been used in ways consistent with what she said. Point taken.

    That being said, can you define intentionalism for me? I can think of a few ways to understand it, but none seem to fit with what you said so far. You originally responded to me saying (I thought) that the text does, in fact, exist within the author’s intention. (there’s some vaguery here that I’ll attempt to tease out in a second.) Above, you clarify that you arrived at this “through the notion that language works through a system of signs, passed on as signifiers, between agencies (or assumed agencies).” But you also acknowledge that “there are many ways to read a text” and “not every reading is of the same text — though each reader may begin with the same set of signifiers.” And that’s where I get confused.

    Now, it seems to me that intentionalism could mean a bunch of things. It could be any of these theses, for instance:
    (1) The author’s intention is present in the text in the sense that a person, “the author” intended to write those particular signifiers that the text is composed of.

    (2) The author ‘s intention in writing those particular signifiers is communicated through those particular signifiers.
    (3) The basis for criticism ought to be how well that intention is communicated.

    Ok, so you’ve already acknowledged that not every reading is of the same text, even given the same signifiers. It would seem to follow that options (2) and (3) would be out, then – if the author’s intention is communicated through the text, then we’d all be reading the same text. So that leaves the first, which doesn’t say anything more then texts are written.

    Anyhow, I realize those aren’t the only options. But if you acknowledge the primacy of reading in interpretation (like it seems you did when you say not every reading is of the same text), then what’s left? Or is there some nuance here I’m not aware of?

  16. Both of those books are so disappointing. I am sort of amazed that she has allowed herself to be bought out by the Heritage Foundation and go around defending the shitty lot that men have been given in the U.S. Ugh.

    I can see where you’re coming from with the War against Boys, but I don’t think that’s entirely her point. What she’s trying to point out is that in focusing on girls’ self-esteem so as to make education non-sexist, some schools have started focusing too little on the boys. What we often forget is that helping an underprivileged group does not mean we hurt the privileged ones in the process–you’re not building up girls by tearing down the boys.

    And in Who Stole Feminism, she works to show the inaccuracy/overexaggeration of some of the behaviors of many feminist activists and the facts they’ve put forth. She admits that the feminists’ hearts are often in the right place with standing up for women’s rights–she even admits that she’s a feminist herself who sees sexism in society.

    However, the thing is that some of the “facts” put forth in women’s studies and other texts simply aren’t true, or are blown way out of proportion. It happened in my social work curriculum–I think we were taught that something like 75% of women are beaten by their husbands, or close to it (I’d have to look it up). That’s ridiculous. It’s one thing to fight domestic violence, but overinflating the stats only hurts their credibility.

    That’s my take on the books. Personally, I don’t find CHS that much of an “anti-feminist” as compared to the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Concerned Women for America, etc. You might disagree, and that’s cool.

  17. This is straight from the RNC talking points – as a member of the ruling elite majority, whine about being oppressed.
    There should be no discussion of this.
    Also, does she not realize the complete irony of her position?

  18. Well, I wasn’t referring to oppression per se, just inaccuracy and overexaggeration. You can have a movement in favor of one group without bullying other groups. You can have a movement for one cause without portraying the cause with made-up statistics.

    And yes, it is justifiable for someone to complain about being bullied or ignored, regardless of whether they come from an “oppressed” or a “privileged” group.

  19. You’re being nicer to CHS than she’s ever been to feminists.

    Marian, do you have a cite for your 75% figure? Because that’s exactly the kind of stunt that CHS pulls.

  20. It’s in one of my social work books that is currently at home. I’ll look it up and post later if you like. Actually as I think about it more, I believe it was 65%, but I am not making that up. It’s a textbook called The Expanded Family Life Cycle by Betty Carter & Monica McGoldrick. When I read it I felt that they had a habit of misusing research; for instance, in their section on Indian families, they appeared to intentionally use research from the mid-1980’s and before (the book is copyright 1999) to portray the culture in the US as far more oppressive than it really is.

    will come back with citation tonight if I don’t forget!

  22. So do people find what she says about women studies programs invalid? I myself did not take classes in our women’s studies program at Ithaca College, but instead took feminist theory classes (With zillah Eisenstien who you should all read if you haven’t already). In the case of women’s studies programs, if they are using such a broad name they should be more open to include other voices. The same thing goes for politics departments. Though TIME wrote a ridiculous article about the liberal bias at places like Ithaca College (the article was biased itself), I believe the point is valid. I didn’t learn much about conservative politics ( not including economic liberalism which i believe is conservative) outside of an independent study class that several republican students had formed. I learned very valuable information in the class and more should be taught.

    The point being that women’s studies programs should have a class on anti-feminism or something similar. Do people know of such classes?

  23. Marian,

    When women are victiems of violence, 75% of the time it is at the hands of someone they know. That is probably the most cited statistic about domestic violence I’ve come accross in my studies.

    But its a lot different then saying 75% of women are victiems of violence.

    Maybe the people who wrote your book misread that, or misrepresented it…

    As for CHS, academic feminism is based on the idea of tearing apart traditional disciplines, paradigms, methods, and ways of thinking (not just for being patriarchal, sometimes for being racist or classist or just ineffective and sucky). So to then attack a field that seeks to criticize everything in society for not being very nice to traditional society seems like an exercise in futility to me. I’ve never read Who Stole Feminism, but I have read some other short articles by her that convinced me that while she may have some points, she is too blinded by her anti-second wave feminism stance to really make her points clearly and support them. For example, she wrote one article about how women’s studies was unacademic because it relied too much on personal experiance that was based entirely on her personal experiances at a Women’s Studies confrence. It left me baffled. When feminists use personal experiance to prove points, that is bad and psudo-theraputic but when she uses it to prove her points that is ok? Silly arguements like that don’t make me inclined to read anything else by her.

  24. “Yeah – the worst thing about those crazy feminists is that they believe there’s such a thing as gender-based oppression and patriarchy. How eccentric!”

    Its not their beliefs – it’s their intolerance to those who don’t believe in it. This is NOT a characteristic of “Feminists” so much as it IS a characteristic of “Activists”. Since academic feminism is heavily interlaced with activist feminism (with many seeing themselves in a necessarily dual role) it is natural, logical, and undeniable, that that area of academia has earned itself a reputation of being hostile to some people and points of view.

    Intolerance of injustice is often a good thing, but taken to far it becomes harmful. Some people have an almost “pathological” aversion to injustice – to the point where they see everyone who is not “with them” in the struggle for “justice” as being “against them” – or at least a dangerous obstacle that should be removed for the greater good. This can make people VERY intolerant of anyone and anything they view as being “against them”.

  25. But its a lot different then saying 75% of women are victiems of violence.

    Maybe the people who wrote your book misread that, or misrepresented it…

    Sarah–Perhaps, that’s entirely possible. Misdefining terms and twisting words around is often behind distorting statistics. And I should mention that the religious right is often guilty of the same thing when they say thing like, “Birth control destroys marriages.”

    Ginmar–Here goes. Finally dug it out. Corrected again–I was close with the number, but it’s not Carter/McGoldrick but rather in an article by Karen Lindsey entitled “Friends as Family,” and it’s 60% (apologies for inflating it–I had 65-75 in my brain for some reason).

    “As many as 60% of all married women are beaten at least once by their husbands.”

    The source is cited as an article from 1979 by Terry Davidson entitled : Conjugal Crime: Understanding and Changing the Wifebeating Pattern.

    So, here’s the problem I think is going on: NYU is treating this article from the 70’s as current fact. The stat might have been true then, before DV laws were what they are (plus other factors such as the ability to escape an abusive marriage). We would have been allowed to cite this article in a paper, and no professor ever pointed out that it might have changed by now.

    But isn’t it a bit irresponsible to assign articles more than 5-10 years old as credible research? I was always taught to stay within that limit.

    What are people’s thoughts on this? I think “old” research can often be as inaccurate as inflated statistics–imagine writing a paper stating that the average marriage age is 21, because your source is from 1970.

Comments are currently closed.