tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post2610803954085073749..comments2024-03-09T03:20:20.004-05:00Comments on Tenured Radical: "And Your Little Dog Too!!!" Christina Hoff Sommers Still Wants The Ruby SlippersTenured Radicalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-65381190701479018312011-02-16T05:40:37.340-05:002011-02-16T05:40:37.340-05:00I can't wait to read Sommers book. As a high s...I can't wait to read Sommers book. As a high school teacher in Australia, I see, every day, boys lagging behind girls at reading, writing, enthusiasm for school, at academic awards ceremonies,.... It bothers me. I have a son. He hates school. He's very bright, and early on, he figured it out, that school is for GIRLS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-15830548908047533392010-07-12T11:13:51.418-05:002010-07-12T11:13:51.418-05:00Though your cheerleaders congratulate you for drop...Though your cheerleaders congratulate you for dropping a house on CHS and others claim they have no response to her because she "plagues" them so (pitiful), I don't exactly see what you've disproved. I think many of us know that feminists have a simmering hate for anybody or anything that interrupts or challenges the 24/7 media glow they have basked in for decades, but you have realize that there are more of us accessing information these days. It's hilarious that you would cry about Ms. Sommers making a good living from her writings while women's groups in academic settings benefit from uncontested buckets of money from a federal government that have no interest in TRUE gender equity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-4943456293574310782010-02-09T13:49:13.768-05:002010-02-09T13:49:13.768-05:00I see a whole lot of condescension towards Sommers...I see a whole lot of condescension towards Sommers but not a lot of actual refutation of what Sommers said. <br /><br />Merely sneering about someone's claims doesn't prove them false.<br /><br />Near as I can see, all this article does is support Sommers' contentions to begin with -- that her detractors' objections are purely ideological and factually baseless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-9253200783122202562009-12-09T19:53:58.273-05:002009-12-09T19:53:58.273-05:00By the way - English common law had no impact in E...By the way - English common law had no impact in Europe - they had their own common lawDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820442661195206578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-79746135419197656682009-12-09T19:35:31.976-05:002009-12-09T19:35:31.976-05:00I am surprised that a historian should find factu...I am surprised that a historian should find factual accuracy so unimportant, but that aside I think you miss the point.<br />Domestic Violence Law claims "A" (in this case that a mans right to beat his wife with a stick was enshrined in law) is a fact, and that "B" (the origin of the phrase rule of thumb) is evidence to support that claim.<br />Sommers' point is that "B" is wrong, and therefore "A" must be called in to question. <br />Her real complaint is that a textbook teaches students that English common law allowed a man to beat his wife, when in fact this has never been the case. This I think you will agree is a pretty fundamental flaw in the text, much as a history textbook that taught students that the Norman invasion of England took place in 1065 might be considered flawed.<br />Do you not agree that academic textbook authors have a duty to accuracy?<br /><br />:Edited to remove typoDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820442661195206578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-91506975732846700122009-12-09T19:33:14.781-05:002009-12-09T19:33:14.781-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820442661195206578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-52814761138862860532009-08-12T15:10:45.476-05:002009-08-12T15:10:45.476-05:00I've only read Who Killed Feminism, but I thou...I've only read Who Killed Feminism, but I thought it was an excellent critique and it made me a fan of Chritina Sommers. <br /><br />There are ideologues on both sides of the political aisle. The gender feminists are among the most dishonest. Their support for abortion is based on slogans (pro-choice, women's reproductive rights, keep your rosaries off my ovaries, etc.). Any attempt to get them to address the rights of little unborn women is an exercise in futility. I've debated them and they do everything to keep women ignorant of the facts of fetal development. That is an ideologue at her worst. Ultrasound, however, is the house falling on their sacred sacrament of death.Mary Annnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-39834567623129076562009-07-08T10:08:00.018-05:002009-07-08T10:08:00.018-05:00I haven't read either Sommers' writings or...I haven't read either Sommers' writings or Friedman's full critique of them, but the quote from the latter doesn't seem inscrutable to me. Friedman appears to be saying that Sommers' historical scholarship is just contemporary commentary in disguise: that her historical examples are brought in only insofar as they "stand in" for present-day ones. Basically, the quote is accusing Sommers of presentism. I have no idea if this is a just accusation, by the way, I'm just saying that it's not an inscrutable one.Taviahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18206523451179739012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-74611118130804361612009-07-05T21:53:07.690-05:002009-07-05T21:53:07.690-05:00Sommers is a crook. Years ago I had a piece in the...Sommers is a crook. Years ago I had a piece in the APA Feminism & Philosophy Newsletter critical of some feminists in the profession for gassing on about feminist film aesthetics and such (instead of dealing with discrimination and wage gaps!). Sommers called me at home, when I was in the middle of cooking dinner, dealing with kids and had some wine to, um, chat and commiserate with me about the folly of these feminists in our profession. After about 10 minutes I realized she was trying to get material for her book and asked her whether she was interviewing me--which she admitted she was doing. I had to threaten to sue her if she used any of my comments with or without attribution. She's done this to others too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-59212101931074590592009-07-04T22:17:39.912-05:002009-07-04T22:17:39.912-05:00The discussion here, sadly, seems to reinforce Som...The discussion here, sadly, seems to reinforce Sommers' point. Lemon's book not only contained substantive factual errors, but when they were pointed out, she was utterly unconcerned with correcting them. Unfortunately, this post, and many of the comments here, seem equally unconcerned.<br /><br />The general point Lemon was trying to make is correct. But how can anyone who doesn't already know that be convinced if she doesn't care whether her evidence is made up or not?<br /><br />And (filtering out the ideological drivel), that seems to be the substantive accusation in Sommers' piece: that feminists aren't interested in factual accuracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-22748439995504058792009-07-04T19:57:34.276-05:002009-07-04T19:57:34.276-05:00Susan and Janice--Sommers is just a sad, pathetic ...Susan and Janice--Sommers is just a sad, pathetic person who desperately craves our attention and (in her dreams!) our approval. <br /><br />The older I get, the less cautious I am in judging some things. False consciousness, false consciousness, toolarama, toolereemio, and false consciousness. How sad for her that her big buck$ don't satisfy the gaping hole in her soul. How pathetic that the best she can do is as good as a bright undergraduate in Classics. <br /><br />Whatever.Historiannhttp://historiann.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-80161240346869693452009-07-04T18:37:22.447-05:002009-07-04T18:37:22.447-05:00Susan? Exactly! I spent a fair bit of last term de...Susan? Exactly! I spent a fair bit of last term deep in Blackstone's commentaries when I was teaching a course on the history of crime and punishment in England, 1700-1900. Some of the tidbits drawn from his own reading in the history of law that get casually tossed around in there are sobering, to wit, his discussion of domestic violence in the Roman law tradition: "The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanours, <i>flagellis et fustibus acriter verbare uxorum</i> [to severely wound his wife with whips and fists]; for others, only <i>modicam castigationem adbibere</i> [to apply modest, corrective punishment]."<br /><br />Yes, the "rule of thumb" doesn't seem to have a Roman origin or application (I confess, I'd never heard the Romulan origin story) but the rule of thumb was being bruited about in the late eighteenth century (witness Gillray's infamous cartoon "Judge Thumb"). And a husband's right to his wife's body, in the broadest terms, went fairly unchallenged in English law until the last quarter of the 19th century. (Read Mary Lyndon Shanley's "Feminism, Marriage, and the Law in Victorian England" for more on that part.)<br /><br />Sommers' "find" isn't that surprising for historians who have worked in topics relating to law in the early modern period. Lemon isn't a historian, though, and lacked the training or background to question this assertion.<br /><br />From this report, it seems as if she was open to having the error pointed out for correction but wasn't too keen on Sommers having flogged this story up and down as an example of everything that Sommers feels is wrong with feminism.Janicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093558563358431804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-40847103243711933122009-07-04T15:15:13.186-05:002009-07-04T15:15:13.186-05:00Rachel, it ain't where you make the whiskey, i...Rachel, it ain't where you make the whiskey, it's where you drink it, and how much you drink.JackDanielsBlackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17285871354441074406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-25757128858733976812009-07-04T11:59:48.500-05:002009-07-04T11:59:48.500-05:00Is myth really fiction? Myth has power because it ...Is myth really fiction? Myth has power because it underlies our very value system. That is the reason that feminist scholarship is important, it helps uncover the myths that our reasoning is based upon so that people can use their minds to determine if their logic is reasonable. <br /><br />I have not read Sommers so I can not speak to her words, but I find it interesting that her supporter here calls himself by the name of a whiskey that is made in a dry county. I find a great metaphor in that.Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-74718748432167023072009-07-03T22:32:41.538-05:002009-07-03T22:32:41.538-05:00I have long promised that the day I value money ov...I have long promised that the day I value money over integrity is the day I will bash feminism because it's a sure path to lots of bucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-31416076349953421232009-07-03T16:01:22.763-05:002009-07-03T16:01:22.763-05:00Susan, if someone purports to be doing a historica...Susan, if someone purports to be doing a historical perspective and starts off by citing a mythological figure as if they were real, don't you think that sort of undermines their credibility? It's sort of like fundamentalists arguing that something is true because it's in the Bible.<br /><br />And Nancy Lemon's snotty reply to Sommers request that she correct errors in her textbook (presumably so future students wouldn't be mislead by bad statistics) sort of illustrates Sommers' point, doesn't it?<br /><br />We can all have our own opinions on the facts, but we can't all have our own facts. And I think civil discourse is best served when we all have accurate information to argue over, and I think this is all that Sommers is saying--if your information is incorrect, then you should do your best to correct it.JackDanielsBlackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17285871354441074406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-29285923351528655352009-07-03T15:24:02.965-05:002009-07-03T15:24:02.965-05:00JackDanielsBlack
I was going to ignore your commen...JackDanielsBlack<br />I was going to ignore your comments, but I went and read the article. She read a book. She identified two errors in the book. And from that we have the conclusion that all feminists are bad.<br /><br />Now, this is a book on the law relating to domestic violence. One error is a reference (recycled from earlier flawed scholarship) about Romulus and the Roman origins of the Rule of Thumb. Well, sure, it doesn't go back to Romulus, but it DOES go back to at least the 18th c (as I -- a feminist scholar -- can demonstrate). So what's the problem? Either way, there was a rule of thumb. For lawyers, it actually doesn't matter if it's articulated 2700 years ago or 200 years ago -- it certainly shaped US legal practice. <br /><br /> The reality is that *all of us* -- whether feminist or conservative -- occasionally take broad summaries of material that is tangential to our work and quote it. And in doing so we sometimes make mistakes. But if we had to do deep research on everything, we'd never write a thing. <br /><br />Just think how differently Sommers' piece would have read if instead of saying, "There is no Romulus" she said, "Of course, we all know that the rule of thumb is articulated in the 18th century, not by the non-existent Romulus." She couldn't then suggest that the rule of thumb was a "persistent myth" in feminist scholarship.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716705206734059708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-39529240737264012782009-07-03T13:51:45.254-05:002009-07-03T13:51:45.254-05:00TR, you work, she works, what's the difference...TR, you work, she works, what's the difference? You don't think writing books and articles is work? Many academics would disagree.<br /><br />She is an "ideologue", while you are...a disinterested scholar? I don't think so.JackDanielsBlackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17285871354441074406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-69253723559648462812009-07-03T13:40:45.412-05:002009-07-03T13:40:45.412-05:00Oh yeah -- Sommers is living way higher than me, I...Oh yeah -- Sommers is living way higher than me, I promise you.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-21939001374726730252009-07-03T13:40:13.310-05:002009-07-03T13:40:13.310-05:00Jack:
Umm..I work (as a teacher, administrator an...Jack:<br /><br />Umm..I work (as a teacher, administrator and scholar) rather than accepting a salary gleaned from wealthy, agenda-driven conservative donors in exchange for pushing an ideological agenda.<br /><br />How's that? <br /><br />The point of my piece is that the woman is an ideologue, and that you *can't* argue reasonably with an ideologue. When you do, what you find is that there are no "facts," and her arguments fall apart, or mirror her criticisms of others.<br /><br />I don't think these commenters are taking anything personally -- or at least any more personally than Sommers does when she claims that certain women have "hijacked feminism." I do think people like Lemon have a right to take it personally -- as anyone does - when someone insists on attacking them relentlessly no matter how insubstantial the criticisms just to push their own agenda/career.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-16636862844343696282009-07-03T12:47:59.668-05:002009-07-03T12:47:59.668-05:00Folks, in her article Sommers observes:
"One ...Folks, in her article Sommers observes:<br />"One reason that feminist scholarship contains hard-to-kill falsehoods is that reasonable, evidence-backed criticism is regarded as a personal attack."<br />Looks like you folks are illustrating her point. Why not address her points instead of calling her names, speculating on her mental state, etc.? As someone once observed, facts are stubborn things -- maybe that's why they are ignored so often in favor of ad-hominem attacks.<br /><br />By the way, TR, is living high off the conservative foundation tit any more shameful than living high off the Zenith tit? Enquiring minds want to know.JackDanielsBlackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17285871354441074406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-48577606569403919842009-07-03T10:45:50.872-05:002009-07-03T10:45:50.872-05:00I was going to mention the Kelly article, but some...I was going to mention the Kelly article, but someone beat me to it. Still, it's probably beside the point. I don't know why these neocon women seem to always want to not only call themselves feminists, but tell us who are feminists that we're not, while simultaneously maintaining the position that feminists are bad. The mind boggles.Notorious Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08700875559325201086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-61297361252673300432009-07-03T07:43:16.207-05:002009-07-03T07:43:16.207-05:00@Historiann: Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the...@Historiann: Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-39904015363184410132009-07-03T07:11:54.779-05:002009-07-03T07:11:54.779-05:00Love all of this, TR--Sommers is a tool.
Virginia...Love all of this, TR--Sommers is a tool.<br /><br />Virginia, what I think the quotation "their magic must be very powerful or she wouldn't want them so badly" means here is that Sommers, like other academic haterz like David Horowitz, wants very badly to be engaged seriously and to be admitted to the very club she spends all of her time and energy insulting and trashing. Yes, it's perverse, and anyone who thinks that feminist scholars somehow have a stranglehold on power anywhere in academia (let alone in the wider world) is smoking funny cigarettes. But secretly, she envies us, she envies the scholarly respectability that many of us have, and it drives her crazy that she's not invited to our little treehouse.<br /><br />Sommers and Horowitz are kind of like those bullies in grade school you were urged to be kind too because you were told that they were very damaged, fragile people that you should pity. When of course the only sensible response to a bully is to shun them and stick to your friends who like to play nice together. TR's analysis of Sommers is brilliant meta stuff, exposing her bullying M.O. Thanks, TR: We ain't playin'.Historiannhttp://historiann.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-56105366006840172822009-07-02T21:04:21.098-05:002009-07-02T21:04:21.098-05:00THANK you. Whenever I hear Sommers' name, my ...THANK you. Whenever I hear Sommers' name, my eyes start rolling so much that I can't write anything.Plain(s)feministhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15056404699624958898noreply@blogger.com