Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers ist für eine Gleichberechtigung der Frauen (natürlich) und sieht sich als Feministin, kritisiert aber gerade den akademischen Feminismus und dessen Auswüchse.

Einige Auswüchse, die sie darstellt:

one of my colleagues in feminist philosophy referred to her seminars as “ovulars.” She rejected the masculinist “seminar” because the root of that word is associated with, well, the very essence of male power. It is actually very funny when you think about it.  But this woman was not kidding. (Quelle)

These are women who believe in what they call the sex-gender system, that women are trapped in a sex-gender system, that gender roles are arbitrarily defined, and the purpose is to convince women that they are victims, that they are put upon by men in every aspect, that language has to be liberated, and textbooks and great works of art are all compromised by sexism. You have feminists — Susan McClary, for example — who teach students to identify rape themes in Beethoven symphonies. You know, when I see things like that I think it’s gotten so ridiculous that you can’t tell the difference between a parody and the real thing. There are feminists out there who are trying to get scientists to change the name of the Big Bang Theory because, they say, that is sexist and frightening to young women. Well, what kind of woman with a serious interest in astronomy would be put off by a graphic image of a cosmic event? (Quelle)

Was sie am Feminismus kritisiert ist insbesondere die dort verbreitete Opferhaltung:

If you have had a feminist speaker at your school, taken an introductory women’s studies class, or visited the website of one or more of our national women’s groups, you will not find the successes of equity feminism celebrated; you will not find expressions of happiness for the freedoms and opportunities American women now enjoy. The dominant philosophy of today’s women’s movement is not equity feminism–but “victim feminism.” “Victim” feminists don’t want to hear about the ways in which women have succeeded. They want to focus on and often invent new ways and perspectives in which women can be regarded as oppressed and subordinated to men.

Und zum dortigen Männerbild:

And here is the problem with the play and with the gender feminist philosophy that informs it: Most men are not brutes. They are not oppressors. Yes, there are some contemptible Neanderthals among us, and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. But to confuse them with the ethical majority of men is blatantly sexist. Yet again and again, we find that contemporary feminists take the worst case example of pathological masculinity and treat it as the male norm.

Und zum Hass und wie er aufgebaut wird:

Maybe ten percent of 18-24 year old women are very angry people, intoxicated with hatred, believing that maleness is synonymous with violence. Now, this is not true, but they have been fed these statistics. The statistics that I debunk in the book — it’s not a mistake that appears in one book. They are repeated and reinforced from textbooks, popular texts, newspapers. Students would have no reason to doubt them. So they believe that one in four women are victims of rape or attempted rape, or that they are still earning 59 cents on the dollar, that they are dying by the scores of thousands of anorexia nervosa. Untrue, yet they believe it. So that is going to be a problem. You are going to have these angry young women out there who believe a lot of false things. It’s always dangerous to combine ignorance and moral fervor. So we are going to have some feminist fanatics to contend with, along with all the other fanatics that are in our society. (Quelle)

Zudem kritisiert sie den Umgang mit Fakten in diesem Bereich. Es seien Statistiken angegeben worden, die nie existieren, falsche Darstellungen von Fakten gemacht worden und diese insbesondere auch auf Hinweis auf diese Fehler nicht behoben worden.

Sommers writes in Who Stole Feminism that an often-mentioned March of Dimes study which says that „domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects,“ does not, in fact, exist. She writes that violence against women does not peak during the Super Bowl, which she describes as another popular urban legend. Sommers also writes that these statements about domestic violence were used in shaping the Violence Against Women Act, which allocates $1.6 billion a year in federal funds for ending domestic violence. Sommers writes that feminists assert and the media report that approximately 150,000 women die each year from anorexia, an apparent distortion of the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association’s figure that 150,000 females have some degree of anorexia (Quelle)

Eine Darstellung vieler Fehler und Übertreibungen, die sie gefunden hat, finden sich auch hier.

Sie verweist darauf, dass nicht alle Unterschiede sofort Diskriminierung sein müssen und schließt sich insofern Auffassungen an, die auch biologische Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern bejahen.

As an equity feminist, I accept the fact that men and women may well be different in their psychological and cognitive make-up. While environment and socialization do play a significant role, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 30 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. What are these biologically based differences? Males, on average, have better spatial and mechanical skills, females better verbal skills. (…) (Quelle)

Ihr Ausblick für einen besseren Feminismus:

So yes, there is much that is valuable, responsible and even heroic in contemporary feminism. But if the movement as a whole is to remain relevant and effective in fighting sexist cruelty and injustice, it is going to have to change. It will have to tone down the rhetoric against men, be meticulous about truth and accuracy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it must become inclusive: moderate and conservative women have to be offered a place at the table.

Das klingt meine ich nach vernünftigen Forderungen