Talk:Who Stole Feminism?

Lead
The lead is meant to summarize the main body of the article: nothing should appear in the lead that doesn't also appear in the rest of the article. I have accordingly removed the details of reviews of Sommers's books from the lead, and relocated them elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing
I'd like to note that the description of Nina Auerbach's review of the book is not sourced to the original review. It is sourced to this, which is an exchange of letters subsequent to the original review. This really isn't good enough; the original review needs to be used instead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV?
I'm not too sure about the article's neutrality. It seems like it was written by someone very sympathetic to the author's viewpoint, and combative towards feminism. The first two paragraphs of the "Reception" section include a quote from Camille Paglia, which frames it within the wider context of criticism of establishment feminism (nothing wrong with that per se). The second paragraph is quite lengthy and discusses a supposed attempt by "campus feminists" to "suppress the book". That's quite a big accusation, and yet it's only backed up by a single source. It's also extremely leading - "predictable trashing", its critics were "so obviously malicious and dishonest" and "many newspaper columnists commented on what they saw as unethical behaviour". All this from a single source?

Contrast that with the paragraph below - the criticism offered of the book is mostly in terms of factual errors. Why doesn't this paragraph instead try and examine what "campus feminists" were saying about the book? Or if Auerbach's review was "so obviously malicious and dishonest", why not find a feminist review of the book that had some more legitimate criticisms? At the moment the contrast between these two sections seems pretty heavily contrasted between praise of the book which frames it within broader political discussions of the book among critics of feminism and criticism of the book which is largely apolitical and limited to factual errors. There's not really a diversity of viewpoints on display here.

Might I suggest that this is revised? Not all feminism is absurd and Christina Hoff Sommers is herself a target of much criticism, and some of it might be legitimate. At the moment, that is not well-represented by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.156.126 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone is always going to complain about this article's neutrality, whatever it says. There is no reason why Paglia cannot be used as a source, nor is there any reason why the article should not quote people who said favorable things about the book - there is a difference between simply quoting them and presenting their views in Wikipedia's voice. If you can find sources that are critical of the book, then by all means use them; the article would be improved by citing both supportive and critical views. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That was my point - I don't have a problem with using Paglia as a source or quoting favourable things said about the book, it's just that at the moment the "Reception" section only presents substantive discussion of the reaction to the book in terms which are favourable to the book. When I have some time I'll try and get some substantive criticism of the book in there, I just wanted to solicit some viewpoints on that first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.156.126 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I read this a while ago and now that I wanted to pull some of what I did read, I find it has been re-written with a very anti-Sommers bent. The definition of Gender Vs Equity fems is gone. Why do you liberals have to ruin everything? It had been well written. Now its garbage. I guess I will just have to go back to the original copy. Too bad you can't sabotage it huh? --24.177.0.156 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Using "liberals" as a put-down for people who write anti-Sommers things, when Standord classifies equity feminists like Sommers as liberal feminists in the sense of classical liberalism... if you mean the new kind of liberalism you should find a proper prefix sir. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced and dubious content
Please explain why you keep restoring unsourced content and why you disregard WP:Burden? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You know very well that it is not unsourced. The lead is a summary of the main points of the article, and it is not true that each and every statement in the lead requires a direct citation. Oh, by the way, you might want to see WP:BRD. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But it is unsourced and unsupported by the body of the article which has about the same amount of positive and negative reviews. Please provide a reliable source per WP:Burden. --Sonicyouth86 (talk)


 * True, the body of the article does have about the same amount of positive and negative reviews. That's why the material in the lead that you are so destructively intent on removing is appropriate. All it does is to say that the book received both positive and negative reviews, which anyone can see to be true - making your demand for a reliable source bizarre. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So it does not reflect the body of the article and it's unsourced. My demand for a reliable source isn't bizarre. Rather it's your insistance that you don't need any sources at all that's bizarre. Please provide a source per WP:Burden. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Where do you get that "so" from? It looks like just your insistence to me. I think the material does reflect the body of the article, and you have done literally nothing to show otherwise. Though it is strictly unnecessary, I could easily add sources supporting both the statement that the book received positive reviews and that it received negative reviews; the sources are already there in the article. 21:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)ImprovingWiki (talk)


 * The burden of proof is on you, not on me. You need to source the claim that you want to see included. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A statement that a book has received both positive and negative reviews needs to be sourced only to positive and negative reviews of that book. It would help if you could stop behaving in such a pompous and disruptive way. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't state that. Instead, it states that it has received strong praise and some cirticism. The statement doesn't reflect the body of the article and therefore you need a reliable source for qualifiers such as "strong" etc. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sonicyouth86, I know that. I can read. I will alter the statement accordingly in due course. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lauritsen description
The statement that Lauritsen is a gay rights activist is unsourced. Please provide reliable sources per WP:BLP and WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's easily established through reviews, widely reported and non-negative so I can't list all of them. Here's one. He's used the term "gay liberationist" as well. take your pick as it's not a controversial claim. He's not as well known outside that community so his description in this article conforms to the descriptions of other reviewers of the article. --DHeyward (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. But why pick a label that isn't even mentioned in his BLP? His article describes him as many things: research analyst, founder of Pagan Press and someone who denies the link between AIDS and HIV. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for other articles. I am not the author of the terminology in this article either.  I reverted your removal of factual, relevant and positive information.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That Lauritsen is a gay rights activist is well-known and uncontroversial. It can easily be sourced to his book A Freethinker's Primer of Male Love, and to other sources as well. The information is relevant and should not be removed, since it helps readers to know the background of any person who comments on Sommers's book. It is disingenuous to say that it is "unnecessary; readers can click on the wikilink to learn about him"; there is no reason why useful information cannot be placed in two articles rather than only one. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research
This sentence is a textbook example of original research. (a) The sources is completely unrelated to the topic of the article (which is the book written by Christina Hoff Sommers), (b) the source doesn't support the statement "Blackstone has said the law prohibited physical violence against his wife" (the source says the exact opposite), and (c) the addition was written and placed in a way that implies the conclusion that Flanders and Hirshman are wrong although the source never mentions Sommers, her book, Flanders, Hirshman, or anything related to the article topic at all. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume you only mean Blackstone? The reference is from a secondary source that actually quotes the item in the dispute.  It doesn't take any side and includes Blackstones statement and views.  Two groups arguing about what a third person, long dead, said - it is appropriate to include the quote and source that both sides are referencing.  The source absolutely supports that statement that "Blackstone has said the law prohibited physical violence against his wife" while also acknowledging that "though courts did not always follow the law.".  Your selective quoting is garbage.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, the time in Sommers book is the 1700's (post Charles the second). the complete passage is William Blackstone (1723-80) in his 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' refers to an ancient law that permitted 'domestic chastisement'. He said: 'The husband ... by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children...for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife [other than as lawfully and reasonably pertains to the husband for the rule and correction of his wife]. ... But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-1685], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband'...'Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehaviour.'  --DHeyward (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources doesn't mention the topic of the article, which is Christina Hoff Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism?. Moreover, you mischaracterize the source and what it says about Blackstone. You added original research and you should know it. I'll probably take this to the OR noticeboard because I have known you long enough to know that you won't budge and that it takes a many uninvolved editors to confirm that you are mistaken. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The criticism/dispute is about a quote of Blackstone. A reliable secondary source on the Blackstone quote, unrelated to either party, is absolutely relevant and not original research.  The statement doesn't favor one side or the other.  I don't know you from Adam so by what alt are you editing that you are familiar with me?  --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's about how Christina Hoff Sommers used the Blackstone quote to further her line of reasoning in her book Who Stole Feminism. Flanders and Hirshman discuss Sommers' use of the quote, the source you added does not. Your addition is completely unrelated to the topic of the article. Even more troubling, the unrelated source doesn't even support what you wrote. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ellis on Auerbach and Sinker
Auerbach and Sinker's reviews of Sommers' book aren't described in the article. What's the rationale for including Ellis' comments on Auerbach and Sinker, his allegations of "unethical behavior", maliciousness and dishonesty, and the alleged reception of Aurbach and Sinker's reviews? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The rationale, presumably, is that it explains what sort of reaction the book produced. One would have thought it was appropriate for an article about a book to do this. "Alleged" suggests that you are trying to argue with the source. You should know quite well that Wikipedia does not work that way. It would of course help to include Auerbach and Sinkler's review of the book, but the absence of their reviews from the article at this moment is no excuse for removing Ellis. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to explain the reaction the book produced you would have described the actual response by Auerbach and others. But you only described Ellis' allegations against Auerbach and Sinker, i.e., you included serious allegations against two living persons who aren't the topic of this article and who weren't even allowed to present their case. It's a coatrack attack against Auerbach and Sinker and it violates BLP and NPOV. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several different misunderstandings there. The first is that I'm responsible for the contents of this article. I have in fact contributed very little. The second is that it matters that Auerbach and Sinkler are not the topic of this article. They do not have to be the topic for their views to be relevant. Their views are obviously relevant in that they concern the book the article is about. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say that they "weren't even allowed to present their case." Do you mean that Auerbach and Sinkler are not allowed to edit this article? They would be as free to do that as anyone else if they are able to edit neutrally. As I said, the article would benefit from mentioning their reviews. There is no BLP problem, as the material is properly cited. I realize someone object to it for other reasons. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If their views are relevant for this article, then their views should be described. But that hasn't happened yet. What happened is that some Ellis accuses them of "unethical conduct", dishonesty and maliciousness. The argument "it's properly cited" just doesn't work here anymore. Kelly's critique of Sommers' book is also properly cited, but DHeyward, you and one of DHeyward's talk page regulars won't allow it to be included. Please notice the difference between describing what Sommers' wrote and having Kelly critique what she said and not describing what Auerbach and Sinker wrote and having Ellis accuse them of "unethical conduct" and whatnot. Do you agree with removing Ellis' unspecified allegations against Auerbach and Sinker or not? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If Ellis's views are criticism of Auerbach and Sinkler (not "Sinker"; it does not help if you cannot even get people's names right), then yes, of course Auerbach and Sinkler's views should be fully described. No one is stopping you from doing that when article protection expires. Why would you even talk about removing Ellis when the appropriate way to balance the article is clearly to give Auerbach and Sinkler's views? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with Kelly is that you misrepresent everything he said. Sonicyouth86, you seem unable to read more than the one sentence that was given to you.  If you actually read Kelly's piece, you'd understand how your excrpt is nonsense.  If you are projecting this same problem with Auerbach and Sinkler, perhaps who should step back and stop projecting GamerGate rage into ancillary articles like this one and Rule of thumb.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about Kelly or your grotesque interpretation of Kelly. I don't see a problem with Auerbach and Sinkler, I see a problem with attacking Auerbach and Sinkler without describing their views first and the tone and unspecific nature of the attack. See WP:BLP. As far as projection goes, please don't project your preoccupation with GamerGate onto others. Unlike you, I've never even edited the GamerGate pages, let alone restricted my entire editing to that one topic area as you do. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh please. The first thing you did is tag CHS articles as GG related.  Then you decided I needed a GG warning followed a specious claim for sanctions which was tossed out.  You brought your GG issues to CHS and when you didn't get your way, you decided to trash her book and when you didn't get your way, you tried to change "Rule of Thumb" all in a way designed to discredit Christina Hoff Sommers simply because she spoke out on GamerGate.  For the record I haven't edited the GG article and it's why there were no GG DS warnings before you decided to associate her with it.  Put the stick down, back away from the dead horse and simply find other articles to edit rather than trying to malign CHS over a 20 year old book.  You shouldn't be anywhere near any CHS related articles because it's clear by your edits you have an agenda that is insonsistent with WP policies and goals.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that statement, criticism, rebuttal are allowed - not long back and forts.
Sommers rebuttal of Hirshman is standard practice and occurred in the same publisher. Additional comments on the commenters is unwarranted per WP:UNDUE and WP:STRUCTURE. I offered a fair interpretation of Blackstone which was deemed "Original research." Per this, the source is LA Times. They ended the discussion after Sommer's per normal journalism practice. Adding a different/new source only to talk about Hirshman/Sommers is not about the article, it's about Hirshman/Sommers. That makes it OR by your own narrow reading. Please restore Sommers acount from the Washington post. Kelly's piece really adds nothing new and makes it appear as if his view is authoritiative, which it is not. Our own well-sourced article on rule of thumb is pretty clear he holds a fringe view. Since he is not making comments about the book (this article), but about two articles in LA Times, it is no different than any other view on Blackstone. Per WP:UNDUE, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NOR it doesn't belong. --DHeyward (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's standard practice to present Sommers' writings (i.e., her "debunking of myths") and the reception of said debunking. It's not standard practice to give Sommers' response to the response to her response to alleged errors of "gender feminists". You did offer an interpretation of Blackstone but your interpretation is irrelevant unless you get it published in a reliable source. Henry A. Kelly's academic paper in the Journal of Legal Educations is the definitive source on the subject of the supposed rule of thumb doctrine (even Sommers herself admits that). His view is authoritative, unlike yours or the one in "our own well-sourced article". Do not repeat your allegations against Kelly again, per BLP. He actually is making comments about the book, more specifically, about how Sommers omits parts of Blackstone's quotes to advance her argument in her book. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sommers wrote a book. LA Times gave space for Hirshman to criticize.  It then gave Sommers a place for rebuttal.  That's all that is required.  Any more is undue weight.  Jimbo already told you your reasoning is incorrect.  Kelly is rather irrelevant as the article is not about Blackston.  Our article on Rule of thumb is pretty clear that it was never part of English law including the colonial period that Sommers refers and Kelly has a fringe view if he says otherwise.  So much information is undue weight.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have seen an author's response kept out of her own biography, for instance at Talk:Pamela Geller there was a lot of support for preventing her blog responses from countering published responses. But in this case the L.A. Times saw fit to publish Sommers' response so I think it is appropriate to keep it in the article. This response is much more significant than a blog. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Yet you keep adding a critique by Kelley which is about the Hirshman/Sommers dispute and not about the book.  Also Kelley's conclusions are fringe according to sources here Rule of thumb.  Why is Kelley even relevant and why to you keep additing a repititive claim already made by Hirshman to the article on a book by Sommers?  --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even as there is no evidence that Kelly is speakin about "Who Stole Fiminism?", there is even more evidence that the article he published on "Rule of thumb" is fringe (in addition to the sources in WP).  As his article is not about "Who Stole Feminism" I would think you would maintain consistency that such criticism by Kelly is OR.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with DHeyward that the references to Kelly should be removed. They do seem to digress into minutiae and are undue detail for this article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binsternet that Kelly's academic criticism of Sommers' book should be kept. If it's removed then so should Sommers' response to her critics' response to her response to "gender feminists" be removed. Either we remove Kelly's criticism and Sommers' response or we keep both. The "undue detail" was first introduced by DHeyward. Perhaps User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and User:Polisher of Cobwebs (as the creator of the page) can weigh in? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw where he agreed with keeping Sommer's response in the LA Times (per Jimbo even ). I didn't see where he agreed that Kelly's commentary in a completely different journal on a topic that is not directly related to the article.  Kelly's comments are not about the article and by his own words (and yours) it's original research on Blackstone (and fringe and undue weight).  Why keep something we have an article on ([[Rule of thumb) that people can read about it?  Kelly was writing about the Rule of thumb in a legal journal, not Sommer's book.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Who agreed? Why is Jimbo's opinion on a completely different matter with completely different sources relevant? Kelly's academic paper explicitly and directly discusses Sommers' book and her error and omission in that book. I repeat: Kelly's paper discusses Sommers' book. "His own words"? God, Jimbo or Kelly's? I wrote that your addition that didn't even mention Sommers' book was original research, which it was. But Kelly does mention and discuss Sommers' book in detail. So no OR in sight when it comes to Kelly. Kelly writes about how Sommers misquoted Blackstone in order to advance her argument that wife beating was never allowed. I don't understand why you won't allow academic criticism of Sommers' book. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Kelly is writing about the rule of thumb and mentions passing sections. His work is heavily critiqued as nonsense and folklore and is why our own article disagrees completely with his conclusions.  Sorry but it's undue weight to have an article about the "rule of thumb" being placed in a definitive position in the article.  It's no more valid than Hirhsman's claim and having multiple people claiming the same thing is counterproductive as we can find multiple critics.  Kelly's piece was roundly criticized.  Should we have "In critiquing Kelly's piece on the discussion by Hirshman and Sommers about a piece in her book, noted professor so-and-so said that none of Kelly's  conclusions were backed by contemporary accounts."  Those critiques exist but it's best to just end it with Sommer's response as it is in the same source (LA Times) and about the same topic as Hirshman.  Kelly was much more specific about a single item of folklore per the title and contents and critics of his work.  It's a huge UNDUE problem as he is not even discussing the book.  He weighs in on one small piece and it's a minority/fringe view at that.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Strike this after obtaining the source.  Kelly isn't saying what SY86 claims.


 * No, Kelly is also writing about how Sommers misquotes Blackstone's writings about the permissiveness of wife beating (aka "rule of thumb"). If we include positive reviews from journalists then I don't see a reason to exclude a somewhat critical discussion of the book in an academic peer-reviewed source. Sure, if you can find a source that criticizes Kelly's statements about Sommers' book, you can. No, Kelly's piece wasn't "roundly criticized". Please stop selling your opinions as facts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the intro to his piece where he Kelly talks about the topic of his paper: The venerable and innocuous expression "rule of thumb" has taken a beating in recent years. It has been given a phony origin as designating an allowable weapon for wife-beaters, and in consequence there has been an effort to boycott its traditional usage because of the supposedly sinister circumstances of its beginnings. I propose to first look at genuinely documented uses of "rule of thumb" and then study incidences of the false interpretation and try to find the likely path of its development, Next I discuss instances in which the thumb (or some related measure) has been used to describe switches. Finally, I examine some earlier allegagations of allowable wife-chastisement in English law, Roman law and canon law. Note that it is NOT about "Who stole feminism." broad and it's usefullness here as arbiter is not founded. It is OR to place it in such a position. The whole article that Kelly writes starts with The earliest significant connection that I have found between "rule of thumb" and wife-beating is in the following account written in 1977 by Terry Davidson.... Davidson is a journalist with no evidence of legal or historical training (she apparently thinks that the British common law has sections that one can look up), and yet her explanation has been cited in a number of articles in law journals as the sole authority not only for the existence of a thumb measurement for wife-beating in England but also for the origin of the expression "rule of thumb." The majority of that piece is how "rule of thumb" is not related to punishing wives. In fact, the subquote is so out of context that his use of "she" appears to be castigating Hirshman, not Sommers. He is complaining that Sommers distinction between the old and new law (pre- and post-Charles) allowed some form of wife beating. This is not so if you read the comments befer and after the selectively cherry picked (and out right falsification). The only mention of Hirshman and Sommers (the book is not mentioned) In more recent times, Blackstone has been more mistreated. A common mistake has been to cite his account of the older law allowing wife-beating as still current in his own day, and as justified by him. Thus Davidson says, "Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wifebeating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate...With Blackstone as a guide, America's first states formed their wife beating laws." The same is true of Linda Hirshman in her attempt to refute Christina Hoff Sommer's expose of the wife-beating "rule of thumb" as feminist fiction. Hirshman takes the Latin of the writ cited by Fitzbert as giving Blackstone's own view of the current common law, that husbands could beat their wives. Sommer's rightly responds that Blackstone was speaking of the old law, which had been superseded in his time but [Sommers] is not justified in holding that excerpting Blackstone included elements of violence in the old laws i.e. Jelly's argument is that neither the old law or the new law allowed violence. The [Sommers] general conclusions are therefore off base. is in reference to her saying that violence was allowed under the old law at all under Blackstone (i.e. the lower rank of people). Kelly states In fact, Blackstone limits his observation about the lower rank of people to their insisting on the old law of wife-beating, which was no longer recognized by the courts. [Blackstone] does not limit the courts' allowance of restraints upon wives to any particular class of people, and he says nothing about the any failure of the courts to enforce their new interpretation of laws. If you read his entire text he dismisses Hirshmans account entirely. He finds fault with Sommers' account only because Sommers didn't challenge the assertion that the ommitted latin meant that some beatings were allowed. It is not at all in keeping with how it's quoted in the article. the article is available online. the Kelly piece should be ommitted entirely as it is WP:UNDUE and if anything supports Sommers. The article is available on JSTOR. --DHeyward (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And here's the part of the academic paper where Kelly talks about Sommers' book: "'...she is not justified in holding that her excerpting of Blackstone included the element of violence in the old law. Hirshman is right in saying that Sommers distorts Blackstone's account of the old law by quoting him thus: 'But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife .... ' That is, by omitting the Latin of the writ, she omits Blackstone's qualification, namely that the law did allow reasonable violence. She seems to make Blackstone say that the old law allowed husbands a power of correction that stopped short of violence, and that even this limited power came to be doubted in later times by the courts, which however still allowed it to the lower rank of people by letting them restrain their wives. Her general conclusion is therefore off base: 'Blackstone plainly says that common law prohibited violence against wives, although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the 'lower rank of people' were concerned.' In fact, Blackstone limits his observation about the lower rank of people to their insisting on the old law of-wife-beating, which was no longer recognized by the courts. He does not limit the courts' allowance of restraints upon wives to any particular class of people, and he says nothing about any failure of the courts to enforce their new interpretation of the law.'"
 * As you can see, everything is perfectly in order. Kelly directly discusses Sommers book and he is a reliable source. Please stop trying to keep academic critique out. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First - Blackstone plainly says that common law prohibited violence against wives, although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the 'lower rank of people' were concerned. - is a quote of what Sommers wrote not what Kelly said.  It's a direct quote from Sommer's book .  It's clearly attributed to Sommer's by Kelly and in fact it has a note that it will be corrected after Kelly said it was inaccurate because, quoting Kelly in the next sentence In fact, Blackstone limits his observation about the lower rank of people to their insisting on the old law of-wife-beating, which was no longer recognized by the courts. He does not limit the courts' allowance of restraints upon wives to any particular class of people, and he says nothing about any failure of the courts to enforce their new interpretation of the law..  Kelly is saying that Blackstone didn't ever attribute violence against wives in English common law courts in either the old or new law or distinguish classes of women and he criticizes Sommer's for saying that he did. Essentially Kelly is critcizing Hirshman for being way off base in both new and old law and applauding Sommer's correction of the new law.  And then he criticizes Sommers for implying Blackstone said the old law allowed violence.
 * Second - It's not a critique of Sommer's book. It's a critique of her response in the LA Times where she discusses the omitted latin phrase.  That's what "...she (Sommers) is not justified in holding that her excerpting of Blackstone included the element of violence in the old law" means.  That's why I quoted it extensively.  He says about Sommer's LA Times piece regarding the ommitted text that "Sommer's rightly responds that Blackstone was speaking of the old law" referring to the omitted text Hirshman talks about.  But he criticizes Sommers interpretation that the old law allowed violence.  He was  not backing up Hirshman at all so juxtaposing it against Hirshman is ludicrous.  In fact he's saying there is no foundation for "rule of thumb" in English law before or after Charles.  It's a cherry picked misquote to make the exact opposite point just because he used the word criticised.  His whole piece reinforces that there is no basis in law for the reference.  I thought you had quoted him accurately which would be a fringe voice but as you can see, a) he doesn't talk about her book, b) he argues that Blackstone never said violence was allowed in English law (old omitted law reference or new law reference) and c) the criticism is that Sommers statement about Blackstone interpreted there was any violence allowed by law - Blackstone did not ever say violence was supported in the omitted latin.  You are misquoting Kelly and Sommers and it's a BLP violation to use it the way it's phrased.   --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hint: "Hirshman is right in saying that Sommers distorts Blackstone's account of the old law..." is a slap that she was right to criticise because it's wrong - but in the exact opposite way of how Hirshman is arguing. It's an asteism. --DHeyward (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Short version in picture book logic.
 * Sommers in book: It's red but may have been purple a long time ago says Blackstone.
 * Hirshman in LA Times: It was never purple, or red, it's always been blue.
 * Kelly in Journal: Sommers is correct to criticize Hirshman for saying was blue - it was never blue. Hirshman was correct when she said it was never purple, because it's red.
 * --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that Kelly's criticism of Sommers' is quite clear: "That is, by omitting the Latin of the writ, she omits Blackstone's qualification, namely that the law did allow reasonable violence." Your interpretation of Kelly will become relevant as soon as you get it published. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why you think that Henry A. Kelly's pointing out that Sommers omitted an important part of the Blackstone quote constitutes a BLP violation? Flanders and Hirshman point out the same thing, so why remove the academic source (Kelly) but leave Flanders and Hirshman? I don't find anything in WP:BLP to justify your edit. Btw, would you say that unspecified accusations of "unethical conduct", dishonesty and maliciousness are BLP violations? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I know English is hard. Kelly is NOT criticizing Sommers the same way Hirshman is.  It's in fact the exact opposite.  His criticism is that in her book she allows for some wife-beating and attributes it by omission to Blackstone as being allowed.  Kelly's point is that the omitted text does not allow for a conclusion that violence happened.  Read his whole article on JSTOR and you will see he destroys any interpretation that "rule of thumb" was related to violence.  He destroys any notion that Blackstone said the law allowed for wife-beating.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, "Enlish" is very hard (DHeyward changed his comment after I replied) . Kelly, Hirshman, and Flanders are criticizing the same omission in Sommers' book. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Kelly is criticising the conclusion that the omission demarcated old and new protections under the law. Sommers justified the omission by saying the omitted part was about the old law and he phrase "although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the 'lower rank of people' were concerned."  Kelly says that is nonsense, there is no evidence that Blackstone believed it was unenforced.  He is not criticising the omission the same Hirshman is as he already said Hirshman was dead wrong.  His whole piece was "rule of thumb is not about wife-beating".  He didn't suddenly make an exception to say Sommers was wrong.  He backs all of Sommers assertions about "rule of thumb" and Blackstone save for the part where Sommer's claimed some wife-beatings were still allowed in lower courts and attributed it to Blackstone.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is what Kelly writes: "That is, by omitting the Latin of the writ, she omits Blackstone's qualification, namely that the law did allow reasonable violence." Sommers omits Blackstone's qualification that the law did allow violence. That is exactly what Flanders and Hirshman criticize. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He's paraphrasing her comments. He then goes on to destroy that argument and says the qualification did not allow "reasonable violence" and Blackstone said no such thing. Hirshman is trying to argue that violence was allowed in 1600's and later times, Sommers omits the pre-1600 writ but allows that Blackstone may have said there was violence before and during his time in lower courts. Not so says Kelly. Blackstone never said violence was permissible in any court. His critique is that Sommers attributed violence to the omitted writ and lower ranks of people and courts interpretations that allowed violence. Read the whole thing. He doesn't spend 10 pages destroying the "rule of thumb" origin of domestic violence to then say Sommer's was wrong for saying the same thing. He even says in the footnote that Sommers will correct the next version to not imply that Blackstone said there was court-sanctioned violence against wives. The paragraph where you snatched the misattributed quote starts with In more recent times, Blackstone has been more mistreated. A common mistake has been to cite his account of the older law allowing wife-beating as still current in his own day, and as justified by him. Your quote is his paraphrasing of someone elses opinion which he the dismantles. The entire quote is [Sommers writes] "But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife..." That is, by ommitting the Latin of the writ, she omits Blackstone's qualification that the law allowed reasonable violence. She seems to make Blackstone say that the old law allowed husbands a power of correction that stopped short of violence, and that even this limited power came to be doubted in later times by the courts, which however still allowed it to lower rank of people by letting them restrain their wives. That whole passage is a Sommers quote followed by Kelly's paraphrasing (note "that is" and "she seems") and inference of the ommission. Here's the following passage which gives interpretation. First he quotes her interpretation as off-base Her general conclusion is therefore off-base: [he quotes Sommers conclusion] "Blackstone plainly says that common law prohibited violence against wives, although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the 'lower rank of people' were concerned." Here is Kelly's interpretation which is the next sentence from the source (pg 364-365) In fact, Blackstone limits his observation about the lower rank of people to their insisting on the old law of wife-beating, which was no longer recognized by the courts. He does not limit the courts' allowance of restraints upon wives to any particular class of people, and he says nothing about any failure of the courts to enforce their new interpretation of the law. He clearly disagrees with any interpretration that Blackstone believed the law allowed wife beating. He goes on: ...from Blackstone through the American judges if the last century to the modern writers on wife-beating, we see a tendency to believe that customs were worse in the earlier eras and other lands than in the writer's own more enlightened time and place.... No one likes to be associated with wife abuse. But we must all guard against unfairly accusing others of harboring beliefs or engaging in practices for which there is no evidence and we should be concerned to give due credit to those in the past tried to mitigate the harsh customs and practices of others. He's critical of Sommers because the ommission and conjecture that Blackstone legitimized wife abuse in lower ranks of people. He refutes any notion that Blackstone said "namely that the law did allow reasonable violence" and misquoting Kelly to say the exact opposite of what he actually said is harmful to his and Sommers reputation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whose comments is he paraphrasing when he agrees with Hirshman's main point that Sommers' omitted the part of the Blackstone quote that contradicts her argument, writing: "Hirshman is right in saying that Sommers distorts Blackstone's account of the old law by quoting him thus: 'But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife....' That is, by omitting the Latin of the writ, she omits Blackstone's qualification, namely that the law did allow reasonable violence." Your novella-length repetitive comments are completely beside the point. Instead of working with what Kelly actually wrote and using quotes from Kelly, you're trying to force your (frankly: grotesque) interpretation of Kelly's meaning on me and other editors. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He's paraphrasing Hirshman. He goes on to say it was the old law to which Blackstone was referring and, unlike what Sommers wrote, Blackstone did not say the courts in his day allowed any form of violence.  His issue with Sommers isn't that she omitted violence, rather Sommers took the liberty to say although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the 'lower rank of people' were concerned. in place of the omitted text which Kelly attributes to the law before Blackstone's time.  Kelly says Blackstone said no such thing about 'lower ranks of people' and that the courts were enforcing the law of his day: no violence.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Expansion
I am about halfway through a thorough expansion of this article. I added a lot of references and text but I have more to incorporate. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, Christina Hoff Sommers's name is always shortened as "Sommers". She is never referred to as "Hoff" in any article about her or discussion of her work that I have ever seen. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was temporarily derailed by one scholarly paper that repeatedly called her "Hoff Sommers", possibly a sort of Spanish style of combining two last names. Or more likely a feminist style of giving the birth surname equal billing... Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issues
This edit by Binksternet is a blatant violation of NPOV and probably BLP also. I think the reasons should be obvious. There are various sources that call Sommers an anti-feminist, but others that take a different view; it is not neutral to present one view over the other. I regret the inability of this editor to deal with Sommers's work in a neutral fashion. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have more expansion work to do, more scholarly papers to bring to the article. Scholars quite rightly categorize Sommers as an antifeminist, despite the fact that she calls herself a feminist. (Some say "post-feminist"—a similar term.) The issue should be treated in her biography and in every other article where her name appears.
 * Scholars are our best sources, the ones that settle the arguments. If the scholars say Sommers is an antifeminist, that's what we tell the reader. Of course we can also describe how she says she's a feminist, and how conservative pundits appreciate the spectacle of what they see as a pro-patriarchal feminist bashing liberal and radical feminists.
 * Scholars who describe Sommers in terms of her antifeminism, her dedicated effort "against feminism" include:
 * 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
 * Theologian Sister Rebeka Jadranka Anić, Institute for Social Research, Ivo Pilar, Split Center.
 * Mary Douglas Vavrus, Communication Studies Department. University of Minnesota.
 * Sociologist Michael Kimmel, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the Stony Brook University in New York
 * Professor Elaine Ginsberg, City College of San Francisco
 * Professor Emerita Sara Lennox, Director of the Social Thought and Political Economy Program, DePauw University
 * Theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Harvard Divinity School
 * Becky Francis, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Department of Education & Professional Studies, King's College London
 * Professor Christine Skelton, Emeritus Professor of Gender Education in the School of Education, University of Birmingham
 * Philosopher Alison Jaggar, Feminist Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder
 * Sarah Projansky, Associate Dean, College of Fine Arts, University of Utah
 * Farah Mendlesohn, Head of the Department of English, Anglia Ruskin University
 * 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.
 * Diane Railton, Senior Lecturer, English Studies, School of Arts & Media, Teesside University
 * Paul Watson, Principal Lecturer, English Studies, Teesside University
 * Barbara L. Marshall, Professor of Sociology, Trent University
 * Nancy Berns, sociologist at Drake University
 * Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Librarian, Simon Fraser University
 * Myra Mendible, English Department, Florida Gulf Coast University
 * Jackson Katz, Ph.D, independent scholar of gender violence prevention
 * Deborah Holdstein, Professor of English, Columbia College Chicago. Challenging Perspectives: Reading Critically about Ethics and Values, page 501. ISBN 978-0-618-21503-4
 * Valerie L. Scatamburlo, York University, Toronto. Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness, page 107. ISBN 978-0-8204-3012-6
 * Patrice McDermott, Vice Provost of University of Maryland Baltimore County. Third Wave Feminism, page 187. ISBN 978-0-230-52174-2


 * So I feel I am on very firm footing with the plain statement that Sommers is an antifeminist. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Scholars quite rightly categorize Sommers as an anti-feminist" is personal opinion, and puerile opinion at that. The simple fact that a number of sources say something does not mean that Wikipedia can present it as fact; there are numerous things that have to be considered, including BLP. To say that articles should explain "how conservative pundits appreciate the spectacle of what they see as a pro-patriarchal feminist bashing liberal and radical feminists" is ridiculous, and unfortunately underscores my point that you lack the ability to deal neutrally with Sommers. You would do well to leave her biography and this article alone. Sommers has received favorable coverage from many writers, not only from conservatives, and no one to my knowledge has praised her for being "pro-patriarchal." ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 as exemplars. He was discussing the context of media treatment of Canadian senator and convert-to-conservatism Anne Cools. See his book Mediathink, page 42. Thanks for asking, it adds one more name. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your larger request for me to stand down at this article is something I don't think would be right. Too much of the literature about this book has been ignored until I started digging into the subject. It was turning into a hagiography. I will continue to bring more of the literature to light, and this article will be improved thereby. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate mention in lead
I have a huge problem with this line in the lead:
 * "A month after the Gamergate controversy hit the news in 2014, Sommers posted a video in support of the idea that there is no problem with misogyny in the video game industry"

Christina Hoff Sommers has stated in her video on GamerGate that she "deplore[s] the fact that some feminist critics and game developers have been threatened." (at 1:14) It's an incorrect claim, and needs to be fixed. BlookerG talk 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. I have a problem with that line too. Actually, the entire paragraph it was part of was irrelevant, and I have removed it as such. It strayed from the topic of this article - a book that Sommers published in 1994 - and digressed into things that she said and did subsequently and which have only the most tenuous and indirect connection with the book. In a more accurate version, it might belong in Sommers's biography, but it is inappropriate and clearly undue to this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, it is bad manners to restore disputed material as you did here, without explaining yourself on the talk page. As I said, the material has only the most marginal connection to Sommers's book. Even if the book "continues to be the wellspring of Sommers's fame", that does not justify inserting any material about Sommers here. A sentence like, "Sommers posted a video in support of the idea that there is no problem with misogyny in the video game industry, returning to the book's concept of equity feminism standing against gender feminism" is ridiculous. If you can drag that video into the article because it returns to "the book's concept of equity feminism standing against gender feminism", then you could equally well mention any of Sommers's videos in the lead because they all involve similar themes to her book in one way or another. The only source in the article that even marginally ties that video about GamerGate to this article is a single article by Nina Huntemann that refers to Who Stole Feminism? only in passing. One brief, passing mention in one obscure opinion piece clearly does not justify giving GamerGate prominence in the lead. The material is also a major concession to recentism. Wikipedia isn't a news tabloid, and we don't have to place GamerGate in the lead of the article just because it's a currently fashionable subject. Finally, in addition to being clearly undue, the material also involves possible original research, and it is irresponsible not to address such issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The GamerGate line is still 100% incorrect, and I hope we can get it resolved quickly. From what I can see, is trying keep it because it supports their narrative of C.H. Sommers.  BlookerG  talk 12:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be perfectly within your rights to simply revert Binksternet. Incorrect or misleading material obviously should be removed. Binksternet's continued failure to comment on the talk page is inappropriate in terms of Wikipedia process. If need be, I'll set up a request for comment on the material he restored. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sommers and Wolf
I was surprised in reading this how Sommers in 1994 is critical of Wolf's 1990 book Beauty Myth. From what I've seen Wolf was using the term victim feminism in her 1993 book "Fire With Fire" and Sommers adopted this phrase in a 2008/9 speech. Is it possible that the 1994 book was sent to the publisher before Sommers got a chance to read the 1993 book? Did they make up somewhere along the line in the next 15 years? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Confusing Kinahan sentence
Under "Later reviews and analysis" section:
 * .. Kinahan .. places the book in the context of a wider antifeminist backlash was framed by Sommers and two contemporary publications: The New Victorians by René Denfeld and The Morning After by Katie Roiphe.

Is anyone able to make heads or tails of the flow of this here? It's someone got so caught up telling her title/forenames and university that the sentence wasn't checked for legibility.

What is the subject of the phrase "was framed by Sommers" here?

What is Kinahan including as part of an antifeminist backlash? Shouldn't we take steps to clarify she is accusing people of being antifeminist who do not ascribe to that label and call themselves equity feminists?

What words could be introduced or altered to this for it to make some sense?

It's concerning that this massive paragraph which cites one reference begins so obscurely. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "reception" section of the article is rather tangled, and clearly needs tidying up. What you've called attention to above is just one of its problems. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I rewrote this paragraph to state what *I think* the author was trying to say and to state the views more eloquently. However, I think 184.145.18.50's note that this is a "massive paragraph which cites one reference" is interesting; this paragraph is, I would assume, a summary of an article delineating Prof. Kinahan's views on Sommers' book (and the two other books mentioned). However, is it even worth mentioning those two other books when what we are concerned with is Sommers' book? Furthermore, why is Prof. Kinahan so noteworthy that an entire (lengthy) paragraph is dedicated to the views she expressed in a single article contained in a compilation book of essays, while other more notable and well-known reviewers and sources, like Katha Pollitt or a contemporary review from a more widely read publication like the Los Angeles Times, have a lone sentence or quotation? I agree that the "Reception" section here is in dire need of revision and some paring down; this paragraph could easily be cut to a sentence or two providing Prof. Kinahan's overall perspective on the book, along with a quotation from the cited source. I have similar thoughts on the Bauer and Rhoades paragraph, although that is not quite as bad as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.226.178 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of mentioning Kinahan's review is to summarize her views of Sommers's work. If she sees Sommers's book as being similar to other books, such as the book by Katie Roiphe, then there's no reason that shouldn't be mentioned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree that we should mention Kinahan's review (I didn't and don't advocate deleting it entirely, she is a scholar and this is a published source), it does feel like it is very long compared to other reviews. I can see the case for keeping the references to other books, as that is part of the context in which Kinahan places the book, but this paragraph could be shortened to capture that context and more concisely illustrate the thrust of Kinahan's criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.226.178 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I would put a proposed revision, including more quotes from the source, here just to get some feedback:
 * Anne-Marie Kinahan of Wilfrid Laurier University placed Who Stole Feminism? alongside Rene Denfeld's The New Victorians and Katie Roiphe's The Morning After in the context of a "post-feminist" movement, and contends these books signal a collective "fear of the perceived radicalism of feminism on university campuses, a radicalism which these authors attribute to the increasing influence of queer theory, 'radical' lesbians and feminists of colour." Kinahan charges Sommers, as well as Denfeld and Roiphe, with attempting to "reclaim feminism as a white, middle-class, straight woman's movement" and defending "traditional hierarchies of morality, religion, and the nuclear family." Kinahan finds Sommers' argument to be contradictory in asserting that students are resistant to radical feminism, yet feminist indoctrination of students poses a "drastic danger" which "powerless, naive, and unthinking students unquestionably endorse."
 * I realize this is not much shorter, but I think it is more clear and accurately reflects the source (I actually did not find the word "anti-feminist" anywhere in Prof. Kinahan's article).206.193.226.178 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Bauer and Rhoades
It looks to me like their review originally was published in 1996 and that the 2014 edition was a reprint. I checked and the 1996 edition has the same chapter in question from them. Does anyone else agree this means we should move their feedback from 'later criticism' up to 'early criticism'? I don't want to jump the gun in case anyone disagrees. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The material should be arranged in chronological order - earliest reviews and responses appearing first - unless there is some special reason to prefer a different order, which I doubt there is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it was included as 2014 because they didn't know it was a reprint, moving it up. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there really any reason to have two different chronological sections for reviews? I would understand if this book was fifty or one hundred years old and we were comparing the initial reaction at the time of release to the "critical reassessments of its influence or legacy" in subsequent generations, but this book is not that old and seems to have had a relatively steady stream of reactions after the burst of reviews following its initial release (which is typical of most books). It just seems jarring and arbitrary to separate 1998 commentary from 2002 commentary, especially when some of these reviews concern the same specific topics (issues Super Bowl data, etc.), and it creates the mistaken impression that a considerable amount of time has lapsed between the earlier and later reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.226.178 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The larger the number of reviews and responses a book receives, the more important it is to organize them carefully, and place them in chronologically ordered sections. In this case, we're talking about a quite famous book, which received a lot of commentary, only some of which is mentioned in the article; it definitely makes sense to divide the reception section into a section for reviews published in the 1990s and a section for reviews published subsequently. It's true that some of the reviews and responses address the same issues; I don't see that as a reason to violate chronological order. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Invention and Construction
Our representation of some statements from an older (1994) review and a newer (2004) one that might benefit from disclaimers:


 * The staff at Kirkus said that Sommers' book highlighted instances of "shoddy" research in feminist studies but failed to tell the reader about similar poor quality research in other fields. Sommers was was said to be confused about categories of feminism, to have invented a sort of "gender feminism" to fit her purpose of promoting her brand of liberal feminism.


 * Kinahan says that Sommers constructs in her book "a second type of feminism" called gender feminism

While I can't say either is outright wrong, it could lead readers to some misconceptions. I've been finding sources for 'gender feminism' (an utter chore, give it an attempt, try not to hate commas and colons and slashes) and did find a couple with interesting information.

One indicates that this book is not the first place Sommers has used 'gender feminism':

I'm not sure where the first place is though since the quote I could find was very small and it ends at the worst place.

Another source I found seems unrelated to Sommers. It establishes a use prior to her book, but this review came out a month later than the above so it doesn't make it clear who was using it first, or whether two different definitions for the same phrase might have emerged concurrently:

So I wonder if when we quote reviews of this book which credit the book (or Sommers) with creating this term in 1994 that we should point out that we have sources supporting its use in 1992 (or possibly earlier) by her or others. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Not unless there is a source stating very clearly that the term "gender feminism" was used prior to Sommers's work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Apparently some users have a problem with the sentence, "Some reviewers praised the book, while others found it flawed." The sentence is an utterly uncontroversial, factual statement and there is no reason of any kind to remove it; I would say its removal borders on vandalism, in fact. Since the lead summarizes the article, the sentence does not require a separate citation, so the complaint that it is unsourced is irrelevant (although quite unnecessary, a separate citation could easily be provided). This edit summary declares that the sentence is, "redundant really. There is a reception section already". That simply appears to reflect ignorance of the purpose of a lead: the lead is meant to cover some of the same ground as the reception section, as it is a summary of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

 * "She identifies with "equity feminism", based on belief in fair treatment for everyone."

the sentence is incomplete. The complete sentence must be "She identifies with . Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No, Staszek Lem, the sentence is not incomplete. If a woman identifies with something, that means that she supports or endorses it. English idiom really is perfectly simple. If you thought the sentence was somehow unclear, you could simply have reworded it, instead of pointlessly adding a tag and expecting someone else to do the work for you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could not have reworded it because I did not know how. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know how now, after I have given you a perfectly simple explanation of what the sentence means? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I do now. When used with object, the sentence becomes clearer to non-native speakers like me. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Gender feminism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gender feminism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  SITH   (talk)   20:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)