Christina Hoff SommersKirja-arvosteluja

Nothing much new here, but it never hurts to focus some light on the rather glaring, obvious problems of our culture.

I earned a degree in Psychology back in the day and I recognized a very absurd trend going on. It's called being a one-trick-pony. Most of the serious practitioners of psychology realize that no single situation or psychological issue can be solved with a single tool. To do so, or think so, is beyond stupid. Situations change and people differ. Not only do they differ, but any single person might need a wide range of tools used at different times -- or even NO TOOLS AT ALL.

Self-reliance, resiliency, and adaptability must be sought after, brought about on a patient's own terms. It is not something that can be forced on anyone. It's not an externality.

This book, however, highlights the amazing absurdity of the notion that we're all sniveling brats and we're all broken people. If we go by real numbers, real PTSD in the population very small. Having some temporary issues one way or another is NOT PTSD. Just like having clinical depression over years is not the same thing as having a week of the blues.

There's a great analogy in the practice of the Law. It's called leading the witness. If you come at people with an assumption that they MUST have PTSD, you're providing the person with a narrative that they will try to shoehorn themselves into. If left alone, that person may never have ever SEEN themselves as a trauma victim.

And yet, over the years, we see more and more therapy-isms creeping in, everywhere we look. Are you depressed? Are you traumatized? How do you know? Come get therapy! Come on, you KNOW you're all messed up, right? COME GET THERAPY.

Does this sound like a sales pitch to you? Like there are a lot of snake-oil salesmen (and women) masquerading as legitimate therapists trying to convince YOU that you NEED therapy so they can make some money? Justify their own jobs? Justify the huge huge numbers of specialized PTSD therapists that are funded by well-meaning but thoroughly duped government agencies who now believe that the WHOLE FREAKING SOCIETY is on the verge of mental collapse?

Hmmm. Maybe it is just that. A trend not supported by real numbers. Just like the pharmaceutical industry that pumps out and encourages the total drugging-up of our children based on massive overdiagnosis of Hyperactivity or Depression. It boils down to one maxim: follow the money. Who is profiting most? Then look at the people who insist that the problem is pervasive.

Then ask people candidly if they're really having a problem or if they're following a narrative. Most people don't want to dwell on the bad things. A little repression is actually very, very good. That's why we forget about our last flu. Or about the real pain during childbirth. Or that time we passed a stone.

Do you REALLY want to relive that experience? Over and over and over? If you do, then hell... that's sick. It's better to forget.

And yet, enabling this therapism provides us with exactly this same effect. It helps us relive the trauma over and over and over. Some people do need this kind of psychological toolset. I'll never say otherwise. But it is a single tool usually only used ONCE when unconscious effects are preventing someone from functioning in real life. When it comes to light, it should not be dwelled upon. It should be understood and boxed away. Send it to the same place where you sent the memory of your kidney stone.

Otherwise, you'll keep it fresh. Who wants to keep their trauma fresh, anyway?

We are strong. We are all as strong as we want to be. Don't enable weakness if you have a choice. Be resilient. :)

It's always an eye-opener when a really good look at statistics shows some glaring errors in widely held assumptions. It's even more of an eye opener to realize that some of your own carefully held assumptions are wrong.

This book, published in 2001, seems kind of political and reactionary, but that is only the fault of the title. The contents are much more revealing.

Feminism is political. This should not be surprising. We see it everywhere. Some a***holes take it way too far. What we have in America's school systems (and probably quite a few other places as well) is a climate where we are told that girls are being held back by the patriarchy, that their voices are not being heard, and that all boys should be more like girls.

No joke. I was in the school system when this was really getting started. I bought into it, myself. Even thought of myself as a feminist. Yes. I'm a white male feminist. Or, at least, I thought I should have been. I kept trying to be more feeling and thoughtful and in touch with my feelings. I valued cooperation over competition. I felt bad because I was a boy. Boys are violent. Boys are rapists. Boys the embodiment of the patriarchy that has done so much to transparently ruin women.

I was indoctrinated. And I bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

So what do I learn here? I went through college and got a degree in Psychology and English Literature in the mid 90's and learned a lot about education. The big keys were inclusion and tolerance and above all, making sure that women have all the benefits that had been taken from them in the past. I thought I approved of this.

I also found myself not being heard. I, as a male, surrounded by hundreds of academic studies revolving around a certain Carol Gilligan, then a superstar of feminist studies and the leader of the movement to change all our schools into this bright feminist ideal, was quoted everywhere. I didn't bat an eyelash. I studied more feminists and wanted to see more equality between the sexes. I got upset with every revelation of rape, abuse, and wage differential.

So, after all this time, thinking that it's only individual bad apples who like to say things like "murder all men", I held to my beliefs anyway.

So what do I believe after realizing that Carol Gilligan had fudged research data, hid sources, and used a very limited several thousand student sample in her study? Remember, she was the foundation of hundreds of similar papers and books that became the forefront of a full politicized movement. A movement that transformed almost every school in the nation based on faulty data.

A later study using a hundred thousand samples show a very different picture, and yet the weight of the political movement could not be stopped.

What did it report?

Little things like girls are twice as likely to be heard in class. That boys are much more likely to give up an not take tests like the SAT or the ACT, leaving only the very confident to take the tests, whereas girls almost always take them. That girls are more confident and self-reported happy in schools than boys.

And it didn't stop there. I went to many many in-school campaigns brought up in this book. Campaigns with a clear agenda where I was told about date rape, bullying (that was always bent toward unwanted sexual advances to girls), talking about my feelings, being inclusive, and never, ever, ever violent.

Remember, this is 2001 when the book came out. We were already seeing a whole generation of boys be told to be just like girls. That we should all be ashamed of what and who we are regardless of what we may or may not have ever done. I knew a lot of them that took it to heart like I did. Who bought the indoctrination.

Of course, after about 12 years of this, we get a complete eroding of value systems and a complete blindfolding of the educational system as to what BOYS ARE. They respond very differently to teaching techniques as compared to girls. It's NOT all learned. They're rambunctious. They do need strict limits and precise indoctrination into values. They respond to active play much stronger than girls, learn from scuffles and a lot of competition AND form very strong and beneficial ties with other boys through it. This is real. And yet the system is devoted to wiping out all the things that most boys are, naturally.

I'm speaking in general terms and ignoring outliers.

And it's getting worse. It's an ideology that ignores basic reality.

You know what opened my eyes back in the day? Fight Club. For how amazingly F***ed-up it was, it absolutely spoke to me on many other levels. It was the repudiation of all the indoctrination I had gone through.

I still don't want to hurt anyone. I still believe in equality. But by the actual numbers and the harmful teaching practices and the direction all this is taking us, I now fully agree with the conclusion.

Boys (and of course, men) are well on the way to becoming the "second sex". Just look at some of the stats in this book already and you'll see. College grads make more money, but 38% of men go in while 51% of women do. That margin has probably increased in the near 20 years since this book was published.

I'd love to see how many men are severely depressed or have gone through long periods of depression, listlessness, and despair after going through the school system. I know I did. I also improved a TON after getting into college. I was surrounded by a much healthier atmosphere.

I bought into the lies. I didn't realize I was being downgraded just because I was male. I wonder if a lot of this is the direct cause of some men's backlash. Anger, turned to violence, after having so many of their natural play and learning impulses quashed, being told that they were all rapists in training, that most of our natural desires were not to be channeled into appropriate directions, but told that they were simply and baldly BAD.

Of course, I'm not saying that we're all unaccountable to our own actions. Of course we are. But I'll admit that I am rather angry that I have not had any positive male role models.

I was brought up to be a girl. I love women. I thought that was okay.

It's just a shame... this dog was taught to use the kitty-litter box and meow for affection.

Sommers shows with grace what Feminism used to be in comparison to more of Feminism's more recent defenders and how the goal of Feminism has changed over time. As well as the arguments and the unfortunate misinformation used to spread ideas. An example in the book is the now debunked 150,000 women die annually from anorexia, which the real data showed that around 150,000 women suffered from it.

Sometimes it took some perseverance to get through all the statistics which sometimes seemed redundant. Otherwise a strong book that alerts us to a serious problem in American education.½

The objection to this book written here make her point for her. People object that she should focus on poor or black people etc. The fact is in every demographic group the boys are doing worse in school. A position is not refuted by saying another issue is more important. I am a male teacher and for years I have heard how girls need to be "empowered" and boys need to be changed. Well the numbers show girls have the power and all the teacher attention in schools and boys can only change so much.

The comparison that boys are the "slave owners" of society shows the hate the other reviewer has for males. A rich women has always been better off than a poor boy.

This book points directly at the mean spirited femisists that think masculinity is a disease to be cured.

It is laughable that she gets called cruel when this book is mild compared to much of what passes for "gender studies." She offends people by not attacking the accepted targets, men and boys.

"Why are certain feminists so eager to put men in a bad light"? This is one of the first questions asked by Christina Hoff Sommers, philosophy professor & equity-feminist (as she calls herself) in the preface of the book "Who stole feminism?". Sommers makes many interesting points in her book, mainly that gender-feminists are different from equity-feminists: the latter are more mainstream, don't hate men, believe women have come a long way, & oppose the "male hegemony" talk that gender-feminists believe in.

So far, so good....Sommers continues by putting in the spotlight certain studies & reports, all produced by gender-feminists, & proves (or attempts to prove) their fallacy. Good examples of biased studies are the March of Dimes study, the "women self-esteem" study, the depression study & some others, which all prove to have fatal flaws in their reasoning. One valid point that Sommers makes is that radical feminism is a little bit like religion- it tends to accept no criticism, & it tends to see all things through a specific, coloured lense. This is the lense through science itself is seen, as is literature, & even art (which thrives, necessarily, through freedom of expression & cannot & should not be stifled, whatever the reason).

Sommers mentions linguistic reform (a funny example is the ludicrous word "ovular" in place of "seminar"), women's studies classes, & - most importantly- the dangerous idea that western civilization itself, & scientific thinking has something inherently "masculine" about it, whereas "feminine" thinking is "emotional" & "connected". What certain gender-feminists propose, in a word, is that there is a "female way of knowing" which seems dangerously close to phallocentric beliefs: "women think differently, are made for different roles, so they should stay home & raise the kids" etc. So, Christina Hoff Sommers has a point: every social movement has to be able to take criticism, both from within & (most importantly) from outside. On the other hand, Sommers mostly mentions only extreme cases of gender-feminism, & I'm sure there are voices of dissent within the feminist movement, which she fails to aknowledge (except in cases such as Camille Paglia's opinions, which are hardly orthodox feminist opinions).

My major complaint with the book is this: at some point, Sommers mentions how Susan Faludi (a good example of her own definition of gender-feminim) has "painted herself into a position that allows no room for criticism". But how guilty is Sommers of the same sin? Her whole book is full of evidence of one, & only one central thesis. Yes, she says she's a feminist, but she never talks about real problems of real women: she mostly points out how far women have come. It's not enough to just mention that equity feminists have different, more mainstream opinions. She should be able to point out how equity feminists go about achieving change, what their activities & plans are when it comes to fighting for even more equality for women. Unfortunately, Sommers never really gets into this issue.

Also, parts of her own statistics & arguments are flawed, as flawed as some of the gender-feminists' reasoning. For example, she mentions "probably 100 women dying from anorexia a year in the US" (as opposed to the much higher numbers that Naomi Wolf had cited in the Beauty Myth- numbers that she later admitted were wrong): 100 women is definitely not the correct number either though, since most women who die of anorexia complications have a different etiology in their death certificates. So, sadly, Sommers also "overlooks evidence that does not fit her puzzle", as she accuses most gender-feminists of doing.

"Who stole feminism" is a well-written, well-researched book, which, yes, has a political goal, & no, does not present the whole picture. I refuse to accept that gender-feminists (as Sommers calls them) have black & white ways of thinking, as I also refuse to accept that the same is true for any group of people. I'm sure there are different ways of thinking within the feminist movement, & I'm also sure that there must also be extreme, radical feminists who tend to alienate maistream women: but these radical feminists do not represent today's women's movement, as Sommers seems to imply, nor do they have nearly as much power as she shows them to. The book is interesting but in parts exaggerated, probably to prove a point & to leave no room for doubt. Sadly, this is exactly what the author accuses the gender-feminists of doing, & she falls into the same trap herself.

Book exposes the modern penchant toward psychological therapy.
Very well documented. Discusses issues related to war veterans, PTSD and 911 victims.
Authors suggest that sometime talking about tragedy
can cause more problems than just continuing on with life.
Authors allow that some therapy may be helpful (especially for those
who are seeking therapy) but suggest that for more survivors
of tragedy, the best path is a mixture of stoicism, healing from religion
and support from community.
At some places, it was tedious to wade through all the documentation
from various psychological journals, but the overall effect of the
book was to change my mind about the modern use of therapy.
Although most oppinions are well documented, the authors seemed to
have an unfounded bias against psychology ('therapism') on a few issues.

A refreshing read. Finally somebody is saying what common sense dictates: not everybody benefits from Talking About Our Feelings with therapists and strangers. Furthermore, post-trauma therapy and similar things may harm more than heal. Imagine that!

This book isn't exactly rocket science, but is a fine resource nonetheless. Next time some busybody suggests you need therapy or grief support because your uncle died or because you witnessed a bad car accident, lend this book to the interloper.

Well documented, interesting, thought provoking, and potentially very controversial. Sommers elucidates some of the greater abuses of feminism by what she calls �gender feminists.” When she describes faulty research I am wholly on her side. As for the excesses of academe, most of these were new to me. She really tears into Faludi’s Backlash and Wolf’s Beauty Myth with perhaps too much vigor. The same vigor she applies to trashing Gloria Steinem, who is probably not as far from the norm of mainstream feminism as Sommers implies. The college sections are outrageous, and it’s fun to read her careful dissections of stupidity, shoddy logic, and illeberalism.
Whereas Sommers is convinced the only way this can go is too far, I hold out for a more reasonable outcome. When she describes the inaccuracies or lies in those other two books I am fascinated, but not wholly convinced. She gives them a fair amount of hell for creating conspiracies against women that have no roots. What neither they, nor she, has recognized is that there isn’t a conspiracy against women, per se, but a conspiracy against everyone’s self image: the free market. When Wolf becomes enraged about the wrongs done to women by Weight Watchers or anorexia, she fails to express an equal outrage that men are increasingly in the same boat. The problem isn’t men trying to force slender physiques down all our throats, but the marketing advantages of body nazism. It’s one thing to worry about obesity and attendant ills, quite another to encourage everyone to obsess about their weight. There’s far less money to be made in healthy eating and considered lifestyle (which is good for us) than there is in quick loss programs like Weight Watchers or Optifast (they aren’t good for us, they actually worsen the problem and make customers more dependent). More and more males are suffering from anorexia. The women’s movement did not succeed and removing “sex object” from “woman,” it couldn’t when market forces are looking for ways to apply it equally to men. Likewise, many of the formless aspects of the conspiracy Faludi sees are not intentional backlash, but intentional marketing. Designers have become used to the idea that woman will buy what they produce. They create outrageous high fashion lines to give themselves a name, then create more reasonable versions for the stores. If they change the look every year going from short to long, from pants to skirts and back again, they can sell far more clothes than if they only produce a practical business suit. It isn’t a gender issue—designers have branched out into children’s wear. If they’re lucky, they’ll create a generation of men who are enslaved to fashion as well. As for the stores, clearly there is a reason who Macy’s went bankrupt that has nothing to do with managing to satisfy their customers.
I go into all of this because Sommers did give credit to market forces for thwarting the aims of gender feminist editors who wanted to remake the romance novel. I consider it a serious flaw that she didn’t offer the same defense of Faludi and Wolf.
Although I haven’t read Roiphe’s book, I have increased my estimation of her. The big difference for me was Sommer’s investigation of how increasing rape prevention efforts on campuses already low in rape deprives services in high crime areas. There was a flaw in her logic there, too, though. She looks into the numbers of rapes reported to campus police (acknowledging that rape is under-reported) but she doesn’t look to see how many rapes are reported to the police of the corresponding city by college students or employees. If I were raped at UNC I wouldn’t go to the campus police who are rent-a-cops with no legal standing, I’d go to the Chapel Hill police who can investigate a crime and press charges, if that’s what I want.
Rape, particularly, is a complex issue, one where there never seems to be a final truth. There are several examples in my own past where I was coerced into sex. A gender feminist asking me questions would probably come up with a high number of instances where I met her definition of rape. (It seems to me that if you want to call it “a legal definition” you must use the legal definition of the state where the question is asked. Whether or not it’s a good definition is beside the point.) What the gender feminists won’t allow, and what is vital to discussions of rape, is a gray scale. Sommers finds fault with researchers who determine what is rape and what is not without acknowledging how the “victim” views it. It is bad feminist policy to deny women the right to name their experiences, agreed. On the other hand, there are women who are naive, who suffered childhood abuse, who refuse to acknowledge “rape” just because they were crazy about the guy. For myself, there were times when I had sex and considered myself coerced, but at least half of the coercion was internalized: I didn’t say “no” and mean it because I didn’t believe it would help, based on previous experience. It wasn’t rape to me because there was no specific threat or fear; my fears were generalized, the threats were in my mind. I wouldn’t dream of pressing charges against those men. I’m sure that we would not have had sex had I been less timid. In one sense I played a very dangerous game. In order to prove that these men of my affections were worthwhile, I left the decision up to them. If they did not sense my discomfort or reluctance and stop pressing, then we had sex. A woman who is expecting a man to be psychic and empathetic and leaves the decisions to him, will often find the decision goes against her wishes. Gray areas.

I come from a very long line of feminists, so when I hear women my age proudly claim they are defiantly NOT feminists, I am taken aback. Ms. Sommers does an excellent job of showing just why so many young women are running away from the feminist label. They don’t want to be associated with man-haters: women who view every man as a “potential rapist” and every woman as either a “rape survivor” or “potential survivor.” She highlights many of the events from the late eighties and early nineties that ended up giving feminism a very bad name. Rather than trying to promote equal rights for all humanity (the so-called equity feminists), some feminists (gender feminists) are trying to supplant the patriarchy with a matriarchy. To do so, they overblow poorly done studies and try to silence maleness wherever it rears its ugly head (pun, unfortunately, intended). She does such a good job of pointing out the hysteria and rancor of this sect of feminists, I had to remind myself constantly that I agree with her thesis-those kinds of feminists are bad for feminism. They take away from the social justice that generations of women have fought for; they stray from the goals of the Seneca Falls Convention and forget that many sisters around the world really are being suppressed; they devalue the terms “sexual harassment” and “rape” by having them apply to everything. I’m grateful she kept repeating the goals of equality through her book or I would have completely forgotten I wasn’t reading the transcripts of a Rush Limbaugh show (a mistake none of us ever wants to make!).

This book was written in 1995, so I was still in junior high and high school when most of these events were unfolding. I participated with my mother in the first Take your Daughters to Work Day (though I have no idea what the boys sat through) and was raised with the constant warnings of possible rape (though I don’t think that was the fault of gender feminists alone-the media has a lot to answer for with that one), but was never issued a rape whistle in freshmen orientation and never got a feminist reprimand for writing a decidedly un-feminist interpretation of a Christina Rossetti poem in college. I wonder how much of her arguments are simply overblown to give evidence to her thesis, how much was relegated only to certain university campuses, and how much has mercifully blown over in the past decade. I would love to see an updated version of this book, but in the mean time, I have a great time with books like The Mommy Myth, Selling Anxiety, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.

The analysis is not so much "how do we help our young men?"; but rather it's mostly about finding another stick with which to attack a straw-person form of "feminism":

"Treating people as equals disadvantages previously-advantaged boys". Well, yes, if you insist upon looking at that way: recall how Abolition imposed terrible hardships upon poor Miss Scarlet, too.

And the AEI pays people to churn out stuff like this: wingnut welfare.

12/4/21

Textbook, No Comment.

Colección de circulación