Christina Hoff Sommers: Boys getting short shrift

My problem with CHS has always been her assumptions about boys and men. Her observations and criticisms always seem to come with a basic underlying assumption that men and boys are by nature a certain way and that there has to be "understanding" accorded to us. I have yet to hear her stand up for men's human rights and ackowledge the many ways men are presumed guilty, treated badly, and assumed to be less-than-women. I think this is because CHS is in fact a feminist, only one of the less radical kind. She sides with men and boys insofar as it is necessary so that men and boys can be more like "what women want"-- good 'providers' (ie, work-horses) and so on. She has yet to actually say or write something that is truly masculist. She doesn't stand for men's liberation. She stands for defending women's interests in seeing that a certain kind of man is produced so he can be of better service to women. She does this by sticking up for the process that produces such men. She never actually sticks up for us as such.

She explicitly revealed a secret theory which underlies all the development of contemporary society: MASCULINITY = EVIL.

She tries to correct slightly this theory, saying that "Masculinity with morals is constructive", implying that when masculinity is subdued and fully controlled, it can make a great use for women: "boys are helpful, achieving and protective.

And at once she of course makes it clear, that when masculinity is not subservient to femininity, it momentarily becomes evil: "Without morals it is dangerous".

The irony is that women like Sommers try to defend the rights of boys whereas men in corridors of power deprive boys of these rights.

Ms. Hoff-Sommers is among the best of what I call the "Trojan-horse" neo-feminists. (Wendy McElroy and Dr. Helen also belong in this camp…) They make clever circular "pro-MRA" arguments but never examine their own fundamental sexism.

CHS knows how to combine theory, analysis, and politics in ways that few academics can, and she writes in language that seeks to communicate rather than obscure.

"None of this works," Ms. Sommers said. "Boys do not cooperate. If you give them knitting needles they will turn them into swords. Should we be worried? I think we should start to worry about the disapproval surrounding boys. It is natural for them to engage in chasing, fleeing, fighting and wrestling."

I wish Christina would write more about the indirect psychological violence and power-and-control that women employ routinely in personal relationships (starting in adolescence), in workplaces, in law, in religion, in media, in parenting, etc.

The boys CHS so astutely sees as being denied their natural rambunctious youthful masculinity in feminized schools are becoming a generation of men who will shun women, refuse to marry, and go their own ways.

CHS wants masculine sensitive bad boys without the danger and the unpredictability and potential rage against the matriarchy.

Can women afford what that means if it could even be accomplished?

Most of what you say about Hoff-Somers is not true. I have read 3 of her books, including "Who Stole Feminism"..in other words she used to be a feminist, but has now turned away from it, at least from what it has become.

It is probably true that she considers herself to be a "feminist" in the same vein as McElroy, but it is a far leap from there to saying she is really a disguised or neo- feminist to get men to be "more like what women need", i.e. workhorses etc. That is not where she is coming from at all.

Her main concern seems to be the raising of boys, especially their schooling. This is why it appears to you that she is not concerned about men per se. She does put emphasis on the "properties" of masculinity. But it is true that masculine energy (i.e. mainly testosterone) is a great driving force, and also as Camille Paglia said, it is the force responsible for building great cities, railroads, etc. I really think it is obvious to all (even radical feminists) that men have been responsible throughout history, for accomplishing great works due to some sort of inate energy. But masculinity must be reigned in while the individual is young, by not succumbing to wild sexual practices, violence etc, which might set a bad "life pattern".

I don't really "expect" any woman to be an MRA, or to be "on my side" in some certain sense. But it is these few women who are having the courage to speak out, and in the long run they are helping us.

-axo

Perhaps CHS does not write exactly what you might prefer.
However, she does an excellent job of showing the fraud of the feminist platform (with a history of using poor science, unverified reports, mangled presentations, and naive journalists that swallow it all and propogate the errors) - which is being played out with identicle political manipulations with predicatable results again in India right now.

What CHS does a very good job of is bird dogging the articles and the data and showing where the story is manipulated and falsified and then set in public policy.

This is the real tragedy. We've allowed social policy to be built upon lies, false information, and bad science.

Feminism is a sham. It is a lie.

oregon dad

She has two boys and has been affiliated with activities of the Independent Women's Forum. That's an organization leaning further right than Libertarian. How far right? Lynn Cheney (sp?) was one of the founding members of the IWF.

CHS's boys may be men now, or close to it. I suspect CHS like many women finds the gender feminist agenda anathema to her own lifestyle and life choices. Gender feminism is a far left agenda. Yes, there are issues on both sides that are closer to the center, but in general CHS leans to the right in her assessments, which probably includes a chivalrous perspective for males to protect all women. Any male following that right wing chivalrous leaning these days is wide open for an assault from left leaning, gender feminist politics, IMO.

Men need the help of a female sexist and ex-feminist like CHS, well...

LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE.

It's a bit more direct than your argument Roy, but I think we're saying the same thing. CHS clearly feels that only post-feminist women are entitled to an opinion about masculinity or men. It would never occur to her to ASK what men believe masculinity is all about. This fits nicely with her sexist attitudes, whereby "masculinity is bad" unless a feminist woman or institution modifies it somehow.

Just like every feminist, CHS is actually writing about the needs of women (they see men as some sort of beast of burden, and don't consider us worthy of human rights, particularly the right to define ourselves), and ways in which they can consolidate the privileges which are now part and parcel to having a vagina.

Even when feminists (once a feminist, always a feminist), talk about men, they're really talking about women.

"None of this works," Ms. Sommers said. "Boys do not cooperate."

Excellent insight RM -- "Just like every feminist, CHS is actually writing about the needs of women."

I'm one of those idiosyncratic males (shocked MANN readers are changing their ISP's now!) -- that views a movie more than once, reads a book twice, and even re-reads blog threads just to understand the logic:illogic paths of posters.

So, I am laughing at myself that I missed CHS's statement about the lack of male cooperation.

Because if that were the case, we would as a species still be living in caves.

Actually, the human species would have starved to death 14 million years ago.

Why?

Because hunting is all about male cooperation.

Farming is all about male cooperation.

Industrial manufacturing is all about male cooperation.

Waging war successfully ... (tragically?) is about male cooperation.

The Internet is an offspring of male (geek) cooperation.

So, my trivial insight is that CHS sees boys lack of cooperation as a problem, instead of an evolutionary adaptation that has saved the human race.

And, like all women, she does not understand the male version of competition. Because it is PURE competition.

Women have never experienced TRUE competition, because male chivalry keeps saving them from what it actually means and requires.

Men cooperate just because they learned as boys by NOT cooperating -- that teams are necessary, and generally better than going solo.

Girls also create teams. (They are universally dysfunctional...)

Anybody paying to watch one?

Ahhhh....the $64 question!!

NO!

I had an opportunity to see the Ducks play the Huskers in basketball recently. There was a "special offer" with a "special price" that bundled a men's basketball ticket with a "required purchase" of a women's basketball ticket.

I said NO THANKS.

This was a veiled attempt to pad the attendance (or ticket purchased) statistics of women's sports by "bundling" tickets with those of men's games. This would artificially inflat attendance or tickets purchased for a contest that may or may not even be attended.

It didn't work. I passed on the offer. Ducks won, by the way.

oregon dad