Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Book Review: The War Against Boys

By Signal 11 in Culture
Sat Oct 06, 2001 at 05:49:06 PM EST
Tags: Books (all tags)
Books

Short summary: Gender issues in schools, analyzed. Detailed review of feminist political agendas in public schools in the United States, a review of the legal and sociopolitical constructs that have contributed to the present situation. Sommers attempts to provide an alternative ideology to combat perceived negative impact of feminist ideology on society, focusing on young males.


Title: The War Against Boys
Author: Christina Hoff Sommers
ISBN: 0-684-84956-9
Rating: ** (two stars)

Christina Sommers does an excellent job of debunking popular feminist beliefs in american society in her book The War Against Boys. Sommers paints a sobering picture of misguided feminists and educators trying to "regender" boys to be more politically correct (more like girls, often). She also demonstrates that these attempts often cause serious harm to young boys, and studies conducted and taylored by leading feminists cannot entirely conceal the damage that is occuring, both to boys' academic performance, and their morality. Sommers attempts to expose the underlying reasons why feminists today feel the need to resocialize, regender, and reconstruct masculinity today - to chilling effect.

Sommers is also very adept at exposing the flawed methodology of many commonly-cited scientific studies, and argues convincingly that political agendas have corrupted some major organizations, including the Mclean/Harvard group and the US Department of Education. She also touches, but does not detail, the massive amounts of public funding being diverted to further specific groups' goals, such as those of the National Organization for Women.

The picture that emerges from countless workshops, sensitivity training classes, anti-harassment manuals, and other material being sent to educators across the country, detailed in The War Against Boys, is that of a small group of politically active women who feel many (if not all) of society's problems can be traced to men - and a majority of which harbor a general resentment of men. Most stop short of embracing radical feminist ideology - such as that espoused by SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), but who seem nevertheless determined to try to change what it means to be male in today's society, with disasterous results.

However, Sommers' work is marred by frequent logical inconsistencies, and she often extrapolates a conclusion that is not wholly supported by the facts she presents, often resulting in an incomplete argument. Sommers also falls victim to the same logical fallacies she accuses her opponents of; She frequently uses anecdotal evidence to point to a larger problem, although not nearly to the level that many feminists today do. Sommers' work also suffers in that while she is excellent at taking apart the arguments of today's feminist leaders, she provides a poor counter- argument, which is essentially that of a traditionalist. She states modern feminists are "misguided" and demonstrates it well, but leaves only a token and incomplete ideology as a substitute.

Sommers makes a good case against modern feminism, and the facts presented in the book by themselves are a condemnation of much of feminist ideology. Her work also points to a serious academic gender gap - pointing out that boys are falling far behind girls in virtually every academic area, at every level - and the gap is growing. Although Sommers does not say so directly, the reader can easily reach a conclusion that this is because many anti-male feminists seek to "turn the tables", placing men into the role of second class citizens. Based on what is occuring in the american educational system today, this goal stands a serious chance of succeeding (reviewer's opinion). Sommers' conclusion could best be summed up by a quote by Mary Gordon, an ardent and orthodox feminist, who writes "...We must love them [boys] as they are, often without knowing what it is that's made them that way." Gordon finds her maternal love and her feminist ideology at odds, concluding that, in fact, boys and girls are different - and boys cannot be "regendered" or molded into an politically correct image of masculinity. However, Sommers' poor analysis of the facts, and excessive political banter prevents this book from receiving a good grade from this reviewer. If you buy this book, buy it for the footnotes and citations - a veritable goldmine, but avoid its emotive arguments.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Feminism is:
o "Women's rights" only 27%
o Equal rights for both genders 36%
o a man hating political movement 31%
o a communist plot 4%

Votes: 86
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by Signal 11


Display: Sort:
Book Review: The War Against Boys | 83 comments (66 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden)
Well written... (3.16 / 6) (#1)
by anthrem on Fri Oct 05, 2001 at 10:11:56 PM EST

...but tell me, why do you dislike feminism so much? Or better, why did this particular book interest you?



Disclaimer: I am a Buddhist. I am a Social Worker. Filter all written above throught that.
Atlantic article (4.33 / 9) (#3)
by rbeier on Fri Oct 05, 2001 at 11:08:46 PM EST

Hoff Sommers's article in The Atlantic is a summary of her book's argument.

I don't respect feminism... (3.83 / 12) (#13)
by Ialdabaoth on Sat Oct 06, 2001 at 08:50:35 AM EST

I used to, at one point; it seemed that women like Gloria Steinem sincerely wanted to ensure that society got out of the way and allowed women to achieve whatever men could achieve, if they wanted.

These days, feminism smells more like another strain of collectivism to me; it seems to claim that just because a person is female, that person is somehow better, more virtuous, more entitled than a man. It seems to me a reversal of the kind of thinking that led to feminism in the first place.

If I told you that I was entitled to special priveleges because I was male, you'd call me a sexist pig, and rightly so. But if a woman says that she deserves special treatment just for being a woman, you give her respect. I smell a double standard here, and it doesn't smell good. BTW, I voted +1 Section
*******
"Act upon thy thoughts shall be the whole of the Law."

--paraphrase of Aleister Crowley

I don't respect feminism... (2.33 / 9) (#14)
by Ialdabaoth on Sat Oct 06, 2001 at 08:50:56 AM EST

I used to, at one point; it seemed that women like Gloria Steinem sincerely wanted to ensure that society got out of the way and allowed women to achieve whatever men could achieve, if they wanted.

These days, feminism smells more like another strain of collectivism to me; it seems to claim that just because a person is female, that person is somehow better, more virtuous, more entitled than a man. It seems to me a reversal of the kind of thinking that led to feminism in the first place.

If I told you that I was entitled to special priveleges because I was male, you'd call me a sexist pig, and rightly so. But if a woman says that she deserves special treatment just for being a woman, you give her respect. I smell a double standard here, and it doesn't smell good. BTW, I voted +1 Section
*******
"Act upon thy thoughts shall be the whole of the Law."

--paraphrase of Aleister Crowley

Our schools are anti-mammal! (2.80 / 5) (#27)
by dr k on Sat Oct 06, 2001 at 04:20:02 PM EST

I mean, why did I have to wear pants at all? Look at monkeys, they don't wear pants!

When is someone going to write a book about how we discriminate against the other primates in our schools? And for that matter, how are the other primates going to learn how to read if we don't teach them?

I demand equal rights for every nippled creature!
Destroy all trusted users!

Your poll (3.40 / 10) (#34)
by itsbruce on Sat Oct 06, 2001 at 07:57:15 PM EST

Is very incomplete. What it omits is the core of any rebuttal to your "argument": that feminism is an attempt to address a real and continuting imbalance. So many feminists don't feel the need to campaign for everybody. So what? Does everybody have to caompaign for everybody? Some people take up one issue, others another.

This story reminds me of your confused rant against anti-racism. Get a grip. You are one of the most priveleged people on the planet. You don't need to get all antsy every time somebody critices a white male somewhere.


--I unfortunately do not know how to turn cheese into gold.

a point that needed to be made (3.00 / 3) (#43)
by jessek on Sun Oct 07, 2001 at 03:12:52 AM EST

I like the basic idea of what feminism used to be about, the equality of both sexes, but somewhere along the way it got mislaid and turned into villification of all men.

Not to say that a fair ammount of men past and present don't deserve this, but this whole "men are evil and want nothing more to repress women" belief is stupid, and more so, an affront to what I believe feminism's goal was at first.

I think the first thing we need to do is accept that there will always be differences in how men and women both behave and learn how to work together to understand each side. But with the current rhetoric of groups like the N.O.W., I don't think such dialog will be possible soon, if ever.

:: Street Justice, Mr. T Style! | http://www.infocalypsenow.org ::
In Sweden (3.50 / 4) (#46)
by murklamannen on Sun Oct 07, 2001 at 01:04:21 PM EST

Same thing in Sweden.
I hear lots of talk about how terribly oppressive schools are on girls. And tons of money is put on various projects for helping girls.
But, i ask you, how come boys have much lower grades than girls in pre-high school?
It's interesting to note that in swedish pre-high school the majority of teachers are female. And there girls have higher grades. In high school there are about as many male and female teachers and there are no differences in grades between boys and girls.
To me it seems that the boys are the ones who are opressed.

Feminism: a word with many meanings (4.44 / 9) (#47)
by Macrobat on Sun Oct 07, 2001 at 02:25:40 PM EST

Look:

Feminism means different things to different people. A lot of people seem willing to condemn anything labeled with the tag "feminist" just because there are [a few | some | a lot of] feminists out there who oppress men and boys. As for me, I've never been fond of the term itself because it implies an in-group and an out-group based on essentialized sex differences, but that's not how everyone takes it.

There are pro-porn feminists, pro-life feminists, feminists who use "he" generically, feminists who take the surname of the man they marry, and (many) feminists who love their sons. (About the only kind of self-styled feminist I've never run into is someone who doesn't believe in women's suffrage.) It's like using the blanket term "Judaeo-Christian" and presuming it means the same thing when referring to Orthodox and reformed Jews, Quakers, Baptists, Catholics and Unitarians. Well, it doesn't, and while a discussion of what "feminism" means might be productive, in this case it seems like using it as an inflammatory label is useless for the discussion.

"Hardly used" will not fetch a better price for your brain.

Preaching to the choir + assault on strawwomen (3.50 / 10) (#49)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Oct 08, 2001 at 03:07:47 AM EST

Of course, presenting kurobots with pretty much any book that says "feminists are evil" (in nicer words) is like telling Stalin that capitalism is bad. (Sorry for the horrible analogy; in the future I'll stick to the unimaginative cliché "preaching to the choir.")

Simply put, most kurobots are too deeply immersed and committed to the mainstream ideology of western societies to grasp contemporary feminism, and their comments fully reflect this: all the talk about "man haters," "feminazis," "feminism should be about people being equal, not about women being on top," and so on, simply brushes aside the content of essentially all contemporary feminist theory.

The biggest strawwoman here, of course, is the identification of the feminist attack on institutions with attacks on people ("man hater"). If you can't recognize this distinction, frankly, you have not only failed to grasp feminist theory, but also basic social science.

Most of the people in this discussion need urgently to (a) learn said basics and (b) actually *read* feminist literature (and not pop media distorsions thereof) before making fools of themselves in a public forum like k5.

--em

In the real world (3.50 / 4) (#51)
by the trinidad kid on Mon Oct 08, 2001 at 06:22:47 AM EST

In the real world the modern feminist movement was set up at the end of the 60s/beginning of the 1970s to deal with real discrimination.

    Some examples:
  • In the UK before the Sexual Discrimination Act, University Medical Schools operated quotas whereby women could be 25% of the student body. Now they are over 50%
  • In the Republic of Ireland the Government (then the larged employer) operated a marriage bar until 1973 - any woman who worked for the government got fired when the got married.
  • etc, etc
Application of the rest of this argument to the US is left as an excercise for the reader.
  • The number of Female Presidents of the US is?
  • Vice Presidents?
  • % congresscritters (my current favourite americanism)?
  • CEOs of Fortune 500 companies?
  • % of university professors?
  • ratio of salaries for women and men with the same qualifications working in the IT industry?
  • blah-blah, woggle-woggle


Oh, and I forgot (4.00 / 5) (#55)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Oct 08, 2001 at 11:43:45 AM EST

What kind of "review" is this? Since you're claiming to be reviewing a book which argues a certain position, you should recapitulate at some level the argumentats in the book and the evidence cited to support them. Similarly, if you are claiming the author has made "logical inconsistencies," you should give an example of one.

I came around too late to vote this -1, but as a book review, it's simply pathetic.

--em

What is a feminist... (4.00 / 6) (#67)
by Karmakaze on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 11:34:11 AM EST

I like this quote so much I generally use it as my .sig:
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913
I consider myself to be a pretty strident feminist. Do I think women are inherently better than men? No. Do I think that women deserve to be treated better than men? No. Do I think it would be really nice if I could make as much money as an equally trained man in my field instead of $.70 to the $1? Damned straight!

I don't have a problem with men (or boys). Fact is, on most personality test I run across, I show more "masculine" than "feminine" traits. (I suspect this has to do with the fact that confident speech and strong opinions are considered to be "masculine" since nobody's ever accused me of being butch in person - only online.)

I'm even (gasp) pro-porn. (I do have issues with the objectification of women, but the objectification in (most) porn is really just an extension of the objectictification in mass media in general. Why pick on one sub-category?)

I think the word "herstory" is one of the stupidest locutions I've ever run across.

Thing is, it's easier to refute the extreme positions of a few people and call them "Feminazis" than to actually ackowledge that there are still severe problems. Discounting feminist ideas because of the ideas of the extreme would be like discounting the entire civil rights movement because of Farrakhan.


--
Karmakaze

Hurray for femnazis ... (2.00 / 2) (#69)
by spcmanspiff on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 05:24:01 PM EST

... They're the best I've out there at making male chauvenist pigs show their true colors.

Somebody's gotta make 'em squirm.

On topic: I haven't read the book and the review doesn't really set out any specific arguments it makes, but my knee-jerk reaction is that this book is absolute crap -- mostly because I'm extremely comfortable with most feminist ideology and even agree with much of it.

does that make me less of a man?

*grin*


Rhetorical Problems (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by MrAcheson on Mon Oct 15, 2001 at 12:18:33 PM EST

Alright my big problem with modern organized feminism is that its is directly advocating an untruth. Now when you read what I have to say next, it is going to sound really chauvanistic until I clarify myself. I apologize. However, the fundamental untruth being championed by organized feminism is:

Men and women are the same.

And the truth is:

Men and women are different.

Men and women are genetically, physically, and mentally different. We think, act, and develop differently from each other. Aside from the obvious reproductive differences, men have more muscle and less skeletal mass per unit mass. Men and women's brains are structured differently because of a hormone cascade in male fetal development which severs links between the hemispheres of the male brain. Look at your significant other (if you are heterosexual and have one) and think about it. How can anyone who has been in a significant relationship with someone of the opposite sex say that men and women aren't different?

This is not to say that men and women should be paid differently for doing equal work. Or that women (or men) should be an inferior member of society because they are different. Or that women should be kept "home with the babies." This is to say that there are differences between men and women which need to be addressed by society and many feminists stand directly in the path of this societal progress.

By championing the untruth of sameness and refuting the truth of difference, modern organized feminism is doing society and quite often women a great disservice. This treatment of boys in schools is just a symptom of the madness.


These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.


If you're looking to see how stupid feminism is (3.00 / 1) (#81)
by exa on Tue Oct 16, 2001 at 02:26:56 PM EST

Read a paper by a "feminist philosopher"

I have seen a few of those papers and I laughed my ass off. It's stuff like saying logical analysis is bad/discriminating against women because women "don't have to be" logical.

serious bullshit.
__
exa a.k.a Eray Ozkural
There is no perfect circle.

Book Review: The War Against Boys | 83 comments (66 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!