next »

[breckin]

It must be frustrating for Dr. Sommers to see the same errors again and again; the same is true for feminist scholars whose scholarship is ignored by people who pick up old claims and pass them forward. Indeed, it's probably true of scholars in all fields. What has always been missing in her criticisms of feminist work is any comparative investigation that would help us know whether the literature she repeatedly attacks (with repeated attention to the same few issues) is especially prone to this "pick it up and pass it on" reference to "evidence," or whether we could go to almost any field, and scholarly approach and find the same thing? My experience says the latter. And if that's true, then why publish essentially the same argument again and again?

[erictho]

Welcome, breckin.

It's best to provide a link to the article you'd like to discuss to enable others to read the article before joining the discussion.

Never Mind the Facts

(Perhaps The Mods could make this a free link?)

[theothershoe]

It must be frustrating for Dr. Sommers to see the same errors again and again; the same is true for feminist scholars whose scholarship is ignored by people who pick up old claims and pass them forward.

Assuming you're speaking of academic writing (as Dr. Sommers clearly is), could you provide some examples? 

[t_r_b]

What has always been missing in her criticisms of feminist work is any comparative investigation that would help us know whether the literature she repeatedly attacks (with repeated attention to the same few issues) is especially prone to this "pick it up and pass it on" reference to "evidence," or whether we could go to almost any field, and scholarly approach and find the same thing? My experience says the latter.

In this article, Sommers makes clear that she objects not to the presence of errors in scholarship, but rather to the unwillingness of scholars to correct those errors, and the attitude that any attempt to correct them amounts to heresy.

Now, it may well be that feminist scholars are no more prone than non-feminist scholars to self-righteous denunciations of legitimate criticism. But that is no reason for anyone, least of all feminists, to tolerate such attitudes. The goals of feminist scholarship are far better served by analytical rigor and critical debate than by attacking anyone who asks them to identify their sources.

Having said all that, I infer from her article that for Sommers, finding a few absurdities in a domestic violence textbook, and receiving indignant email from the book's editor, leads to the conclusion that feminists are out of touch with reality more generally. She may be right about the few absurdities, but they do not substantiate the larger criticism she wishes to advance.

[rrhake2009]

On 5 July 2009 I transmitted a post to the discussion list AERA-L titled "Re: Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship." The abstract reads: 
*************************************
ABSTRACT: Stephen Black, in a TIPS (Teaching in the Psychological Sciences) post of 3 July 2009 called attention to Christina Hoff Sommers' (2009) provocative Chronicle article "Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship" at http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i40/40sommers.htm. In the ensuing discussion:(a) Paul Brandon pointed out that, although he respects her work, Hoff Sommers is “slightly right-wing” and paid by the American Enterprise Institute; (b) Allen Esterson then responded that Hoff Sommers' work ”should be treated on its merits, regardless of whether her socio-political views are right or left of centre!” I agree with Esterson and point out that, as indicated in “Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME) [Hake & Mallow (2008)] and by Esterson, the persistent errors in of some of the feminist literature have been repeatedly pointed out by many non-AEI-sponsored authors from all sectors of the socio-political spectrum, e.g.: Almeder et al. (2003), Esterson (2006), Holton (1993), Koertge (1998), Newton (1997), Patai & Koertge (2003), & Tobias et al. (2002).
*************************************
To access the complete 18 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/qfc6t6.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

[princeton67]

Feminism, Afrocentrism, Creationism (aka Intelligent Design), Tobacconism (my name for the Tobacco companies' continual denial of the smoking - disease link). All share the trappings of scientific objectivity, but, whereas actual science quickly rejects any hypothesis not reproducible (cold fusion, phlogiston, phrenology...), these careful imitators never say die. Might as well add dowsing and spiritualism. As Ben Franklin said, ""You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into."