Who Stole Feminism?
| Company type | Book |
|---|---|
| Industry | Publishing |
| Founded | 1994 |
| Founder | Christina Hoff Sommers |
| Products | Non-fiction book |
Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women, published in 1994 by Christina Hoff Sommers, who was then a philosophy professor at Clark University, explores differing strands within feminism. Sommers differentiates between equity feminism, which advocates for equal legal rights, and what she calls "gender feminism," which focuses on addressing historical gender disparities. She contends that gender feminists have exaggerated issues such as anorexia and domestic violence, negatively impacting American university environments. The book received mixed reactions, earning both commendation and criticism.
Summary
Sommers argues that the prevailing feminist narrative in the United States portrays women as lacking freedom. She categorizes feminists who perceive society as a patriarchy or under "male dominance" as "gender feminists," contrasting them with equity feminists who seek impartial treatment for everyone. Sommers critiques writers like Naomi Wolf and Gloria Steinem for inflating the number of anorexia-related deaths in the U.S., referencing expert estimates of 100 to 400 fatalities annually, far lower than their cited figure of 150,000. She also disputes claims that associate increases in domestic violence with events like Super Bowl Sunday, pointing out a lack of empirical support. Furthermore, she challenges allegations against English legal historian William Blackstone concerning wife-beating laws, clarifying that such legislation existed in Britain from the 1700s and earlier in America, although enforcement was inconsistent.
Sommers notes that feminist theorists frequently dismiss male dissenters as "sexist" and female critics as "traitors," strategies she believes alienate many individuals. She traces the emergence of gender feminism to the mid-1960s, influenced by antiwar activism and thinkers such as Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre, Herbert Marcuse, and Frantz Fanon. She highlights Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1969) as instrumental in framing politics through a sexual lens dominated by male power structures. Philosophers like Michel Foucault shaped feminists including Wolf and Susan Faludi, though Sommers regards Foucault’s influence as overstated. On college campuses, she asserts that feminist "consciousness-raising" activities often supplant academic scholarship, with gender feminists securing significant funding and control over academic departments, research institutes, tenure decisions, and university governance.
Sommers commends authors such as philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards, who wrote The Sceptical Feminist (1980), journalist Katie Roiphe, author of The Morning After (1993), and cultural critic Camille Paglia. She defends Paglia’s Sexual Personae (1990) against severe critiques from feminist circles, emphasizing its merit despite contentious perspectives.
1994–1999
Who Stole Feminism? was initially reviewed by Kirkus Reviews in April 1994, preceding its publication by two months. The review acknowledged Sommers’ exposure of poor research practices within feminist studies but noted her failure to address similar shortcomings in other disciplines. It suggested that Sommers fabricated the "gender feminism" category to promote her version of liberal feminism and constructed a conspiracy theory on par with those she critiques. While her challenges to feminist thought were recognized as valid, some of her premises were considered flawed.
Literary critic Nina Auerbach evaluated the book for The New York Times Book Review in June 1994, describing Sommers’ logic as flawed and raising concerns about possible bias due to Auerbach’s own feminist commitments. Conservative commentators like Jim Sleeper, Howard Kurtz, and Rush Limbaugh defended Sommers; Limbaugh accused the Times of attempting to suppress the work. Feminist writer Katha Pollitt regarded Auerbach’s critique as overly courteous.
In The Washington Post Book World, editor Deirdre English appreciated the investigative nature but questioned the book’s stark portrayal of feminism, predicting it would spark debate and possibly retractions. Supportive reviews appeared from Sommers’ colleague Cathy Young and scholar Mary Lefkowitz in the National Review. Cultural critic Camille Paglia hailed it as a "landmark study" revealing feminist influence over media and academia. Melanie Kirkpatrick of The Wall Street Journal praised Sommers’ reliance on factual evidence.
Academic John M. Ellis credited Sommers with confronting intellectual decline within humanities departments attributed to feminism but noted hostility from campus feminists toward her work. He highlighted controversy surrounding the assignment of Auerbach to review the book for the New York Times Book Review, which triggered protests and media discussion regarding editorial ethics.
Gay rights advocate John Lauritsen concurred with Sommers that women are the principal victims of "gender feminists."
Sommers’ assertions about legal tolerance for wife beating were met with criticism for inaccuracies. Critics such as Linda Hirshman and Laura Flanders pointed out her omission of critical portions of Blackstone’s text that granted husbands some legal authority over their wives. Flanders accused Sommers of perpetuating errors she attributed to feminists, citing unsupported claims and statistical inaccuracies. In response, Sommers clarified that Blackstone’s law was outdated and addressed FAIR’s critiques in correspondence.
Dale Bauer and Katherine Rhoades disputed Sommers’ stance advocating for value-neutral classrooms, arguing that students bring their own perspectives expecting interactive engagement. Elaine Ginsberg and Sara Lennox described Sommers’ evidence as anecdotal and faulted her for neglecting systemic discrimination against women, suggesting her primary motive was commercial gain despite posing a challenge by attempting to redefine feminism.
Criminologist Samuel Walker dismissed the book as "ephemeral pop sociology," acknowledging its debunking of certain feminist claims but criticizing its failure to consider deeper issues.
By 1999, philosopher Martha Nussbaum characterized Sommers’ distinction between equity feminist and gender feminist as vague, observing that most contemporary social theorists align with "gender feminism," rendering the differentiation ineffective for categorizing feminists into opposing camps.
2000–present
Sociologist Rhonda Hammer challenges Sommers for exaggerating her stance on domestic violence related to the Super Bowl, pointing out that although Sommers disproved the claim of a 40% surge in cases, she failed to acknowledge research indicating a modest increase in domestic violence during the event.
Anthropologist Melvin Konner considers Who Stole Feminism? together with Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power (1993) as important critiques that counteract how "genuine understanding of gender roles" is frequently obscured by postmodernist discourse.
Anne-Marie Kinahan places Who Stole Feminism? within a "post-feminist" trend alongside works such as Rene Denfeld's The New Victorians and Katie Roiphe's The Morning After, suggesting these texts represent a reaction against what is seen as radical feminism on university campuses—connected to queer theory and feminists of color. Kinahan accuses Sommers and similar authors of trying to "reclaim feminism as a movement for white, middle-class, heterosexual women," thereby upholding traditional values related to morality, religion, and the nuclear family structure. She also points out inconsistencies in Sommers’s assertions regarding student opposition and ideological indoctrination.
Political scientist Ronnee Schreiber observes that by 2012, the conservative Independent Women's Forum still references Sommers’s book to portray feminists as distorting statistical evidence.