Christina Hoff Sommers, who played a starring role in the anti-feminist backlash of the 1990s, is back again with a new edition of her book The War Against Boys. Originally subtitled How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, it’s now relabeled How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men; she now stresses–in a major New York Times op-ed (2/3/13) and a 10-minute one-on-one interview on NPR‘s Tell Me More (2/12/13)–that changing schools to help boys do better educationally is just a question of “basic fairness.” She writes in the Times:
That boys struggle with school is hardly news…. Over all, it’s likely that girls have long behaved better than boys at school (and earned better grades as a result), but their early academic success was not enough to overcome significant subsequent disadvantages….
Those disadvantages have lessened since about the 1970s…. Universities that had been dominated by affluent white men embraced meritocratic values and diversity of gender, race and class…. And while workplace inequities persisted, changing attitudes, legislation and litigation began to level the occupational playing field.
Sommers labels as “understandable but misguided” the attitude, “Isn’t it time for women and girls to enjoy the advantages?” A more pertinent question to ask Sommers, though, is what advantages are women enjoying that suggest boys deserve an extra boost?
After all, women who work full-time still make only 81 percent of what men do. And women own only 36 percent as much wealth as men do.
Only 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, as are 17 percent of directors on Fortune 500 boards. Women are 18 percent of U.S. representatives and 20 percent of U.S. senators.
And that meritocratic academy still tends to find much more merit among males: At the most prestigious institutions, those that award doctorates, only 26 percent of tenured professors are women.
When some of these numbers start reversing themselves, it’ll be time to see what can be done to make sure that boys have a fair shot at success in this country. As it stands now, though, if there’s a war against boys, the men still seem to be winning.
I agree that Sommers is unquestionably a stalking horse for chauvinism
But the idea that more female corporate CEOs and board members would represent some sort of progress for women’s rights strikes me as sophistry, given that in those roles, they would be screwing the rest of us
Regardless of our genitalia.
Identity politics often have little to do with, or is antithetical to, the improvement of the lives of the great mass of those so identified.
See Obama, Barack Hussein
Or Clinton, Hillary Rodham.
I am not sure I follow why you think that more Female CEO’s are just more of the same? If I am wrong, sorry.
((But the idea that more female corporate CEOs and board members would represent some sort of progress for women’s rights strikes me as sophistry, given that in those roles, they would be screwing the rest of us
Regardless of our genitalia.))
This sounds like your impling that all women CEO’s are like men, and thus a women CEO is little more than a Male CEO, possible thought of as a little less, because she wouldn’t have two certain things to make her a real man.
But that is not true; when you look at companies with Female CEO’s, it is not “a man wearing a dress” and thus screwing us all, regardless of our genitalia as you say that makes them successful; it was being a female, but not being a washy push over, smooth everything over type. It was some one who made a business decision based on business, not greed.
It was they who changed things, little by litte, stopping the ‘hostilities and the Isolation’, that was used heavily up through the 90. It was just using other ideas to get a profit where others failed, though it might take longer, it would yield even more. And that has been pointed any number of times by KPFA and F.A.I.R., In fact, even in the academia where there are more females than there used to be, it is still pretty much controlled by Males and as such is rather more cut-throat about business all together. The problem with “Cut cut cut” is pretty soon you run out of things to cut. Not Sustainable.
But the only reason that the myth that “all female CEO’s were just as corrupt as men” ever took hold, because in the beginning, that was the only type of Female that would have been allowed to hang around with me. And so when the choice of female CEO’s was a number you could count on your two hands, they were going to be like the Males they worked with. I have worked with any number of “Females” who were corporate Officers all the way up to CEO, and found they are just human like the rest of us.
Men and women are not equal in every respect but women do have advantages that men do not. There are more men in the corporate board rooms but there are also more men in prison and jail cells. Men are more likely to be homeless. Economically black men are way behind black women.
And even at the higher achievement levels, 60% of college graduates are women, most new medical doctors are women, etc.
To actually see who is better off, you have to look at the mean and not individual points. Looking at the salaries is not accurate because that is a probability distribution with its tail cut off (only counts those who have jobs).
Truth is that men and women may never be exactly the same. Why do more women chose medical school and more men choose engineering? I don’t know. Maybe they are just different in some way.
Jim: If there is a problem with educating our boys in grade school (e.g., lack of physical activity), it should be fixed. Period. Girls and boys should be given an equal chance at a good grade-school education. If women indeed earn less than men when they get into the work force, despite have had an education equal to boys, then let’s not try to make grade school LESS equal in a misguided attempt to try to even out how women are treated in the adult world. Instead, if the grade-school years are equal, then whatever is causing the inequalities in the adult working world would seem to be originating there, in the adult working world. Let’s fix it there, in the adult world. Let’s not punish our boys in grade school.
Typo:
“As it stands now, though, it there’s a war against boys, the men still seem to be winning.”
Should be:
“As it stands now, though, if there’s a war against boys, the men still seem to be winning.”
Truth is that men and women may never be exactly the same. Why do more women chose medical school and more men choose engineering? I don’t know. Maybe they are just different in some way. -Mirza Borogovac
Bingo. Even amongst men from the same culture, your going to have variances in how things are done; and they can be nearly 180 degrees apart in how they are implemented but it all boils down to “Does someone have an Idea that works”. I have been doing this for awhile now, and I have a highly diverse crew. It works, because I don’t tell them what to do. I tell them what needs to be done, and let them do it. But they are men and women of all kinds of backgrounds, and we are surrounded by people representing the world.
I say with true Diversity, ask 45 people a question and your get back 50 answers. And one of them is more than likely to work.
Wow, a woman stands up for men and she must be a chauvinist, because you know, men dont matter as much as women.
First, the trend for women is reversing, second, only .01% of men are CEOs anyway, so what is this generality about men winning?
Second, what does the amount of money you make have to do with winning, shouldnt winning be about making a good living wage? Something women are at least as likely to do.
Mirza made a very good post.
Using extremes to prove a point here doesnt work because there is no men are winning bullcrap and even if there were it sure isnt going to go well for both of us if schools keep catering only to a female way of learning. Alot has been written about the school system and how it seems to be failing men and boys in larger amounts, and we have a good idea why, but somehow pointing that out equals chauvinism.
Men still are disposable to this day.
a percent of men are dominating a way too high paying field and somehow that means men are winning. Oh brother, I sure had to fight for everything I got. At the bottom and the middle, I guarantee, we are all still struggling to make more money, men and women.
I want to clarify my first line. Calling her a chauvinist for pointing out mens issues like the same as saying that men dont have issues to worry about just because women have gender issues to worry about.
I am willing to get she doesnt think women are inferior to men, or support men who think that, so to even call Sommers a chauvinist or supporter of such is sickingly dismissive.
I guess patriarchy is still alive and well!
This is a disgusting, fraudulent examination of the reality of the situation. Female Chauvinism is constantly on the rise, and males take the brunt of the punishment. The fact is that the discrimination of women happens only among 0.0001% of males, and the rest of us are fully supportive of women’s equality. The problem is that Feminism isn’t about equality; it hasn’t been for 40 years. These days, it’s all about women getting revenge on men; inflicting the suffering that their predecessors suffered under what was still only 0.001% of men. Men are getting PUNISHED for being Male in our society. That means young boys, too. Test scores are constantly dropping for boys in schools, as the system has been switched to one that favours girls’ best methods of learning, to the detriment of the boys. This is definitely the time for women to rest on their well-earned laurels, and start uplifting EVERYONE equally, rather than having women stepping all over males on their way up.
When the number of boys dropping out of school stops shooting up meteorically, and drops below the much lower number of girls, I’ll agree that it’s time to think about giving girls a leg up again. Until then, though, we need to protect our boys and young men as much (not less) than how much we protect our girls and young women.
Frankly, I’m highly offended that such a prejudiced, unreasearched, fraudulent article ended up on anotherwise neutral site. FAIR, you need to do better, because this article ISN’T FAIR!!
I notice that Jim Nourekas isn’t talking about achieving salary parity in the job fields where men still make up to 45% less than women. We’ve been uplifting women long enough. it’s time to uplift EVERYONE equally; and that means helping our boys at school just as much as we help the girls!
It’s not that simple. Yes, men are still ahead, economically and politically, but the entire country is slipping backwards. And men are “ahead” in the most repressive regimes on Earth too. the fact is, we are failing BOTH sexes, but in different ways. I read Christina Hoff Sommers book when it first came out, and she makes some very good points. There are many ways to fail children of either sex. We need to start finding ways to succeed.
You start your argument by citing the apples-to-oranges comparison that women make only 81% of what men do, which is a raw and meaningless statistic: when all relevant factors are considered, the number drops to about 98%, a fact ideologues ignore. The rest of the author’s statistics are equally ignorant. I had to take statistical analysis in college; maybe the author should consider doing the same.
First of all, Doug, I know exactly what you mean. I am a feminist, not an equal rights supporter — equal rights to do what? — and that means I have no more faith in female CEOs than male CEOs. They support a system that does not fulfill human needs, a system that oppresses and exploits human beings, a system that is destroying the earth. I do not count the number of CEOs or women using political power to advance oligarchic interests as measures of human equality.
As far as female chauvinism goes, to the commenter below, jeezums, what a load of crap.
I can see why the book was republished; the sexist, patriarchal backlash is (still) in full swing. Nearly every single comment here could have been made in the 1950s, except for the fact that the sexist arguments are far more subtle now.
Well, usually they’re more subtle. Some are just moronic. Take Rod’s contention that “You start your argument by citing the apples-to-oranges comparison that women make only 81% of what men do”. Why is comparing men’s wages to women’s wages “apples and oranges”? It’s wages vs. wages–meaning apples vs. apples. Unless Rod means to say that it’s men vs. women–meaning superior apples vs. inferior oranges.
Perhaps he can enlighten us all as to what these “relevant factors” are that magically equal out women’s pay to be 98% of that of men’s. If he means to suggest that what’s “relevant” is to only narrowly focus on pay for the exact same job and the exact same years of service at the exact same industry, etc., then that’s going to be a pretty small sample and it won’t tell us much. What’s more telling is national average and median salaries of women vs. men, which in Canada, where I live (surely similar to the situation in the U.S.), is 71% and 76%, respectively. Canada ranks 4th worst in the gender wage gap in OECD countries, with the U.S. right behind. That’s straight from the radical ultra-leftist feminist ideologues that run the Parliament of Canada, if you want to check the numbers, Rod.
The point is, when we see numbers like that we can make two different conclusions. First, like Rod or McBob, we can conclude that there’s some kind of anti-male conspiracy, the numbers lie, women are doing just fine, and *men* are actually the ones getting screwed here. Conversely, we can choose to see what’s right in front of our faces: not only in the workplace, but across society, men still have considerable economic, political, religious and social power over women, and they’re working like hell to maintain their systems of power. That’s obvious enough, without even mentioning the horrific epidemic of rape and violence against women and girls, overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.
Things are better for women and girls than they were 30 years ago–thanks to feminist movements–but they’re still pretty awful. Rod, Mcbob, Christina Hoff Sommers and millions of others are making noble contributions to keeping things that way. If only they could see that in the cases where things are worse for men and boys, too, it’s not the fault of women or radical feminists. It’s the fault of the economic and political masters who profit from us fighting one another instead of fighting them.
It seems to me that you are disregarding the fact that much of what we see now in schools will not be realized in the workplace (especially upper level management) for 20+ years. If we accept that success and status in school achievement do have some effect on earning ability and the likelihood of advancement to positions of power and responsibility, it seems clear that women’s status is certain to continue to improve. Are they there yet? No, but there’s little reason to believe that the status quo will continue indefinitely.
That doesn’t mean, however, that we should ignore the time lag here and wait until our sons become disfavored in the workplace before we start trying to get education right for them, too. We DO all want a world in which people can realize their true potential, right?
I love you folks at FAIR, but please at least acknowledge that this time gap makes the argument: “Men are way ahead in the workplace, so we don’t need to do anything for boys in schools” less powerful than it seems at first blush.
Andre; I’ve read nearly all the Feminist Literature there is to read; I used to be a Feminist myself. But then I woke up and saw just how abusive society has become to men; the inverse of what it was traditionally, with women being seen as doing no wrong, and men being seen as nothing but evil or stupid screwups. Feminism had its time, but while it made some much needed advances, it utterly failed to create Equality. Time to drop it like the rancid turd it is, and turn to the Masculist movement, which truly wants equal responsiblity and equal rights for EVERYONE, regardless of gender, skin colour, nationality, religion or any other factor. We just want to stop being the step-stools for every woman’s career path. We want to make some personal advances of our own without the government saying, “No, not you. Her.”
デルタ 万年筆
Actually, no women don’t make 81% of what men make. Unless you’re dishonestly going to try to compare salaries between a male attorney and a female teacher. Or even in roles which don’t require an education a roughneck on an oil rig will make way more than a female receptionist.
It makes for nice talking points but the claims fall to pieces under scrutiny. Way to keep carrying that water though.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html
Educate yourself, sir.
The entire problem here is the splitting of society into two groups. This makes no sense whatsoever when dealing with societal issues. You ask why, if boys are losing, how come men are winning? You measure winning or losing in very strange terms and this also simplifies the societal problems caused by gender inequalities. If one measures success in life in other ways, such as longevity, amount of time spent experiencing the joys of parenting etc., then your argument and the argument of many self-proclaimed feminists falls flat. However, all these issues are intertwined. Boys that are less well educated are more likely to perpetrate crimes against women, commit sexual violence etc. Also boys that have no male role model are more likely to commit violence towards women (and yet we continue to demonise men and drive them out of primary years education…also decreasing the salaries of the women that take up this important role). We neglect male suicide, despite the difference in the number of men committing suicide at all ages is far in excess of women, and despite the impact that this has on the daughters, sisters, mothers, wives and ex-wives of these men. If we continue to use this outdated battle of the sexes paradigm, we will never make any progress in understanding the complexity of these issues for the benefit of all in our societies. (I must admit that this post is focussed more on Western societies and my experience of the Swedish feminist movement and the issues in many other male dominated societies are different: India, where I live now has completely other issues to deal with. This is another area of oversimplification that we seem to ignore.)
The fundamental weakness is much of what we do & say about this issue, is that we are starting from a point of inbuilt prejudice. The statement that Men Are Still Winning, only reflects the achievements of a very small proportion of men, as 99% never become CEO’s. If we compare men & women at every level of society we find that males are disadvantaged or subject to negative consequences in a large, if not the majority of instances. Health care provision, welfare, housing, life expectancy, psychological issues, etc etc are worse for males. Minimally males commit suicide some 4 times as often as females.
When we compare boys & girls in school we latch onto the headlines statistics that boys receive far more behaviour related sanctions than girls. But watch any documentary of school behaviour and even recall your own experiences, you will see that boys are afforded far less tolerance and their misdeeds are more likely to result in a severe sanction. What girls are adept at doing is playing the system to avoid culpability for their actions, often by displacing culpability onto the victim (if he / she hadn’t done this, I wouldn’t have done that – even though my act is far far worse) or some other environmental issue. We all know that girls are capable of some of the most vile bullying, with far greater long term consequences than boys.
Over the last 15 years our societies have displaced responsibility for this on to males with initiatives such as “Boys In Crisis”. But it is frequently not boys & men that are in crisis but society as a whole. In UK males pay 72% of all income tax into the system. In return they consume very little of it, i.e. male consumption of public health care provision is around 15%. Despite all the advances females remain wholly dependent on male wealth creation. Thus if successive generations of males under-perform in school and thus their careers, the core tax base declines, which means there is less resource to fund the basic public services that females depend upon. So the crisis is not an exclusively male crisis but a societal crisis in which females will & do suffer the consequences. Ms Hoff-Sommers is right in raising these issues and challenging a system that devalues and negates the importance of males in our societies.
Re: RS Davies, gaming the system and double standards for punishing boys. It doesn’t stop there.
When I was in the Air Force, I worked in the legal office. There is *absolutely* a double-standard in the way offenses by men and women are treated and I saw it happen in real time.
When we got a package on a male offender, the first question was “What did he do and how do we punish it?” Males were assumed to be working from internal motivations–greed, anger, weakness. It was very straightforward; even economical. They didn’t put much thought or effort into the whole thing, it was just a process to be followed.
When we got a package on a female offender, the first question was “What happened to cause her to do that?” The automatic assumption was that the woman was *provoked* into whatever she did, and that she was working from external motivations–pressure, unrealistic expectations, and what was often called “set up to fail” scenarios. Women enjoyed a greater latitude of excuses, denials, diffusions, rationalizations, and longer considerations on the excuses they offered in defense of their misconduct.
I believe we may never experience those things you see as a sign of gender equality. Partly because women tend to make smarter choices. Things like, running for office or sacrificing your life to a corporate job, those usually aren’t that smart of choices. They are generally selfishly motivated. Studies show that when women come to earn around $75,000-$100,000, they tend to become less interested in climbing the corporate ladder. And who can blame them? Good for them for deciding to live more well rounded lives. Men are not as inherently interesting as women. We can’t get by just on looks and personality, we need something else, like money, status or some way to earn money and status. So we have more pressure and incentive to fight for more money or better jobs. In addition, it may always be more acceptable for women to be stay at home moms than for men to be stay at home dads. Because of this, there may always be a larger supply of men in the workforce than there are women.
Why do you equate differences in numbers as meaning, women are facing undue hardships. In true a meritocracy of course certain groups will fare better than others. If the numbers were exactly equivalent for every song demographic in everything, than we’d know it wasn’t a meritocracy we’re living in, and what’s with the wage gap, which has been thoroughly debunked once things such as time in the field and on the job are taken into account. Women are more likely to take large amounts of time off work, sometimes years and the pay differences are erased once you calculate the exact amount of time, actually in the jobs.
FAIR-Fools And Idiots Reporting
Read The Sexual Paradox by Susan Pinker.
She explains it all and backs it up with data.