Notice how, in both the Naomi Wolf and Jocelyn Elders episodes, the wing nuts on the right were quick to turn ‘teens should practice mutual masturbation instead of intercourse’ and ‘masturbation should be discussed in sex ed classes’, respectively, into ‘she says we should teach kids how to masturbate’?
Dumb or duplicitous: either way, you’ve got to detest 'em.
I’d almost buy it too, except that even NOW insiders were complaining about NOW’s silence on Clinton’s indiscretion, and thier apparent duplicity on the issue of sexual harassment while all this was going on. While it is quite likely that NOW has been misrepresented, it is also quite likely that it has been fairly represented in ways that NOW would like to live down. Neither is exclusive of the other.
From the Peyote Coyote:
Second the motion.
Regarding the OP: (although I don’t know that anyone is still interested)
Naomi Wolf has written a number of articles that were moderately to highly critical of Gore on a number of issues. They were written from the perspective “If Gore really wanted to achieve X, he should be pursuing Y” instead of the typical “How can anyone support this [disdain] politician [/disdain]?” and Gore is reported to have told his staff something along the lines that it would be really interesting to bring in her perspective to the campaign.
I still haven’t figured out what the flap is all about. I suspect that as the nominal front-runner for his party, anything that Gore does must be analyzed and ridiculed: Call on party regulars for help? Unimaginative S-O-S. Look for help outside the mainstream? Grasping at straws and associating with kooks.
The same-old, same-old is the current reporting process. I don’t know who I’ll vote for and I don’t know (yet) that Wolf is or is not a kook. I do know that we have got to have the weirdest process to select a leader for a major country since Rome relied on poisoning relatives.
Tom~
Naomi Wolf is a feminist writer, and currently follows a sort of “kinder, gentler” feminism. Her first book, The Beauty Myth, was extremely angry; she seemed to be pushing a belief that men consciously decided to make women obsess about their weight so that they would be too distracted by hunger to take over the world. Now, it may have that effect, but I think the conclusions she drew were too simplified and based on a distrust or anger at men rather than solid evidence. I almost didn’t read her next book because if this, but she took a right turn and now espouses a pro-man, pro-sex feminism. It’s definitely an improvement, but I’m not fond of pop sociology books anyhow; I prefer a little drier research.
“Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.”
Naomi Wolf is a feminist pundit.
The following site (not maintained by her) provides links to speeches and works she has written:
http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/wolf.htm
This is a short article describing some of her views. I don’t know the context in which it was written, although there is a Detroit News tag at the bottom.
http://www.zinezone.com/zines/arts/literature/non-fiction/nwolf/
Tom~
Sorry. The second article I was referring to is reached by clicking the Who’s Afraid of Naomi Wolf? link on the page that comes up.