|
Naomi Wolf on “Sex and the City”
In this world created by liberalism, this world of no truth and constant change, it nevertheless turns out that there are certain things you can always count on. Jesse Jackson will always be a laughably shameless race hustler. Peter Jennings will always be a smugly self-adoring and vicious anti-American. And Naomi Wolf—our current subject—will always be an irrepressibly vulgar sexual ideologue. For Wolf, sex is not an intrinsic and transcendent part of life, connecting us with another person and with something larger than both persons and with the creation and continuity of new life. Sex is a revolutionary act, aimed at shattering repressive roles and social conventions, an affirmation of the radically free and autonomous self. Wolf has an article in the July 27th New York Post, “Of ‘Sex’ and Sisterhood,” about the hit cable tv show “Sex and the City” and its creator Candace Bushnell. Wolf’s ardent egegesis of “Sex and the City” expresses the ascendant liberal ideology in a variety of ways. First, it can be understood as a popularized version of the radical doctrine of liberty found in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence …”) and Lawrence v. Texas (declaring un-Constitutional all laws regulating private consensual conduct). Second, it unfolds—in feminist, sexual-liberationist terms—the personalist definition of freedom given by Tony Blair to the U.S. Congress, and which he said was what we are fighting for in Iraq: “free to be you.” Finally, it echoes a recent commenter at VFR who said he welcomes the ongoing advances in homosexual liberation, because for the first time younger homosexual men are truly and fully “at ease with themselves.” Here, then, Wolf tells us what women really want when they are free to be themselves, and in circumstances where they are fully at ease with themselves. Here is freedom, liberated from truth:
“Sex and the City” also resonated because it is the first cultural document to treat women’s concerns on an epic scale. I hear you laughing—but it is true. Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 30, 2003 02:12 AM | Send Comments
Let’s have a silent prayer for Naomi Wolf and all the women who think like her. Pray for them to be freed from their utter cluelessness. Posted by: Brendan Kenny on July 30, 2003 12:41 PMSo this is the “freedom” Blair and George W. Bush are sending young soldiers to die for? God help us if it is. There used to be another word used for Ms. Wolf’s idea of liberating activities - depravity. Posted by: Carl on July 30, 2003 12:52 PMBefore I was saved, I used to read Namoi Wolfs books….but even before then I went to a book show not knowing what the book was about, and heard her read on her new book Promiscuities….it was a disgusting tome defending basically teenage sluthood. Posted by: Victoria on July 31, 2003 11:29 AM” … her new book, ‘Promiscuities.’ It was a disgusting tome defending basically teenage sluthood.” Sluthood is some women’s cup of tea, and this author apparently feels its hers also. It’s not every woman’s. But either way, Victoria is right to call a spade a spade. Let’s call things by their name. Posted by: Unadorned on July 31, 2003 12:31 PMI first became aware of Naomi Wolf about 8 years ago through 2 radio interviews, one of which was the Diane Rehm Show. What struck me about her is that her positions didn’t seem in the vein of the more radical feminists. She was critical of the way feminism tended to put men down and ridicule the idea of marriage. She also conceded that many women who had gone that route had come to regret it later in life. On other issues, she clearly angered some in the leftist crowd, such as in her suggestion that women should become proficient in firearms and carry handguns. In short, she had a sense of reasonableness about her that seemed like a breath of fresh air in comparison to the usual feminist ranting and raving. I didn’t think much more about Ms. Wolf till her book ‘Prommiscuities’ came out, which was lauded by reviewers for being exactly what Victoria above noted. Then I realized how dangerous this woman really is. She has a much more suave and slick sales pitch for the liberalism due to her — if I’m using the concept correctly — Unprincipled Exceptions. Posted by: Joel on July 31, 2003 3:45 PMWhat Joel says is similar to an exchange I had earlier today about Wolf: Correspondent to LA: “Interesting. What is funny is that she is I think happily married with a couple of kids. Often this makes way out people a little more reserved, like Bette Midler. Also, remember she caused some to do when she came out against abortion, or some abortions, or something like that, having had a kid or two, she felt differently. All the cons went gaga as usual, but it really doesn’t amount to anything. She just has a feeling, she runs with the feeling, it happens to be a little more traditionalist, it means nothing in the larger order really.” LA to Correspondent: You’ve just given a good example of an unprincipled exception. She’s a total liberal, but there are one or two issues that she’s not liberal on, but they’re not based on any anti-liberal principal, it’s just a feeling she happens to have, based mainly on her personal situation in life. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 31, 2003 3:54 PMat no time does naomi wolf and other ‘rabid feminists’ suggest that sex is a means of ‘breaking out’. thinkers like michel foucault whose ideas coincide with that of a lot of feminists believed that sex ITSELF, no matter how much you have it with multiple people , is part of a power system.to think you’re breaking a conservative system down with lots of sex-that’s misguided, you’re just allowing the system to reinforce itself..you play the role of Shruthi, here is my only answer to your post: “Like Marxism, feminism doesn’t work not because it’s ‘woefully inadequate’ and needs some tweaking, but because it’s false, it’s a lie […].” — Ilana Mercer, from the following article: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35968 Posted by: Unadorned on December 17, 2003 10:59 PM |