you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jkfinn 28 insightful - 2 fun28 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Reactionary bullshit from a known feminist journalist whose articles are often reproduced for discussion on “rad fem” (one has to wonder) sites. I cringe right off the bat by her addressing GC critics as “Ladies” and at her incredibly romanticized view of San Francisco (porn factories, sex positive, & super rich) as a bastion of civil liberties. As I read along (who can finish this supreme whitewash) what comes back to me like a bolt is the pro-sex movement which split the second wave. These women were also known feminists (most in the performance arts and/or journalists etc) and had names like Erika Lust, Annie Sprinkle, Pat(rick) Califia, or their own famed names like Gayle Rubin and Ellen Willis. But here instead of embracing pornographers and pimps, Solnit embraces men as representative women and feminists, praiseworthy gender rebels, and an even as a more oppressed wing of the category “women.”

[–]SameOldBS 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm ashamed to say I used to rate Solnit. Now she can fuck the fuck off to the same place Naomi Wolf crawled out from.

[–]PassionateIntensity 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's depressing when women you thought were smart have their head up their ass. Solnit lives in a bubble and 1)thinks transwomen are gay men, 2)is in denial so she doesn't have to acknowledge her friends are abusing their children.

[–]suzyquattrosshoes 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Oh what happened with Naomi Wolf? I only read her Beauty Myth.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Did you read the BM in its original version - where she said right at the start that 150,000 girls/women die of anorexia each year? At the time, it prompted howls cuz the real number was more like 50-60 per annum. The error was corrected in later versions.

Her most recent book had to be pulled off the market because it was based entirely on a mistaken premise that she got from totally misreading & historical court documents and not checking the definition of the terms used in them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/books/review-outrages-naomi-wolf.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50153743

Recently, she's gone full TRA, saying on Twitter that TWAW and the most oppressed; TERFs are evil; The Beauty Myth "wasn't just for uteri havers" and her book "Vagina" wasn't just for people with female vaginas - it was for the menz too.

[–]suzyquattrosshoes 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gobsmacked.

I read the BM in the early 90s, haven’t since. I think probably it was the original! I remember thinking (about the book overall), “superficial, we all know this (much of it), but good to have out there”.

Vagina for men... wow. No integrity at all. Unless she’s terrified which is possible.