I picked up the washington post's Outlook section for the first time in months for some luxrious, relaxing, old fashioned newspaper reading on Sunday after a horrible day in which my car broke down. And this was even worse. It ruined my whole evening and most of Monday because of the letters I kept re-writing to the washpost.

I'm glad it got attention here because I was too sick to my stomach to even write a community post about it.

I like Naomi and liking a person and agreeing with them don't necessarily go hand in hand with me. I tend to see feminism as defined by the individual so this kind of thing doesn't bother me. I like hearing varied perspectives because I know mine isn't necessarily the norm in all circles.

I've read some stuff she's written, and I think, on the whole, she has some good ideas, but a kind of shallow undertsanding of the world. I mean, come on...this is sort of idiotic, especially for the woman who wrote The Beauty Myth. The casting of everything in this black or white, either or dichotomy (you're a sexy sexy sassy feminist new waver or an old groucy lesbian 2d wave man hater....yeesh) it's the refuge of the lazy. And Naomi may be smart, but this is lazy.

Can someone point out what the issue is in this post? All I am getting is that Naomi Wolf (and perhaps Brown herself) are saying that young feminists do not look, talk, or behave the same way as feminists did in the 70s and 80s.

And apparently there is a winner (was there a competition?).

Is it that they left out all the non-sexy, non-sassy, non-breezy, non-hip feminists?

I am really slow today. I sense disturbances in the force but cannot identify the cause. It's finals week.

I'll repost what I did at Feministe:

Uh. I read part of one of HGB’s books…”Wild Again” I think it was.

She doesn’t think sexual harassment in the workplace is a serious problem. Women like the attention, and it doesn’t hurt anybody!

Once you’re over 30, you’re not too attractive, so in order to keep your man around (because no one prefers to be single/non monogamous, and what are lesbians?!) you need to worship his penis. If you don’t, then why would he stay?

It’s your job to keep your husband. If another woman comes along and takes him away, that’s your fault. He doesn’t know better. So, once again, worship his penis.

I didn’t make it too far in the book.

So it frustrates me for to say Helen Gurley Brown "won."

I agree that the review you link to is a total mess (or "problematic," to use a word Wolf apparently dislikes--weird), but honestly I don't think the paragraph excerpted here indicates that much. All Wolf has really addressed in this graf are what she perceived as stereotypes about feminists, not her own personal beliefs about them. Which admittedly are a crock. I'm curious: Why was this particular paragraph plucked?

I wonder has she read the contents of Bitch or Bust magazines, or do their "sassy" names tell her all she needs to know? For that matter has she seen more than 5 minutes worth of Sex & The City--I wouldn't call the character of Charlotte "feminist".(She quote "The Rules" in the pilot episode! People!!)

All in all this read like someone who's vaguely aware of some cultural phenomena and stereotypes, but little knowledge of what's really on young feminists minds. Look at more than Bitch's title. Familiarize yourself with women in your local activist and/or creative communities and what their concerns are. Even peruse feminist blogs and see what women are choosing to write about.

Leaving aside the very troubling (and probably unintentional; though it shows Wolf's mindset) implication that a 'multiethnic' 'pro-sex' and 'tolerant' feminism is defined to be 'ahistorical' and 'apolitical'...

I think Wolf has something valuable to say here, but she is saying it in an obtuse and maybe not the most clear manner.

But she spends too much time on self-castigation. It's not just her view of false feminist stereotypes, but she implies these stereotypes of political feminists are true:

"humorlessness... saw men and women in opposition ...viewed domesticity and family life as ... [not] a potential source of joy...puritanical..." and oh, "skeptical of fun"?

I am sure Wolf just thinks she is being bravely self-critical, but think about the actual statements here: At best, these statements represent the most outlandish extremes of '70s radicalism, at worst, false sexist stereotypes perpetuated by the opponents of feminism to further their own sexist interests. And why would young women want to join that kind of movement, as characterized by Wolf?

There are already enough people out there to castigate feminism for its shortcomings without feminists like Naomi Wolf devoting large parts of a Washington Post article to it (particularly since feminists are so rarely published in the MSM).

But I actually agree with Wolf when she writes, "The way is mapped out, the time for theory is pretty much over. We know the laws and the policies we need to achieve full equality. What we lack is a grass-roots movement that will drive the political will. "Lipstick" or lifestyle feminism won't produce that movement alone... Helen Gurley Brown can be faulted for underemphasizing women's workplace and personal challenges."

Basically Wolf is (very gently) calling for the return of a more serious, group oriented, politically-oriented feminism, saying that things have gone too far toward Helen Gurley Brown's way and that there are limitations to individualist feminism. I can't say I'm wholly unsympathetic to that view.

I just think Wolf misrepresents young feminists. She probably misrepresents second-wave feminists too, but I wasn't alive back then, so I don't really know.

BTW, that jacket she's wearing is pretty fabulous.

I tried reading The Beauty Myth and eventually became exasperated with it and had to put it down. She seems very comfortable essentialising men and women alike for the sake of constructing her own feminist platform. I find that just as damaging as antifeminist rhetoric because it just as easily fails to acknowledge diversity within these negotiated categories.

So, I'm not surprised that she made such a broad statement, which clearly indicates her very narrowed perspective not just on second and third wave feminism, but also the many kinds of feminisms that are situated within these broad categories.

Oh, I just got a copy of Ms. and bitch for my birthday, and my mom said that the person working at the store told her hardly anyone buys Ms., but a lot buy bitch (aw :/ ). I've never read an issue of bitch, so I'm about to try it out.

I don't think much of Naomi Wolf, especially after reading her comments about abortion.

Eesh. That excerpt was painful. Sounds pretty hereosexist, too.

Eesh. That excerpt was painful. And her examples are pretty heteronormative.

I'm pretty irritated that she put Bust and Bitch in the same category. As a regular reader of both Bust and Bitch (as well as Ms., thankyouverymuch), I actually feel like Bitch is less like Bust and actually more like Ms.

And I fail to see how talking shit on a LGBTQ/feminist friendly sex store and the women who patronize it (who are, ahem, abiding by the very feminist ideal of feeling entitled to sexual satisfaction and refusing to be ashamed of their sexuality) makes any degree of sense. Fail.

I've read "Girls Go Everywhere", the book that she's reviewing in the article.

If Naomi's tone suggests combativeness, well, that's how it was back then. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem weren't exactly buddy-buddy with Helen Gurly Brown. And Helen Gurly Brown definitely didn't take that lying down.

But I don't think HGB's style of feminism ultimately won--HGB never wanted to talk about anything negative (sexual harassment, abortion etc), Cosmo never talked about kids and her ever quest for money through sexual relationships isn't something I think we would ascribe to today.

Sure, on the surface, 3rd wave looks similar, but really, it draws from all "traditions".

thats to bad I really like Naomi Wolf. I agree with her somewhat. But what we women are fighting for is the right to define ourselves by our own standards. Not change them to sex in the city from amazon women

Maybe I'm being too charitable in my interpretation but the quote above may simply be saying that it is the stereotype of feminists in the eye of the public that's changed, someone stodgy and humourless to someone sassy and sex-positive.

And whilst you might think it's still not a good stereotype to have (if the 1st thing people associate with feminism is Sex & the City), I think there's an element of truth about the public perception changing.

(In the article itself though she does seem to be passing evaluations and not just describing general opinion)

I tend to agree with what Naomi Wolf is saying (at least what's quoted in the above post.) Isn't she contrasting "styles" of feminism? Bitch, Bust -- definitely "sassy" and more "sexy" than proper sounding Ms. I don't understand what's at issue here? Honestly, I do not think the criticism of Naomi Wolf is warranted, but maybe I'm missing something.

can we nix the ableist language ('lame')?

Otherwise, I agree with your post- Wolf is leaning way too heavily on old tropes about feminism- she should know better. Especially since I'm some freakish combo of one of those "hirsute Amazons in Birkenstocks" and a girl who

aaand that was meant to go up-thread. my bad.

I think the fact that she says "Brown, FOR NOW, has won" is important. She isn't DEFENDING "sexier, sassier" forms of feminism; she is saying that it is the type that is currently in style, which is true. But, as she points out, "the world isn't going to change because a lot of young women feel confident and personally empowered" (like the women of Sex and the City do). Naomi Wolf constantly talks about organizing as women and feminists to make political change. She's saying that theory is one thing, but we know what we want to some degree, so we need to try and make it happen. To, in the end, find some common ground between "the merely personal and the mostly political." I love Naomi Wolf, and I hate to see her misinterpreted and unfairly attacked for a book review.

Let me preface this with a note that I generally enjoy Wolf's work - I particularly liked Promiscuities and Misconceptions. For me, this was the most troubling excerpt from Wolf's review:

As many older feminists justly point out, the world isn't going to change because a lot of young women feel confident and personally empowered, if they don't have grass-roots groups or lobbies to advance woman-friendly policies, help women break through the glass ceiling, develop decent work-family support structures or solidify real political clout.

Feminism had to reinvent itself -- there was no way to sustain the uber-seriousness and sometimes judgmental tone of the second wave. But feminists are in danger if we don't know our history, and a saucy tattoo and a condom do not a revolution make.

The fact is, we know the answers to Western women's problems: The way is mapped out, the time for theory is pretty much over. We know the laws and the policies we need to achieve full equality. What we lack is a grass-roots movement that will drive the political will. "Lipstick" or lifestyle feminism won't produce that movement alone.

These paragraphs hit a couple of layers of what I think Wolf is missing in her analysis of the third wave. First of all, the fact that so many young women feel strong and empowered is, in my opinion, a very optimistic sign of the hard work of the second wave. We can feel this way because many barriers were broken and rights were enshrined in law. Second wavers should be high-fiving each other over this. Secondly, I'm troubled by her lack of knowledge in regards to the MANY third wave lobbies/organizations/communities that we have set up - Choice USA, Third Wave Foundation, etc. Also, she seems to lack an understanding of the ways in which third wavers communicate and organize. We probably aren't going to form a consciousness raising group, but we will blog, twitter, e-mail friends, and create other media to share ideas and spread information. Finally, her remark about "we know the answers to Western women's problems." For me, and I think MANY third wavers, answering Western women's problems is not enough. I think that is one of the third wave's biggest critiques of the second wave! The legal equality of Western women is not enough. I think the third wave has a much broader goal of liberation for all, breaking down barriers of race, class, gender, and sexuality, and connecting movements of women across national boarders. Equal pay legislation in the US is not enough if Latin American women are forced to work in inhumane conditions or migrate undocumented because of economic conditions.

And hey, enough being down on the second wavers, Ms. Wolf. I know quite a few saucy second wavers with great senses of humor! ;)

I like some of Wolf's ideas but I'm not sure about this book (I'll have to read it to be sure).

Sounds like she's stereotyping both waves of feminists. I actually exist somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd wave (just as Naomi Wolf does) and think her portrayals of both waves are caricatures rather than descriptions.

Maybe, like me, she doesn't identify with either. I've never owned a pair of Birkenstocks. Nor do I identify with the Sex and the City women. She describes them as feminists....Are they? I thought the series finale and the movie was just about the four of them "settling." Not really a feminist message at all. Just depressing.

And yeah, I don't get the "win." Does she mean Brown's Cosmo girl is more accepted and palatable to the public. I would agree. But is that "winning"? That's like saying the best selling book or CD is the best literature or music currently available!

Really, I think she's describing how feminism (2nd or 3rd wave) is portayed by pop culture rather than any sort of more substantial analysis. I mean really, Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte--They're FICTIONAL. Yes, media shapes our thinking but a more analytic approach is needed.

When I first began my (scholarly) encounter with feminism, it was in a Introduction to Women's Studies Class in a Canadian University. I was criticized by the "hippie" feminists for being too femme, and criticized by the "femme" feminists for being not quite femme enough. This was not an enjoyable experience.

My one and only issue with feminism has been that I have met too many feminists who are more judgemental than accepting. I am still a feminist, just not the type of feminist that these women's studies majors wanted me to be. Naomi Wolf is a perfect example of the "judging feminist".

Can't we all just support and guide each other towards empowerment? It took me two years after my first women's studies course to reconcile myself with feminism, and only then through the LGBTT community, which I found far more supportive. 2nd or 3rd wave- Lets just stop judging each other.