Who’s afraid of Naomi Wolf?
It’s a strange day in America when The Beauty Myth author and presidential candidate dresser-at-large Naomi Wolf comes out in favor of head scarves, as in this ‘03 essay (via Reddit):
 |
|
Naomi Wolf. Cover those locks? |
Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair… [she is] an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem… When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf…
… the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day–in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair. [Link]
Wolf argues that the mainstreaming of pr0n turns men off to flesh-and-blood women:
Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax–just like porn stars… [Andrea] Dworkin was right that pornography is compulsive, but she was wrong in thinking it would make men more rapacious. A whole generation of men are less able to connect erotically to women–and ultimately less libidinous. [Link]
In one sense it’s an extension of the Beauty Myth argument about the brainwashing of women by the beauty industry. In another, it’s highly anti-feminist in echoing the arguments of hijab supporters from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan which amount to restraint of trade in the bazaars of flirtation.
on Wednesday, August 1st, 2007, 1:02 pm in Issues, Musings, Religion › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Mainstream feminism in the US went off the rails a while ago. For example, the biggest “women’s issue” in the US is childcare, paid time off, reduced/”flexible” hours, etc. for mothers. N.O.W. doesn’t distinguish between “women” and “parents” (half of whom are men, last time I checked) nor do they acknowledge the concerns of women who do not identify as mothers. In the 70’s, feminism was about getting beyond the idea of woman=mother; you could have all kinds of interests and skills, you didn’t have to follow the same old script, and men were just as eligible to stay home and nurture offspring as women. In the 70’s, feminism was about Equal Pay for Equal Work; now it’s about woman=baby producer, and baby producers should get special benefits (that was the old justification for paying men more, they were supposed to have wives and children at home who needed the extra $, while working women were seen as only supporting themselves); in other words, Unequal Pay. I believe Naomi Wolf falls into the Unequal Pay camp as well as equating women with mothers.
Wolf and her ilk are one reason why, when people ask if I’m a feminist, I hesitate. I am, but in the spirit of 70’s feminism, not today’s.
Mm. This is a the second time in a week or so that I’ve come across this article on a collablog again, even though it’s a few years old.
I think what Wolf is trying to get at may be a very valid point, i.e. that the superficial liberation of “raunch culture” only reinforces the oppression and commoditization of women’s bodies, this time with their explicit cooperation. But her method is odd. Her choice of example (her friend in the kibbutz) essentially allies her with some very patriarchal ideas.
Btw, Manish, do you know what “ananku” is? Just asking because it’s a concept I’ve been basing some new creative work around, and it’s incredible, I feel like it’s the foundation of the entire Tamil patriarchal ethos, but outside of specific academic texts I’ve been scouring, no one’s heard of it. It’s a complex and important ancient Tamil concept, variously interpreted to mean the sacred, potentially malevolent power inherently vested in certain objects, places, and the female. Women “controlled” their ananku by tying their hair, wearing certain jewelry (e.g. Kannaki in the “Cilapathikaram” — the anklet was a symbol of her “chastity”, presumably what one gets when their ananku is nicely domesticated, and role as wife, and after her husband’s murder, she uses it along with her breast, another symbol of her ananku, to reduce the city of Madurai to ashes), etc. The women was responsible for the wise wielding and control of her ananku, because home and society depended on it.
In other words, it is the acknowledgement and awareness that women and their bodies are inherently powerful, and all order or chaos depends entirely on how they manage this power.
not sure how you are concluding that. All I could read was that raunch desensitizes people and society.
I can not disagree with her observation. If one seeks sex appeal then, as Wolf proposes, the person may get a better response by being demure than by baring all. If personal comfort is the important criterion then one can wear whatever one chooses to. All in all, I am a little mystified with the ‘very patriarchal’ qualifier you put out there. For a person to want to look good for another isnt necessarily a societal flaw.
great, more man hating disguised as feminist “theory.” i often hear this complain from single women and lesbians who don’t have men in their lives; fine, live however the hell you want. just don’t project your issues onto men and their families. enough with the male bashing already.
Hi Trollerboi —
But desensitization leads to oppression, too. For example, someone desensitized by certain kinds of porn is less likely to see how it can damage some relationships, idealize violent and/or inequal power dynamics, demean women, etc.
Raunch culture essentially idealizes a certain licentiousness as being emblematic of liberation, creating yet another stereotype. Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of insecure women out there whose self-identified role models require very little actual aspiration, from most average tabloid starlets to S&TC’s Carrie Bradshaw to Ally McBeal. The raunch idea of liberation is just as easy to obtain. The whole just-add-water packaging of women’s empowerment is anything but that — it’s just one more smokescreen for their continuing oppression. There’s a big difference between wearing something fun and sexy and feeling temporarily confident because of it and actually being the fullest person one can be. So desensitizing people and society is only one aspect of raunch culture.
By very patriarchal, I meant when demure clothing and behaviour are imposed upon women as necessary ways of life, as opposed to chosen by them. Wolf’s example of a woman with her hair covered is an uncomfortable alignment with certain ideas of “shame” and “chastity”. I simply didn’t think it was the best example she could have used, because these ideas are still very much alive in the world today, and we cannot deal with the choice element without first dealing with the force element. It made the article seem contrived, almost as if she deliberately wanted to say something that would be seen as subversive.