More on the Naomi Wolf 20-years-too-late sexual misconduct (or "encroachment") allegation.
In the article, Wolf describes Harold Bloom's encroachment - and - who knows, I was not there ... but the wording of the story smacks of elaboration to me. Like prosecutors interviewing witnesses report - as the witness tells the story over and over, more and more details come out. The story takes shape. Make of that what you will.
Wolf says:
"I set [the manuscript] between us. He did not open it. He did not look at it. He leaned toward me and put his face inches from mine. 'You have the aura of election upon you,' he breathed...The next thing I knew, his heavy, boneless hand was hot on my thigh. I lurched away. 'This is not what I meant,' I stammered. The whole thing had suddenly taken on the quality of a bad horror film. The floor spun. By now my back was against the sink, which was as far away as I could get. He came at me. I turned away from him toward the sink and found myself vomiting, in shock. Bloom disappeared. When he re-emerged -- from the bedroom with his coat -- a moment later, I was still frozen against the sink. He said: 'You are a deeply troubled girl.'"
Uh ... I would have to agree with Bloom's end assessment there.
However, it is not hard, either, to imagine Bloom whispering, "You have the aura of election around you". Sounds just like his blow-hard self.
This is just a sense I have but ... details like "heavy boneless hand" ring wrong, for me. It rings as ... a writer's voice. She is going into description, invention. I have no proof of this, obviously. It just doesn't "sound right". I am not saying she made it up, or made up that something occurred - but I think she is elaborating, and embellishing. Embellishing details, to sway people to her side.
If it was just a hand on the thigh and an inappropriate comment that sent her into an abyss and made her "soul" stop being "fine" ... then, sorry Naomi, but ... you're a bit too fragile to get by in this world.
Update:
Thanks so much to Noggie, (a faithful reader who always sends me the coolest links), for this additional article in the Globe and Mail: A prof, a pass and a co-ed.
Great piece. If the Wolf/Bloom thing interests you at all, I suggest you give it a read.
Margaret Wente writes about campus sex in the 1970s as opposed to the 1980s. Wente knows of what she speaks, she was an English major in the 70s.
I majored in English during the early dawn of feminism. It was a glorious time on campus. The professors had traded in their ties for love beads. The most popular ones offered courses where you could grade yourself, and fraternized shamelessly with their students. We smoked dope with them. Sometimes we slept with them, or hoped to. Two of my best friends wound up marrying their professors. I spent my last semester futilely trying to seduce my thesis supervisor. In fact, my failure to have a single erotic encounter with a faculty member was a source of great disappointment to me.By 1983, times had changed. Talk of gender inequity, sexual harassment, and power imbalances filled the air on campus, and sexual relations had become distinctly problematic. That's when Harold Bloom made the mistake of putting his hand on Naomi Wolf's 20-year-old thigh at Yale.
I am not saying that there are not improprieties, or even sexual assault. Of course not. But I have always believed that you just have to stand up for yourself, take care of yourself, and not victimize YOURSELF every time something unpleasant happens.
Wolf talks about an unwelcome pass from her mentor. Okay. Fine. Yes, if it happened, it probably was unpleasant. But - why should something like that shatter your soul? Making such an overblown deal out of an "unpleasant" experience diminishes the REAL trauma suffered by actual victims of violent rape. I suppose that she was more upset because she had put Harold Bloom up on a pedestal, he was probably, because of his intellect, supposed to be "different" from other men ... and so her fantasies were crushed when it turns out he just wanted to get laid like every other man.
But Naomi - why should Harold be blamed because you put him up on a pedestal?
It seems like a rather small incident to me - a guy putting his hand on your thigh, even if he is a mentor.
I've had guys come on to me, and I haven't wanted them to. I mean, God, of course. And so I've had to be my own Red Army, patrolling my own borders. I was a late-bloomer, not ready for much in terms of sex until pretty late (at least compared to many of my friends). And so I had to negotiate the wilds of college sex on my own, and keep myself out of harm's way.
There were some uncomfortable moments. Guys, for the most part, backed off when I told them to.
I've had unpleasant experiences. I consider that to be part and parcel of being a free and liberated woman, (or, forget that: a free and liberated PERSON), free to make my own choices, my own mistakes, my own misjudgments of someone's character. Everyone is not there to take care of ME.
An unpleasant sexual experience is not rape.
This simple statement alone is enough for me to get thrown out of the local NOW office. But it's a matter-of-fact take-responsibility-for-yourself attitude that I find completely sensible.
Naomi Wolf wants revenge.
Read the Globe and Mail piece.
Mercifully, Ms. Wolf's version of victim feminism is out of date. Most people would agree that her 20-year-old effort to get even (and her extravagant claims for the trauma she suffered at the time) are a bit bizarre. But they are no more bizarre than campus sexual-harassment policies, where victim feminism still reigns supreme. These policies treat every case of boorish, drunk behaviour as sexual predation, and they define sex between faculty and students as essentially illicit. Consensual sex across the lines is deemed to be impossible because of built-in power imbalances.It's ironic that not so long ago, female students were objecting that the university administration had no business being sex police. My girlfriends would have been insulted by the notion that they couldn't make such decisions for themselves. And they were well aware of the special power they possessed.
Again, Camille Paglia has the last word:
"It really grates on me that Naomi Wolf for her entire life has been batting her eyes and bobbing her boobs in the face of men and made a profession out of courting male attention by flirting and offering her sexual allure."
Update # 2
Thanks to one of the comments below, I just read Anne Applebaum's great piece in the Washington Post today on the Naomi Wolf accusation called "I am Victim".
She presents in a coherent, clear-headed way, the ludicrous-ness of Naomi Wolf's stance. Applebaum starts out by saying:
Sometimes in the course of a great American debate there comes a moment when the big battle guns fall silent, the pundits run out of breath, and -- unexpectedly -- the long, bitter argument suddenly turns into farce.
The serious-ness of such issues as not taking women seriously when they claim they have been raped, the true problem of blaming the victim, the problem of how to handle in an adult way such allegations - blah blah blah - has now turned into a big attention-getting farce.
But Applebaum gets to the crux of the matter, the crux of my issue with Naomi Wolf and her way-after-the-fact allegation that she has been permanently damaged by SOMEONE PUTTING HIS HAND ON HER THIGH:
Indeed, Wolf not only never mentions any of this, she seems to want us to believe that none of it matters -- and that deep down inside she is still a quivering 19-year-old whose single experience with a man she describes as a "vortex of power and intellectual charisma," had "devastated my sense of being valuable to Yale as a student, rather than as a pawn of powerful men." She was not exactly emotionally traumatized, she writes (and seems sorry that this avenue of legal argument isn't open to her) but her "educational experience was corrupted." And, somehow, that allows her to equate her experience with that of children harassed by Catholic priests or female cadets raped by fellow soldiers. She, and they, are all victims of "systemic corruption."
Oh, gimme a break.
Wolf also re-writes the past in her description of what happened. She was supposedly in a "tailspin", she could not recover, she was an academic mess ...
Er ... Rhodes scholarship?
Er ... writing your first major best-seller (and not just a best-seller but a hit-the-freakin'-jackpost bestseller) WHILE you are a Rhodes scholar?
Sorry, babe. It doesn't wash.
Applebaum, in the end, bemoans what women like Wolf do to the REAL issue of sexual harassment, the REAL issue of women's equality. By not wanting to take responsibility for themselves, by turning themselves willingly into a "victim", by exaggerating an event to make their victimhood seem even more severe - they strip other very real and pressing issues of their power.
But in the end, what is most extraordinary about Wolf is the way in which she has voluntarily stripped herself of her achievements and her status, and reduced herself to a victim, nothing more. The implication here is that women are psychologically weak: One hand on the thigh, and they never get over it. The implication is also that women are naive, and powerless as well: Even Yale undergraduates are not savvy enough to avoid late-night encounters with male professors whose romantic intentions don't interest them.
If I fell apart psychically every time some guy put his hand on my thigh, I'd be locked up in a mental institution.
Toughen up, girls. Get a thick skin. Grow up.
To those of you with a knee-jerk response to all of this, I will remind you:
I am not talking about real issues of rape and violent attack. These issues are no joke.
I'm talking about turning an unwelcome pass into a symbol of sexual degradation and psychological humiliation ... something so deep and so horrifying that you can never ever recover.
Gimme a break.
Update # 3:
From the desk of Jane Galt, a post entitled "I am woman, hear me whine."
She asks:
What would we think of a man who said that, after a female professor (or a male one, for that matter) put a hand on his knee, he was so unutterably wounded that his grades declined? That he's been carrying the "wound" around with him for twenty years? We'd think he was a hysterical fool, that's what. Naomi Wolf does the cause of equality no favours by implying that for women, such hysteria is only natural.
Nicely put. It strikes me that woman like this have created a predatory sexuality of their own, wherein the slightest hint of unpleasantness sends them into 'j'accuse' mode - and creates a situation where the man's reputation is permanently besmirched, regardless of the truth underlying the allegations.
The sexual waterways are difficult to navigate as it is, without these kinds of rocks and shoals awaiting.
Posted by: Dan at February 24, 2004 3:47 PMDan -
Could not have said it better myself.
Have I done things that I later regret? YES! Have I had some guys who ... well, I won't kiss and tell ... but have I had some disappointing and annoying experiences? YES.
Uh ... so? I also have some girlfriends who were actually RAPED, and let me tell you, there is a world of difference between some guy trying repeatedly to put his hand down my shirt, and finally stopping when I scream at him, and the violent experiences some of my friends have had.
Bitching and moaning about feeling "uncomfortable" is meaningless. It's just a "feeling".
I have a hard time articulating why this whole thing annoys me so much - and why I think Camille Paglia is such an important voice.
I should think about it more, and write up an essay on it. When I'm not so hot under the collar.
Posted by: red at February 24, 2004 3:52 PMIf an unwelcome pass is made at me (yeah sure, I have to fight them off with a stick), I generally feel concern for that person's feelings for having to reject them. Being psychically shattered by a single unwelcome advance that goes no further IS evidence that a person is severely troubled. It's akin to building a sand castle and then being permanently damaged when the tide moves in and washes it away.
Passes happen between people - it's a basic fact of life. Sending out written requests for that sort of thing just isn't going to work very well. Maybe Bloom is an asshole, I have no way of knowing. However, by the simple act of putting his hand on Ms. Wolf's thigh, he is in no way responsible any lasting psychic damage on her part.
Does the woman not realize how insane all this nonsense makes her look?
Posted by: MikeR at February 24, 2004 4:02 PMMike R -
I have no idea. I think she is an unbelievable narcissist. Her latest books have become unreadable because of that narcissism.
It is a severe case of arrested development.
She should ask herself, "What is it about me - that I was so dazzled by Harold Bloom - that I let him take advantage of me?"
Again, I can hear the doors of my local NOW chapter slamming shut behind me...
She should ask herself, "Why couldn't I just say to him, 'BLOOM, get your HAND off my GAMS.'?"
Because. Her entire career is still based on getting approval from the mythical patriarchy. She's still obsessed with Daddy. She hasn't grown up. Camille's essays on Naomi Wolf are caustic, and hilarious. I should dig them up.
Posted by: red at February 24, 2004 4:07 PMOh, and Mike R:
"It's akin to building a sand castle and then being permanently damaged when the tide moves in and washes it away."
Very nice.
Sheila,
It's certainly a topic worth drawing out. It seems society has lost a sense of perspective when a hand on the thigh is placed on the same level as the trauma of rape/sexual abuse or the ugliness of naked sexual aggression (like a real mauling). Maybe Mr. Bloom did put his hand on her thigh. And maybe he was trying to get over on her when he did it. On the other hand, maybe he meant it as a comforting gesture.
But what happens when perspective is lost is that parts of the social dialogue (I know, grandiose sounding, but it'll do for lack of a better term) are stifled.
I'm not interested in playing the poor-persecuted-white-male-card, as that's nonsense. But the fact is I'm a lot more cautious in any interactions with women because I'm aware that there are plenty like Ms. Wolf out there. Once upon a time if a young woman and I made repeated eye contact at say, a bar, or the library I might've said to myself "Self, perhaps she finds you not hideous to behold. Why don't you introduce yourself." Now I'd wonder if saying "hello" was worth the potential trouble. These days, John Cusack and his boombox would find their sorry asses in jail.
Will the world end because even a well-raised young man must be extra careful in how he interacts with woman? Well in the grand scheme of things, I suppose not. If that particular part of the social dialogue is closed down, there's always internet dating, right? Riiiiighhht.
To me personally what this ultimately does is remove some of the adventure, the mystery - the magic - from everyday life. When a beautiful woman glances over repeatledly and smiles at me, my heart should beat a little faster because I think "this how it happens in those old-time movies," not "this could be trouble."
Actually, it always been trouble when an attractive woman smiled at me. But hopefully I got my point across.
Posted by: Dan at February 24, 2004 4:33 PMI think narcissism explains it. She seems to want attention at any cost.
Posted by: CW at February 24, 2004 7:51 PMIf it was just a hand on the thigh and an inappropriate comment that sent her into an abyss and made her "soul" stop being "fine" ... then, sorry Naomi, but ... you're a bit too fragile to get by in this world.
Are you serious? "Just" a hand on her thigh?
I'm glad you never experienced sexual harassment. Here's a quick primer on how it works: it's not what is done, it's not the act itself, it's the HOW, the intentions and the person and the attitutde.
Someone may slap a hand on your thigh, bum or even your breasts, and if it's done for fun, or even for a seduction attempt, but without prevarication, ie. after you've given clear signals you'd appreciate the gesture, well, it's not harassment. If it's done in a sleazy way, out of the blue, with no prior confidential or friendly or joking relation between the two, and especially if it's done by someone in a position of "power" or with hints of blackmail or you know, everything that provoked a disgusted and shocked reaction, then it is harassment.
The dividing line can be subjective, of course, because the harasser might claim he had no ill intentions. Because he doesn't realise he's harassing. Because that's his mentality.
I may be biased, but I tend to trust the woman who suffers this sort of abuse. It's hard to make up stories like this, and you get no advantages whatsoever (unless you're filing a multi-million dollar suit against a celebrity, but even there, it would take some nerve to face the insults from those blaming the alleged victim of the alleged offence, so, again, I tend to think it's really hard to make it all up).
Why would she invent a story like that? So that people can say "you're too fragile if you think a hand on your thigh is harassment"?
An unpleasant sexual experience is not rape.
Yes, of course!, but it's still an unpleasant sexual experience.
I'm kind of baffled that's so hard to understand.
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 2:59 AMBeing psychically shattered by a single unwelcome advance that goes no further IS evidence that a person is severely troubled
No, you can't make that kind of blanket statements. It depends on the situation, and on so many things you can't be aware of unless you lived that particular situation.
If we have to make generalisations, then the most common sense one is that the troubled person is generally the one making a pass that comes out as harassment! It means they haven't got a clue as to what the nature of relations (not just sexual) with other people are. It means they don't know what manners are. It means they think they can get away with it because "what's the big deal".
If the reaction seems, from the outside, disproportionate to the gesture, then you have to keep in mind you weren't there. You can't know what the whole situation was.
I tend to find it very distasteful to blame a person for not "copying" with a sleazy advance, and give more credibility to the one who did the sleazy advance himself. It's baffling really.
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 3:06 AMPS - I have to add I don't particularly like Naomi Wolf and her works either, but that's not reason enough to dismiss her as a psycho just for not "appreciating" a hand on her thigh. What I find even more puzzling is how can one not even feel one tiny bit of perplexity towards the character of the person putting her in that situation.
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 3:09 AMAlso, last note: you forget this is not simply "guys coming on to me" and "negotiating the wilds of college sex" between students. It's not a party where everyone is drunk and you find a hand down your pants before you can even realise where you are.
This is a young student, and her older professor, taking advantage of his position. I bet that's what shocked her most. If it had been one of her classmates just acting stupid at a party, it would have been different.
It happens all the time in universities, in workplaces, it also happens to men, so I don't think it's got much to do with feminism or "victimization", it's more about prevarication.
If she wants to bring up the general topic and have universities be more strict with their professors when such things happen, and be more open to listen to complaints, then she's doing a good thing, whether there's narcissism in her or not. Again, given the hostile reactions, I doubt it's just a question of "narcissisim". Seeing it like that really smacks of indifference to the wider issue.
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 3:18 AMSorry but I can't help being totally baffled by these comments:
She should ask herself, "What is it about me - that I was so dazzled by Harold Bloom - that I let him take advantage of me?"
Riiight. We might as well scrap the offence of sexual harassment altogether, and even rape at this stage, because if it's a matter of "letting him take advantage", then there's no offence at all, is it?
She should ask herself, "Why couldn't I just say to him, 'BLOOM, get your HAND off my GAMS.'?"
Hm, maybe because it was so unexpected and really offputting and shocking? If it was no big deal and something of on consequence, one would react immediately. But if it's your professor, your boss, or even your father, someone you have respect for, then you can't react instantly because you are thinking "this is not real". Because there are conflicting thoughts in your head and you can't process what is happening. Even if it's "just" the limp hand of your professor on your thigh.
The fact she didn't react at once, and that feeling of incredulity - that's so real and so familiar and such a classic, it makes it very credible.
Will the world end because even a well-raised young man must be extra careful in how he interacts with woman?
No, no, no, it's nothing to do with romance and mystery, it's about prevarication, if you are flirting then it should all be spontaneous for both. There's a BIG difference between flirting and harassing, and it's impossible to confuse the two unless you're really a caveman. If you're really well-raised, then you shouldn't ever have to worry about "this might be trouble".
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 3:27 AM.... last ever, or you'll kick me out!
I don't follow you here:
Wolf talks about an unwelcome pass from her mentor. Okay. Fine. Yes, if it happened, it probably was unpleasant. But - why should something like that shatter your soul? Making such an overblown deal out of an "unpleasant" experience diminishes the REAL trauma suffered by actual victims of violent rape. I suppose that she was more upset because she had put Harold Bloom up on a pedestal, he was probably, because of his intellect, supposed to be "different" from other men ... and so her fantasies were crushed when it turns out he just wanted to get laid like every other man.
But Naomi - why should Harold be blamed because you put him up on a pedestal?
Well, why should SHE be blamed because HE took advantage of the fact he was her professor to make a sexul pass at her?
That's the most obvious question that comes up after reading this story.
I don't even see where she's making such a "big fuss" about her soul being "shattered".
Whether she put him on a pedestal or not, he was her university professor and mentor. He was in a position of superiority, of power. That's a classic context, for cases of harassment. Because, like rape, it's not about sex but - again - prevarication.
And why on earth would harassment diminish the trauma of rape? By that logic, you'd have to abolish the offence of harassment altogether.
Also by that logic, you'd have to tell someone who was insulted in the street to not cry out racism because gee, a racist insult is not such a big trauma as living in apartheid, segregation or ending up in a concentration camp.
I didn't go to college in the US so I just can't tell if and where the sexual harassment charges have been abused or faked or used for god knows what purposes. But I do know that cases of professors acting like that towards young female students do happen, and I don't think they're a small thing to be dismissed or blamed on the receiving end of the harassment.
Then there's also those who choose to have affairs with professors, freely. Like Paglia says. But she should know that the two situations can coexist in the same place, it's not like one rules out the other. It's individual cases.
Camille Paglia has a point in criticising the belated raising of this charge. But "take responsibility" for someone else's actions? What kind of idea is that? Bloom was her professor too, maybe she just can't accept the thought. But she came out with some pretty mind-boggling statements. Talk about narcissism...
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 3:45 AMUh... (for Naomi and her apologists) If being touched on the thigh is such a traumatic event that your soul is shattered and you are still traumatized by it 20 years later, please don't ever ask me to take you seriously for anything that involves courage, fortitude, or character. Clearly you are such a delicate flower that you cannot be expected to survive more than a few nanoseconds in a genuinely challenging situation.
Posted by: CW at February 25, 2004 8:16 AMGinger -
So I take it you're a member of NOW and all your comments are the equivalent of you tossing me out onto the street?
No, I'm just teasing.
As I wrote in my post above: Of course there are sexual improprieties, violent rape, harassment, etc. I do not think that what Naomi Wolf describes 20 years after the damn fact qualifies. It was a PASS. Sure, it may be improper ... but improper shit happens in life. She also benefited from this man's attentions. He was the one responsible for getting her the Rhodes scholarship.
I know this is a hot button for people, and my post obviously touched a nerve.
I also say in the post above: "what do I know - I wasn't there." I fully admit that. This post was my response to what I have always seen as Naomi Wolf's essential narcissism.
Camille Paglia is my hero, when it comes to speaking about gender issues. This is not an apology for rape. AT ALL. And I am sick of having that lumped in with "unpleasant" experiences with someone groping your thigh.
A thigh-grope, even by a mentor, does not equal rape.
I suppose we can agree to disagree. If you're cool with that.
I appreciate your passion on the issue, and your articulation ... but I still think Naomi Wolf is acting like a big baby.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 10:07 AMOh, and one last thing:
Do not assume that I have not experienced inappropriate-ness from mentors and people in authority.
And when I said "take responsibility" - of COURSE I am not talking about Wolf taking responsibility for Bloom's actions. That's a willful mis-reading of what I wrote.
In another post I wrote about Wolf - I write: "There are PLENTY of women who REALLY fight sexual harassment, who lose their damn jobs because of it ... who put their reputations, their futures on the line, in order to stand up for what is right. THOSE are the women we should admire."
Sounds like she just needs a good ass kickin. Well she would if she was a guy.
But perhaps that's sexist of me.
.
Posted by: just a guy at February 25, 2004 10:32 AM"...it's not what is done, it's not the act itself, it's the HOW, the intentions and the person and the attitutde."
And the HOW is determined by WHO? Right. The accuser.
None knows, or likely will know the truth of Ms. Bloom's allegations. But Mr. Bloom's reputation is permanently be-smirched.
Posted by: Dan at February 25, 2004 10:33 AMJust a guy -
I think Camille Paglia feels the same way! :) And, obviously, so do I.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 10:33 AMYou might also want to check out Anne Applebaum's column today (Wednesday) in the Washington Post about this, in which she bemoans the tendency of some people, like Wolfe, to attach the "victim" label to themselves.
Posted by: anne at February 25, 2004 10:34 AMDan-
In terms of reputation, Harold Bloom is an intellectual giant. Hopefully, he won't be too besmirched.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 11:13 AMWow. Excellent piece, Sheila. I always had this intense dislike for Naomi Wolf. The intensity has not waned nor is it likely to. In fact, things like this just make it worse.
Posted by: michele at February 25, 2004 11:16 AMThe quote from Camille Paglia is right on the target. In my job I have met several women who will blatantly use their sexuality to influence people, and then turn around and cry sexual harassment over trivial matters, if it can get them something. It is all about power. The hypocrisy sickens me, and it insults the people I have know that have suffered truly severe harassment.
Posted by: ray_g at February 25, 2004 11:21 AMOf course, she did have a reason to bring it up - that reason is narcissism. It is all about "me." But as the mother of three girls, I would like to point out that inviting a professor to dinner and getting drunk with him are not sensible approaches to being treated like a budding intellectual. My impression of Bloom is that he, like many well-published academics, is a bit full of himself. A gentleman wouldn't have accepted the invitation, wouldn't have drunk heavily nor watched his student drink heavily. But I would expect my daughters, by the time they are in college, to not set up situations that are likely to be misread so easily.
By the way, I am disturbed by some of Ginger's comments. This lack of proportionality is more likely to stunt my daughters' growth to mature responsiblity than any hand on their thighs.
Ray-
"it insults the people I have know that have suffered truly severe harassment"
TOTALLY.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 11:23 AMWasn't she defending Clinton against Paula and Kathleen Wiley? If you think Noami was traumatized by a hand on the thigh, imagine how her life would have been ruined by Clinton showing his johnson! LOL!
Posted by: fred at February 25, 2004 11:37 AMI think that far more consideration should be given to the possibility that the whole thing never happened. It's just an unsubstantiated allegation.
Posted by: Jim at February 25, 2004 11:41 AMHaving had my nose unexpectantly busted a couple of times by people who were in a position to exercise authority over me, I can attest to the fact that unwanted physical contact can be most unpleasant. However, 20 years later, I don't consider myself traumatized by those experiences; I merely look upon them as my early education as to the fact that world has a some thuggish assholes, some of them aren't easily recognized, occasionally one's path may cross theirs, and one is well advised to be prepared (as best one can, given particular circumstances)) to deal with such people when such an unlucky event occurs. This applies to women as well as men, and it is most unfortunate that Wolf remains in such a state of adolescence that she still doesn't understand this. I suspect that a simple reply to Bloom, along the lines of, "You have the aura of a pathetic old fool", would have sufficed, and although it may me understandable that a 20 year old student wouldn't be that effective, it is a shame that the 40 year old still doesn't understand this, and remains traumatized.
Just last week my brother had an encounter with the sister of my best friend, the result of a long night of drinking. It was clear throughout the night what was going to happen, and we were not at all surprised when she led him upstairs in the early hours.
During the last week, however, this girl has changed her story of what happened to the point at which she claims my brother got her drunk and forced her to sleep with him. Not only that, but she has spread her story to as many people as possible.
The girl in question has played this game several times before, so few believe her accusations. Even so, it is a terrible thing to be accused of such an act.
What I worry about most is what would happen if the girl was one day raped. After her lies, who would believe her? A case of the girl who cried 'Wolf', maybe?
Posted by: Keith Taylor at February 25, 2004 11:54 AMKeith -
My concerns exactly. Stuff like that ruins men's reputations forever - and for what? An allegation that cannot be confirmed.
Regretting a sexual experience is not the same thing as being raped.
Rape is too serious to be watered-down to cover every single bad judgment call or unsatisfactory time in the sack.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 11:58 AMFeminism no longer appears to be concerned with equal rights, but with special privileges for women, based on how much weaker and more delicate we are. And its the fault of self-absorbed narcissists like Naomi Wolf, still moaning about the trauma of a clumsy pass 20 years after the fact.
I've been harrassed - the sexual assault kind of harrassment, where you get chased around an office desk, and someone yanks you down onto their lap. Where I was chased down the halls in high school, tackled, groped, and insulted in front of teachers who made no effort to assist me. I've had guys try to rape me too - and I don't mean "c'mon baby, please? you know you want to."
Somehow, I survived it all without any lasting scars to my soul. I still date, I'm still proud to be a woman, I don't curl up into fetal position and start gibbering hysterically "no daddy no!" whenever the topic of sex comes up. So all I have to say to Naomi is this:
Get over yourself already! There are real women who have suffered a whole hell of a lot worse than you ever have who don't spend all their time bitching about it. One clumsy pass 20 years ago doesn't give you any 'victim' cred in my eyes. ...
I'm suddenly having a flashback to the movie Half-Baked. Naomi Wolf is Dave Chappelle standing at the podium of a narcotics anonymous meeting, in a room filled with coke and heroin addicts, and confesses that he's addicted to marijuana.
Posted by: Celeste at February 25, 2004 12:09 PMCeleste-
Woah. Awesome image there at the end.
And congratulations on being a true survivor. And not just a survivor - but it sounds like you have flourished.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 12:13 PMSounds to me like she needs to get laid.
(runs for door ducking and covering.)
Posted by: sefton at February 25, 2004 12:15 PMUmm...I think some of you comment-posters need to look up the definition of "prevarication". Certainly Bill Clinton is a proven prevaricator, but there's nothing in Wolf's account to suggest Harold Bloom is one.
Posted by: Michael at February 25, 2004 12:25 PMMy fave part was where Naomi wonders if she mioght have been more assertive if her Dad had made more money! Yes, Naomi, anohter man let you down.
Sorry, Ginger, but an unpleasnet encounter isn't a sentence for a lifetime of trauma. I went to Yale a good 10 years before Naomi. An unwelcome hand on my thigh certainly wouldn't thwart my whole life. And if her biggest distress was that her grades dropped--well, all I can say is I'm glad she's had a life of ease and comfort. What does she want--retroactive A+++'s?
I read the NY Mag story yesterday and was appalled by its narcissism and unbounded self-absorption.
I think Naomi's looking [futilely, let's hope] for another 15 minutes.
I had an experience with Wolf about 12 years ago, when I was working as a junior meeting planner at a San Francisco hotel. She and k.d. lang were there, being interviewed by Glamour. Lang was a delight. Easy to please, and cordial to everyone. Wolf…big surprise, treated me like a doormat. What a phony.
Sorry about the multiple postings--don't know why that happens sometimes. I think I'll blame it on my balky. slow computer.
Posted by: MichaelM at February 25, 2004 12:31 PMMy fave part was where Naomi wonders if she mioght have been more assertive if her Dad had made more money! Yes, Naomi, another man let you down.
Sorry, Ginger, but an unpleasnet encounter isn't a sentence for a lifetime of trauma. I went to Yale a good 10 years before Naomi. An unwelcome hand on my thigh certainly wouldn't thwart my whole life. And if her biggest distress was that her grades dropped--well, all I can say is I'm glad she's had a life of ease and comfort. What does she want--retroactive A+++'s?
I read the NY Mag story yesterday and was appalled by its narcissism and unbounded self-absorption.
I think Naomi's looking [futilely, let's hope] for another 15 minutes.
I had an experience with Wolf about 12 years ago, when I was working as a junior meeting planner at a San Francisco hotel. She and k.d. lang were there, being interviewed by Glamour. Lang was a delight. Easy to please, and cordial to everyone. Wolf…big surprise, treated me like a doormat. What a phony.
Michael M -
No worries. I actually blamed it on the amount of traffic coming to me right now ... things are slowing down a bit...
Thanks for the comment.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 12:33 PMNaomi Wolf has always been ridiculous... when Dennis Miller gave her a martini during his show, I'm shocked she didn't charge sexual harassment right then and there.
Posted by: HH at February 25, 2004 12:43 PMHH -
It's funny you should mention Wolf's appearance on Miller's show. I'd venture to say that Willie Brown was halfway hitting on her the entire segment. The only difference between Bloom and Brown is that Brown is smoother than a pelican coated by an oil spill.
Perhaps this is a greater comment on career academics in general: as smart as they think they are, they have no idea how to run game. (Disclaimer: I'm an engineering student. This applies to me as well.) I've seen some guys say things that completely crossed every line that ever existed to some of the biggest harpies on this campus, but because of what they said and the way they said it, no harm, no foul, and they got smiles from Medusa herself.
Perhaps that's why Wolf got along so well with Clinton. . .
Posted by: K.C. at February 25, 2004 12:59 PMWhen I see Wolf on TV, she is flirty to the point of embarrassment. Flipping her hair, smiling and giggling...
Is this a person who doesn't know what she is doing? Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to carry a sexuality license.
Jim Morrison said...
You're lost little girl
You're lost little girl
You're lost
Tell me who
Are you?
I think that you know what to do
Impossible? Yes, but it's true
I think that you know what to do, yeah
I'm sure that you know what to do
red -
I don't count myself as a survivor, really. I don't think I really have any 'victim cred' either. I've never been raped. The guys who tried met with violent resistance and gave up. The harrassing incidents at work were always solved via a harsh word from me, or if that didn't work, a harsher word from my boss.
I've been lucky that way. I know a number of women who haven't been so lucky, and having witnessed their actual pain, I am totally unsympathetic to Naomi Wolf. I'm sure that K., whose husband beat her, molested all four of their daughters, and then abandoned her on the side of the road in the middle-of-nowhere-Utah, would gladly have traded places with Naomi.
Posted by: Celeste at February 25, 2004 1:23 PMCeleste -
I totally see what you are saying. There is a competitiveness in the self-victimization on display here...
"My trauma is worse than yours!"
"Oh yeah ... well, look at the horrors I suffered!"
It's so ... God. It's so juvenile.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 1:24 PMOh, and KC:
"I've seen some guys say things that completely crossed every line that ever existed to some of the biggest harpies on this campus, but because of what they said and the way they said it, no harm, no foul, and they got smiles from Medusa herself."
I completely know what you are talking about! Not that I would call myself a harpy - but I have had catcalls shrieked at me from construction sites, but they were done in such a tone of appreciation and humor that it made my day.
Now I'm pretty laidback, so somebody else may have freaked out ... but that's why the mantra of personal responsibility is so damn important.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 1:39 PMYour suspicion that Wolfe's comments are elaborated, "worked up" in a literary way is supported by her comment: "that's not what I meant." It brings to mind the line in T.S.Eliot's The LoveSong of J.Alfred Prufrock where the fantasied (?) woman responds to the timid Prufrock's advance by saying, "That is not what I meant. That is not what I meant at all."
Literary elaboration? Yes. I think so.
ginger
Ever consider that Bloom (assuming this thing even happened) actually thought the evenings activities (especially those of Wolf) were an invitation? That he was acting in good faith? Sure, his action was rude and clumsy, but when she said no, did he exert any pressure? Did he do anything wrong once she told him no?
As things currently exist (especially with Wolf, etc), a smart male would wait until he was explicitly told it was ok to make a pass (by the woman he wanted to make a pass at) before he came within 10 feet of a woman.
Get over it.
Posted by: Deoxy at February 25, 2004 2:04 PMW Terrell -
Nice point.
It's a human thing, to have stories shaped through the telling - Anyone who's ever been to a pub in Ireland will know of what I speak. The tales are woven, details added, the thing takes shape over time ...
But when such embellishment is used in this manner it can be very dangerous and dishonest.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 2:07 PMNaomi on Dennis Miller also employed the touching of mens' forearms and the batting of eyelashes apparently to dis-arm the arguments of her fellow guests. This is a move sufficiently rare on TV that I noticed it (she did it repeatedly, on several shows) before reading Camille Paglia's comments about Naomi's flirtatious M.O. This seems, at the very least, a curious technique of interpersonal manipulation to be so evidently comfortably and reflexively relied upon by one whose own standards of sexual propriety are so exquisitely attuned.
We have all been on the receiving end of unwelcome power moves by people in a position to make them, sexual or otherwise. Most of us have been on the dispensing side of the equation too, if perhaps unwittingly or carelessly, or when clarity about our actions was only available through hindsight. As a male, I have offered sexual advances to women I thought would welcome them, only to be informed otherwise. I can assure you that feelings of humiliation and pain are not reserved exclusively to one party in such cases of misjudgment. It's not always a case of aggression, ladies, it's usually a matter of misreading signales or being blinded by one's own allusions. Like Bloom's illusions that Wolf would welcome his advances, or Wolf's illusions that scholarly heroes are not also creatures of the flesh.
Posted by: freetotem at February 25, 2004 2:08 PMDeoxy -
And so comes the loss of romance and the thrill of seduction. "If I touch your thigh, will you sue me 20 years from now?"
Whiners like Naomi take all the fun out of everything.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 2:11 PMFreetotem:
Great comment, thanks much. My only issue is when you addressed the "ladies". Half of the commenters on this post who agree with me are women. We aren't a big monolith of orthodoxy and agreement. (Thank the good Lord! Although I wasn't kidding when I said that as I wrote this post, I felt I could hear the doors of NOW slamming shut behind me!)
Most women I know are in agreement that Wolf is an idiot, and have a much more commonsensical approach to sex and all of that. It's about taking responsibility for how you turn someone down, if the pass is unwelcome - and being clear about your intentions, and what you want. Also - being able to take rejection like an adult.
Otherwise, you look like Naomi Wolf, a jackass suffering from arrested development.
Reading the back-n-forth about Ms. Wolf and Dr. Bloom makes me down-on-my-knees grateful for the following:
#1 -- my college years are *WELL* behind me.
#2 -- i'm happily married.
No speech codes or foul PC vapors for me, and no more hair-trigger dates with daddy issues. Jeebus, what snakepits!
furious
Posted by: furious at February 25, 2004 2:22 PM"hair-trigger dates with daddy issues"
AMEN!!
I went to college in the 1980s, but somehow ... I escaped all of this. There were some seminars on date rapes and stuff ... but I'm an actress, and I was in the theatre department, where we all basically behaved like raving lunatics for 4 years ... and had wild cast parties at our professor's houses ... etc, etc. The lines were very blurred.
Maybe it would have been different for me if I had been in, say, the humanities department. I'm not sure.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 2:27 PMWhen and why did feminism stop being "I am woman, hear me roar" and become "I am woman, hear me whine"??? I'm a republican, and a big believer in gender equality. Equality. Naomi is so far off the reservation in this latest article it's staggering. A hand on her thigh? Her life after this "sexual misconduct" utterly refutes her claim that it hurt or scarred her. Get over it! Men such as myself have had to ward off unwanted sexual advances as well, that's not the exclusive purvue of women. I think it's sad that the once positive and empowering feminist movement has become this bitter and hyper-sensitive. Drawing from personal experience, I'd like Mrs. Wolf to tell me how and why having her thigh touched is worse than being accosted by a female rugby player.
Posted by: Eric at February 25, 2004 2:29 PMWhen and why did feminism stop being "I am woman, hear me roar" and become "I am woman, hear me whine"??? I'm a republican, and a big believer in gender equality. Equality. Naomi is so far off the reservation in this latest article it's staggering. A hand on her thigh? Her life after this "sexual misconduct" utterly refutes her claim that it hurt or scarred her. Get over it! Men such as myself have had to ward off unwanted sexual advances as well, that's not the exclusive purvue of women. I think it's sad that the once positive and empowering feminist movement has become this bitter and hyper-sensitive. Drawing from personal experience, I'd like Mrs. Wolf to tell me how and why having her thigh touched is worse than being accosted by a female rugby player.
Posted by: Eric at February 25, 2004 2:30 PMSorry everyone about multiple comments... I am getting all of your comments, but my server has slowed wayyyyyyy down...
Thanks for your patience
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 2:33 PM"hair-trigger dates with daddy issues"
...to be fair to the ladies, I should add that "needy mama-boys with commitment issues" or "drunken frat-boys with boundary issues" could apply equally to the present-day dating scene.
furious
Posted by: furious at February 25, 2004 2:51 PMThis isn't a uniquely female problem. Our entire culture has become engulfed in a sort of cult of victimhood, and whether we realize it or not, it harms us all. I'm not saying that we don't need watchdogs - there's plenty of evidence throughout the course of human history showing the propensity of the powerful to exploit the powerless.
However, when you get to the point where you have a warning label for a hammer that reads: "Danger, embedding this object in your own or someone else's skull may cause serious injury or death", things have gone way too far (I'm joking, but only a little).
Even in cases where an individual has a legitimate grievance against some other person or organization, it does the injured party absolutely no good to see themselves as a victim. It's OK to pursue legal recourse in cases where great harm was done intentionally or through severe carelessness, but it's critical to retain emotional distance from that process. Viewing oneself as a victim prevents you from living the rest of your life. It provides a phony safety net - anything bad that subsequently happens to you can't be your fault, because you are a victim.
This is one of the reasons I love auto racing - you sign that release form when you walk into the pits, and whatever happens out there on the track, there isn't going to be anyone suing anyone else. In a sport where each participant has the capability to seriously harm or even kill other participants, you'd think this would lead to total anarchy. Of course, that is not the case. Race car drivers, in general, probably act more civil toward each other than people in the society at large. There certainly are consequences for bad actions, they just don't involve lawyers and the courts. You may despise a driver who runs over your car intentionally, but you don't spend the next few years sitting around waiting for your lawyer to prove how much of a victim you are. You patch your car up and go back out there next week and do your best and if he's smart, the guy who ran over you will stay out of your way. The possibility of this 20 year later psychic trauma nonsense simply does not exist.
Posted by: MikeR at February 25, 2004 2:56 PMWhat upsets me the most about the current face of feminism is how it seems to have co-opted the exact same arguments that anti-women's rights groups used to use. Women need special protection (like the Violence Against Women act) because we're so much weaker and more defenseless than men. The work-environment has to change to better accommodate women - because we feel more than we think, and we don't like to compete the way that men do. Suddenly, it isn't men telling me that I'm too weak and confused to direct my own life, it's the National Organization of Women. 'The man' isn't what's keeping me down these days, it's the folks who are supposed to be my 'sisters'.
Posted by: Celeste at February 25, 2004 2:58 PMEric -
I so agree. As a woman, I have felt frustrated and embarrassed by the women who claim to speak for me.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 3:23 PMre: If you think Noami was traumatized by a hand on the thigh, imagine how her life would have been ruined by Clinton showing his johnson! LOL!
Since Clinton is part of the leftist elite, that would be fine.
She is cloaking herself in victimhood. Clinton, as the first black, female president (don't laugh, it has been claimed) is also a victim
So let me see: If she comes on to me and I respond postively, that is harassment
God, I would not want to live in her cold, sterile world with notarized permission slips for men to engage direct eye contact with women
Posted by: G Crawford at February 25, 2004 4:30 PMG Crawford -
Well, judging from all the emails I have received on this post - and all of the comments - you and I both can take comfort that many of us out there do not want to live in Naomi Wolf's cold sterile world.
Thank goodness.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 4:35 PMI've been living much of my life in Europe, thankfully. But I have seen the ugly side of victim feminism here in the USA. But the worst was when I let the concept psych me out when the women were clearly not victim feminists. When I owned an Internet company, I was a paper millionaire. My secretary and another 19 year old female employee both flirted at one point or another and the 19 year old would wear very short skirts to work when she was severely hinting that she wanted a rich boyfriend and insisting on going to lunch with me and once to see my apartment. I was so very tempted to do something...but I held back because of the fear that I was worth too much money (at the time) and did not want to see a lawsuit for that money come at me. I still think back at those days, when sex was so available...but the culture around it so frightening. It is not as if we all live forever. And the Internet bubble was way too short.
Posted by: Jim Peterson at February 25, 2004 4:49 PMI've been living much of my life in Europe, thankfully. But I have seen the ugly side of victim feminism here in the USA. But the worst was when I let the concept psych me out when the women were clearly not victim feminists. When I owned an Internet company, I was a paper millionaire. My secretary and another 19 year old female employee both flirted at one point or another and the 19 year old would wear very short skirts to work when she was severely hinting that she wanted a rich boyfriend and insisting on going to lunch with me and once to see my apartment. I was so very tempted to do something...but I held back because of the fear that I was worth too much money (at the time) and did not want to see a lawsuit for that money come at me. I still think back at those days, when sex was so available...but the culture around it so frightening. It is not as if we all live forever. And the Internet bubble was way too short.
Posted by: Jim Peterson at February 25, 2004 4:51 PMI've been living much of my life in Europe, thankfully. But I have seen the ugly side of victim feminism here in the USA. But the worst was when I let the concept psych me out when the women were clearly not victim feminists. When I owned an Internet company, I was a paper millionaire. My secretary and another 19 year old female employee both flirted at one point or another and the 19 year old would wear very short skirts to work when she was severely hinting that she wanted a rich boyfriend and insisting on going to lunch with me and once to see my apartment. I was so very tempted to do something...but I held back because of the fear that I was worth too much money (at the time) and did not want to see a lawsuit for that money come at me. I still think back at those days, when sex was so available...but the culture around it so frightening. It is not as if we all live forever. And the Internet bubble was way too short.
Posted by: Jim Peterson at February 25, 2004 4:51 PMAlso, I noticed above that Ginger laced most of her posts with references to "young" women and "older" men, while directly implying that "same-age" groping (and presumably, relationships) were more acceptable than those with age differences.
Let it be known that almost all men prefer considerable age differences in their sexual partners (although American men are the biggest wimps in the world for not asserting themselves on this point). It is completely unacceptable for anyone to imply that feminism should strive for equality of ages in male-female relationships.
Whenever I return from Europe and read the NYTimes marriage announcements, I am totally shocked at how most of the betrothed are the same age. Why do American men accept this false equality? These guys will all be getting lap dances from 20 year olds when they and their wives are 40. Better to wait for the 40th birthday and then marry a decent 20 year old.
Posted by: Jim Peterson at February 25, 2004 5:01 PMThankfully, I live in the United States. (wink.)
And to your point about men preferring younger women -
While this may be true, and while I don't believe that one exception to any rule is all that interesting or indicative of anything,I will say that I prefer older men. Always have. Don't know why, don't really care.
And what's wrong with a little lap dance, may I ask?
And on another topic: I am so sorry about how weird my comments are behaving ... It is because of the sudden amount of traffic, and again: I appreciate your patience with the slowness of my site.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 5:06 PMJim -
Just a note: I hate generalizations of any kind. Alarm bells go off in my head when I hear stuff like: "Why do American men..." blah blah blah.
As an American, who knows plenty of "American men" who do not fit into that category - I just can't hear that stuff and take it seriously.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 5:08 PMEventually, "sexual discrimination" and "sexual harssment" will become empty terms due to two reasons: inappropriate use and overuse. How many occurrences of, 'He touched my thigh! I'M DAMAGED!!!' will it take before the average response to an accusation of harassment (real or Naomi-esque) is an automatic, "So what, whiner?" Please, let's save this sort of accusation for the REAL, NO-FOOLING THING.
Yes, some men are pigs and should be slapped down... but some women are weak and whiny gits who delight in abusing their own sexuality, or injury collectors who just don't feel complete unlesas they also feel victimized.
Well you don't have to take it seriously, but the fact is that American men are far more prone to accept same-age relationships and same-age marriages than European men. This has been a trend since the pioneer days. It has less to do with feminism than with the fact that young men in early America HAD to get married when they were in their late teens and early twenties because they needed to belong to a paired work team in order to survive! In more civilized Europe, gentlemen would sit back and wait until they'd had some fun for 10 or 20 years...then marry someone much younger before it was too late.
So, yes, I can make a major generalization. You don't have to look far in the USA to find fathers who are wary about their daughters dating older men. Look at "Father of the Bride" when Steve Martin says "I suppose he's 40!" as if that would be a disaster.
To this day, American men just do not seem too upset about how, for instance, the online profiles of so many young women ask for men no older than they are (or up 4 years at most). It is simply not an issue for them. It makes me wonder if reeducation camps wouldn't be in order. :-)
If Al Qaeda had a better marketing arm and attacked us on 9-11 stating that the attack was because our liberal society was not allowing men to have 4 wives of greatly varying age differences, they may have gotten even more sympathy overseas than they got by pedaling the usual abstract leftist garbage about imperialist oppression. Here in the USA, men on both the left and the right are not fighting for what most guys really want. Its ingrained in our culture that same-age relationships are ideal. That is why I am not into the spread of American culture anywhere (except I like the great reputation American men have overseas as gentlemen and good providers).
Well you don't have to take it seriously, but the fact is that American men are far more prone to accept same-age relationships and same-age marriages than European men. This has been a trend since the pioneer days. It has less to do with feminism than with the fact that young men in early America HAD to get married when they were in their late teens and early twenties because they needed to belong to a paired work team in order to survive! In more civilized Europe, gentlemen would sit back and wait until they'd had some fun for 10 or 20 years...then marry someone much younger before it was too late.
So, yes, I can make a major generalization. You don't have to look far in the USA to find fathers who are wary about their daughters dating older men. Look at "Father of the Bride" when Steve Martin says "I suppose he's 40!" as if that would be a disaster.
To this day, American men just do not seem too upset about how, for instance, the online profiles of so many young women ask for men no older than they are (or up 4 years at most). It is simply not an issue for them.
If Al Qaeda had a better marketing arm and attacked us on 9-11 stating that the attack was because our liberal society was not allowing men to have 4 wives of greatly varying age differences, they may have gotten even more sympathy overseas than they got by pedaling the usual abstract leftist garbage about imperialist oppression. Here in the USA, men on both the left and the right are not fighting for what most men and women really want.
That leaves a power vacuum that victim feminists have filled. It is weak to just say to Naomi "get over it." A better question would be "so what was it about Bloom that was so unattractive?"
Posted by: Jim Peterson at February 25, 2004 5:28 PMAnd then European men would routinely take a younger more beautiful mistress when their wives got old and flabby.
Generalizations abound every which way.
Listen, I'm not interested in a debate. I know the generalizations and I know there are some truth in them ... I am just telling you that it's not the whole picture, and it never has been. You seem to know that yourself.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 5:32 PMDave P -
All I can say to your comment is: YES!!
Let's save the outrage for the real thing, and stop turning minor indiscretions and annoyances into badges of feminist credibility.
It's so silly, so immature.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 5:35 PMI thought about Naomi's piece for a long time after I read it, trying to figure out why I was not comparatively traumatized at the same age when my professor/mentor, admittedly not quite so powerful a personage, abruptly kissed me during an office conference, immediately apologized on the ground that he "couldn't help it," and later sent me a jokey Christmas card showing a very overweight Santa Claus kissing a little girl. I thought it was harmless. In fact, I thought it was sweet. Now it's true that he never tried to solicit actual sex from me, never hinted in any way that my grades were a quid pro quo, or did anything else that might have connoted an actual threat--but goodness, according to Naomi, neither did Harold Bloom. This man was not, after all, the first man nor the last to kiss me without warning or invitation, and I did not consider his status as my professor a big deal. But now I realize that I missed my chance for fame and publication in New York Magazine. I just don't know myself well enough to realize that my soul had been destroyed, I guess. Oh well.
Posted by: beatrix at February 25, 2004 5:36 PMBeatrix-
Nice comment.
It is tough when you don't know your own soul has been destroyed. We just don't have enough "victim cred", I suppose.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 5:41 PMred: So I take it you're a member of NOW and all your comments are the equivalent of you tossing me out onto the street?
Eh, no! (I don't even know what "NOW" is as I'm not American...)
I have to apologise to you for being a little too heavy-handed in replying. Yes I'm passionate about stuff like this. I'm lucky that I never had to suffer seriuos sexual harassment either (there, I make that distinction between "real" harassment and "no big deal" myself...). But wether it's sexual harassment, mobbing, insulting, etc. what gets on my nerve is arrogance, prevarication on others.
Now, since we're talking Naomi Wolf and not some unknown girl, I realise I was a bit too dismissive of criticism like yours and Paglia's, doubting her sincerity on this or her motivations. She's a celebrity, and when they do or say things that have a public resonance, you never know if they're faking it or not. And there's always inevitably an element of narcissism, because it is a celebrity. I didn't quite factor that in...
Also, I must add, I'm really not into Naomi Wolf at all, actually I started but never finished reading "The Beauty Myth" because I found lots in there that felt very wrong and pretentious to me, not to mean biased and arrogant. (I would explain but I'd digress). I never read anything else by her. (I'm not even into feminism really). I actually like Camille Paglia instead, the little I read and heard (interviews) at least.
So, take my comments as referring to such a case when happening to an ordinary person, not to someone famous and possibly wanting to raise controversy on another famous person 20 years too late.
I admit there's a few factors that raise perplexity on Wolf's motives there. So, you have a good point on that.
This is not an apology for rape. AT ALL. And I am sick of having that lumped in with "unpleasant" experiences with someone groping your thigh. A thigh-grope, even by a mentor, does not equal rape.
But I do agree there, of course it's different.
Look, I can totally understand your skepticism towards Naomi Wolf and her own persona and motives.
The one thing I don't much like is making that into a generalisation, and being skeptical of anyone else who'd be upset by a grope.
Sure, it won't upset or destroy or shatter your life. It's nowhere near the violence of rape. That's obvious. But it still can be very unpleasant, and see, I just don't think it's the kind of unpleasantness that should be taken as part of life, as if it was a natural thing, as if it was expected. It's not ordinary. A grope made in jest, or out of a misunderstanding, or out of some serious communication breakdown, or out of being drunk, that's one thing. It can happen and it's not big deal. But I'm thinking of out of the ordinary situations where someone deliberately takes advantage (esp. if they're in a position of power in some ways, as in older professor - younger student), in an ambiguous, sleazy way, that would be really, really offputting. In that case, even something apparently small and of no consequence can be a big deal for a person. It does depend on so many things, and that's what I mean by 'you can only know when you're in it' - meaning, each case is different, and generalisations on this are not very fair, in my opinion.
That's the one thing I'm criticising here. I couldn't care less about Naomi Wolf to be honest, what I do care about is the unfairness of thinking everyone else who had a similar situation (and for real, and without telling the world about it, and without involving famous people, and without it turning into a political debate, etc.) should not consider it a big deal or else, they're the fragile and unbalanced ones.
Again, I'm sorry for being a little too aggressive and dismissive of your arguments in my previous comments.
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 6:12 PMGinger -
NOW is the National Organization for Women. :) They consider themselves to be the mouthpiece for all women, everywhere.
I don't think you were too aggressive. i got that you were passionate, and you had a different take on it than I did. And that's cool.
At least your comment wasn't, "u suck, bitch!!!!!"
I want to be very clear here: I am not taking a cavalier approach to this kind of situation. Without going into major detail, I've had the groping scenario - and it SUCKS.
But I think we should be able to call a spade a spade, and I do believe that women need to toughen up a bit. I mean, emotionally. We need to grow up, and stop looking to authority figures to protect us, and cherish us, and make the boo-boo better.
I think people are SO AFRAID in universities now to say anything that might be termed "blaming the victim" that the balance is way way off. Men don't have a chance. Lives are ruined by an ALLEGATION. I don't think that is right.
The term "victim-cred" has been used a bunch of time by commenters ... and it is THAT that I take issue with. (Not with you, but with the entire attitudes towards sexual harassment)
I would not be surprised if there were some "feminists" out there who were actually BUMMED that they had never been groped or raped, because that didn't give them the proper "victim-cred".
And it's that bullshit immaturity that I have a problem with, Ginger - not true instances of sexual harassment, quid pro quo stuff, and true trauma.
Just so I'm clear....Hope I am.
Thanks for coming back and commenting again.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 6:22 PMPS - And when I said "take responsibility" - of COURSE I am not talking about Wolf taking responsibility for Bloom's actions. That's a willful mis-reading of what I wrote.
Ok, fair enough, Sheila. I honestly didn't quite understand what that responsibility referred to.
Also, I'm sorry for the assumption, it was sarcasm and not very polite of me. I genuinely apologise.
I hadn't read your other post (actually the link doesn't work, or is it me?) but by that line you quote, I'm seeing your point more and more now.
To Dan: And the HOW is determined by WHO? Right. The accuser.
None knows, or likely will know the truth of Ms. Bloom's allegations. But Mr. Bloom's reputation is permanently be-smirched.
You're right, I hadn't really given that much consideration either.
It's jut that reading about this made me think of real situations I've heard of or experienced, so, again, I forgot this is about two famous academics one of whom may have not so transparent and honest motives for attacking her mentor 20 years later than what she is supposedly denouncing. It was a bit too fast and naive of me to ignore all that.
As for the "how", I know what you mean, but what I was thinking is - again in a real ordinary setting, not one raised on the media to cause controversy - simply that it's not fair to dismiss all such similar *real* cases just because there is, by necessity, a factor of subjective perception. There are also objective factors, though. That's why it's something that's been legislated upon, otherwise, if it was all about what is perceived as harassment, there'd be no laws against it.
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 6:25 PMGinger-
It definitely must be considered that Naomi Wolf is just an opportunist. her last books have tanked, she has lost her grip on the American female psyche (if she ever really had it) - and this may be complete invention.
This is Camille Paglia's take on it, and I am inclined to believe her.
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 6:27 PMSheila: it's that bullshit immaturity that I have a problem with, Ginger - not true instances of sexual harassment, quid pro quo stuff, and true trauma.
Just so I'm clear....Hope I am.
Yes, it is all a lot clearer, thank you for that, honestly, and for being so patient and nice and open to discuss.
I now do understand what you meant a lot more. And I agree. I also have an allergy for that kind of feminism organisations pretending to speak for everybody...
I think my reaction was not just forgetting who this is about and the effect - and the fact this may be a devious way for Wolf to smear Bloom's reputation, indeed (the 20 year delay in talking about it being the most suspicious item in all this).
It's also that I'm coming from a differnet background and context... So perhaps that was also my bias in first reading about this as well.
See, I grew up in a country where groping is sort of a national sport (erm, guess, Italy...) so the situation (and mentality) is different. Most of the time when it happens it's just very in-your-face type of 'machismo' so it's actually more amusing and innocuous than offputting or upsetting, really, but still, there could definitely be some improvements... Especially in universities or the workplace etc., there's still more of the opposite problem, ie. harasser getting away with it far too often, and women afraid to speak out. I don't even recall celebrity cases where harassment charges were raised. They wouldn't get half the attention they get in the US. They would most often destroy the accuser's reputation rather than the accused ...
So I think I'm just not as used to a context where raising such an accusation can be advantageous to the person making it, you know?
Posted by: ginger at February 25, 2004 6:49 PMGinger -
Welcome to America. The land where all you have to do is ACCUSE someone of groping you, and you can ruin his life forever.
I have to say though that Wolf is being ridiculed pretty soundly ... I should peek around and see what NOW is saying about it, or see what any of the other pillars of feminism are saying ... because in general, she's being mocked.
I think this is a healthy sign. A sign of health and balance returning to the culture. At least I hope so.
Okay, people ... I have rehearsal tonight, so I am leaving ... I feel like a hostess leaving my own party. I am not used to having so many people over! Continue to comment, though, should you so choose ... and I will be back tomorrow.
Thanks for a great discussion today, everybody, and thanks, Glenn!
Posted by: red at February 25, 2004 6:52 PMUntil I watched the Dennis Miller Show, I didn't know who Naomi was. While watching that show and the following ones, I came to the conclusion that she was a joke. The giggling and hair flipping and most of all the hands all over her fellow commentators made it difficult to concentrate on what she was saying. It made me uncomfortable and I'm a woman.
Since then, I have found out with a vengeance who she is. All I can say is the David Horowitz could have filed a sexual harrassment suit against her. If ever a man looked uncomfortable, it was him.
Posted by: Pearl at February 25, 2004 8:24 PMUntil I watched the Dennis Miller Show, I didn't know who Naomi was. While watching that show and the following ones, I came to the conclusion that she was a joke. The giggling and hair flipping and most of all the hands all over her fellow commentators made it difficult to concentrate on what she was saying. It made me uncomfortable and I'm a woman.
Since then, I have found out with a vengeance who she is. All I can say is the David Horowitz could have filed a sexual harrassment suit against her. If ever a man looked uncomfortable, it was him.
Posted by: Pearl at February 25, 2004 8:24 PMOne thing Naomi Wolf has failed to learn is that life is quite messy. Despite our wishes otherwise, the animal nature of humans (the desires for food, power, procreation and connection) will always intrude in the workplace, government and schools. They cannot be legislated away, or removed by policies and sensitivity training. Moreover, attempting to do so has deleterious effects, one being that these areas of life become quite sterile when real human interaction is proscribed. In addition, a life in over-regulated institutions, in which some authority serves in loco parentis even into adulthood causes a serious loss of human freedom. I believe we have all lost here, and the best we can do is mock it when the unavoidable end result is seen in someone like Ms. Wolf.
Posted by: Pogo at February 26, 2004 11:25 AMI work in academia, and I have no problem believing that the incident between Bloom and Wolf happened as she described. Bloom is a major heavyweight, and those guys quite often think they are the center of the universe. If it happened as described, it was also inappropriate, in that he supposedly said he was coming over to discuss her poetry.
But...there are two things that really steam me about Wolf's article. First, she doesn't even hint that harassment, abuse, and inappropriate behavior occur regularly and aren't exclusively male-female or sexual. I know many stories of men in my field who have been completely screwed (not literally, in this case) by professors in positions of power over them. These things occur, and while we want to minimize them and provide redress, human nature will out.
Wolf's second sin is her complete passivity in the face of what she saw as harassment. She's too intimidated to talk to anyone, and boy does she have some great excuses for why she couldn't possibly report this through any of the provided avenues at the time. And did you catch the part in her article where she mentions the student who was intimidated into sleeping with her professor, apparently multiple times? Or the part where she feels women may not feel comfortable simply walking into a university office to request documentation on sexual harassment policy?
Wolf sounds like a Victorian male in her view of women's fraility. She's giving women a bad name, and that really pisses me off.
Posted by: C.S. Froning at February 27, 2004 1:20 AM