Salon.com Enters Wolf-Chesler-Glazov Battle
Over at Salon.com, a certain Tracy Clark-Flory appears to think she is giving a news update to readers about our NewsReal debate with Naomi Wolf by toeing the Left’s Party Line.
Clark-Flory writes:
Wolf is trying to force a shift in the perspective of her Western readers so that we might seriously consider the possibility that some Muslim women truly and legitimately see dressing scantily in public as repressive and experience covering up outside of their home as freeing.
Ms. Clark-Flory, do you really still not get it? Muslim women don’t get to “truly and legitimately see†anything in an environment where seeing something the way they want to, and acting on it, will get them stigmatized at best and executed at worst. As I stated in my rebuttal to Wolf’s comedic demand for an apology, a rebuttal which you clearly seem to be incapable of understanding, Muslim women’s choices cannot be real choices if making the wrong choice can lead to severe physical injury and personal social harm.
And Ms. Clark-Flory, surely you know that 1+1 = 2. But let me try to explain this as simply as possible, perhaps in one sentence and in bold letters, to help you get it:
Women in free societies have a choice if they want to dress “scantily” in public or not.
Clark-Flory ridicules feminist hero Phyllis Chesler for wondering whether Wolf is “thoroughly unfamiliar with the news coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan on these very subjects.” This is absurd to Clark-Flory, for some reason, because, get this:
“Never mind that Wolf is talking specifically about the experiences of women she encountered in Morocco, Jordan and Egypt, as well as those of women in France and Britain, where there is great political resistance to Muslim dress.â€
Newsflash, Ms. Clark-Flory: The Islamic theology that serves as an underpinning to Islamic gender apartheid does not lose its meaning and significance if it exists, and wages vicious persecution, in a place other than where someone else might be referring to it. Moreover, do a little bit of reading, if it doesn’t greatly discomfort you, on female genital mutilation in the paradises that hosted Wolf’s political pilgrimages.
A bit more of an explanation if this is all too much for you: The lessons of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany are not inapplicable to conversations about the anti-Semitism that might be happening somewhere else.
Ms. Clark-Flory, are you really sure you want to be part of this dialogue?
Clark-Flory’s attempt to be taken as some kind of serious thinker and writer takes on an aura of tragic comedy when she thinks she is making a powerful point against David Horowitz. She says he “absurdly†proclaims on NewsReal that,
“if Naomi Wolf and her radical friends had their way, America would be disarmed and radical Islam would be triumphant and women would be back in the Middle Ages, and the rest of us along with them.”
Ms. Clark-Flory have you read any of Wolf’s writing on foreign policy, her vision for America, American national security and Israel?
It’s called a summary, Ms. Clark-Flory. Horowitz is summarizing the meaning of the texts which he devotes his time to read and to reflect upon – a commitment, activity and dedication, it appears, that has eluded you all of your life.
Clark-Flory notes, with ridicule, that I declare that Wolf “loves the burqa.” This is stupid, in her eyes, because “the burqa isn’t mentioned once in her article.†Clark-Flory therefore suggests that I “might want to brush up on the different types of veiling before entering such a debate.â€
No, Ms. Clark-Flory, actually, before entering a debate, a person should try to grasp the basic concepts about which they think they are reporting on, so as not to humiliate  themselves before an entire readership — and make a laughingstock out of the publication for which they write.
So go to my rebuttal to Wolf, as painful as it may be for you, because it is evident that no matter how hard you tried, you couldn’t grasp its main thesis, and read the third paragraph from the bottom.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Chesler Challenges Salon’s Biased Coverage « NewsReal Blog
- Dissent and Rebuttal of the Day – Not Seeing Nuance in Naomi Wolf’s Arguments? « NewsReal Blog
- Robert Spencer Joins the Wolf-Chesler Debate « NewsReal Blog
- Ann Coulter’s Satire Slices Deep in New Joke About Wolf-Chesler-Glazov Debate « NewsReal Blog
- To Big Hollywood’s John Nolte: The Left Doesn’t Have As Tight a Stranglehold on Cinema as You Fear « NewsReal Blog
I believe that too much credit is given Naomi Wolf and her cohorts and way too much free exposure. She adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to the current debate about Islam (that many like to call a religion rather than a perverse ideology, thus giving it a patina of respectability) and the threat it represents to and for the entire Western civilization.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, she makes a living the best way she can. Her age and dilacerated looks limit her involvement in any other occupation and especially profession – from the oldest (obviously) to the newest. And as an anti-Semitic Jewess, she hit on the strange money-making scheme by involving herself with the anti-Israeli lobby. Of course, she is not the only specimen of this kind: the so-called “intelligentsia” is full of them just like the Nazi concentration camps were full of kapos.
Naomi Wolf is, for the time being, fairly lucky: very few people read any of her literary ‘creations’. Otherwise she would have fallen a long time ago into well-deserved obscurity and insignificance. Personally, I believe it is a matter of time and patience.
In the meantime, let us move to more interesting topics. Rest assured that Ms. Wolf will always try to be in evidence, one way or another, because bank accounts have a knack of drying up faster than expected – and hers is no exception.
With your hyperbolic statements (the false “Naomi Wolf loves the burqaâ€) and a picture of a woman wearing a burqa, you distorted and completely misrepresented the purpose of Naomi Wolf’s article. She makes it clear in the first few paragraphs and again in the conclusion that we should think about the reasons why a woman would choose a veil (“Choice is everythingâ€). Especially in countries like France and Britain where women really do have a choice in what they where. (Head scarf? Slacks? Cleavage-revealing top? Mini-skirt?) Why, she wants us to think, would a woman, even a convert to Islam choose a veil in Britain? Or the U.S.? Or China where a veil or even a head-scarf could put the woman at greater risk of oppression or physical harm.
Ms. Wolf wants us to consider the nuances behind women’s choices of dress. (NOT everything equals burqa, oppression, and threats to America like you and Jayson Rex believe.) And that includes women in the Muslim world. Not all women wear the burqa, or would even choose to, like the women in the countries Ms. Wolf visited (Morocco, Jordan, Egypt) that wore the more open chador and veil. There is a tremendous difference between those countries and Afghanistan where more women do wear the burqa. By lumping all Muslims together, by ignoring the differences in ethnicity, language, and dress between those in cultures as varied as those in China and America is like saying all Christians world-wide are of the fundamentalist, anti-feminist screed that declare a woman’s purpose in life to be a wife, to bare children and to obey her husband.
And Naomi Wolf clearly does add something to the debate. If she didn’t, you all wouldn’t be quickly typing up ways to misrepresent her ideas.
Why on earth does anyone pay attention to Naomi Wolf? She’s an intellectual lightweight playing off her looks…and breaking out of the herd (as all pundits try to do) by taking the odd position of being an anti-semetic jewess.
cpbrandon:
“She makes it clear in the first few paragraphs and again in the conclusion that we should think about the reasons why a woman would choose a veil ”
Yeah, sure!
Perhaps we also should think about the reasons why some persons chose to become slaves.
They existed in abundant numbers, cp.
Never wrestle with a pig in mud. You just get dirty and the pig love it!
I long ago threw away my Naomi Wolf books – not donated, I mean in the trash. She is a disgrace to Feminism, in fact, she’s not a Feminist, at all. Naomi – just think about your books reduced to confetti by the jaws of the Sanitation Trucks! You should be ashamed of yourself. Go live in Yemen – but make sure to wear your Black Hefty Bag, or the woman-hating Islamic males will throw acid on you! Aren’t they just great, those Islamic males? Naomi hopes to be one of the “houri” whores Islamic males get to screw for eternity after they’ve mass-murdered non-Moslems in an Islamic Jihad commanded by “allah” (Mohamet) in the absurd, ridiculous, and preposterous KKKoran. Pity poor Wolf, she’s an imbecile. The only true Feminist existing is Phyllis Chesler. All the others are pitiful Slaves-to-Barbaric-Islam.
If there is a question as to Obama’s Marxist leanings, look at his treatment of the ?President of Honduras who was acting in direct contradiction to their existing constitution, as so held by their supreme court. Also his coziness with Chavez.
Obama and his troops are communists.
Naomi Wolf does indeed add something to this debate — unitended humor. When Muslim woman have a choice whether to go uncovered, some do and some don’t. To say that any significant number of Muslim women have a choice in the matter is absurd, for to ignore the dictates of that totalitarian religion wherever it dominates society, is suicidal. Wolf should just close the door and go back to talking to her vagina.
The choice muslim women have is the same choice a slave has getting to pick the color of their chains.
“…by toeing the Left’s Party Line.”
Side note – is it “toeing” or “towing” the Left’s Party Line?
Samuel
I guess you mean”wear”
try to learn to spell, or at least use spellcheck
Cbrandon, you miss the point. Muslim women don’t have a choice about their dress ANYWHERE. They wear what is sanctioned by the local Islamic community or they face the consequences ranging from stern criticism to ostracism to physical harm. But always, there is the pressure to conform. The risk of backlash in the West is more likely from the Muslim community than from the natives. If honor killings are going on in the West, it is safe to assume the dress code is enforced too, at least by husbands and families.
Muslim women in ANY Islamic countries can’t choose how they want to dress. They might choose the chador over the burka, but they can’t choose the hot pants over the chador. Their personal feelings don’t matter. Nor can they choose to convert from Islam. If they are born to a Muslim family, they are automatically Muslim.
There’s a lot more to Islam than just dress codes anyway. The dress requirements may vary between regimes, but there are more important similarities that make Islamic countries all alike. Their treatment of non-Muslim citizens, the repression of free speech, official government anti-semitism, etc. Islam is a suprematist ideology.
As for stereotyping, you are the one describing both religions as square pegs fitting into round holes, just to sound “fair”. But you implication isn’t the reality. Islam is more monolithic while Christianity is more individualized. Islam is one basic flavor. Christianity is a buffet. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. You aren’t even addressing the two equally anyway. You compare Islamic cultures to Christian theology in asserting that neither are universal. Apples and oranges. Neither one is universal, true. But the two religions are not comparable in the same regard. Islam is universal in dogma. Christianity isn’t.
Don’t forget that a lot of those Christians you describe as adhering to the “anti-feminist screed” are women. Christian Fundamentalism has nothing to do with gender roles, all left mis-definitions aside. It has to do with what one believes about the age of the Earth. But of course, to the left, anything that is traditional pro family is “fundamentalist.” Logical, since Marxism presupposes that each individual is the property of the state. Family loyalties are always subordinate to the will of the collective.
Cbrandon, the only “choice” I had as my father’s daughter in Manchester, England was to cover up or be beaten and kept prisoner.
Actually paradoxical as it seems, she’s not alone in her anti-Israel and anti-Semitic writings among a few hardline way left Jews. Pathetic as it is, these people are more concerned about sounding “politically correct”, and so slurpingly crave approval from their leftie peers, that they’re willing to throw this honorable and dignified religion and people under the bus.
Sad but Wolf epitomizes this small group of self-hating Jews and should be embarrassed by her one-sided absurdities directed against Israel–an animus which strangely she never displays for the murderous terrorists who daily try to blow up innocent Jewish and Christian civilians all over the world, and then rejoice in the resultant death and destruction.
She’s dishonest, racist, and pathetic. And I’m not even Jewish!
They aren’t a small group. They are about half the population, at least. Far left Jews hate Israel because they have rejected their religion and culture. They are apostates, primarily found in the camp of Karl Marx, the greatest apostate Jew of all. But they won’t win. The very faith they’ve rejected predicts that their folly will be fruitless.
As Marxists of course, they believe in the ideals of communism, which are diametrically opposed to the ideas of Zionism. They think that nationalist ideals like Zionism are the source of all the world’s strife and misery.
Only by surrendering to ruthless totalitarianism do we have any hope of one day uniting mankind under a global totalitarian regime that respects and cherishes human rights. Make sense?
Excellent points! Wolf is a wolf.
Jayson Rex is on target. One may as well worship a tree, or a rock, as a nonexistant “Allah”. Muhammad’s followers invented a horrible religion which subjagates women, and others, permitting no solution except death for anyone who disagrees. Sad that mankind can be so deceived, for something so evil. Frightening.
Well, look at it this way. You are now discovering that feminism as a movement isn’t really about feminism at all for most mainstream feminists. Women’s issues were just the pretext subordinated to the greater Marxist agenda. Naomi is merely going along with the flow of things, probably to stay in the circle and preserve her career. She’s just a useful idiot. Anyone who can help destroy the West is a useful idiot to the Marxists, be they feminist or anti-feminist.
Now, whether the Marxists are truly allied with the Islamofacists is still unknown. But, I suspect that they are operating at least tacitly with some sort of mutual understanding for convienience sake. I think Marxism and Islam have a lot in common. A mutual respect for strength perhaps. And despite their rocky relationship embodied in the Soviet-Arab history, I think they could work together as a coalition permanently.