Feminist Foreign Policy

Posted on Comments

Feminists specialize in promoting misery and insanity in domestic life, but they also occasionally stray into international affairs:

Journalist and author Naomi Wolf suggested Saturday that videos of Islamic State militants beheading American and British hostages may have been staged.
The news site Vox flagged a series of Facebook posts in which Wolf questioned the authenticity of the videos, going as far as to imply that they were staged and that both the hostages and their parents were actors.

Wolf later deleted the post at the request of a New York Times reporter . . .
Wolf went on to write several other posts insisting she was not “calling into question the authenticity of the ISIS videos” while arguing independent verification was indeed necessary to authenticate the recorded beheadings. Wolf accused the news media of “badly distorting” her comments Sunday in a rather lengthy, elliptical post and further tried to silence her critics by citing the insight she gained into how political narratives are crafted while advising former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore.

See? There is no reality. Just “political narratives.”

Out: Far Left 9/11 Truthers.
In: Far Left ISIS Truthers

You may ask, “How is it that someone as crazy as Naomi Wolf isn’t in the lunatic asylum? Is she living on SSI checks?” No, she’s living on royalties for her 2002 book The Beauty Myth, which is one of the Top 100 bestsellers in the Amazon “Women’s Studies/Feminist Theory” category. Why does it still rank so high? Because it is required reading in many Women’s Studies courses. This is how the Feminist-Industrial Complex works: If enough Women’s Studies professors assign a feminist author’s book as part of the class syllabus, she never has to work a day in her life again. As cushy rackets go, it’s almost as good as being a tenured professor.

 

32 comments

  1. If I knew nothing more about her than that she was an “advisor” to Clinton and Gore, that would be enough to peg anything she said as being of dubious value.

  2. “They also called ISIS ”evil” many times–which is not language of a news analysis, it is a theological category for some faiths and a Global War on Terror talking point…”

    Well that about sums it up don’t it

  6. Of course, it’s perfectly cool to use “evil” in a news report when discussing global warming deniers.

  9. If enough Women’s Studies professors assign a feminist author’s book as part of the class syllabus, she never has to work a day in her life again. As cushy rackets go, it’s almost as good as being a tenured professor.

    Perhaps you can shop your upcoming tome to Women’s Studies programs as an example of the Patriarchy against which the earnest 19 year old freshmen are struggling. Alternatively, write a generic pro-RadFem work and peddle it under a female pseudonym. You’ve certainly done the background research.

  11. I think it is ironic that she attempts to bolster her credibility by saying she and the liar she married were once employed by a bunch of other liars to help them craft better lies. “Trust me,” she says, “I am a liar.”

    Someone needs to ask her what she saw while working for these presidential campaigns she refers to that was similar in nature to staging a fake beheading. What makes her believe the candidates she backed would support doing such things? If what she says is true why would she continue to back them? Those questions are the obvious ones to ask next.

  15. Those questions are rational, coherent and logical. Therefore, she not only will be unable to answer them, but she won’t even understand them.

  16. He wouldn’t even have to write two books, just use Word to replace each instance of “are” with “are not” etc… “Feminists are crazy,” becomes “feminists are not crazy.” See, simple.

    But if he wrote it to be as densely packed with cant and tortured logic as the typical women’s studies book then no one would be able to tell what it says anyway so he could probably get by with just changing the cover.

  17. Is it not remarkable that a best-selling writer should be so completely ignorant of the rules of grammar, punctuation and basic prose style as she shows in these posts? Makes one wonder how much the books published in her name are her own work and how much reflects the input of a ghost writer. (An editor would scarecly cover it)

  18. Nor would she want to understand them since that might cause her to look at such things objectively and cause her to stray from her leftist thought process, i. e. begin with a conclusion then manipulate or manufacture information in order to support that predetermined conclusion.

  20. She was no doubt on call to fellate Bill in gratitude for keeping abortion legal.

    Oddly, after eight years of Dubya abortion was still just as legal and she was not on her knees inside his lectern, if you catch my drift.

    Not that I expect Dubya would have taken her offer, but it would have been gracious of her anyway.

  21. What they accuse others of is always a clue what progs are thinking. By bringing up this possibility she’s telling us all how her own mind works.

  24. Right. The term “evil” is prog-speak for anyone they disagree with. It’s incorrect to apply it to those who behead captives and abuse women and children.

    Words have meanings. And the meanings are what progressives say they are.

  25. If life is a burden, then having more of it is oppression.

    And the most cursory examination of the basic progressive shows that to them, life is anything but a blessing. You go through life as miserable as the typical prog, the prospect of having another half decade of it is not a cheery one.

  26. This illustrates the problem with all strains of leftist thinking, not just feminism: lefties live in a bubble where they are shielded from consequences. Without feedback, one cannot expect to come to a proper understanding of reality. Insanity results.

  27. When you can get the press and the popular culture to effectively silence your opponents, the leftist probably doesn’t even think anyone disagrees with them other than those they simple call “a handful of crazies”.

  30. I’m pretty sure that if you dressed it up enough in microcognidensity macrologophilia, you could get them to publish an argument that they’re crazy, not evil.

    Or, that they’re challenging our culture to take our bio-economic-informed traditional practices that inculcate social injustice, and replace them with a rubric of proper behavior that prescribes imagining sameness in order to achieve substantive equality — not (as a purposeful intention) to effectuate the extinguishing of the affectations that produce the affections that propagate the fusion of meiotic material that perpetuates the patriarchal problem.

    BIRM.

  31. The “projection strategy” is a very powerful tool of social manipulation, since when you try to point it out, you’re late to the party and wearing the same dress. It usually presents in the form of a threat narrative, and is most frequently used by authoritarians.

    There are those on both the left and the right who imagine themselves our masters; their toolboxes are painted different colors, but the tools inside are basically the same.

Comments are closed.