Naomi Wolf Joins Fox News

Posted on by TheLastPsychiatrist and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

I do not think Naomi Wolf is stupid.  And if she was, there’d be no point in using her example.  It was because she is smart, and a feminist, that her misreading of the video was so important.

If you showed her a Yelawolf video she’d be able to find hidden misogyny in the color of his bling, but when offered a video where a woman sings “this is the part of me that you’re never ever gonna take away from me” while she’s turning into a boy she’s stumped.  Why?

Because she’s American, and American= post-modern westerner =  defines herself not by what she believes in, but in opposition to what she hates.  She turned to the dark side of the force.

She believes in feminism, but that belief is not as powerful as her hate.   She hates the military, she hates aggression, she hates power– not in a feminist way, which would be worth arguing, but in a raw, primitive, reflexive way.  She has an infantile fear of these things, and that fear grew up,  got some money and a fluency with English, and became hate.  All the hate needs is a trigger.

You should remember this when you talk about the elections.  I know some of you support Romney and others support Obama, but those things are very hard to do; I suspect that what’s really going on is that you hate Obama supporters or you hate Romney supporters.  The media will encourage this by “breaking down” the voting: “voters who make <$30000″; “Catholics”; “single women.” They don’t do that to let you know how your group votes, they do it solely to enrage you. “Those idiots, those bastards…”

That hate plugs you into the media.  That’s why when you’re particularly passionate about something you hate you end up using the phrases you got from them:  “tax cuts for the rich”, “welfare state”.  Oh, a Tocqueville quote in your sig.    Did you get that from watching de Tocqueville or Glen Beck?  All that time spent studying Glen Beck, you could have studied…………. what a world that would be.

If you define yourself by what you hate, you will be of no value to anyone; and you will be miserable.  As de Tocqueville famously said, “the more angry they can make you, the longer battery life they get from you.”


Naomi Wolf’s hate made her fail her followers and an easy target for her… haters.  Nothing good will ever come of it; nothing at all will come of it.   As de Tocqueville said, “fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering….”  I don’t remember the rest. 

Related posts:

  1. Of Course Fox News is Biased, Jon, but It Doesn’t Matter
  2. Katy Perry is silly, Naomi Wolf Is Completely Insane
  3. News Fugue: All That’s Fit to Censor
  4. The Devil and Stephen Colbert

18 Responses to Naomi Wolf Joins Fox News

  1. max says:

    “As de Tocqueville famously said,”

    Wasn’t that Bret Easton Ellis?

  2. JohnJ says:

    I agree that there is a tragic epidemic of smart people making themselves stupid. It seems to me that this is mostly due to the fact that people have adopted the idea that being an advocate is better than searching for the truth. The higher education system in America encourages people to be advocates instead of being open-minded. Allan Bloom’s book “The Closing of the American Mind” establishes this.

    Once you place advocacy over open-mindedness, then you start framing everything in terms of what you’re advocating instead of trying to see it and understand it for what it is. If a gay kid kills himself, you stop caring about the kid and start caring about how that can help “your side”. If a black kid gets shot, you don’t care about him but about how that can be used to help “your side”.

    It’s no surprise that the media is overrun wit narcissists. That’s where advocacy is done, so that’s where the narcissists go.

  3. Supastaru says:

    my favorite de tocqueville quote is this one: “Dieu est mort mais ma chevelure est parfaite”. For those of you who don’t speak russian “God is dead but my hair is perfect”

  4. HP says:

    The exception is in Presidential elections. This is where the two-party system really falls: when presented with two terrible options to choose from, the only recourse is to pick the lesser of two weevils.

    I’d accept enduring four more years of Obama if only we could have a third party candidate come in second.

    • Guy Fox says:

      It’s astounding how ossified the American party spectrum is despite tons of Americans claiming to want more choice. Could it be analogous to the junkie who swears how bad he wants to quit yet never manages it? (Hint: he never manages it because he doesn’t really want to quit; he just doesn’t want to pay so dearly for the status quo.)

      • AnonymousAtLarge says:


        People complain about politics like they complain about traffic jams ont he way to work. It’s a temporary annoyance that is easily forgotten/ignored by the numerous distractions and sensory indulgences found in comfortable modern western life. NO one REALLY cares, unless they are some kind of nutjob psychotic manic depressive with complex delusions and manifestos.

        People will care when the food runs out, the TV and the internet and the iphones and ipods stop working.

  5. BHE says:

    Hate and outrage is really tiring. And believing in something is so disappointing and so filled with disillusionment. I recommend not giving a fuck.

    There’s a whole world around you that you don’t need media or politics (etc) to plug into. It’s your friends and your spouse and your kids. And you can make your world about finding new experiences to enjoy and about being good to each other and decide to just laugh at the absurdity of the rest of it. Sure there are forces out there that affect our daily lives and we’d like to believe we have some modicum of control, but as the old saying goes, grant me the fucking serenity to accept what I cannot change. I think that was de Toqueville. If we change the things we can, that is make the lives of those closest to us the best we can make it by being the best we can be, our lives will be better on the whole than by wasting hours of time and thought and emotional energy on things we hate or things we are afraid of.

    I really wish I could live like that all of the time. Haven’t pulled it off yet but I’m trying.

    • Zarathustra says:

      Sounds like hedonism.

    • operator says:

      Is that to say that you would abstain from political action even where such action would be meaningful to preserve the quality of life which you (as well as your kith and kin) presently enjoy?

      Disengaging from what your government says and does leaves you in a vulnerable position when your government decides to start saying things and doing things about you and your carefree lifestyle.

    • Guy Fox says:

      Like pop culture, politics is interested in you even if you’re not interested in it.

  6. TheCoconutChef says:

    In the context of a predominantly narcissistic society (I’m using word I don’t know the full meaning of), hate is the easiest / quickest / surest way to define an identity?

    Why that and not something else? How is hate better than, say, tennis? How is hate the default? Now I get that that’s what the media would want (and they made it three click away) and so it’s provided by the system, but how is it the default for the individual?

    But I should know since I go on news website and jump directly to the opinion page to hate on something (I skip the article that won’t get hate out of me) and when I’m not doing that I get…cravings.

    • thestage says:

      because hate doesn’t take any work. especially if everyone is already prodding you to do it. it’s also a defense mechanism.

    • Guy Fox says:

      To expand on thestage’s (correct) observation that hate doesn’t take any work: it doesn’t require any commitment. Every time you commit to something, it closes off other possibilities. If you study hard and get good grades in a useful degree, it also means that you’ve neglected band practice, football practice, and probably your workout, so being one thing (qualified) means you can’t be many other things (rock star, star athlete, washboard abs-Guy), etc. Choosing to live one way means killing off numerous other possibilities. When you’re young many things are possible. As you age, those possibilities are subject to attrition. Every commitment = a little death.

      But commitment is a positive thing. It’s a choice to do something, which makes you be something. Hate is negative. You can hate liberals and still be any number of other things. Instead of planting yourself on a point in space, you pick out a point to hate, declare yourself against it, which allows you to imagine yourself at just about any other coordinates simultaneously. There is much less closure involved.

      Commitment only leaves you the freedom to choose your commitments, but then you’re stuck with them. Hate allows you the illusion of freedom because you’re not really tied to anything, but just like there can be no field without a fence, no ocean without a shore, there can be no freedom without a tether.

      Or, as de Tocqueville famously said,

      Mamma let that boy play some Rock-N-Roll
      Jazz is much too crazy, he can play it when he’s old
      He’s to young for the Blues, he’s still inside his first pair of shoes
      He’ just a baby
      Give that boy some freedom, let him move around
      Don’t get in his way, you’ll only bring him down

  7. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    Might I point out the irony that your argument is Naomi Wolf it a character of fear/hate, because she DIDN”T respond the way you expected her to?
    If she wrote the video was OMG SEXIST because Katy Perry orchestrated her whole life around revenging her shitty boyfriend, this would somehow redeem Wolf and prove she was more than a 2d cartoon character of american upper class liberal feminist reflexive reactions? LOL. Actually, it would entirely reinforce that Wolf is a predictable cartoon character who can be expected to scream “sexism/feminism!” like a pull string doll. The fact she didn’t leap to that obvious (and incorrect) interpretation actually proves she is a thinking person.

    Also, did it occur to you that you aren’t god and your interpretations of media are not absolute encyclopedia scientific law set in stone? Gasp, your interpretation is subjective and double gasp up for debate.

    Personally I agree with Wolf. The sexism seems entirely secondary to getting young girls to join the marines. Meaning, young girls who are self conscious live their lives for their boyfriends, no big surprise…and the best way the marines can reach these young insecure girls, is to create a video with katy perry joining the marines to show up her boyfriend and be better than the other girls. The POINT is getting bodies in the military machine; the sexism is incidental to their attempt ot reach weak young people. Wolf was correct.

    • Old Mike says:

      I already said this on the other Perry/Wolf article but the Marines are not looking for more people. The economy is terrible and lots of people are unemployed. This lets them recruit as many as they want. Further, they wouldn’t want to recruit Katy Perry’s valley girl fans in the first place who are probably too young to enlist anyway.

      Wolf was wrong because she made a series of assumptions without fact-checking them. She could have done some homework and gone to see if Perry got funding from the Marines or something but she didn’t. She just started railing. That is not the mark of a thinking person.