|
Contributors
Carol Platt Liebau - Columnist
Carol
Platt Liebau is editorial director and a senior member of
the CaliforniaRepublic.org editorial
board. She is an attorney, political analyst and commentator
based in San Marino, CA, and has appeared on the Fox News
Channel,
MSNBC, CNN, Orange County News Channel, Cox Cable and a variety
of radio programs throughout the United States. A graduate
of
Princeton
University
and Harvard Law School, Carol Platt Liebau also served as the
first female managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.
[go to Liebau index]
 The
Wolf Trap
Female Support for “W” Isn’t a “Trick”...
[Carol Platt Liebau] 9/27/04
Naomi Wolf,
heir to the Gloria Steinem “foxy feminist” mantle,
is at it again. Four years after having persuaded Al Gore to
become an “Alpha Male” clothed in earth tones (she
insists she was an advisor on “women’s issues”),
she has resurfaced in the pages of New York Magazine to comment
on the “iconography” of this year’s election.
Wolf clearly prides
herself on upending the stereotype of feminists. Despite having
written a 1990’s book The Beauty
Myth, which decries the unrealistic standards of feminine
beauty to which ordinary women are compared, she certainly cultivates
her own looks. And she is determined not to come across as a
man-hater. In an appearance last week on “The O’Reilly
Factor,” she kept appealing to the host by softly insisting
that he was “too intelligent to believe” one thing
or another. Naomi Wolf displaying honest admiration for Bill
O’Reilly’s intellect is about as likely as Sinead
O’Connor expressing profound veneration for the Pope – but
it’s clear she is trying to portray herself as a “different
kind of feminist.”
And in the New
York Magazine piece, how she succeeds! The feminist movement, however
misguided it might have been in many particulars,
did have one valid critique: It was wrong to discount and disparage
women’s intelligence. But now, ironically, Naomi Wolf commits
precisely that offense.
According to Wolf,
women are supporting George W. Bush this year in large numbers
because the Bush team has succeeded in “manipulating
the images of the women around” the President. They are
being swayed by “carefully stag[ed] scenes in which a seated
W. is listening attentively to a standing Condoleezza Rice.” Likewise,
Wolf notes darkly of the Bush Administration, “Suddenly
they all used the words – sensitive, comfort (or comfortable)
and appreciate.” (italics in original). And – of
course, we’re back to colors with Wolf – “the
jewel tones on Laura Bush and other women associated with the
Administration” also are working to undermine the Democrats’ traditional
advantage among women. (But wait – isn’t it earth tones that voters prefer, or was that just in 2000?)
Of course, appearances and images can be important. But Wolf’s
message would be insulting if it weren’t so profoundly
silly: Women are being fooled by code words, colors and pictures
into voting against what she deems to be their best interests.
It’s not that women have made decisions based on the
issues – no, they have been taken in by appearances (you
know how those women just love pretty colors!).
But perhaps it’s not fair to expect “feminist and
social critic” Wolf to be in touch with the average American
woman. Witness polls which, in the last five years, have found
that fully 70% of women believe there should be more restrictions
on abortion, or which have found that, if given the choice, more
than two-thirds of women would rather stay home and raise their
children than work. These, clearly, are issues upon which ordinary
women and the Wolf-style Manhattan literati-glitterati completely
disagree. So why should she be considered a reliable interpreter
of women voters’ psyches when she’s completely out
of step with the women themselves?
Here’s a reality check for Naomi Wolf: Women are simply
voting their interests – as they define them. In a post-9/11
world, women are going to support the candidate whom they believe
is least likely to let terrorists take over our schools, or bomb
our cities, or terrorize our people. And they are going to stand
by the man who liberated thousands of oppressed women living
under both the hob-nailed boot of the Taliban theocracy in Afghanistan,
and the regime of a dictator who officially sanctioned rape in
Iraq. Women don’t need to agree with President Bush on
everything – but they know his convictions are firm, and
that he goes to bed each night and awakens every morning working
to make sure that our children and our families stay safe. He’s
not wringing his hands about a “quagmire,” he’s
taking names and kicking terrorists’ behinds.
If, through the use
of some of the imagery Wolf discusses, the Republicans have
simply found an appealing way to solidify the
support of women who already agreed with their policies, good
for them. It’s about time.
But more than anything,
it’s time for Naomi Wolf and the
rest of the feminist elite to come to grips with one key fact:
In Election 2004, women aren’t being deceived by pretty
colors and nice words. We know what we believe. And it’s
not what you tell us it is.CRO
Columnist
Carol Platt Liebau is a political analyst, commentator and
CaliforniaRepublic.org editorial
director based in San Marino, CA. Ms. Liebau also
served as the
first female managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Her
web log can be found at CarolLiebau.blogspot.com
copyright
2004
§
|
