Jump to content

Author Naomi Wolf told live on radio that her new book is worthless


MaybeACoordinator

Recommended Posts

The words "death recorded" did not mean what she thought they meant. And neither did sodomy, in one case. 

Quote

It has to be an author’s worst nightmare. Naomi Wolf appeared on the BBC to promote her forthcoming book, Outrages: Sex, Censorship and the Criminalization of Love, and it might have worked, but not in the way she would have hoped. During the interview with journalist Matthew Sweet, Wolf realized she’d made two huge errors in her book. The host pointed out two serious problems with her work. First, she assumed “sodomy” means homosexuality, but Sweet pointed out that, in one key case in her book, it was referring to child sex abuse. Second, she mistakenly believed the 19th-century legal term “death recorded” meant the convict was executed, but it actually meant a death sentence wasn’t carried out because the prisoner was pardoned and freed. So Wolf’s claim that there were “several dozen” executions for homosexuality appears to be based on a complete misunderstanding of old court records. “I don’t think any of the executions you’ve identified here actually happened,” said Sweet.

This is a first, as far as I know, in a work of history, but it reminds me of any number of hot-button stories in the media today. With the claims of "Fake news" BS from the right and the UVA rape and Jussie Smollett debacles on the left, everybody is trying to build their facts around narratives instead of narratives around facts, even when they get pwned time and time again.

Just because you think the other team sucks doesn't mean you get to make up shit to tar them. And before you get too self-righteous about how evil people were in the past, you should first make sure you know what they were doing and what their words meant. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even if it isn't a deliberate attempt to "tar the other side," it appears that at least minor scholars and journalists are a little too anxious to prove their points and cut historical or evidentiary corners to do so.

I'm not sure I would limit it to just  "minor" scholars and journalists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even if it isn't a deliberate attempt to "tar the other side," it appears that at least minor scholars and journalists are a little too anxious to prove their points and cut historical or evidentiary corners to do so.

Nancy MacLean comes to mind.

 

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/14/15967788/democracy-shackles-james-buchanan-intellectual-history-maclean

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

During the interview with journalist Matthew Sweet, Wolf realized she’d made two huge errors in her book.

World that's ugly and a lie
it's hard to even want to try.
I'm beginning to think
maybe you don't know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

And before you get too self-righteous about how evil people were in the past, you should first make sure you know what they were doing and what their words meant. 

Her self-righteous ship sailed a long time ago.

She's a joke, imo. Her high point in life was when Harold Bloom found her fetching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Remember when people would get laughed out of the building for citing Wikipedia?  Somewhere in the fairly recent past people got too lazy and obsessed with narratives, instant gratification, hot takes and debates to even care about accuracy anymore.  

Ironically, Wikipedia has gotten a lot better over the years, counteracting the "inaccurate" trend, as people have refined and sharpened it (which was its intent all along).  Of course it shouldn't ever be used as a primary bibliographical source, but usually it contains a lot of great citations in the footnotes.  For the most part, it's pretty damn reliable now - and on a scale of "documenting everything" I think it's one of the marvels of the Interent age.

This is what open source can do when it tries.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phdhorn said:

Ironically, Wikipedia has gotten a lot better over the years, counteracting the "inaccurate" trend, as people have refined and sharpened it (which was its intent all along).  Of course it shouldn't ever be used as a primary bibliographical source, but usually it contains a lot of great citations in the footnotes.  For the most part, it's pretty damn reliable now - and on a scale of "documenting everything" I think it's one of the marvels of the Interent age.

This is what open source can do when it tries.

The thing is, while it shouldn't be used as a "primary bibliographical source" it all along has absolutely been one of the best first stops on a research jaunt, because it gives you a ready made reference list. Especially for undergraduates, all the sources you need are listed there, even if it, itself, isn't a source you should reference.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

The thing is, while it shouldn't be used as a "primary bibliographical source" it all along has absolutely been one of the best first stops on a research jaunt, because it gives you a ready made reference list. Especially for undergraduates, all the sources you need are listed there, even if it, itself, isn't a source you should reference.

Truth.

I'm sure the quality varies across ranges of topics, but in my experience, wikipedia is really really good -- it's not only accurate, but it does an excellent job of providing examples and explaining things in simple language.    I don't remember what I did without it.

Edited by Beau Vine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just happened to look her up as a refresher, and it appears that her book was based largely on her doctoral dissertation at Trinity College, Oxford.  😳😳

Oxonian on Oxonian violence (Sweet is also an Oxford PhD).

So it's maybe not these lightweight historian/journalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2019 at 8:45 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I just happened to look her up as a refresher, and it appears that her book was based largely on her doctoral dissertation at Trinity College, Oxford.  😳😳

 

That's interesting. One would think that Trinity College would have verified/examined Wolf's dissertation, assuming she had some of the same crap there.

I guess that school has really gone downhill since Newton, and since Hawking died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2019 at 8:09 AM, phdhorn said:

Ironically, Wikipedia has gotten a lot better over the years, counteracting the "inaccurate" trend, as people have refined and sharpened it (which was its intent all along).  Of course it shouldn't ever be used as a primary bibliographical source, but usually it contains a lot of great citations in the footnotes.  For the most part, it's pretty damn reliable now - and on a scale of "documenting everything" I think it's one of the marvels of the Interent age.

This is what open source can do when it tries.

I prefer aggypedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, PilotsError said:

 

 

 

Riiiight.  Because the Covington and Russian collusion hoaxes from the media didn't just happen, right?

Ian Bremmer's bullshit this morning didn't happen, right?

 

But, it was “kinda plausible,” so what’s your problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2019 at 7:13 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

With the claims of "Fake news" BS from the right and the UVA rape and Jussie Smollett debacles on the left, everybody is trying to build their facts around narratives instead of narratives around facts, even when they get pwned time and time again.

Just because you think the other team sucks doesn't mean you get to make up shit to tar them. And before you get too self-righteous about how evil people were in the past, you should first make sure you know what they were doing and what their words meant. 

The first paragraph has something of a false equivalency. "Fake News" is an actual campaign to discredit reputable new agencies. Smollett's hoax was suspected by many and proven rather quickly. I don't know about the "UVA rape." People on the left do embrace falsehoods thinking that they are true. Amateur operatives on the right actually choose to embrace lies for political ends.

Your second paragraph is truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This isn't the media bias thread, but really?  Dan Rather.

My post was a little too CR for here, no doubt. I'll only say that the White House never denied the report and there is other evidence to support Rather's claim. Either way, Rather in not the left. There is no pattern of him lying. Calling him a liar is pretty much the same as the Fake News claim.

He made a mistake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RomaVicta said:

My post was a little too CR for here, no doubt. I'll only say that the White House never denied the report and there is other evidence to support Rather's claim. Either way, Rather in not the left. There is no pattern of him lying. Calling him a liar is pretty much the same as the Fake News claim.

He made a mistake.

 

Made a mistake ?  after how many years as a journalist, he made that kind of mistake ? 

Nope sorry, but thanks for playing, and yeah he is and or was very liberal.  So was Uncle Walter,  but his professionalism kept that a personal secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Made a mistake ?  after how many years as a journalist, he made that kind of mistake ? 

Nope sorry, but thanks for playing, and yeah he is and or was very liberal.  So was Uncle Walter,  but his professionalism kept that a personal secret.

Humor me and describe what Rather did. I'll not contest it or get political. I'm just interested.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Humor me and describe what Rather did. I'll not contest it or get political. I'm just interested.

Thanks.

He ran with an unverified report, he didn't have proper back up, and it was during the run up to an election.  He was also asked to resign. For Rather to have been fired means it was more than just a mistake, unless CBS was just blatantly playing CYA.

 

I grew up watching Dan Rather, and liked him, but he definitely became more open about his political leanings (IMO), as a journalist that is a huge fuck up in my opinion.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2019 at 7:31 PM, atomheartbevo said:

I used to think Naomi was really cute.  I’m surprised that her 15 minutes of fame is somehow still going.   That’s my sexist take on things.  

I randomly walked into a Naomi Wolf bookstore appearance and actually got to talk to her. It was probably 15+ years ago.  At her peak, I would describe Naomi as being on the plus-side of plain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...