Argh!

[rivkat]

From Publisher's Weekly, on Naomi Wolf's new book: "Forget what you think renowned anti-patriarchal social critic Wolf (The Beauty Myth) always writes—this book has nothing to do with academia, politics or even feminism." So what's it about, you ask?

Her father and his creativity.

Because what could a father who encourages his daughter to set her creativity free possibly have to do with her feminism?

Comments

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Coincidentally, I'm in the middle of her recent book Promiscuities, about adolescent girls' sexual coming of age in 1970s San Francisco, and I'm finding it fascinating reading.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_abulafia/]

You might enjoy parts of this review (http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17), (which is only tangentially about the book -- another book, by another author).

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

It is interesting. I can see why Flanagan drives a lot of people up a wall (and I would probably be one of them, if I read more of her social commentary), but I also appreciate the distinctions she draws. Promiscuities is another take on the development of girls' sexuality based on conversations with women who were generally sexually active as teens in the 70s; Wolf does a great job of capturing both the pleasure and the terror, as opposed to the total disconnection Flanagan describes (apparently without direct contact with such girls) today. Flanagan lost me at the end with the bit about how meaningless sex was okay for boys, though.