Jimmy Savile Did Not "Groom the Nation"

I thought this was obvious. I didn't think it was something that feminists would have to start shouting from the rooftops:

Met Commander Peter Spindler was correct when he called Savile a "predatory, serial sex offender".

Spindler was wrong about Savile 'grooming the nation".

Jimmy Savile did NOT groom the nation.

Millions of people had no idea he was predatory, serial sex offender.

But, people did know.

We know they knew because Savile was not allowed to be involved in Children in Need.

We know people knew because they have been telling us they knew.

We know the police and CPS were aware because people told them.

Jimmy Savile did not groom the nation. He was allowed to continue abusing because he was a 'celebrity'. Pretending that he "groomed the nation" allows those who knew to minimise and obfuscate their guilt. Those who knew and did nothing are guilty of helping Savile in sexually assaulting hundreds of children and adults. I say hundreds but we will never know how many.

The term "grooming the nation" only serves to silence victims. It serves those predatory, serial sex offenders who are still harming people. It makes Jimmy Savile a one-off case that will never be repeated. 

But, Jimmy Savile isn't the only one. He will never be the only one. 

"Grooming the Nation" is about making bystanders feel better about having done absolutely nothing to protect vulnerable children and adults from a serial sex offender.

It not only absolved bystanders of responsibility; it gives them a space to be feted and petted in the press by journalists unwilling to look too closely at their own responsibility for reinforcing rape culture.

Jimmy Savile was a predatory, serial sex offender because people stood by and did nothing to stop him

How many other men are there today harming children and other adults safe in the knowledge that those around know and will do nothing to stop them?

(A longer version of this piece has been published by the Huffington Post)

Read More

The Met Has A Truly Original New Anti-Rape Campaign

Yep, they have a tots new campaign that has never, ever, ever been done before. One in which the Sapphire Unit, noted for its support of victims of rape and having no history of incompetence or malicious disregard for rape victims,* has come up with a brand, spanking new anti-rape campaign that has never been done before. Apparently, they are going to use licensing laws to close pubs and clubs where "high levels of rape and sexual assaults take place as part of a radical attempt to create a hostile environment for rapists." Now, I'm sure this is a lovely new policy but 1) why haven't they been doing this already? Surely that's one of the reasons we have licensing laws? and 2) How will they define "high levels" considering the fact that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to the police because of their institutional disregard for the safety of women and their general policy on blaming women for being raped?**

But, this isn't the best and original bit of the new anti-rape campaign. Nope, the big exciting bit is that it "will challenge male behaviour while attempting to speak to women about reducing their vulnerability to rape." Because, obviously, there has never been a single rape campaign ever that has told women to stop getting raped. Possibly, the lovely Boys in Blue should have spent slightly more time looking at the new Scottish anti-rape campaign called We Can Stop It because it targets rapists. It doesn't blame women for being raped. It blames rapists.

Women don't need to reduce their vulnerability. The only thing that makes women vulnerable to rape is being in the presence of a rapist.

The "professionals" in the Sapphire Unit might want to visit these campaigns by Rape Crisis Scotland: This is not an invitation to rape me and Not Ever. And, stop perpetrating rape myths since this is precisely why reports of rape are down in London. It's because women don't trust them. 

Targeting pubs and clubs is a good idea. Targeting men and making other men responsible for policing the behaviour of their friends is a good idea. Telling women what to do to avoid rape is just the same old victim-blaming behaviour and it just shows how little the Sapphire unit has learned from the sheer number of deliberate and malicious "mistakes" their members have made over the years which resulted in an untold number of women being raped by men who should have been in jail.

*You know, if you don't count the monumental fuck-ups of the John Worboys case or the dude who got sacked for deliberately screwing up. The Met seems to be glossing over these minor hiccups so probably we should too. Or, something.

** Obviously, I am being facetious here but I thought I'd just double check because according to Rape Crisis Scotland a not-very-large number of people didn't get that this was ironic. 

Read More

Justin Lee Collins: Just Another Right-On Dude But One Who Inspired the #dickheaddetox

Another day; another abusive man is basically forgiven for being a violent thug. I'm getting bored of writing about all these arseholes. I'm beyond fucking angry at them continuing to be feted and forgiven for the abuse. 

Justin Lee Collins is a vicious, violent thug and it is an absolute fucking disgrace that he only got 140 hours community service for harassing, stalking, and scaring the ever-loving shit out of his ex-partner. He deserves to be in jail but he is not because the judge bought into every myth about domestic violence possible.

There is nothing I can say about Collins that the Fleet Street Fox has not already said more eloquently here: 

Judges know the power of words. They know that hearing "140 hours community service" is not as frightening as "six months' jail", and they also know that stealing a case of mineral water in a riot is not as serious as assaulting your partner over a period of seven months.
They also know, because the High Court ruled on this in July, that only words which contain a genuine and intended threat can be considered criminal. The judge in that case said people "are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel".

So idiots who write unfunny jokes about murdered five-year-old April Jones, set up silly Facebook pages mocking the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, complain about British soldiers in Afghanistan or upset the grieving by writing about having sex with the dead are - and this is important - not criminals. They're idiots, they're offensive, but they cannot in law reasonably be thrown in jail.
But they were. 

A man, famous or otherwise, who reduces his partner to a constant state of fear, who assaults her, bullies her and admits only the part of her story she was canny enough to catch on tape IS a criminal. Justin Lee Collins is a thug, a bully, and a liar. He CAN be reasonably jailed.
But he wasn't. 

I don't think that was because he was famous, or because he could afford a good lawyer. I think it was because a change in the law recognising that words said by a partner are part of domestic abuse, and equally as if not more damaging than a punch or a smack, will not be in force until next March so it was impossible to prosecute this little toad as he should have been. 

And it's also because we get incredibly angry about the words we see written down, forgetting that means we can tear them up, delete them or burn them, and not about the words we hear which wriggle into our heads and stay there until we are able to shake them out.
The most important words in your whole life are not the ones you see but what you hear - hello, goodbye, I do, I'm pregnant, it's bad news I'm afraid. You might forget precisely what was said, but they change your life one way or the other and you never forget where you were, and what you were doing when you heard them. 

If only judges heard what everyone else does.

If you haven't already clicked the link to Fleet Street Fox's article, do so. Now.

Then, read Eva Wiseman's Naming and Shaming article in the Guardian. We need to start naming and shaming these violent misogynists. It's a disgrace that Charlie Sheen who has got form for domestic violence against more than one partner, "accidentally" shooting then girlfriend Kelly Preston in the arm, as well as the abuse of prostitutes now has another hit television series.

I'm sick of Chris Brown who violently assaulted his partner Rihanna.

I'm sick of Mike Tyson who has a conviction for rape and a history of domestic violence. I'm sick of the rape apologists who've financially supported Tyson's new career as a "motivational speaker". I'm pissed off at Spike Lee for directing Tyson in a one-man play which whitewashed Tyson's violent history. I'm pissed off at the rape apologists wearing Tyson's branded clothes.

I'm sick of the child rape apologists claiming that Roman Polanski's status as an "artiste" is more important than the child he drugged and sodomised. I'm pissed off at every child rape apologist who stood up and gave the man a standing ovation at the Oscars.

So, I'm with Eva Wiseman. Let's start calling these "men" out for what they really are: violent misogynistic thugs who deserve our contempt and our hatred. Let's do her dickhead detox.

James Brown: domestic violence*
Hugh Grant: abusing a prostitute
Ched Evans: rapist
Sean Connery: domestic violence
Ike Turner: domestic violence
Mel Gibson: probation for domestic violence [not to mention the issue of racism]
Harry Morgan: domestic violence
Tupac Shakur: sexual abuse
Richard Hatch: domestic assault
Tracy Lawrence: domestic abuse
Dennis Rodman: domestic abuse
Mickey Rourke: domestic abuse
Sean Penn: domestic abuse
Paul Gascoigne: domestic violence
Stan Collymore: domestic violence
Bill Wyman: child rape**
R. Kelly: domestic abuse [amongst some other horrifying accusations]
Micheal Lohan: domestic violence
Larry Fitzgerald: restraining order for domestic violence
Santonia Holmes: multiple arrests for domestic violence
Tommy Lee: domestic violence
Alec Baldwin: emotional abuse
Steven Tyler: child rape**
Iggy Pop: child rape**
Jerry Lee Lewis: child rape**
John Peel: child rape**
Jonathon King: child rape
Gary Glitter: possessing child pornography and child rape**
Johnny Thunders: child rape**
David Bowie: child rape**
Jimmy Page: child rape**

*I'm using both domestic abuse and domestic violence because the terms reflect the legal status of the crime in the jurisdictions in which the men were charged. 

** None of these men were convicted of child rape. But, that's because we live in a society that celebrates male violence and doesn't give a shit about children.

Read More

Slutwalk London

SlutWalk London 2012 

Saturday 22nd September 2012

12.30pm 

Top of Piccadilly (near Hyde Park Corner).

FaceBook

Petition

These are the details for this year's London Slutwalk. As with the Edinburgh Slutwalk in July, I won't be attending because I find the concept of Slutwalks deeply problematic. However, Slutwalk has ignited debate about victim-blaming and sexualised violence. It has also created a safe space for women to share their stories. There is no greater gift. So, whilst I stand by what I wrote in July about the Slutwalk Edinburgh, I also have to give props to the women attending. The Patriarchy must be destroyed. We're just destroying it from different angles.

 This is what I wrote about Slutwalk Edinburgh: 

I would have marched in the original in Toronto because that had a specific purpose: to raise awareness of the misogynistic discourse normalised within the police as it manifested in that specific incident. The worldwide movement to reclaim the word "slut" bothers me. There seems to have been little real political analysis of the word and its specific connotations for different groups of women due to race, class, and ethnicity. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to re-appropriate the words of your oppressors. I also think its incredibly odd to try to reclaim the word "slut" in order to demonstrate that rape isn't about being a "slut".  

Violence against women is endemic and systemic. It is everywhere and it is excused a thousand times a day in a million different ways. Slutwalk doesn't address or even attempt to analyse VAW. It only attempts to address one facet of rape myths without questioning the rape culture in which those myths are perpetuated and perpetrated. Rape isn't just about controlling women's sexuality as Slutwalk seems to imply. The act of rape [and the fear of the act of rape] are about controlling every facet of women's lives. Rape isn't about how women dress [or don't dress]. Rape is the practise of misogyny. It is misogyny that we need to eradicate but we need to do this by attacking every facet of VAW. Slutwalk privileges the lived experiences of middle class, white women. It merely reinforces the racist constructions about the sexuality of Black and Ethnic Minority women. It ignores the structural oppressions of poverty. It ignores how the structural oppressions of poverty specifically target Black and Ethnic Minority women. 

I want the eradication of the patriarchal-capitalist structures which oppress women. I don't want to reclaim or re-appropriate the words of my oppressors. I want them gone. 

I wish my sisters luck [and sunshine] for Slutwalk Edinburgh. I won't be on the march but, if Slutwalk becomes the catalyst which destroys the Patriarchy, I will be the first one to apologise.

Some interesting blogs and articles on Slutwalk:

Amplify Your Voice: In Context: Criticisms of the Slutwalk

People of Colour Organize: Four Brief Critiques of Slutwalk's Whiteness, Privilege and Unexamined Power Dynamics

Black Women's Blueprint: An Open Letter From Black Women to the Slutwalk

The Crunk Feminist Collective: I Saw the Sign but Did We Really Need the Sign? Slutwalk and Racism

The F Word: Feminist Critiques of Slutwalk Have Forgotten That Language is Not a Commodity

Gail Dines & Wendy J Murphy: Slutwalk is not Sexual Liberation 

Alternatives to Slutwalk:

Reclaim the Night

Million Women Rise

Read More

So, Mike Tyson is a "Wrongly- Convicted" Rapist"

At least, one of the organisers of Mike Tyson's latest money-making event is claiming that he's a "wrongly convicted rapist" in a phone conversation with a local resident Kim Graham who is concerned about the hero-worshipping of a convicted rapist. Tyson, you know, the convicted rapist, is now a "motivational speaker" and has been invited to speak at a dinner event in Gorleston, Norfolk. Quite why anyone would pay to hear a convicted rapist claim not to be a rapist is beyond me. Mostly, Tyson makes me equally nauseous and angry. He continues to minimise his violent behaviour and his conviction for rape [not to mention those pesky domestic violence rumours he likes to pretend aren't true]. Yet, people still pay to hear him deny his violence. He's even got Spike Lee to direct him in a one-man play. And, people claim we don't live in a society that hates women. 

Carl Moore, who is sponsoring the event with EBF Boxing [I've never heard of either of them but have duly noted their names under the heading of arsehole misogynists] is the man responsible for this "wrongly-convicted" malarkey. Other venues have canceled Tyson's "motivational speeches" after a public outcry. We need to make it clear that convicted rapists aren't heroes. Men who violently rape 18 year olds aren't misunderstood or deserving of sympathy. They deserve our condemnation.

Tyson is due to speak at the Ocean Rooms in Gorleston on October 12th. There is a petition available here. This is the text of the petition: 

Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist who served three years of a six year sentence for raping an 18 year old woman. He has been completely unrepentant.

We see fewer than 6% of rapists convicted of their crimes, and even in the result of a conviction, survivors and victims struggle to be believed. By providing an event that celebrates a convicted rapist, we send the message out that rapists are role models; a harmful message for both survivors and for young people. 

The idea of giving a convicted rapist a "hero's welcome" is both deeply offensive and damaging.

You can also contact the venue directly: 

Ocean Rooms

Pier Gardens

Gorleston, Norfolk
NR31 6PP
Phone: 01493 667890
http://www.oceanroom.co.uk

UPDATE: 

Kim Graham has added this to the text of the petition: 

I had the "pleasure" of speaking to Carl Moore, the organiser of the event earlier this evening. When I asked Moore why he felt having a convicted rapist was a suitable speaker at an event, he tried to tell me that Tyson (who pleaded guilty at his trial) was wrongly convicted, that Tyson had been told he'd walk free were he to plead guilty. 

We already see a situation where most rapists walk free, through being found "not guilty" due to a failing legal system. Sadly, in the rare situations where rapists are convicted of their crimes, where they even plead guilty, we're still faced with a situation where the survivor of the crime isn't believed.  

Words, such as Moore's, are an insult to rape survivors, and a mockery of those who finally see a conviction. This event cannot continue.

Read More

So, I'm starting a Campaign to Get Love Eggs Available on the NHS.

Whose in?

I know it's a totally weird position for a feminist to take but bear with me for a moment. [Or, bare with me. I haven't decided which is a more appropriate term right now]. And, anyways it wasn't my idea. Technically it was SaF's idea on the Mumsnet webchat with Naomi Wolf and SaF suggested that women start walking about with them in permanently so we are having perpetual orgasms and don't notice abusive men. I just think we should take it one step further and campaign to have them available on the NHS. That way no women would ever not be able to afford to walk around in a permanent state of bliss.

According to Wolf, lots of orgasms make women happier because of some freaky relationship between the vagina and the brain or some other totally stupid and scientifically asinine thing. I'm sure I could be clearer on this but that would require spending more time trying to work out what she was on about and I just can't be arsed. Helpfully, the New Statesman has published a review by the blogger Neuroskeptic which lists the ways in which Wolf is just wrong about female anatomy [amongst many other things]. She's also wrong about some pretty basic tenets of historical and archaeological research but, really, these major fallacies have never stopped Wolf spouting on about shit she doesn't understand [see for instance: her stance on the Assange rape case].

But, back to the to the love eggs thing. It will save a fortune on treating domestic violence. After all, women being magicked into dopamine inspired delusions of happiness will make DV disappear. Or, we'll be too stoned to care. Because this seems to be Wolf's premise, if women stop being whiny, men won't be obnoxious anymore. It's women's faults that men are shit lovers because we don't wank enough. At least, I think that's what she's saying. I'm not sure Wolf really knows what she's on about. The Mumsnet webchat was an embarrassing mixture of narcissism and self-delusion interspersed with moments of sheer brilliance on the part of Mumsnetters whose collective vaginas were a trifle confused by Wolf. 

These are a sample of the questions that Wolf, for reasons best known to herself, didn't really answer. Well, some of them were answered with psychobabble, twaddle and general nincompoopery. Someone definitely didn't read Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender. And, it wasn't me because I should be getting royalties for encouraging everyone I know to buy the book. Pretty much  everything that Wolf has hypothesised about the magical connection between the brain and vagina is just, well, nincompoopery. The point is we simply don't know enough about the brain to make the ridiculous claims that Wolf does and even if we did have the knowledge, defining science in such victim-blaming rhetoric is just offensive. Wolf has managed to write a book that blames women for not being happy. Thanks a fucking lot for that.

Do check the status of your pelvic floor before reading the following; just in case it's not in harmony with your vagina. 

PlentyOfPubeGardens Wed 05-Sep-12 08:57:14

Hi Naomi,

How does a woman say 'no' if she's asleep?

thanks.

LineRunner Wed 05-Sep-12 16:05:00

Naomi

The short passages in Vagina that refer to the prehistoric 'Venus' figurines are, archaeologically, beyond parody. Is there some strange rule in the world of Pop Fem Bestsellers whereby writers such as youself and Camille Paglia are not allowed to read actual archaeological textbooks and analyses?

MooncupGoddess Wed 05-Sep-12 17:55:36

From my reading of extracts and reviews, the book is essentialist (it argues for an essential femininity located in the nervous system) and also heteronormative (there is a lot of emphasis on sexual-romantic relationships with men and the importance of male pheromones in women's lives).

What does your book have to say to women who are lesbian, single (by choice or circumstance) or who just don't see their sexual relationships with men as a primary part of their identity?

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 05-Sep-12 21:07:12

Hi Naomi
How do you think promoting rape myths and defending the right of men to penetrate women who are asleep and therefore cannot consent to sex, fits in with calling yourself a feminist? Also you appear like other Assange fans, to believe that if a woman consents to sex with a man, that means that she consents under any terms and doesn't have the right to set conditions, like for example that he must wear a condom. Can you explain how that is a feminist position? Because it sounds to me very much closer to a rapey position.

And Mumsnet, how does having a woman who defends the right of men to penetrate women without their consent if they have had previous sexual intercourse with them on for a webchat, fit in with your "We Believe You" anti-rape campaign?

AliceHurled Thu 06-Sep-12 08:59:16

Naomi, why, when reflecting on the Assange case, did you feel it was a priority to use your power and influence to fuel the rape myths already predictably being perpetuated widely? 

MNHQ, I'd also like to add my voice to those asking how this fits with the We Believe You Campaign.

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 06-Sep-12 12:59:53

"I did not understand why for throughout recorded history, the vagina and female sexuality had been targeted, abused etc. Now I do, because of the brain-vagina link. The point of the book is that you are much more than a vagina and your vagina is much more than a 'mere' sex organ."

I think the actual research into this focuses on the control of reproduction. It isn't really about your vagina but rather who gets to dictate the contents of the uterus. Frankly, suggesting that mass rape is because of the vagina-brain relationship is so utterly offensive that I don't even know where to begin. It's certainly not what Gloria Steinem is arguing with the Women Under Siege institute.

FastidiaBlueberry Thu 06-Sep-12 10:54:39

So what is your position on Assange then Naomi? 

If we accept your premise, that this prosecution is politically motivated, does that mean it shouldn't go ahead even if those women in Sweden are claiming to be raped?

Should we ignore women who describe being raped in cases where we like the politics of the men accused of raping them?

I totally agree with you that in normal cases, rape victims are treated shamefully badly and rape allegations are not taken as seriously as they ought to be. But does this mean that because most rape allegations are not pursued with the vigour that they should be, it's wrong for a state to pursue rape allegations in the case of men the state might not like and the rest of us might admire or agree with on other issues?

Because you do realise that if that is your position (and it is the position of may people on the left) then it's not a feminist position, don't you? It's a position which says that although women's rights are all fine and dandy, when it comes to the really important things in life, like fighting imperialism/ poverty/ racism/ insert worthy cause here, women's human rights have to go to the back of the queue? You do understand that feminism does not accept the premise that women's human rights come last, don't you?

MmeLindor Thu 06-Sep-12 12:13:53

Naomi
Do you think that the rights of Assange are more important than the rights of two women who accused him of serious sexual assault and rape? 

And what does that signal to any woman raped by an important political figure?

Should DSK not have been investigated because of his political standing? Maybe that was a conspiracy too. 

This is why it is important that these cases come to trial. Because it is not up to journalists or bloggers to decide, but a judge and jury.

ArtexMonkey Thu 06-Sep-12 12:25:45

What part of rape counselling training suggests sarky public pisstaking as being beneficial to survivors of rape?

TunipTheVegemal Thu 06-Sep-12 12:30:29

'I do not write or post rape myths.'

How can you say that when that is EXACTLY what that Huff Post article was doing? If you have spent as much time supporting rape victims as you say you must be aware of the very widespread and damaging myth that women 'cry rape' when displeased with the behaviour of their male sexual partner. That was exactly what you were promulgating the idea of their having done in that piece.

Perhaps you should admit that on this case you did write a rape myth, and try harder not to do it again?

Margerykemp Thu 06-Sep-12 12:32:29

You like the f word? So you think that it is transphobic for females assigned at birth to meet together without the presence of males assigned at birth?

Does your book apply to transwomen with constructed vaginas?

Isn't it transphobic to write a book which ignores transwomen's experience of their 'vaginas' (or lack of them)?

KeemaNaanAndCurryOn Thu 06-Sep-12 12:35:13

When investigating the neuroscience of the vagina, did your studies include an investigation into which part of the brain lights up during "bad sexual etiquette"?

OatyBeatie Thu 06-Sep-12 12:37:24

Are the neural connections between vagina and brain, and the mood-consequences of the chemicals released during orgasm really any different in degree or importance from other sorts of body--mood connections, such as those between exercise and mood, or diet and mood? Do these connections really deserve claims "the vagina is an essential part of what makes women great leaders?" Is the vagina-brain connection more important than the penis-brain connection?
I must say that I feel as sceptical and resistant to being told that the vagina is the seat (or a seat) of my self as I am to being told that my wandering womb has that role.
We live in an age of very great discovery about the roles of neurochemicals, neurotransmitters et al, but these have to be conceptualised very carefully indeed to avoid dodgy determinist theses and oversimplification.

SuperB0F Thu 06-Sep-12 12:39:01

Men who do more housework get more sex, you know . Who'd have thought it was all down to vaginal nerves?!

NormaStanleyFletcher Thu 06-Sep-12 12:38:02

Would all of these positive feedback/hormones from the vagina also be present if orgasming through oral sex or masterbation, or is PIV necessary?

Greythorne Thu 06-Sep-12 12:40:38

Naomi - just as women have made huge inroads into the professional world, but men have not on the whole stepped up to seek equality on the domestic / childcare front, women have made huge leaps in demanding sexual fulfullment. The "lie back and think of England" thinking may still exist, but most women know about orgasms, vibrators, sexual fulfillment, even if it is only a theoretical knowledge.

So, just as to achieve equality in coupledom, men need to step up and assume their responsibilities for cleaning the loo and making the kids' dental appointments, the sexual fulfillment of women requires men stepping up and responding to women appropriately?

And writing about the neuroscience behind the vagina is yet another way to put the onus on women?

SuperB0F Thu 06-Sep-12 12:47:02

I hope all those rapey men in the Occupy movement read your book and realise they are actually missing out on great sex by being mean. If only they just knew, it could transform everything!

TunipTheVegemal Thu 06-Sep-12 12:49:23

Please can we come back to your claim on Newsnight that victim anonymity is a cause of the 6% conviction rate? How does that work, because it goes against everything I have heard from rape victims and those who work with them. Victim anonymity is usually considered to be a vital condition in allowing victims to report.

TunipTheVegemal Thu 06-Sep-12 12:58:02

Why does victim anonymity result in a low rape conviction rate? 

My vagina is positively tying itself in knots trying to work it out.

SuperB0F Thu 06-Sep-12 13:01:42

I think the brain-vagina link is actually fascinating.

I think the arse-mouth link is also an area worthy of further research. Just how do some people come to talk out of their bottoms?

TunipTheVegemal Thu 06-Sep-12 13:20:47

So rape victims aren't getting convictions because they're not fighting back hard enough?  And if we take away their anonymity they will be stop being ashamed, like the gay people, and their shame is the reason why they're not getting convictions and when gay people stopped being ashamed it got better for them?

Do you see how victim-blaming and unkind your suggestion is?

OatyBeatie Thu 06-Sep-12 15:11:53

I wish she'd answered my question about the wandering womb! The close identification Wolf seems to make between the vagina and the self (i.e. the neurological connections between vagina and the "female brain" and between orgasm and mood/temperament) echo very strongly the earlier quasi-medical mystification of woman as being the products of their wombs (hysteria etc).

That is such a disturbing echo that, especially coupled with a sexual culture in which women are demoted to body parts (and people are aggressively identified as "cunts"), I don't think I could begin to look properly at her empirical claims without some preliminary discussion of how on earth so close a connection of a woman's selfhood with her sexual organ could possibly avoid collapsing her into a mere fragment of herself at best (and an illusion at worst).

Added to that, as I think the Guardian review of her book makes salient, there is a pervasive tendency at the moment to react in an oversimplifying and overly determinist way to the numerous and complex relations between brain and self that are constantly being discovered and which are usually only partly understood. Phrases like "feminist neurotransmitter" and "feminist impulse in the brain" are an almost comically egregious example of mapping brain to self in a reductionist way, reminiscent of phrenology.

My favourite bit was this and not just because it's me: 

NaomiWolf Thu 06-Sep-12 12:45:08

StewieGriffinsMom

How do you define "non-violent rape" because I have never ever heard a feminist use that term. Rape is, by definition, violence. It can be accompanied by other forms of physical violence but the act of rape is always violent.

The idea that there is a difference between violent rape and non-violent rape is a rape myth.

See below, I said there is no such thing as a nonviolent rapeand my 'The Traumatized Vagina' chapter goes further than anything I have ever read to put together all of the latest data on how lastingly damaging in new ways we have not understood, any kind of rape or sexual abuse is to women, and I am glad to hear that prosecutors and lawyers representing victims are using that chapter in their aim to put rapists away

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 06-Sep-12 12:46:44

Erm, I think you'll find the British laws on rape have been doing that since well before your book was published

Or possibly this one:

NaomiWolf Thu 06-Sep-12 12:55:56

FastidiaBlueberry

Is the brain-penis connection as strong?

Different. Men's innervation for instance is much more regular -- women's innervation is much more diffuse and complex. Men's sex responses aren't as tied to their autonomic nervous system and freedom from 'bad stress'. Whereas 'bad stress' can just shut down a woman's engorgement, lubrication, arousal etc. Women are potentially, if treated well, multiorgasmic -- capable of more than one orgasm -- and men have a refractory period (another reason I think society has feared female sexual self-knowledge).

or this: 

NaomiWolf Thu 06-Sep-12 13:08:04

FastidiaBlueberry

Why do men need to read your book to learn how not to be arses and therefore get more sex?

No one I know knew, for instance, that women's bodies react to being stroked (nonsexually) differently than men's do, so a woman's heart rate lowers and her oxytocin levels rise (making her like the stroker 10% more) after just ten minutes of stroking. So many couples in trouble are trying this rather than arguing verbally and they send me emails saying how much easier it hasd made communication. Many other such science-based findings that help men understand and support women.

Read More