Skip to content

Naomi Wolf’s Princess Diaries

October 6, 2009


Naomi Wolf continues to bristle at the criticisms leveled at her by this blog and others, criticisms which she characterizes in a recent Huffington Post article as “a small firestorm of distortion.” In that piece, Wolf writes about the examples of  “Muslim feminism” she encountered during her recent travels in Jordan. Women in that country, she says, were not looking to the West to save them, nor were they particularly worried about the veil:

” They were too busy making egalitarian, modernist new worlds of their own, with an Arab, and often Islamic, imprimatur”.

As a prime example of a Muslim feminist fighting for oppressed women in Muslim lands, Wolf cites “Princess Rym Ali, sister-in-law of Queen Rania — the Chanel-wearing media star who is rebranding a more contemporary Jordan.”

I kid you not.  Here is how Wolf describes the place where she met the princess for her heart-to-heart talk about the fight for Muslim women’s rights:

“She met me in a leafy Amman suburb, in the palace that she shares with Prince Ali and their small children”.

When Wolf is not talking with princesses, she gets her insights from a boutique hotel owner whom she describes as:

“Martha Stewart meets Che Guevara, because, when not renovating the elegant public spaces of her hotel, she is suing Israeli generals for war crimes that she claims were committed against civilians in Gaza“.

Suing Israeli generals for trumped-up war-crime allegations in Gaza is Naomi Wolf’s idea of proving the bona fides of an Islamic feminist!

The only woman whom Naomi Wolf mentions in her Huffington Post article who can be taken serioiusly is an investigative journalist.   This brave woman, Rana Husseini, has received death threats for reporting on honor killings.

But honor killings, while horrible to be sure, are only the tip of the iceberg.   Islamic law stipulates a gender-segregated, patriarchal society in which women are treated as inferior beings. And that represents the mainstream of Islamic beliefs today, not a fringe extremist cult.

But don’t take my word for it. While Wolf prefers to get her insights about the plight of Muslim women primarily from princesses behind palace walls and from boutique hotel owners who sue Israeli generals in their spare time, I prefer to listen to the words of a woman who spent her first thirty years living the life of an average Muslim female in Egypt before emigrating to the United States.  Her name is Nonie Darwish, whose father was regarded in the Muslim world as a shahid (martyr) for giving up his life more than fifty years ago in the jihad against Israel.

Ms. Darwish has described in painstaking detail the daily hardships imposed on Muslim women as a direct consequence of Islamic law and mainstream customs in Muslim society, patterned after the Prophet Muhammad’s own life.  Here are just a few examples, taken from her book entitled Cruel and Usual Punishment: The terrifying global implications of Islamic Law:

  • The Sharia marriage contract is a document “granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his wife or wives”.
  • A man is allowed up to four wives and can even enter into a temporary marriage contract to sanction a night of pleasure.
  • The husband is free to beat any of his wives if they are disobedient.
  • The husband can divorce his wives at will, but the wives are essentially stuck in loveless marriages at the pleasure of the husband they share. The wives’ shared husband is also favored in cases of custody of the children after the early years of childhood are over.
  • Men are granted the privilege to seek sexual gratification with children.  Muhammad placed his private parts between the thighs of six year old Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage with her at age nine.  Iran’s supreme leader and founder of its Islamic revolution, Ayotollah Khomeini, declared that it was perfectly OK under Sharia for a man to sodomize a baby.

So here is some advice for Naomi Wolf.  Your critics have not distorted your views.  You have only proven your critics’ point by using a privileged Jordanian princess and a boutique hotel owner with a lawsuit against Israeli generals as your models of Muslim feminists. You should have been speaking with Muslim women who actually suffered under the yoke of Islamic law. In short, you are a shining example of why leftist feminists such as yourself cannot be taken seriously.

  1. jbtrevor permalink
    October 6, 2009 7:35 am

    What Ms. Wolf also missed in her meetings with the Muslim “feminists” is the bane of every western feminist:

    Neither the hotel owner nor princess would be where they are today were it not for the men who put them there.

    • Joseph Klein permalink
      October 6, 2009 7:45 am

      Excellent point

  2. melvin polatnick permalink
    October 6, 2009 8:19 am

    Human nature is universal. There is no doubt that muslim women would love more power and wealth. But most are practical. They would like the high price of rents and food to come down before thinking about changing the way they dress.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 6, 2009 8:23 am

      No Melvin, they would like a say in what they eat (assuming of course their man allowed them to eat)+ where they live (again assuming they have a choice).


  3. Pops permalink
    October 6, 2009 10:19 am

    She is a fake feminists along with the rest of her cult. Real feminists do not support abortion, do not support any of the junk that her and her cronies involve themselves in. Where is the outrage when a Letterman does what he does or a female in a foreign country have to be mutilated and shown no regard. Have them read ProLife Feminism..Yesterday and Today by Mary Krane, Rachel McNair, Linda Naranjo-Hebel….The stories in this book outline what real feminists stand for……

    • Swemson permalink
      October 6, 2009 11:07 am

      “Real feminists do not support abortion”

      Another absurd lie by one of our top bible thumping, holier than thou, religious loons…

      At least you’re consistent Pops !

      • L. Steven Beene II permalink
        October 6, 2009 12:31 pm

        Ummm, no he’s right. Susan B. Anthony, Cady Stanton (?sp?), and other turn of the century suffragettes were against abortion.

        It took until “Feminine Mystique”, was written (by a former card carrying Communist – yea, no sh*t) for the class warfare struggle to be replaced by a gender/class warfare model, for abortion to become an accepted idea (freedom from the “oppression” of being a mother), and for the 60’s version of feminism to come to the fore.

        Sorry Swemsom, but you need to know history if you’re going to debate it.

        • Swemson permalink
          October 6, 2009 1:20 pm

          The fact that some feminists are against abortion is irrelevant to the argument, in which he IMPLIED that all feminists are against abortion…

          I’m a right wing advocate of pure laissez faire capitalism, and yet most people assume I’m a leftist because I’m an atheist..

          Go figure !

          • L. Steven Beene II permalink
            October 13, 2009 9:30 am

            I think what was meant Swemson is that the ORIGINAL feminists were not about a responsibility free life – but about equality.

            • Swemson permalink
              October 13, 2009 12:42 pm


              I think he meant exactly what he said, and the mere fact that you’re arguing in favor of a brainwashed religious loon like pops, proves that it makes no further sense to talk to you either…

              Good-nite children…

              Have fun in your fantasy land !

  4. Brian permalink
    October 6, 2009 4:54 pm

    Listen now, my wife (an Argentine) is a staunch feminist in it’s true sense. She is completely against abortion (with some very rare instances and then she does not condone them yet understands the reasons behind them). I can say without any doubt that she does not agree with what the feminism of today is. Mind you, she is the main bread winner of the household, is a very strong and independent woman, and a professional the grew up during a military dictatorship. She holds a law degree and is a district attorney with 100% prosecution ratio. She’s more than willing to put a foot up my arse if I get out of line, and owns a hand gun. This said, she openly admits that women do desire men, and that this does not diminish women as a whole. It is in our nature, as humans to need each other, and for the two sexes to cleave to one another. True feminism means true equality. This means to be treated and observed equally to ones character, worth and assest (read abilities as in for labor), not the imagined ones. Feminism today can be likened to how the left through out racism accusations.

  5. jbtrevor permalink
    October 6, 2009 5:52 pm

    Brian, great post! I would add that feminism includes being comfortable enough to embrace and accept everything about being a woman (even in it’s inconvenience) AND strong enough to acknowledge men can embrace and accept everything about being a man AND not be “threatened” by that concept or let natural differences destroy of that comfort.
    True strength is exemplified by accepting the feminine (or masculine) challenges greet us; not ignoring or eliminating them.

    Also, could you explain a bit more what you mean by your last statement…I’m not sure i understand it.

  6. Brian permalink
    October 6, 2009 6:09 pm

    That is by how many view todays feminism and how racism is view today. They both are now convoluted into some mesh of radical misconstrued nuttiness that doesn’t even resemble what the words mean anymore. It has morphed into an animal that is some freakish lab experiment gone awry bound to destroy its former self in utter disgrace.

    Look at how when folks were against Hillary running for office. many fems said this was due to her gender. Now look at the way folks react to the opposition to Obama. The true meaning behind these words are lost due to the absolute twisting of their true meaning. Up is no longer up.. but has now been lost to some worm hole flux ridden universe of nuttiness.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 6, 2009 6:40 pm

      agree, thanks

  7. October 7, 2009 4:56 am

    Thank you for this detailed, fair, and hard-hitting expose of a fashionable, deluded, and extreme pseudo-feminist.

    Wolf’s very selective and myopic outrage at male oppression exposes the depth of her loathing for the United States and western civilization. Keep exposing her false logic and peculiar confidence in Islam’s ability to spread feminism.

  8. Leonard permalink
    October 7, 2009 5:19 am

    Reality is not the left’s strong point since reality does not often coincide with their phantasies. Add this to the general ignorance in the west about the ME, and people like Naomi Wolf and the Obama administration are what you get. Then again, since reality does not futher their agendas, leftists need to rely on fiction instead – the agenda is all, not reality and not morality.

  9. Brian permalink
    October 7, 2009 5:38 am

    You know, last night whilst the missus and I were reading ourselves for bed, I told her about my post. She became somewhat offended due being labeled a Fem. Now mind you the Fems here in Argentina are a bit more wacky due to the generation and corruptive socialist views. I then had to explain and relate to her about the suffragists and this is what true Feminism is. This appeased her to a great deal, though not all the way. I’ve found the those that are true fems in its very nature become offended to the label due to twisted form the word has taken in todays world.

    Feminism is simply the fight for equality between genders. After all women do have the right to own property, vote etc… such as what true feminism is. It wasn’t like this at one time, but now it is. Eventhough she is quite intelligent, she sometimes misses some of the bases of the words due to modern society. this being said, she lays well within the boundaries of conservative thought. I must admit.. sometimes the differences between the languages do cause a problem though.

  10. Jayson Rex permalink
    October 7, 2009 7:21 am

    Huffington Post is giving “bread and shelter” to the likes of Naomi Wolf and other similar characters, CENSORING any posting that does not follow the leftist editorial line of the blog, under the usual guise of MODERATING without explaining. Typical. Therfore, herein following I copy the comment in question:

    “There she goes again [Naomi Wolf] – trying hard to stay in the limelight and thus avoid being forgotten and, as a result, lose her much needed income. This is quite understandable.

    Also one can understand that anything that has to do with Islam demands justifications, explanations and, finally, apologetic clarifications. This is quite tolerable, after all.

    The Islamic “dress code” (not to mention all other idiosyncratic habits, such as ‘honor killing’, ‘genital mutilation’, ‘polygamy’, etc.) is, quite honestly, not a choice Muslim women can adopt or not and their eyes does not represent a sign of “Islamic pride”.

    Maybe in Ms. Wolf mind but not in those debased women’s view. Such statements are somehow equal to saying that the black slaves brought to America (and Brazil) from Africa were wearing chains was as a matter of “racial pride”.

    Enough of this silly subject called Naomi Wolf.

    What Ms. Huffington herself should have clarified but did not, at least not yet, is why the “HuffPost” became a platform for such strange ideas and “complicated” people. Why, indeed? Maybe a simple clarification would be in order. Or maybe not. Ms. Huffington, you are hereby recognized by your ‘fans’ who are eagerly waiting for your words.

  11. swathdiver permalink
    October 7, 2009 9:15 am

    Wolf is a Femi-Nazi. Her worker’s job is to promote the left’s agenda and in this case it was to misrepresent women in muslim countries. They are essentially the private property of men but this doesn’t bother her so long as she doesn’t become affected by it! Read one of her books in the head at a relatives house once. Shredded(with the truth) the first 67 pages where she attempted to re-write American history. Pure Commie revisionist BS.

  12. Esteban Cafe, World permalink
    October 8, 2009 10:01 am

    My understanding of radical Islam leads me to believe that, under their world view, someone like Ms. Wolf would be among the first to be stoned, hanged or buried alive…but only after first being raped. Am I incorrect?

  13. Rockz permalink
    October 13, 2009 10:14 am

    @ Esteban Cafe:

    Yes,you are incorrect.Do you know meaning of islam or what actually islam is?
    Dear,do your own research rather on relying on what others or media says.
    Islam means “submission to will of Allah(God)”.
    And God always commanded good and for benefits of not only muslims but all humans.
    The thing being discussed here are anti-islamic.
    These are problems in humans and not in muslims.
    Humans commit mistakes because they are bound to..!!

    Watch out this series:

    I hope my comment will be published and not removed…

    • Esteban Cafe, World permalink
      October 13, 2009 10:34 am

      My reference was to radical Islam. But I will assume and proceed in my response as though you noticed that. If you meant “non-radical Islam” then we might have a different conversation.

      Adding a bit of truth to a series of mistakes does not correct the latter (“Humans commit mistakes because they are bound to..!!”). I think your Dr. Laura states it most rightly when she says, “Adding a little bit of dog poop to your brownies is the same as adding a small amount of incorrect thinking to your hypothesis.

      As for my own research I could point you to numerous beheading video, courtesy of numerous radical Islamic sites. What am I to deduce from these? A Religion of Peace that has gone astray? “Doing the will of Allah” seems to have been interpreted in a fairly negative way. I cannot undertake to lay my finger on an URL or book in which Muslims benefit anyone else besides Muslims.

      Most Muslims do not commit murder and beheadings, that is true; however, there are numerous Muslims who experience these atrocities at the hands of other Muslims than they do at the hands of infidels.

      I think there is more than enough research to reasonably conclude that radical Islam

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      October 13, 2009 10:35 am

      Rockz said:

      “The thing being discussed here are anti-islamic.”

      That would be true. Strict adherence to Islam is problematic and antithetical to every peaceful religion and practices of non-believers as well. Yes those human/Muslims commit the “mistakes” as you call them, but it is following their ‘religion’ that causes them to do so.

      The real radical Muslims are the ones who reject the violence and oppression of Islam and choose to live peacefully with their fellow human beings regardless of their faith or lack of it.


    • swathdiver permalink
      October 13, 2009 11:30 pm


      The Koran and other Islamic texts advocate the destruction of apostates and infidels. Islam is essentially a political movement like Communism, it seeks worldwide domination over everyone alive, Tyranny over Liberty. Like Socialism, it too is immoral and EVIL.

  14. Jayson Rex permalink
    October 13, 2009 12:32 pm

    Every person believes what he/she wants to believe. This applies equally to religions or ideologies or … whatever.

    Until very recently, Islam was not a topic for discussion in the Western world. Since the Reconquista, there was a complete silence on the subject up to the day oil was discovered and then … all hell broke lose. Suddenly, every one in the Western world started catering to the whims of any foul smelling bedouin who claimed that under his piece of land there was oil to be found and extracted by the West.

    The history of Islam was more than a fair indication of what can be expected from these people, while current events proved to be a bitter confirmation of these dark expectations.
    To claim that we are dealing with a peaceful “religion” is a dangerous fantasy few individuals would engage in.

    Trying to justify everything that happens in the Muslim world is useless and often dishonest. For years on end, all we hear and read about is death, death and more death – for the infidel but also for believers. After all, Islam seems to be an “equal opportunity hater”.

    The truth (even an atom of it – like my comment) hurts those that want to believe otherwise. So sorry!

Comments are closed.