I think it's for real. Quite shocking, really - completely delusional. 

I take no pleasure in saying it, but I think she's serious too. The consumerism piece is really embarrassing.  This thing she wrote about Harold Bloom is very sad, though:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/

Did anyone else have a puritanical, focused college experience, or was it just me who missed out on the sex and celebrity?

If you want to worry about something, worry about the proliferation of organizations like Blackwater USA, the mercenary firm founded by a major Evangelical Republican donor that was recently asked to leave Iraq. They scare the hell out of me, personally.

The idea that 'right-wing rich men' are applauding the 'phallocentric terror' of anti-consumerism takes some beating as well. But, no, I don't think it is tongue-in-cheek 

I don't think it's tongue-in-cheek either, and even the more outlandish-seeming phrasings come from a recognisable (to me at least) tradition of a certain sort of cultural analysis and commentary. I don't really agree with it, and I suppose the strongest argument against it might be that it fails to serve the feminist cause by being so easily mock-able by largely intelligent and reasonable people (as has been seen here; although I'm interested to note that no women (except Veronika) have yet commented on it, negatively or positively), but I think there's often something as much to be said for as against that slightly combative, simplistic, if-you're-not-with-me-you're-against-me kind of approach to analysis, even if its practitioners do sometimes stick their neck out so far as to dislocate their brain.

As for the other Naomi Wolf article which Colin posted (for which thanks), it's deadly serious and admirably well done (even if it does concern one of my intellectual idols, which is cause for a severe reminder-to-self about how people are not their work).

The women among us seem to avoid the more contentious-sounding thread discussions on the whole, it seems.  (Not that this one is particularly contentious-sounding, admittedly.) I note from the stats that the male: female ratio of members is 5.9:1, of those that have declared their gender, of course.

(wades in, coughing nervously...)

A few random thoughts from a female of the species:

I think Wolf is wrongly buying (no pun intended) the stereotype that women love shopping.  I know plenty of women who loathe it.  I enjoy it, but mostly as a solitary activity.

It might be more interesting to consider why women are more comfortable in shops on their own or in small numbers, than, say, the pub.  What public spaces are there for us that we feel relaxed and safe in?  Maybe there aren't as many as there should be.

Also, Wolf's not taking into account the things men (stereotypically) love shopping for.  Say the word "shopping" and immediately everyone thinks of clothes, make-up, shoes - "girlie" things.  But consider blokes going to CD/vinyl/computer/audio/gadget shops (not that anyone here would have any experience of that), and then talking about their latest acquisitions with their mates.  That experience isn't so different from what she describes.  We girlies have no monopoly on mindless acquisition for the sake of it, followed by supposed bonding through boasting about what one has bought, and she's selling us short by implying as much.

On the whole, though, I'd rather talk about the the original issue/video that started this thread.  But maybe there's less to say, because I hardly think many people here would be anything but outraged, horrified, angry and frightened by it.  Whereas gender politics is guaranteed to generate disagreement, debate and discussion.

Indeed not, and I do agree with you that her 'essentialising' of the link between women and shopping is an unhelpful generalisation at best, but I think she does state that she's talking about shopping as an activity, which doesn't necessarily imply actually buying anything at all, doesn't she?

As I say, the women<>shopping link seems to be an unhelpful generalisation, and I'm inclined to agree with Ian on the whole that what it's generalising (and failing to critique) is modern Western society's economic priorities. In particular, it's not difficult to imagine how a different rhetorical articulation of the situation, with the implicit division of labour between production (as the supposed province of men) and consumption (women), would have led Wolf to a rather different view of how healthy the link between women and shopping is as an idea.

Nonetheless, I think she usefully draws attention to some of the problems that can arise when gender perspectives are not taken into account. As strinasacchi says:Indeed, and although such a sensibly-phrased question is not Wolf's style, at least not in the article we're talking about, it has now been raised as a result of reading that article, which must say something.

Thanks for joining this discussion, strinasacchi! Just thinking about your question, might it say something about the relative dearth of truly public spaces, in the sense of those that are provided and maintained purely in the public interest, rather than for commercial motivations? With the decline of the best quality civic amenities - libraries, museums, galleries, or others - does that not leave only the pub, the shopping mall, and so on?

One thing that always strikes me when meeting new people from abroad in particular - there are so few decent places to meet that aren't drinking establishments (very few nice proper cafes, for example, unlike in just about every other country I've been to). Where, for example, does one meet someone who doesn't like pubs or drinking particularly?