You are here

Value truth and accuracy

Naomi Wolf, speaking on the "Do We Need Feminism" panel with Karen Straughan (Girl Writes What) and Antigone Darling at the Liberty Forum annual conference in February 2014.


It's so important for citizens to act as journalists in a time when the Police State is cracking down on us.

What I am mean by that is, we're so bombarded with propaganda and spin.

It is so crucial, for every single one of you, to not leave it to the gate-keepers, not leave it to the journalists or editors but to take yourselves as journalists and editors so seriously.

And value truth and accuracy. And check data. Check your facts. Don't take anything by anyone's assertion. Don't take it on faith. Check it for yourself and really respect evidence and facts.

Because otherwise we live in China. We live in a Police State.



@ 27:23

Karen: If you look at the National Organization for Women and their extended, long, long history of advocacy against shared parenting legislation. Shared parenting being a ...

Naomi: What's their position now, today?

Karen: Their position now, today, is that they still oppose it.

Naomi: They oppose shared parenting?

Karen: They oppose any legislation that would impose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.

Antigone: Is shared parenting what it sounds like?

Karen: Shared parenting after divorce would be 50:50, 60:40 [indistinct] your time right.

Naomi: Are you sure that's not in the case of the guy being abusive or violent?

Karen: No, what they're saying is that they will not support any legislation that would make the starting point in a divorce be that, if neither parent is unfit and both parents want it, shared parenting is the starting point.

Naomi: I have to see that citation because that does not sound right to me.

@ 30:48

Antigone: In college, which was like a decade ago, I read an official statement from NOW that said: all father's rights groups are pederasts.

Naomi. Oh my god.

Antigone: It was official, from NOW. So guess how many times I listen to NOW?

Naomi: Wait, this was in college? In college? Like, it was an actual source? Because there is a lot of nonsense on the Internet too that attributes to groups of feminism

Antigone: It was online and in an official, public... So I don't listen to them any more.

@ 31:18

Naomi: The journalist in me is uncomfortable with this because we are saying, "oh, there is all this" positioning, but we don't have any evidence.

Can someone just Google National Organisation of Women and what's their position on shared parenting? And do they say that men's groups are pederasts?

woman in audience stands up: I actually really Googled off that particular page. But they actually said they opposed forced shared parenting.

Karen: None of the legislation would force shared parenting.

woman: I'm just saying what they said.

Naomi: You see, there is a big difference (pointing between Karen and the woman).

[talking over each other]

Karen: No, but they opposed the legislation.

[talking over each other]

Karen: They opposed the legislation by portraying it as something that would be forced.

Naomi, pointing to the woman: She just has the citation.

Can I just say something about accuracy and sourcing? And I'm saying this from the heart and it's in respect to you (turning to Karen). Okay?

It's so important for citizens to act as journalists in a time when the Police State is cracking down on us.


Comments (5)

Christian Friis Sørensen
24 July 2014

So... You don't believe Karen can source her claims, because a woman in the audience CLAIMED to have the source for a counter-claim?

And you decided to "act like a journalist" and not go looking for these sources yourself?

I can see you really value truth and accuracy.

24 July 2014

@Christian "And you decided to 'act like a journalist' and not go looking for these sources yourself?"

Before publishing this post, I spent a lot of time searching online for any statement by NOW substantiating Karen's claim. I couldn't find one. I assume you can't either, or else you would have posted a link.

However, here is a NOW statement from 2005 to explain why they oppose MANDATED 50:50 shared parenting:

And another from 2006:

I can't find any *recent* statements from NOW about shared parenting.

I didn't make my blog post about Karen. However, since *you* seem to be the one who believes "a woman" without any supporting evidence, I'm happy to write another blog post which focusses exclusively on Karen's false claim. I can objectively and rationally compare Karen's claim about NOW with NOW's own statements to show how Karen's claim is untrue.

While I'm at it, I can also go through her "NAFALT!!!!1!!1!" video and show the logical flaw in her argument (revealed in the first 30 seconds). I can also objectively show how she grossly misrepresents some of the women she quotes.

Would you like that? Or, if you prefer, get me a NOW link that supports Karen's claim and disproves the claim from the woman in the audience. I'll wait.

Christian Friis Sørensen
24 July 2014

You may have to explain to me as a non-native English speaker, what is meant by "mandated" in this case.

As far as my abilities in legalese take me, I fail to see how the specific legislations in your first link are "mandated".

I took the liberty of reading up on the specific legislation that N.O.W. opposed in that post and found this:

It may be my very limited abilities in legalese that cause this, but I see nothing in there about any part of it being "mandated", whatever that means.

Reading through the N.O.W. post again, I noticed that they never say that this A00330 bill supports "mandated joint custody" (whatever that means), technically they don't even imply this as the only times the term is used is when it talks about wanting to investigate what effects it would have on children and stating that such arrangements ignore domestic violence and child abuse.

As far as I can tell from reading the bill itself, it does no such thing. But merely says that courts must give a reason (such as domestic violence or child abuse) for not granting joint custody on a case by case basis.

So they're either lying about the bill they oppose, or they lumped it together with something different through plain incompetence.

The post also talks about women often being accused of causing Parental Alienation Syndrome in their children.

An entire concept recognised by the professional field of psychology which N.O.W. completely rejects as bogus made up by father's rights activists to further worsen their alleged crisis of discrimination against mothers in family courts.

Well that's all I have to give you for now, and I gotta tell you, writing comments like this one is not easy on a tablet, even with practice.

Have a nice evening, and a pleasant weekend as well if we don't talk further before then.

Christian Friis Sørensen
24 July 2014

I forgot to note in my previous post that Naomi Wolf lied about her friends in New York State all having joint custody (or she has no idea what it means) .

New York State has no such thing as joint custody and as far as I know always determine a "Primary Custodial Parent" leaving the other to be the "Secondary Non-custodial Parent".

Just so you know, now that we're on the topic of truth, lies and baseless claims.

24 July 2014

Thanks for the link to the proposed 2005 legislation:

"Mandated" means enforced by law.

"Establishes the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child."

"presumption" means "by default". "Shared parenting" is implied as 50:50 because of "both parents are equal." This effectively translates as forced 50:50 shared parenting.

The NOW memo seems to address each point in the legislation. A second memo talks about the mediation that would have to take place before it was deemed a child was at risk with either parent.

As for your other links, I'm not interested in discussing the role of fathers in these comments. This post isn't about fatherhood, but about believing propaganda (in this case, anti-feminist propaganda).

Leave a reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked*