Editing Naomi Wolf (section)

==Works==
===''The Beauty Myth'' (1991)===
[[File:NLN Naomi Wolf.jpg|thumb|Wolf speaking at [[Brooklyn Law School]], January 29, 2009]]
In 1991, Wolf gained international attention as a spokeswoman of [[third-wave feminism]] after the publication of her first book, ''[[The Beauty Myth]]'', an international bestseller.<ref name="Sindy1995">{{cite news|last=Smith|first=Joan|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-seer-and-the-sisters-1577737.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220618/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-seer-and-the-sisters-1577737.html |archive-date=June 18, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=The seer and the sisters|work=The Independent on Sunday|location=London|date=October 15, 1995|access-date=December 13, 2019}}</ref><ref>''Project Syndicate'' [http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/naomi-wolf "The Next Wave."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141011122129/http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/naomi-wolf |date=October 11, 2014 }}</ref><ref>Wolf, Naomi. ''The Beauty Myth''. New York: Bantham Doubleday Dell Publishing, 1991; p. 281: "The beauty myth can be defeated only through an electric resurgence of the woman-centered political activism of the seventies—a feminist third wave—updated to take on the new issues of the nineties ... I've become convinced that here are thousands of young women ready and eager to join forces with a peer-driven feminist third wave that would take on, along with the classic feminist agenda, the new problems that have arisen with the shift in Zeitgeist and beauty backlash."</ref> ''The New York Times'' named it "one of the seventy most influential books of the twentieth century".<ref name="huffpo-blog"/><ref name=NYToneof70mostinfluential>{{cite book|last=Felder|first=Deborah|title=A Bookshelf of Our Own: Works that Changed Women's Lives|year= 2006|publisher=Kensington Publishing Corporation|isbn=978-0806527420|pages=274|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=swpp_Eayg4UC&q=New+York+Times%2C+Naomi+Wolf%2CBeauty+Myth%2C+one+of+the+most+important+books+of+the+twentieth+century&pg=PA274|access-date=June 26, 2015}}</ref> She argues that "beauty" as a normative value is entirely [[Social construction|socially constructed]], and that the patriarchy determines the content of that construction with the objective to maintain women's subjugation.<ref>{{cite news|last=Johnson|first=Diane|author-link=Diane Johnson|url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1992/01/16/something-for-the-boys/|title=Something for the Boys|work=The New York Review of Books|date=January 16, 1992|access-date=November 18, 2019|archive-date=August 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804080335/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1992/01/16/something-for-the-boys/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Wolf proposes the concept of an "iron maiden", an intrinsically unreachable norm that is then used to physically and mentally punish women for failing to achieve and adhere to it. She condemns the fashion and beauty industries for exploiting women, but also writes that the beauty myth pervades all aspects of human life. Wolf believes that women should have "the freedom to do anything we choose with our faces and bodies without being penalized by an ideology that uses attitudes, economic pressure, and even legal judgments about women's looks to psychologically and politically destroy us." She claims that the "beauty myth" has targeted women in five areas: labor, religion, sex, violence, and hunger. Finally, Wolf advocates for a relaxation of conventional beauty norms.<ref>''The Beauty Myth'', pp. 17–18, 20, 86, 131, 179, 218.</ref> In her introduction, she scaffolds her work upon the achievements of second-wave feminists and offers the following analysis:

{{blockquote|The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us ... [D]uring the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile, eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing specialty ... [P]ornography became the main media category, ahead of legitimate films and records combined, and thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal ... More women have more money and power and scope and legal recognition than we have ever had before; but in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers.<ref>''The Beauty Myth.'' p. 10</ref>}}

====Accuracy====
[[Christina Hoff Sommers]] criticized Wolf for publishing the estimate that 150,000 women were dying every year from [[Anorexia nervosa|anorexia]]. Sommers said she traced the source to the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association, which said it was misquoted; the figure refers to sufferers, not fatalities. Wolf's citation came from a book by Brumberg, who referred to an American Anorexia and Bulimia Association newsletter and misquoted the newsletter. Wolf acknowledged the error and changed it in future editions. Sommers gave an estimate for the number of fatalities in 1990 as 100–400.<ref name="Sommers1995">{{cite book|author=Christina Hoff Sommers|title=Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EIUtJziqIqAC&pg=PA12|year=1995|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-0684801568|pages=12–13}}</ref><ref name="ScienceOfEatingDisorders2012">{{cite news|last=Pekars|first=Tetanya|title=Naomi Wolf Got Her Facts Wrong. Really, Really, Really Wrong|newspaper=Science of Eating Disorders|url=http://www.scienceofeds.org/2012/06/07/naomi-wolf-got-her-facts-wrong/|date=June 7, 2012|access-date=October 1, 2016|archive-date=February 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170207041007/http://www.scienceofeds.org/2012/06/07/naomi-wolf-got-her-facts-wrong/|url-status=dead}}</ref> The annual anorexia casualties in the U.S. were estimated to be around 50 to 60 per year in the mid-1990s.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/books/review-outrages-naomi-wolf.html|title=Naomi Wolf's Career of Blunders Continues in 'Outrages'|last=Sehgal|first=Parul|author-link=Parul Sehgal|date=June 5, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=June 9, 2019|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=June 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190609024216/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/books/review-outrages-naomi-wolf.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1995, for an article in ''[[The Independent|The Independent on Sunday]]'', British journalist [[Joan Smith]] recalled asking Wolf to explain her unsourced assertion in ''The Beauty Myth'' that the UK "has 3.5 million anorexics or bulimics (95 per cent of them female), with 6,000 new cases yearly". Wolf replied, according to Smith, that she had calculated the statistics from patients with eating disorders at one clinic.<ref name="Sindy1995" />

Caspar Schoemaker of the Netherlands Trimbos Institute published a paper in the academic journal ''Eating Disorders'' demonstrating that of the 23 statistics cited by Wolf in ''Beauty Myth'', 18 were incorrect, with Wolf citing numbers that average out to 8 times the number in the source she was citing.<ref name="LieFactor">{{cite journal |last1=Schoemaker |first1=Casper |title=A Critical Appraisal of the Anorexia Statistics in The Beauty Myth: Introducing Wolf's Overdo and Lie Factor |journal=Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention|date=2004 |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=97–102 |doi=10.1080/10640260490444619 |pmid=16864310 |s2cid=8704509 }}</ref>

====Reception====
[[Second-wave feminism|Second-wave feminist]] [[Germaine Greer]] wrote that ''The Beauty Myth'' was "the most important feminist publication since ''[[The Female Eunuch]]''" (Greer's own work), and [[Gloria Steinem]] wrote, "''The Beauty Myth'' is a smart, angry, insightful book, and a clarion call to freedom. Every woman should read it."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780385423977-7 |title=The Beauty Myth|publisher=Powells.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629041335/http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780385423977-7|archive-date=June 29, 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> British novelist [[Fay Weldon]] called the book "essential reading for the New Woman".<ref name=peopleMagazine>Kim Hubbard, [http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20115393,00.html The Tyranny of Beauty, To Naomi Wolf, Pressure to Look Good Equals Oppression] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194421/http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20115393,00.html |date=March 3, 2016 }}, ''[[People (American magazine)|People]]'', June 24, 1991.</ref> [[Betty Friedan]] wrote in ''Allure'' magazine that "''The Beauty Myth'' and the controversy it is eliciting could be a hopeful sign of a new surge of feminist consciousness."

[[Camille Paglia]], whose ''[[Sexual Personae]]'' was published the same year as ''The Beauty Myth'', derided Wolf as unable to perform "historical analysis" and called her education "completely removed from reality".<ref>Paglia, Camille. ''Sex, Art, and American Culture.'' New York: Random House, 1992. p. 262</ref> These comments touched off a series of debates between Wolf and Paglia in the pages of ''[[The New Republic]]''.<ref>Naomi Wolf. "Feminist Fatale". ''The New Republic''. March 16, 1992. pp. 23–25</ref><ref>Camille Paglia. [https://web.archive.org/web/20141017203234/http://business.highbeam.com/4776/article-1G1-12037599/feminist-fatale-reply-camille-paglia "Wolf Pack."] ''The New Republic''. April 13, 1992. pp. 4–5</ref><ref>Naomi Wolf and Camille Paglia. "The Last Words." ''The New Republic''. May 18, 1992. pp. 4–5</ref>

[[Caryn James]] wrote in ''The New York Times'':<blockquote>No other work has so forcefully confronted the anti-feminism that emerged during the conservative, yuppified 1980's,<!-- sic --> or so honestly depicted the confusion of accomplished women who feel emotionally and physically tortured by the need to look like movie stars. Even by the standards of pop-cultural feminist studies, ''The Beauty Myth'' is a mess, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.<ref name=JamesReview>{{cite news|last=James|first=Caryn|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/07/books/critic-s-notebook-feminine-beauty-as-a-masculine-plot.html|title=Feminine Beauty as a Masculine Plot|work=The New York Times|date=May 7, 1991|access-date=April 29, 2021|archive-date=April 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210429144523/https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/07/books/critic-s-notebook-feminine-beauty-as-a-masculine-plot.html|url-status=live}}</ref></blockquote> James also wrote that the book's "claims of an intensified anti-feminism are plausible, but Ms. Wolf doesn't begin to prove them because her logic is so lame, her evidence so easily knocked down."<ref name=JamesReview /> [[Marilyn Yalom]] in ''[[The Washington Post]]'' called the book "persuasive" and praised its "accumulated evidence".<ref>{{cite news|last=Yalom|first=Marilyn|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1991/06/16/feminisms-latest-makeover/53f364f0-0094-448c-9cd6-77bda8ae86ad/|title=Feminism's Latest Makeover|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=June 16, 1991|access-date=May 20, 2022}}</ref>

Revisiting ''The Beauty Myth'' in 2019 for ''The New Republic'', literary critic [[Maris Kreizman]] recalls that reading it as an undergraduate made her "world burst open", but as she matured, Kreizman saw Wolf's books as "poorly argued tracts" with Wolf making "wilder and wilder assertions" over time. Kreizman "began to write [Wolf] off as a fringe character" despite the fact that she had "once informed my own feminism so deeply."<ref name="KreizmanWolf" />

===''Fire with Fire'' (1993)===
In ''Fire with Fire'' (1993), Wolf wrote about politics, female empowerment, and women's sexual liberation.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wolf |first=Naomi |title=Fire with Fire |url=https://archive.org/details/firewithfirenewf00wolf |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=Random House |year=1993 |isbn=978-0679427186}}</ref> She wished to persuade women to reject "[[victim feminism]]" in favor of "power feminism". She argued for diminishing the issue of opposing men, avoiding divisive issues such as abortion and the rights of lesbians, and considering more universal issues like violence against women, pay disparities and sexual harassment.<ref name="CNNTime19991201" /> Mary Nemeth wrote in ''[[Maclean's]]'' that her "central thesis—that when Anita Hill in 1991 accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment she provoked a 'genderquake' that turned American women into 'the political ruling class'—seems grossly exaggerated."<ref>{{cite news|last=Nemeth|first=Mary|url=https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1993/12/6/whos-afraid-of-naomi-wolf|title=Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf?|work=Maclean's|date=December 6, 1993|access-date=March 13, 2021|archive-date=November 23, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201123195619/https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1993/12/6/whos-afraid-of-naomi-wolf|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Melissa Benn]] in the ''[[London Review of Books]]'' called the book Wolf's "call for a realpolitik in which 'sisterhood and capital' might be allies".<ref>{{cite news|last=Benn|first=Melissa|url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v20/n03/melissa-benn/making-it|title=Making It|work=London Review of Books|volume=20|number=3|date=February 5, 1998|access-date=March 1, 2021|archive-date=February 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226190303/https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v20/n03/melissa-benn/making-it|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Michiko Kakutani]] of ''The New York Times'' assailed ''Fire with Fire'' for its "dubious oversimplifications and highly debatable assertions" and its "disconcerting penchant for inflationary prose", but approved of Wolf's "efforts to articulate an accessible, pragmatic feminism, …helping to replace strident dogma with common sense."<ref>{{cite news|first=Michiko|last=Kakutani|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DB1E39F930A35751C1A965958260&scp=1&sq=naomi%20wolf%20fire%20with%20fire&st=cse |title=Books of The Times; Helpful Hints for an Era of Practical Feminism|newspaper=The New York Times|date=December 3, 1993}}</ref> ''Time'' magazine reviewer Martha Duffy dismissed the book as "flawed", but wrote that Wolf was "an engaging raconteur" who was also "savvy about the role of TV—especially the Thomas-Hill hearings and daytime talk shows—in radicalizing women, including homemakers", characterizing the book as advocating an inclusive strain of feminism that welcomed abortion opponents.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Duffy|first=Martha|title=Tremors of Genderquake|magazine=Time|date=December 27, 1993|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979918,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101028051320/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979918,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 28, 2010|access-date=December 16, 2010}}</ref> Feminist author [[Natasha Walter]] wrote in ''[[The Independent]]'' that the book "has its faults, but compared with ''The Beauty Myth'' it has energy and spirit, and generosity too." But Walter criticized it for having a "narrow agenda" where "you will look in vain for much discussion of older women, of black women, of women with low incomes, of mothers." Calling Wolf a "media star", Walter wrote: "She is particularly good, naturally, on the role of women in the media."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walter|first=Natasha|title=How to change the world and be sexy: Fire with fire|journal=The Independent|location=London|date=November 18, 1993|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/book-review-how-to-change-the-world-and-be-sexy-fire-with-fire-naomi-wolf-chatto-windus-pounds-1199-1505274.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220618/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/book-review-how-to-change-the-world-and-be-sexy-fire-with-fire-naomi-wolf-chatto-windus-pounds-1199-1505274.html |archive-date=June 18, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=January 21, 2016}}</ref>

===''Promiscuities'' (1997)===
''Promiscuities'' (1997) reports on and analyzes the shifting patterns of contemporary adolescent sexuality. Wolf argues that literature is rife with examples of male coming-of-age stories, covered autobiographically by [[D. H. Lawrence]], [[Tobias Wolff]], [[J. D. Salinger]], and [[Ernest Hemingway]], and misogynistically by [[Henry Miller]], [[Philip Roth]] and [[Norman Mailer]], while female accounts of adolescent sexuality have been systematically suppressed.<ref name="NWPromisc">{{cite book |last=Wolf |first=Naomi |title=Promiscuities |location=New York |publisher=Balantine Publishing Group |year=1997 |oclc=473694368}}</ref> Schools, in Wolf's opinion, should teach their students "sexual gradualism", masturbation, mutual masturbation and oral sex, which she sees as a more credible approach than total abstinence and without the risks of full intercourse.<ref name="CNNTime19991201" />

Wolf uses cross-cultural material to try to demonstrate that women have, across history, been celebrated as more carnal than men. She also argues that women must reclaim the legitimacy of their sexuality by shattering the polarization of women between [[Madonna–whore complex|virgin and whore]].<ref name="NWPromisc" /> Partly an account of her own sexual history, the book urges women to "redeem the slut in ourselves and rejoice in being bad girls".<ref name="Harris" /><ref>{{cite news|last=Meredith|first=Fionola|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/naomi-wolf-never-before-have-i-seen-so-many-threats-to-free-speech-it-is-chilling-1.3890733|title=Naomi Wolf: 'Never before have I seen so many threats to free speech. It is chilling'|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=May 18, 2019|access-date=March 13, 2021|archive-date=May 18, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190518073912/https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/naomi-wolf-never-before-have-i-seen-so-many-threats-to-free-speech-it-is-chilling-1.3890733|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Macdonald |first=Marianne |date=April 12, 1997 |title=Not nearly naughty enough, Naomi |work=The Independent |location=London |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/not-nearly-naughty-enough-naomi-1266841.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220618/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/not-nearly-naughty-enough-naomi-1266841.html |archive-date=June 18, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=March 13, 2021}}</ref>

''Promiscuities'' generally received negative reviews. In ''The New York Times'', Kakutani wrote that Wolf is "a frustratingly inept messenger: a sloppy thinker and incompetent writer" who "tries in vain to pass off tired observations as radical ''aperçus'', subjective musings as generational truths, sappy suggestions as useful ideas".<ref name="NYT19970610">{{cite news|last=Kakutani|first=Michiko|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/10/books/feminism-lite-she-is-woman-hear-her-roar.html|title=Feminism Lite: She Is Woman, Hear Her Roar|work=The New York Times|date=June 10, 1997|access-date=March 2, 2021|archive-date=March 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302165134/https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/10/books/feminism-lite-she-is-woman-hear-her-roar.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Of Wolf's claims about accounts of female sexuality being suppressed, Kakutani wrote: "Where has Ms. Wolf been? What about the raunchy confessions that surface daily on radio and television talk shows? What about all the memoirists—from Anais Nin to Kathryn Harrison?"<ref name="NYT19970610" /> Two days earlier in the ''Times'', Weaver Courtney praised the book: "Anyone—particularly anyone who, like Ms. Wolf, was born in the 1960s—will have a very hard time putting down ''Promiscuities''. Told through a series of confessions, her book is a searing and thoroughly fascinating exploration of the complex wildlife of female sexuality and desire."<ref>{{cite news|first=Courtney|last=Weaver|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404EEDD133AF93BA35755C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 |title=Growing Up Sexual|work=The New York Times|date=June 8, 1997|access-date=March 2, 2021}}</ref> In contrast, ''[[The Library Journal]]'' excoriated the book, writing, "Overgeneralization abounds as she attempts to apply the microcosmic events of this mostly white, middle-class, liberal milieu to a whole generation. …There is a desperate defensiveness in the tone of this book which diminishes the force of her argument."<ref>''The Library Journal'', June 1997.</ref>

===''Misconceptions'' (2001)===
"I feel absolutely staggered by what I discovered after giving birth", Wolf said at the time ''Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood'' was published. "Birth today is like agribusiness. It's like a chicken plant: they go in, they go out", she told Katharine Viner. "Pregnancy, birth and motherhood" has "made me a more radical feminist than I have ever been."<ref name="Gdn20010901" /> The book draws heavily on Wolf's experience of her first pregnancy.<ref name="Dederer">{{cite news|last=Dederer|first=Claire|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/books/what-to-expect.html|title=What to Expect|work=The New York Times|date=October 7, 2001|access-date=November 18, 2019|archive-date=September 13, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200913072050/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/books/what-to-expect.html|url-status=live}}</ref> She describes the "vacuous impassivity" of the [[ultrasound]] technician who gives her the first glimpse of her new baby. Wolf laments her [[Caesarean section|C-section]] and examines why the procedure is common in the U.S., advocating a return to midwifery. The book's second half is anecdotal, focusing on inequalities between parents with respect to child care.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wolf |first=Naomi |title=Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood |location=New York |publisher=Doubleday |year=2001 |isbn=978-0385493024 |url=https://archive.org/details/misconceptionstr00wolf }}</ref> In the section describing being on the operating table having a Caesarean, Wolf compares herself to [[Crucifixion of Jesus|Jesus at his crucifixion]].<ref name="Slate20120910">{{cite news|last=Roiphe|first=Katie|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2012/09/naomi_wolf_s_new_book_about_her_vagina_is_ludicrous_.htm|title=Naomi Wolf's New Book About Her Vagina: It's as ludicrous as you think it is|work=Slate|date=September 10, 2012|access-date=January 23, 2021|quote=Her 2001 book about motherhood,'' Misconceptions'', in which she compared herself on the operating table getting a caesarian to Jesus on the crucifix, did not connect in the same way as her first book.}}{{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> She outlines a "mothers' manifesto", including flexi-time for both parents, neighborhood toy banks, and a radical mothers' movement.<ref name="Gdn20010901" />

In her ''New York Times'' review, [[Claire Dederer]] wrote that Wolf "barely pauses to acknowledge that Caesareans are, at times, a necessary and even lifesaving intervention" and that she does "her best writing when she's observing her own life" as a memoirist, calling Wolf's work in this idiom not "self-indulgent. It seems vital, and in a sense radical, in the tradition of 1970's feminists who sought to speak to every aspect of women's lives."<ref name="Dederer" />

===''The Treehouse'' (2005)===
Wolf's ''The Treehouse: Eccentric Wisdom from My Father on How to Live, Love, and See'' is an account of her midlife crisis. She revalues her father's love, and his role as an artist and a teacher during a year living in a house in upstate New York.<ref>{{cite news|last=Bakewell|first=Joan|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/jan/28/highereducation.news|title=Daddy dearest|work=The Guardian|date=January 28, 2006|access-date=January 23, 2021}}</ref>

In a promotional interview with ''[[The Herald (Glasgow)|The Herald]]'' (Glasgow), Wolf related her experience of a vision of [[Jesus]]: "just this figure who was the most perfected human being – full of light and full of love. …There was light coming out of him holographically, simply because he was unclouded."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12442683.revered-as-a-feminist-icon-then-slated-for-being-an-intellectual-lightweight-naomi-wolf-has-experienced-highs-as-well-as-lows-and-then-she-met-jesus/|title=Revered as a feminist icon, then slated for being an intellectual lightweight, Naomi Wolf has experienced highs as well as lows . . . and then she met Jesus|work=The Herald|location=Glasgow, Scotland|date=January 22, 2006|access-date=January 23, 2021}}</ref>

===''The End of America'' (2007)===
In ''[[The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot]]'', Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining 10 steps necessary for a fascist group or government to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state.<ref>{{cite news|last=Wolf|first=Naomi|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment|title=Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=April 24, 2007|access-date=January 4, 2020|archive-date=October 17, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121017090027/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment|url-status=live}}</ref> The book details how this pattern was implemented in [[Nazi Germany]], [[Fascist Italy (1922–1943)|Fascist Italy]], and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application of all 10 steps in American political affairs since the [[September 11 attacks]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Wolf|first=Naomi|title=The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot|location=White River, VT |publisher=Chelsea Green Publishing|year=2007 |isbn=978-1933392790 |url=https://archive.org/details/endofamericalett00wolf }}</ref><ref name="tws06dec26">{{Cite news|author=Wolf, Naomi|title=Books: ''The End of America''|quote=I want to summarize why I believe we are facing a real crisis. My reading showed me that there are 10 key steps that would-be despots always take when they are seeking to close down an open society or to crush a democracy movement, and we are seeing each of those in the US today.|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=September 27, 2007|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/26/DI2007092601536.html|access-date=December 6, 2009|archive-date=March 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170316083818/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/26/DI2007092601536.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Alex Beam]] wrote in the ''[[International Herald Tribune]]'' (reprinted in ''The New York Times''): "In the book, Wolf insists that she is not equating [George W.] Bush with Hitler, nor the United States with Nazi Germany, then proceeds to do just that."<ref>{{cite news|last=Beam|first=Alex|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23iht-edbeam.1.8452549.html|title=Is Bush Hitler? I don't think so|work=The New York Times|agency=Internal Herald Tribune|date=November 23, 2007|access-date=January 4, 2010|archive-date=May 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200504224952/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23iht-edbeam.1.8452549.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A month before the [[2008 United States presidential election|2008 presidential election]], she announced her intention to propose means to arrest Bush. "Americans are facing a coup, as of this morning, October 1st", she said in a radio interview.<ref name="CookeNR">{{cite news |first1=Charles C. W. |last1=Cooke |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389666/fevered-delusions-naomi-wolf-charles-c-w-cooke |title=The Fevered Delusions of Naomi Wolf |work=National Review Online |date=October 6, 2014 |access-date=October 6, 2014 |archive-date=October 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006214915/http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389666/fevered-delusions-naomi-wolf-charles-c-w-cooke |url-status=live }}</ref>

Several years later in 2013, [[Mark Nuckols]] argued in ''[[The Atlantic]]'' that Wolf's supposed historical parallels between incidents from the era of the European dictators and modern America are based on a highly selective reading in which Wolf omits significant details and misuses her sources.<ref name="Nuckols">{{cite news |first1=Mark |last1=Nuckols |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/no-naomi-wolf-america-is-not-becoming-a-fascist-state/266951/?single_page=true |title=No, Naomi Wolf, America Is Not Becoming a Fascist State |work=The Atlantic |date=January 9, 2013 |access-date=January 4, 2020 |archive-date=June 23, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200623074913/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/no-naomi-wolf-america-is-not-becoming-a-fascist-state/266951/?single_page=true |url-status=live }}</ref> In ''[[The Daily Beast]]'', [[Michael C. Moynihan]] called the book "an astoundingly lazy piece of writing."<ref name="Moynihan2014">{{cite news|last=Moynihan|first=Michael|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/from-isis-to-ebola-what-has-made-naomi-wolf-so-paranoid|title=From ISIS to Ebola, What Has Made Naomi Wolf So Paranoid?|work=The Daily Beast|date=April 14, 2017|orig-date=October 11, 2014|access-date=January 3, 2020|quote=Wolf's path from respectability to conspiracy theory isn't uncommon.|archive-date=January 31, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190131142458/https://www.thedailybeast.com/from-isis-to-ebola-what-has-made-naomi-wolf-so-paranoid|url-status=live}}</ref>

''The End of America'' was adapted for the screen as [[The End of America (film)|a documentary]] by filmmakers Annie Sundberg and Ricki Stern, best known for ''[[The Devil Came on Horseback]]'' and ''The Trials of [[Darryl Hunt]]''. It premiered in October 2008, and was favorably reviewed in ''The New York Times'' by [[Stephen Holden]]<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/movies/03end.html |work=The New York Times |first=Stephen |last=Holden |access-date=May 19, 2010 |title=When Laws and Liberties Test Each Other's Limits |date=December 3, 2008 |archive-date=May 10, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120510180228/http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/movies/03end.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and by ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' magazine.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938760.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 |work=Variety |title=The End of America Movie Review |first=Ronnie |last=Scheib |date=October 20, 2008}}</ref> [[Nigel Andrews]] in the ''[[Financial Times]]'' saw aspects of it positively, but "what isn't plausible or reality-related is the conclusion itself. At the door of the Third Reich, Wolf's credibility collapses."<ref>{{cite news|last=Andrews|first=Nigel|url=https://www.ft.com/content/2651aff6-e35b-11dd-a5cf-0000779fd2ac |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/2651aff6-e35b-11dd-a5cf-0000779fd2ac |archive-date=December 10, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Naomi Wolf's philippic on Bushism|work=Financial Times|date=January 17, 2009|access-date=January 23, 2021}}</ref> Moynihan called it "an even dumber documentary film" than the "dumb book".<ref name="Moynihan2014" />

Interviewed by [[Alternet]] in 2010, Wolf compared some of President [[Barack Obama]]'s actions to those of [[Nazi]] dictator [[Adolf Hitler]] as typical of dictatorships.<ref>{{cite news|last=Moynihan|first=Michael|url=https://reason.com/2010/04/02/political-promiscuities-naomi/|title=Political Promiscuities: Naomi Wolf and the "Patriot Movement"|work=Reason|date=April 2, 2010|access-date=February 28, 2021|archive-date=May 6, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506002903/https://reason.com/2010/04/02/political-promiscuities-naomi/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|last=Chait|first=Jonathan|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/74193/crying-wolf|title=Crying Wolf|magazine=The New Republic|date=March 31, 2010|access-date=February 28, 2021|quote=Obama has done things like Hitler did. Let me be very careful here. The National Socialists rounded people up and held them without trial, signed legislation that gave torture impunity, and spied on their citizens, just as Obama has. It isn't a question of what has been done that Hitler did. It's what does every dictator do, on the left or the right, that is being done here and now. The real fight isn't left or right but between forces of democracy across the spectrum and the forces of tyranny.|archive-date=March 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210330034216/https://newrepublic.com/article/74193/crying-wolf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Wolf returned to her ''The End of America'' theme in a ''[[Globe and Mail]]'' article in 2014, considering how modern Western women, born in inclusive, egalitarian liberal democracies, are assuming positions of leadership in [[neofascism|neofascist]] political movements.<ref>{{cite news|last=Wolf|first=Naomi|title=Women – the kinder, gentler fascists?|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/is-she-a-kindler-gentler-fascist/article17759416/|work=The Globe and Mail|location=Toronto|orig-date=April 2, 2014|date=May 12, 2018|access-date=January 4, 2020|archive-date=August 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804100234/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/is-she-a-kindler-gentler-fascist/article17759416/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===''Give Me Liberty'' (2008)===
''Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries'' was written as a sequel to ''The End of America''. The book looks at times and places in history where citizens faced the closing of an open society and successfully fought back.<ref name="tws07decabbbs">{{Cite news
|author = Felling, Matthew
|title = What About The Candidates?
|quote = That came to mind when I read the ''Washington Post''{{'}}s Outlook section this weekend, and looked over Naomi Wolf's piece about how young people don't understand capital-D Democracy.  According to a recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 47 percent of high school seniors have mastered a minimum level of U.S. history and civics, while only 14 percent performed at or above the 'proficient' level.
|publisher = CBS News
|date = November 27, 2007
|url = https://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/11/27/publiceye/entry3543837.shtml
|access-date = December 7, 2009
|archive-date = December 24, 2007
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071224202757/http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/11/27/publiceye/entry3543837.shtml
|url-status = live
}}</ref>

===''Vagina: A New Biography'' (2012)===
''Vagina: A New Biography'' was much criticized, especially by feminist authors. [[Katie Roiphe]] called it "ludicrous" in ''[[Slate (website)|Slate]]'': "I doubt the most brilliant novelist in the world could have created a more skewering satire of Naomi Wolf's career than her latest book."<ref name="Slate20120910" /> In ''[[The Nation]]'', [[Katha Pollitt]] called it a "silly book" containing "much dubious neuroscience and much foolishness." It becomes "loopier as it goes on. We learn that women think and feel through their vagina, which can 'grieve' and feel insulted."<ref name="Pollitt20121001">{{cite news|last=Pollitt|first=Katha|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/169888/naomi-wolfs-vagina-no-carnations-please-were-goddesses|title=Naomi Wolf's ''Vagina'': No Carnations, Please, We're Goddesses|work=The Nation|date=October 1, 2012|access-date=November 18, 2019|archive-date=April 12, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150412081420/http://www.thenation.com/article/169888/naomi-wolfs-vagina-no-carnations-please-were-goddesses|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Toni Bentley]] wrote in ''[[The New York Times Book Review]]'' that Wolf used "shoddy research methodology", while with "her graceless writing, Wolf opens herself to ridicule on virtually every page."<ref>{{cite news|last=Bentley|first=Toni|title=Upstairs, Downstairs 'Vagina: A New Biography,' by Naomi Wolf|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/books/review/vagina-a-new-biography-by-naomi-wolf.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=September 14, 2012|access-date=February 11, 2017|archive-date=May 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170514054229/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/books/review/vagina-a-new-biography-by-naomi-wolf.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Janice Turner]] in ''[[The Times]]'' wrote that since [[Mary Wollstonecraft]], female "writers have argued that women should not be defined by biology", yet "Wolf, our self-styled leader, has declared that female consciousness, creativity and destiny all come back" to a woman's genitals.<ref>{{cite news|last=Turner|first=Janice|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/whos-afraid-of-vagina-wolf-or-even-cares-kwjwl3lx27w|title=Who's afraid of Vagina Wolf (or even cares)?|work=[[The Times]]|location=London|date=September 8, 2012|access-date=January 23, 2021|url-access=subscription|archive-date=January 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116221150/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whos-afraid-of-vagina-wolf-or-even-cares-kwjwl3lx27w|url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' columnist [[Meghan Daum]] wrote: "By asserting that what's between a woman's ears is directly informed by what's between her legs—'the vagina mediates female confidence, creativity and sense of transcendence,' Wolf writes—it acts as a perverse echo of Republican efforts to limit reproductive rights."<ref>{{cite news|last=Daum|first=Meghan|url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-oe-daum-naomi-wolf-vagina-20120913-column.html|title=Naomi Wolf's vaginal sideshow|work=Los Angeles Times|date=September 13, 2012|access-date=March 2, 2021|archive-date=March 8, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308132227/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-oe-daum-naomi-wolf-vagina-20120913-column.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In the book, according to [[Suzanne Moore]] in ''The Guardian'', "feminism becomes simply a highly mediated form of narcissism devoid of any actual brain/politics connection."<ref>{{cite news|last=Moore|first=Suzanne|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/naomi-wolf-book-vagina-feminism|title=Naomi Wolf's book Vagina: self-help marketed as feminism|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=September 5, 2012|access-date=March 1, 2021}}</ref>

In ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', [[Zoë Heller]] wrote that the book "offers an unusually clear insight into the workings of her mystic feminist philosophy", that the part of the book about the history of the vagina's representation is "full of childlike generalizations", and that Wolf's understanding of science "is pretty shaky too".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Heller|first=Zoë|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/pride-and-prejudice/|title=Pride and Prejudice|journal=The New York Review of Books|date=September 27, 2012|volume=59|issue=14|access-date=November 18, 2019|archive-date=November 26, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151126062702/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/pride-and-prejudice/|url-status=live}}</ref> In an interview with ''The New York Times'', Wolf rejected claims that she had written more freely than her sources could sustain.<ref name="NYT20120919">{{cite news |last=Sandler |first=Lauren |date=September 19, 2012 |title=Naomi Wolf Sparks Another Debate (on Sex, of Course) |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/fashion/naomi-wolf-on-her-new-book-vagina.html |access-date=March 2, 2021 |archive-date=February 12, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210212155501/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/fashion/naomi-wolf-on-her-new-book-vagina.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In ''[[The New York Observer]]'', [[Nina Burleigh]] suggested that critics of the book were so vehement "because (a) their editors handed the book to them for review because they thought it was an Important Feminist Book when it's actually slight and (b) there's a grain of truth in what she's trying to say."<ref>{{cite news|last=Burleigh|first=Nina|url=http://observer.com/2012/09/263089/|title=Who's Afraid of Vagina Wolf? Why Female Critics Are Piling On|work=Observer|location=New York City|date=September 13, 2012|access-date=September 16, 2012|archive-date=June 14, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190614225631/https://observer.com/2012/09/263089/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In response to the criticism, Wolf said in a television interview:

{{blockquote|Anything that shows documentation of the brain and vagina connection is going to alarm some feminists…also feminism has kind of retreated into the academy and sort of embraced the idea that all gender is socially constructed and so here is a book that is actually looking at science…though there has been some criticisms of the book from some feminists…who say, "well you can't look at the science because that means we have to grapple with the science"…to me the feminist task of creating a just world isn't changed at all by this fascinating neuroscience that shows some differences between men and women.<ref>[https://archive.today/20130416014911/http://allangregg.tvo.org/episode/186847/feminist-author-naomi-wolf-%22vagina:-a-new-biography.%22 Allen Gregg TV interview] "Naomi Wolf on her new book, Vagina: A New Biography", January 18, 2013. Quote starts 21min in.</ref>}}

At a party organized to celebrate Wolf's publishing deal for this book, the male host invited guests to make pasta pieces shaped like vulvas. Wolf came to view this as mocking, and recounted feeling pressured to remain silent as the butt of a joke, something she said women often feel pressured to do. She said the incident resulted in her having writer's block for the next six months.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lewis|first=Helen|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/09/goddess-shaped-hole-naomi-wolfs-new-work|title=A goddess-shaped hole in Naomi Wolf's new work|work=New Statesman|location=London|date=September 5, 2012|access-date=January 23, 2021|archive-date=February 11, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210211231332/https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/09/goddess-shaped-hole-naomi-wolfs-new-work|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Wolf|first=Naomi|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/sep/02/vagina-a-new-biography-naomi-wolf|title=Vagina: A New Biography by Naomi Wolf|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=September 2, 2012|access-date=January 23, 2021}}</ref>

===''Outrages'' (2019)===
Wolf's book ''Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love'' was based on the 2015 doctoral [[thesis]] she completed under the [[Doctoral advisor|supervision]] of literary scholar Stefano-Maria Evangelista, a Fellow of [[Trinity College, Oxford]].<ref name="IrishTimes"/><ref name=thesis/> It studies the repression of homosexuality in relation to attitudes toward divorce and prostitution, and also in relation to the censorship of books.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/15/outrages-sex-censorship-criminalised-love-by-naomi-wolf-review|title=Outrages by Naomi Wolf review – sex and censorship|last=Tóibín|first=Colm|author-link=Colm Tóibín|date=May 15, 2019|work=The Guardian|access-date=May 29, 2019|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

''Outrages'' was published in the UK in May 2019 by [[Virago Press]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Barber |first=Lynn |title=Naomi Wolf is holed below the waterline |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/naomi-wolf-is-holed-below-the-waterline/ |access-date=June 21, 2019 |work=[[The Spectator]] |date=June 15, 2019 |language=en |archive-date=June 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190622004724/https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/naomi-wolf-is-holed-below-the-waterline/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On June 12, 2019, ''Outrages'' was named on the ''[[O, The Oprah Magazine]]''{{'}}s "The 32 Best Books by Women of Summer 2019" list.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oprahmag.com/life/a27758145/best-books-female-authors-2019/|title=The Best Books by Women of Summer 2019|date=June 12, 2019|website=Oprah Magazine|language=en-US|access-date=June 20, 2019|archive-date=December 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217021600/https://www.oprahmag.com/life/a27758145/best-books-female-authors-2019/|url-status=live}}</ref> The next day, the U.S. publisher recalled all copies from U.S. bookstores.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Alter |first1=Alexandra |title=Naomi Wolf's Publisher Delays Release of Her Book |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/books/naomi-wolf-outrages-errors.html |access-date=June 16, 2019 |work=The New York Times |date=June 13, 2019 |quote=It's unclear whether ''Outrages'' will also be recalled in Britain, where it was released in May by the publisher Virago. |archive-date=June 16, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190616015817/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/books/naomi-wolf-outrages-errors.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In a 2019 BBC radio interview, broadcaster and author [[Matthew Sweet (writer)|Matthew Sweet]] identified an error in a central tenet of the book: a misunderstanding of the legal term "[[death recorded]]", which Wolf had taken to mean that the convict had been executed but in fact means that the convict was pardoned or the sentence was commuted.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057k4|title=BBC Radio 3 – Free Thinking, Censorship and sex|website=BBC|access-date=May 25, 2019|archive-date=May 22, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190522112657/https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057k4|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| url            = http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/naomi-wolfs-book-corrected-by-host-in-bbc-interview.html
| title          = Here's an Actual Nightmare: Naomi Wolf Learning On-Air That Her Book Is Wrong
| quote          = When she went on BBC radio on Thursday, Wolf, the author of ''Vagina'' and the forthcoming ''Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love'', probably expected to discuss the historical revelations she'd uncovered her book. But during the interview, broadcaster Matthew Sweet read to Wolf the definition of 'death recorded,' a 19th-century English legal term. 'Death recorded' means that a convict was pardoned for his crimes rather than given the death sentence. Wolf thought the term meant execution.
| last           = Dzhanova
| first          = Yelena
| publisher      = [[New York (magazine)|New York]]
| work           = [[Intelligencer (website)|Intelligencer]]
| url-status        = live
| archive-url     = https://web.archive.org/web/20190602042240/http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/naomi-wolfs-book-corrected-by-host-in-bbc-interview.html
| archive-date    = June 2, 2019 | access-date     = June 2, 2019 | date           = May 24, 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite interview
 |last         = Wolf
 |first        = Naomi
 |last2        = de Miranda
 |first2       = Luis
 |last3        = Parker
 |first3       = Sarah
 |interviewer  = Matthew Sweet
 |title        = Censorship and sex
 |type         = audio recording
 |url          = https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00057k4
 |work         = Free Thinking
 |publisher    = www.bbc.co.uk
 |location     = London
 |date         = May 22, 2019
 |access-date  = September 14, 2019
 |archive-date = July 16, 2019
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20190716121122/https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00057k4
 |url-status   = live
}}</ref> He cited [[Arts and Humanities Research Council#Old Bailey Proceedings Archive|a website]] for the [[Old Bailey]] Criminal Court, which Wolf had referred to in the interview as one of her sources.<ref name="bbc.co.uk">{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p079xh7f|title=BBC Radio 3 – Arts & Ideas, Censorship and sex|website=BBC|date=May 22, 2019|access-date=May 29, 2019|archive-date=May 27, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190527100124/https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p079xh7f|url-status=live}}</ref> Reviewers have described other errors of scholarship in the work.<ref name="Public Seminar 2019">{{cite web | title=What's Missing In Naomi Wolf's 'Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love' | website=Public Seminar | date=June 25, 2019 | url=http://www.publicseminar.org/2019/06/whats-missing-in-naomi-wolfs-outrages-sex-censorship-and-the-criminalization-of-love/ | access-date=September 15, 2019 | archive-date=September 23, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190923084138/http://www.publicseminar.org/2019/06/whats-missing-in-naomi-wolfs-outrages-sex-censorship-and-the-criminalization-of-love/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Bartlett 2019">{{cite web | last=Bartlett | first=Neil | title=Creative scholarship – TheTLS | website=TheTLS | date=August 20, 2019| url=https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/private/creative-scholarship/ | access-date=September 15, 2019}}</ref>

At the [[Hay Festival]] in Wales in May 2019, a few days after her exchange with Sweet, Wolf defended her book and said she had already corrected the error.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cain|first=Sian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/25/naomi-wolf-outrages-author-stands-by-view-victorian-homosexuality-poet|title=Outrages author Naomi Wolf stands by view of Victorian poet|date=May 25, 2019|work=The Observer|access-date=June 10, 2019|language=en-GB|issn=0029-7712}}</ref> At an event in Manhattan in June, she said she was not embarrassed and felt grateful to Sweet for the correction.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sayej|first=Nadja|title='I don't feel humiliated': Naomi Wolf on historical inaccuracy controversy|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/21/naomi-wolf-book-outrages-new-york |work=The Guardian |date=June 21, 2019|access-date=March 13, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/books/naomi-wolf-outrages.html |title=After an On-Air Correction, Naomi Wolf Addresses Errors in Her New Book |last=León |first=Concepción de |date=May 24, 2019 |work=The New York Times |access-date=May 24, 2019 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=May 24, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524212412/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/books/naomi-wolf-outrages.html |url-status=live }}</ref> On October 18, 2019, it became known that [[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt]]'s release of the book in the U.S. was being canceled, with copies already printed and distributed being pulled and pulped.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Flood|first=Alison|date=February 8, 2021|title=Naomi Wolf accused of confusing child abuse with gay persecution in Outrages|url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/08/naomi-wolf-accused-of-confusing-child-abuse-with-gay-persecution-in-outrages|access-date=March 22, 2021|work=The Guardian|language=en}}</ref> Wolf expressed hope that the book would still be published in the U.S.<ref>{{cite news|last=Italie|first=Hillel|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/naomi-wolf-and-publisher-part-ways-amid-delay-of-new-book/2019/10/18/ae360cea-f205-11e9-bb7e-d2026ee0c199_story.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191019125832/https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/naomi-wolf-and-publisher-part-ways-amid-delay-of-new-book/2019/10/18/ae360cea-f205-11e9-bb7e-d2026ee0c199_story.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 19, 2019|title=Naomi Wolf and publisher part ways amid delay of new book|newspaper=The Washington Post|agency=Associated Press|date=October 18, 2019|access-date=October 23, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=de León|first=Concepción|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/books/naomi-wolf-outrages.html|title=Naomi Wolf's Publisher Cancels U.S. Release of ''Outrages''|work=The New York Times|date=October 21, 2019|access-date=October 23, 2019|archive-date=October 23, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191023011756/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/books/naomi-wolf-outrages.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2020, Virago published a UK paperback edition of the book that removed the incorrect references to the execution of men for sodomy included in the hardback edition. Interviewed about the new edition, Sweet said that the book continues to misread historical sources: "Dr Wolf has misrepresented the experiences of victims of child abuse and violent sexual assault. This is the most profound offence against her discipline, as well as the memories of real people on the historical record". Cultural historian [[Fern Riddell]] called the book a "calumny against gay people" in the 19th century and said that Wolf "presents child rapists and those taking part in acts of bestiality as being gay men in consensual relationships and that is completely wrong". ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported that there had been calls for Wolf's 2015 DPhil to be reexamined, and for Virago to withdraw the book.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/05/naomi-wolf-faces-new-row-book-confuses-persecution-gay-men-paedophiles/|title=Naomi Wolf faces new row as book confuses persecution of gay men with paedophiles, claim historians|first=Patrick|last=Sawer|work=The Telegraph|location=London|date=February 5, 2021|access-date=February 6, 2021|archive-date=February 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205221903/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/05/naomi-wolf-faces-new-row-book-confuses-persecution-gay-men-paedophiles/|url-status=live}}</ref> In a statement to ''The Guardian'', Wolf said the book had been reviewed "by leading scholars in the field" and "it is clear that I have accurately represented the position". Oxford University stated that a "statement of clarification" to Wolf's thesis had been received and approved, and would be "available for consultation in the Bodleian Library in due course".<ref>{{cite news|last=Flood|first=Alison|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/08/naomi-wolf-accused-of-confusing-child-abuse-with-gay-persecution-in-outrages|title=Naomi Wolf accused of confusing child abuse with gay persecution in Outrages|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=February 8, 2021|access-date=February 8, 2021}}</ref>

In March 2021, ''[[Times Higher Education]]'' reported that Wolf's original thesis remained unavailable six years after it was examined. Oxford doctoral graduates can request an embargo of up to three years, with the potential for renewal.<ref>{{cite news|last=Grove|first=Jack|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/oxford-faces-questions-naomi-wolf-phd-stays-under-wraps|title=Oxford faces questions as Naomi Wolf PhD stays under wraps|work=Times Higher Education|location=London|date=March 4, 2021|access-date=March 5, 2021|archive-date=March 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305143323/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/oxford-faces-questions-naomi-wolf-phd-stays-under-wraps|url-status=live}}</ref> The thesis finally became available in April 2021, with nine pages of corrections attached dealing with the misreading of historic criminal records.<ref>{{cite news|last=Grove|first=Jack|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/oxford-doctoral-system-criticised-wolf-thesis-finally-released|title=Oxford doctoral system criticised as Wolf thesis finally released|work=Times Higher Education|date=April 28, 2021|access-date=April 28, 2021|archive-date=April 28, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210428003702/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/oxford-doctoral-system-criticised-wolf-thesis-finally-released|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=thesis>{{cite thesis|url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5eb70130-f130-4c8f-8757-1f304d2ffb96|title=Ecstasy or justice? The sexual author and the law, 1855–1885|first=Naomi|last=Wolf|publisher=University of Oxford|type=DPhil|date=2015|access-date=June 27, 2021|archive-date=June 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210627091010/https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5eb70130-f130-4c8f-8757-1f304d2ffb96|url-status=live}}</ref> Wolf had submitted the thesis to the archive in December 2020, more than five years after her DPhil was awarded, and had requested a one-year extension to the embargo period so that she could seek legal advice.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Grove |first1=Jake |title=Naomi Wolf sought to delay release of thesis |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/02/naomi-wolf-sought-delay-release-thesis |access-date=August 5, 2021 |work=[[Inside Higher Ed]] |date=July 2, 2021 |language=en |archive-date=August 5, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210805012000/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/02/naomi-wolf-sought-delay-release-thesis |url-status=live }}</ref> The extension request was declined.<ref name="THE-2021-06-24">{{cite news|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/naomi-wolf-wanted-extra-year-long-embargo-controversial-thesis|title=Naomi Wolf wanted extra year-long embargo on controversial thesis|first=Jack|last=Grove|work=Times Higher Education|date=June 24, 2021|access-date=June 27, 2021|archive-date=June 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210627085448/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/naomi-wolf-wanted-extra-year-long-embargo-controversial-thesis|url-status=live}}</ref>

In university teaching, ''Outrages'' has been used as an example of the danger of misreading historical sources.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/blind-bestiality-paedophilia-naomi-wolfs-latest-book-outrage/|title=Blind to bestiality and paedophilia: why Naomi Wolf's latest book is its own outrage|last=Sweet|first=Matthew|work=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|date=February 5, 2021|access-date=February 6, 2021|archive-date=February 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205220608/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/blind-bestiality-paedophilia-naomi-wolfs-latest-book-outrage/|url-status=live}}</ref>