<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Norah Vincent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/norah_vincent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 01:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Veiled intentions</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/01/burqa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/01/burqa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2002/02/01/burqa</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The burqa is a powerful symbol misused by Islamists  and Western feminists alike.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Westerners talk about misogyny and the fate of women in Islamist countries, they fall at once for the decoy, the surface indicator by which all fundamentalist regimes are measured and judged. It's the same decoy that Islamists use again and again, in every country they dominate, to draw their own countrymen's attention away from the real social, economic and political problems at hand -- problems they came to power promising to solve, but rarely do. </p><p> That decoy is, of course, the veil, the abaya, the burqa, the chador, the jalabiyya, and every other possible version, extent or form of hijab that women are expected, and often forced, to wear throughout the Middle East and in some parts of Africa. </p><p> The veil is the common currency of subjection, or so the West considers it, and it is the yardstick of Muslim purity, or so the fundamentalists have conceived it. It is a pawn in the propaganda war between the major players in Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations, or what Ian Buruma has dubbed the Occidentalists (those who demonize the West) and the Orientalists (those who demonize the East). </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/02/01/burqa/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/01/burqa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cold, hard facts</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/01/14/cold_war_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/01/14/cold_war_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2002/01/14/cold_war</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new Cold War will be dirty and covert -- and the Vietnam-era left better get used to it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three Americans were taken hostage last spring in the Philippines by the notorious Muslim separatist group Abu Sayyaf, and they have yet to be given the attention, much less the rescue efforts, they deserve -- even after one of them, Guillermo Sobero, was beheaded. That brutal slaying occurred back in June, yet the news coverage here has remained peripheral at best, the outcry weak. But now that we're trotting the globe in search of rogue terror cells and their harboring nations, why is this murder and kidnapping racket not cause for armed intervention? Shouldn't we put these bloodthirsty terrorists on our list of targets? </p><p>The answer is, of course -- but where exactly should we place them on our priorities list? The case for war is stronger against Iraq. But recent remarks made by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to the New York Times indicate that the U.S. might be considering moving the war on terrorism first to Indonesia and the Philippines, among other places. Those two governments, which are friendly toward the United States, would likely welcome American help in eradicating terrorist groups operating in their countries. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/01/14/cold_war_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/01/14/cold_war_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s not just Hamas</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/12/13/palestinian/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/12/13/palestinian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/12/12/palestinian</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's time for America to stop coddling the Palestinians -- they're bloodthirsty bigots who would have exterminated the Jews if they were in charge.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> This latest rash of violence in Israel has brought on the usual avalanche of lament from Palestinian spokespeople and their pan-Arab sympathizers around the world. Why, they moan, does it always matter more to the United States when Israelis die than when Palestinians do? Why do the Americans insist on pursuing such a one-sidedly pro-Jewish policy in the Middle East, even while they pretend to want peace on both sides? </p><p> Here is Edward Said writing in the Nation: "In the United States at least, there is no major segment of the polity, no significant sector of the culture, no part of the whole community capable of identifying sympathetically with the Islamic world." And here is Ali Abunimah in the New York Times: "[I wonder] why Israelis and pro-Israeli spokesmen who are called for comment by the same radio and television stations that call me are rarely asked to condemn the violence that is committed in their name." </p><p> These are familiar questions, and ones to which Pollyanna, pussyfoot diplomats like Colin Powell refuse to give straight answers, preferring instead to ignore the blatant hypocrisy they express. This is political correctness at its most insidious, because it makes us and, more important, our peace brokers, willfully blind to the great and ongoing moral lie staring them in the face. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/12/13/palestinian/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/12/13/palestinian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Send in the clones</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/30/clones_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/30/clones_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stem cells]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/11/30/clones</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's opposition to cloning stem cells is based on scientific superstition and Luddite fears.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I tell people I'm pro-life, they tell me I'm a slave to foolish consistency. But, I reply in true Kantian style, that consistency may be foolish to relativists, but it is the defining feature of any ethics worth following. Otherwise what's the point? If you can bend your principles to suit your convenience, you're a pragmatist, which is, by definition, an unethical thing to be. You can't be pragmatic and ethical at the same time unless you're lying to yourself. Which is, of course, what a great many people do when they think about embryonic life, whether in the context of abortion, or, more recently, stem cell research and human cloning. </p><p>You see, we don't like to admit to ourselves that the expedient thing is almost always more appealing than the right thing. And since it's rare that the expedient thing and the right thing turn out to be the same thing, we tend to choose the expedient thing and then try to justify it after the fact. That's what we've been doing with abortion all along, because, well, unwanted babies are just too damned inconvenient. So we've had to find a way to kill them without feeling bad about it. And how have we done that? Simple. A fertilized egg isn't human until, umm, until we decide it is -- yeah that's it -- which may or may not be when it has a heartbeat, or brain waves, or, alas, in the case of partial-birth abortion, not until it passes the lips of the vagina and plops out onto the table for all to see. Yes, that should work nicely. Good. Done. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/11/30/clones_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/30/clones_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New York Times&#8217; quagmire</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/16/quagmire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/16/quagmire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/11/16/quagmire</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that the Taliban have been routed, what will the media fret about?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a long, long time to come, the word "quagmire" will be associated with the New York Times' coverage of our present war in Afghanistan. This sadly onomatopoeic term has appeared in the Old Gray Lady nearly 20 times in the last 30 days, and has spread to nearly as many newspapers and magazines across the country. Its ubiquity has been tarnishing our morale like the worst of self-fulfilling prophesies, dragging us down into the drooping posture of the Yeatsian beast. We've been slouching toward Kabul, or so they've said. </p><p> But now we're dancing in its streets. It's time we shirked this gloomy posture, and stood up to claim our decidedly sure-footed victories in the supposedly unconquerable land of the now fleeing Taliban. </p><p> We've pulled off a stunning coup literally overnight, and we've done so in little more than a month of precision bombing. But, all the while, a ceaseless cacophony of negativity has been wafting from the haughtiest liberal corners of the homefront press. They just can't seem to let us enjoy our fine hour, however fleeting it may prove to be. There's always a dark side, always a catch to the small good we seem to be doing, or some hidden failure behind the Pentagon's proud dispatches. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/11/16/quagmire/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/16/quagmire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom begets evil, and other realizations</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/02/libertarians_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/02/libertarians_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2001 23:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/11/02/libertarians</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For civil libertarians -- like myself -- war is a time for some harsh reevaluation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Civil libertarians can be so smug. I should know. I am one. Or, I have professed to be one until now. Proudly, as it happens. Haughtily even. "I'm with the good guys," I told myself. "Not the theocrats. Not the anarchists. Just the right on, straight shooting, Bill of Rights toting crowd." </p><p> Not anymore. Now it seems I'm with the sticklers, the devils who revel in the details, the litigious brake-slammers every American is learning to hate. That is to say, I'm still a civil libertarian, but I'm not always so proud of it anymore. And, if we're honest with ourselves, none of us should be. </p><p> The reason is very simple. Freedom begets evil. </p><p> They didn't tell you that one in civics class, did they? It's not exactly the sentiment you feel when you're standing on the field of dreams, or in the bleachers -- as so many (including President Bush and Mayor Giuliani) were Tuesday night at Game 3 of the World Series -- listening with rapt joy to the chorus of "God Bless America" being sung by one of New York's finest on behalf of New York's bravest. It's not the visceral charge that stiffens the proverbial hairs on your neck, or the throat-lumping gratitude that jerks a few unwitting tears from your peepers. Nope. In fact, the flip side of freedom, or as Henry James might have put it, the figure buried in freedom's carpet, never even occurs to you at times like this. Probably never at all. It certainly didn't to me. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/11/02/libertarians_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/02/libertarians_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes, they are cowards</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/18/academy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/18/academy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/10/18/academy</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every couch potato in America would off himself instantly and painlessly if he thought he'd wake up in a Budweiser commercial on the other side.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much to the delight, I'm sure, of semioticians everywhere, the American media's response to the Sept. 11 disaster is devolving, more or less, into a war of words. Stanley Fish's recent New York Times op-ed, <a target="new" href=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/opinion/15FISH.html?searchpv=past7days">"Condemnation Without Absolutes,"</a> is perhaps the best single example of this. Any sensible person who has read it readily admits that it is time -- actually, well beyond time -- that we, the doltish absolutists of the lollipop guild, clarified our terms. And, while we're at it, a couple of darling dean Fish's terms as well. </p><p> 1) <i>Cowardly</i> </p><p> Here is Fish: "Bill Maher, Dinesh D'Souza and Susan Sontag have gotten into trouble by pointing out that 'cowardly' is not the word to describe men who sacrifice themselves for a cause they believe in." </p><p> Indeed, it's true that during the last five weeks much has been made of one of President Bush's early remarks about the catastrophe. "Today," he said in his first address to the nation on the subject, "America was attacked by a faceless coward." </p><p> Now Fish, like so many of his fashionably iconoclastic cohorts in academe and elsewhere, along with Maher, D'Souza and Sontag, insists that "coward" is the wrong word here. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/10/18/academy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/18/academy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When doubt is a moral responsibility</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/03/choices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/03/choices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2001 20:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin Laden]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/10/03/choices</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How to respond to bin Laden? Remember that peace won't necessarily save lives -- and war won't either. And don't listen to anyone who says the choices are obvious.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> I wonder. Were he alive today, would Karl Marx enjoy the bitter irony that recent events have made of his famous epigram, religion is the opiate of the masses? Terra non grata Afghanistan, is, after all, the world's premier producer and exporter of opium, and its resident terrorists are ruled by religious delusion. </p><p> How quaint. Thesis meets antithesis, producing the terrible synthesis: numb zealotry. Who'd have thunk it? The man who made a religion out of politics, and whose ideas made a right mess of the 20th century, was a prophet after all, though perhaps not quite in the way he intended. </p><p> Alas, such is the strange alchemy of dialectical materialism: The past cannot predict the future, and never repeats it. How could it, when into the roiling crucible of history, there always drops an unknown quantity? The present is always a mysterious hybrid. Unique and surprising each time. Not what we expected at all. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/10/03/choices/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/03/choices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apocalypse now</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/18/plague/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/18/plague/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/09/18/plague</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We faced death, and saw the world through the eyes of the brainsick bag ladies we used to ignore. Will we remember their insights?
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lewis Carroll once wrote that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I think of this often now as I walk the streets of a changed Manhattan, and find myself listening for the first time to all the usual raving Armageddonites who, under normal circumstances, every New Yorker is preprogrammed to ignore. </p><p> But, of course, these are by no means normal circumstances, and for once, unbelievably, those same fixture lunatics and unheeded cranks who have been foretelling the end of the world for so long may just have turned out to be right after all. Or so it seems, when you consider that the unthinkable has in fact happened: The world, or at least capitalism's symbolic equivalent, the World Trade Center, has fallen down around us. Add to that the haunting (and until now absurdly superstitious) fact that 2001, not 2000, is the actual Millennium, and suddenly, those brainsick bag ladies you see around Grand Central start to sound a lot like Cassandras -- bona fide prophetesses doomed never to be believed until it's too late. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/09/18/plague/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/18/plague/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Swimming with sharks</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/06/sharks_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/06/sharks_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/09/06/sharks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Compassionate conservatism" means creating a social contract where people take responsibility for swimming with sharks -- or sleeping with them.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent shark infestation off the coast of Florida (and the insurgent response to it by some surfers) is a perfect metaphor for one of America's biggest social problems, and for the way in which liberals and conservatives have attempted to solve or worsen it, as the case may be. </p><p> By now, every prospective surfer in the country knows that at least seven other surfers have been bitten by sharks in the past few weeks, all in the same stretch of water off Smyrna Beach, where a surfing competition recently took place. (I should make it clear here that I'm not talking about the two other swimmers, one in North Carolina and one in Virginia, who have been killed by sharks in recent days. Neither of them went into the water knowing the dangers.) Some Smyrna surfers, however, having been made aware of the considerable risks, have insisted on braving the waves anyway, which is, of course, their prerogative. But, as always, there's a hitch. That prerogative of doing what you like with your body comes with a price. Paradoxically, freedoms don't come free. They come with responsibilities attached. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/09/06/sharks_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/06/sharks_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Enabling disabled scholarship</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/08/18/disablility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/08/18/disablility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/08/18/disability</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A budding intellectual movement asks scholars to redefine normal. But who are these postmodern theories really helping?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>"B</b>yron had a club foot, and Homer was blind." Northern Michigan University professor of English David Mitchell was lecturing me on the latest academic sub-discipline: disability studies. As president of the Society for Disability Studies, he is one of the world's reigning authorities on the social construction of disability and the prevalence of disabled writers in the literary canon. "Toulouse Lautrec was short statured," he went on, "a dwarfish figure. There's also Henry James, Stephen Crane, Hemingway. You can keep going down the line." And he did, but I was stuck on Hemingway. What was his disability, I wondered? Later, when asked to clarify, he paused. "Did I say he had one? I think I was talking about one of Hemingway's characters from 'The Sun Also Rises.' Jake Barnes. He's impotent and he has a war wound."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/08/18/disablility/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/08/18/disablility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Have Done for America&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/06/24/faderman/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/06/24/faderman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/06/24/faderman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A noted historian offers a substantial contribution in a less than crowded field.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>L</b>illian Faderman's "To Believe in Women" is a classic example of what PC neologists call "herstory." It's lesbian history plucked out of obscurity and plunked down center stage -- sort of the dyke's equivalent of one of those Budweiser commercials where you land on an island populated entirely by Amazons, except this time they're all wearing blue stockings instead of string bikinis. You get to pretend for a while that at one time practically every formidable woman in America was gay, and if you're a dyke, it kinda makes you feel normal for about 10 minutes. If you're not a dyke, of course, the experience won't mean much to you, and there's nothing about Faderman's prose that would otherwise entice you to make the leap onto planet Lesbos.</p><p>But then again, Faderman, who has made a career out of writing lesbian herstory, isn't slaving away in the archival trenches because she wants to give you a good time. She's out to leave a record of a small but very real part of American life that, until a little over a decade ago, had never found its way into print, except distortedly in sexology manuals written by crackpots like Havelock Ellis and Richard von Krafft-Ebing. In this regard Faderman is an admirably unselfish scholar. Like her previous books ("Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present," "Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America"), "To Believe in Women" is a thorough and laudable piece of work that should stand up well in the eyes of future historians and curious lay people.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/06/24/faderman/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/06/24/faderman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Betty Friedan: Her Life</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/03/29/sneaks_129/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/03/29/sneaks_129/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/03/29/sneaks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Norah Vincent reviews &#039;Betty Friedan: Her Life&#039; by Judith Hennessee.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>| <font size="+1" color="#000000" face="TIMES, TIMES NEW ROMAN">T</font>here are two reasons you're likely to find the new biography of feminist matriarch Betty Friedan less than scintillating. One, Judith Hennessee is not a very good writer. Two, Betty Friedan is not a very good subject -- or, at least, that's what you end up thinking after you've read 100  pages or so of Hennessee's portrait. This reaction, naturally, is the sign of a poor biography, one that surely violates the cardinal rule of Biography 101: Never let your biography convince your readers or, worse, posterity, that your subject and your readers both would have been better off without you. Sad to say, Hennessee, a former media columnist for Manhattan, Inc. magazine, has an unfortunate talent for leaching the spark of life out of a life. She could make a biography of Jerry Lee Lewis read like an office supply catalog. In Hennessee's hands, Friedan's life seems strangely drab and discontinuous, and it shouldn't, because Friedan has more going for her than that, even if a fair share of it is unpleasant.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/03/29/sneaks_129/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/03/29/sneaks_129/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mara And Dann: An Adventure</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/08/sneaks_48/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/08/sneaks_48/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 1999 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/01/08/sneaks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Norah Vincent 
reviews &#039;Mara and Dann&#039; by Doris Lessing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If at least two Doris Lessings can be said to exist in that writer's massive body of work -- the introspective, politically minded one of "The Golden Notebook" and the Martha Quest novels, and the wildly imaginative one of the "Canopus in Argos: Archives" -- then the Doris Lessing of this most recent fantasy novel is the latter. What Lessing did in space with the "Canopus" quintet she now does on Earth with "Mara and Dann." This dystopian vision of our planet undergoing another ice age thousands of years in the future is something on the order of "Paradise Lost" in reverse, or a children's "Odyssey" for two.</p><p>In the middle of the night, our surrogate Adam and Eve, 7-year-old Mara and her younger brother Dann, are kidnapped from their home in the southern region of the continent called Ifrik. They are deposited at a safe house farther north where intermittent droughts and floods have made the land all but uninhabitable except by giant lizards, insects and a few hearty survivors known as "the rock people." So begins Mara and Dann's arduous and perilous journey ever farther north toward their Eden, the lush and clement northern coast of Ifrik. As they grow into adolescents, and then young adults, they travel through hundreds of miles of terrain dotted by various troubled civilizations.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/01/08/sneaks_48/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/08/sneaks_48/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Return To Modesty</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/07/sneaks_2_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/07/sneaks_2_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/01/07/sneaks_2</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The word &#8220;modesty&#8221; has a schoolmarmish ring to it. It&#8217;s anathema to most women of the &#8220;third wave&#8221; generation. That&#8217;s why we are likely to take one look at this title, snarl and move on to Elizabeth Wurtzel&#8217;s more rage-filled &#8220;Bitch,&#8221; Katie Roiphe&#8217;s more simpatico &#8220;Last Night in Paradise&#8221; or Naomi Wolf&#8217;s hip &#8220;Promiscuities.&#8221; But, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#000000"  face="times, times new roman">T</font>he word "modesty" has a schoolmarmish ring to it. It's anathema to most<br /> women of the <a target="_top" href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/mwt/feature/1998/03/27feature.html">"third wave"</a> generation. That's why we are likely to take one  look at this title, snarl and move on to Elizabeth Wurtzel's more rage-filled <a href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/books/sneaks/1998/04/20sneaks.html">"Bitch,"</a> Katie Roiphe's more simpatico <a target="_top" href="http://www.salonmagazine.com/feb97/badgirl970226.html">"Last Night in Paradise"</a> or Naomi  Wolf's hip "Promiscuities." But, although the terminology in these latter books might suit us better superficially, their arguments, if they can be  said to have arguments at all, will do nothing for us in the long run.  We'll feel patted on the back for being bad girls, but the pain and  loneliness we feel as young women won't have been assuaged in the least.  Now, that's not to say that Wendy Shalit's book is the nostrum for what  ails us either. It isn't. But it is the first book of its kind, the first  argument by a third-waver to blaze down the center of the postfeminist  battleground between left and right.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/01/07/sneaks_2_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/01/07/sneaks_2_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hundred Dollar Holiday: The Case For A More Joyful Christmas</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/12/21/sneaks_20/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/12/21/sneaks_20/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1998/12/21/sneaks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Norah Vincent 
reviews &#039;Hundred Dollar Holiday&#039; by Bill McKibben]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To give Bill McKibben his due, let's admit the obvious. Christmas is too  commercial. Depressingly so, in fact. A good number of us don't go to  church on Christmas Day, and an even greater number of us are too lazy, too  cheap or too estranged from our family members to buy, much less make,  thoughtful presents for them. A lot of us just throw checks at each other  to assuage our consciences. We're hopelessly hard-hearted, really, and  McKibben is right to point it out, even though we, as a culture, know this  too well already. But before we go giving McKibben too much credit, let's  look a little closer at his self-trumpeting example.</p><p>If you know anything about McKibben's publisher, that paradigmatic  corporate behemoth Simon & Schuster, you know that "Hundred Dollar Holiday"  is the kind of leaflet -- at 96 pages, it can't rightly be called a book --  that their sales force positively cooed over. It's money for nothing, fluff  in a brown paper bag. It's worldly wisdom whittled down to the size and  scope of a Zagat's for Wilmington, Del. It's a cash grab Christmas  "book" that, irony of all ironies, subtlety of all subtleties, tells you  not to spend so much money on Christmas. Is this marketing cynicism at its  worst and cleverest, or is this boardroom cupidity rising to new heights?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/12/21/sneaks_20/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/12/21/sneaks_20/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I Will Bear Witness: A Diary Of The Nazi Years, 1933-1941</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/11/23/sneaks_25/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/11/23/sneaks_25/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/1998/11/23/sneaks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Norah Vincent 
reviews &#039;I Will Bear Witness&#039; by Victor Klemperer]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#000000"  face="times, times new roman">T</font>hough Victor Klemperer lived through the bleakest, most godless moments of  the 20th century, when you contemplate his life and work, it's hard not to  believe in God. For most atheists, the Holocaust belies divine providence.  "What deity," they ask, "could countenance such horrors in impotent  silence?" The faithful have always replied that God is present precisely at  the center of atrocity, but, for the sake of human free will, does nothing.  That doctrine has made little sense to many of us, and given even less  comfort. But when you read the unflinching testimony in  Klemperer's  diary, and you work out the details of Klemperer's life that placed him so  perfectly, and ultimately untouchably, at the center of the Third Reich,  you can't help but feel divine grace quietly but firmly asserting itself.  The words "God is my witness" never made more sense.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/11/23/sneaks_25/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/11/23/sneaks_25/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
