Talk:Susan Faludi

message: This entry reads a lot like a fan site, particularly with all the gushing book and personal reviews.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.137.162 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "In The Terror Dream Faludi analyzes the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in light of prior American experience going back to insecurity on the historical American frontier such as in Metacom's Rebellion. Faludi argues that 9/11 reinvigorated in America a climate that is hostile to women. Women are viewed as weak and best suited to playing support roles for the men who protect them from attack.[3][4] The book was called a "tendentious, self-important, sloppily reasoned work that gives feminism a bad name" by the New York Times principal book reviewer Michiko Kakutani[5]. Sarah Churchwell in the Guradian says, "Ultimately Faludi is guilty of her own exaggerations and mythmaking, strong-arming her argument into submission." [6] Other reviews were positive."
This is the section on Faludi's book, "The Terror Dream".... is it just me, or is it kind of negative? Given than other reviews were positive, why were two negative opinions given centre-stage?
:And now even the useless sop of "Other views were positive." has been reviewed. I am tagging this for a NPOV check. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  First let me say that I really enjoyed this book; it changed my world-view a lot. Now that that's disclosed, I can guess why Kakutani said that. Faludi criticizes them up and down in the book, as well as editorializers and proprietors of many a Western newspaper, the Guardian among them I'm sure. This is obviously not NPOV. Every bad review should be matched by a good one, or no reviews should be quoted or linked at all. I'll work on finding a more even-handed review to mention. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral?

message: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/1997/revisionist_feminism/_5.html
The above seems to me to be the correct link to *faludi*'s comment.  The link previously provided (to _4.html) has the work "deconstruction" in it, but does not seem to be by Faludi (but by unspecified ‘authors’).  
Forgive me if I'm mistaken: I find Slate's comment system rather opaque. ... and I'm a total noob to WP editing/policies.
Perhaps an experience wikipedian/researcher can double check for me / make appropriate corrections.
—Richard Pinneau  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveCalmQuiet (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consulting reference 10 suggests mis-attribution? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Susan Faludi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606214905/http://www.radcliffe.edu/fellowships/fellows_2009sfaludi.aspx to http://www.radcliffe.edu/fellowships/fellows_2009sfaludi.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231181057/http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1995/11/gorney.html to http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1995/11/gorney.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222011900/http://zpedia.org/The_Reckoning%3A_Safeway_LBO_Yields_Vast_Profits_but_Exacts_A_Heavy_Human_Toll to http://zpedia.org/The_Reckoning%3A_Safeway_LBO_Yields_Vast_Profits_but_Exacts_A_Heavy_Human_Toll
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805034918/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/33591-1/Susan%20Faludi.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/33591-1/Susan%2BFaludi.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Faludi has rejected the claim advanced by critics that there is a "rigid, monolithic feminist orthodoxy", noting in response that she has disagreed with Gloria Steinem about pornography and Naomi Wolf about abortion.[22]"
I looked at the source in [22]. Neither the name "Gloria Steinem" nor the name "Naomi Wolf" appear. Thus, the source is incorrect.  Either a correct source should be found or the sentence should be deleted. Ebw343 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Source

message: Susan Faludi‘s Harvard education and accolades are well documented here.  She was a graduate student at Princeton, although I’m not sure what degree she earned.  Could the authors please address this important but ignored element of her background?  She first became outspoken in the national media versus Princeton women‘s Take Back The Night movement (safety demands for lighting and campus police call boxes, etc).  Because this was her debut in the national spotlight and spawned her first book written while at Princeton‘s Graduate School, the omission of this period deserves documentary comment. 184.21.67.220 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan Faludi — Graduate Education & formative anti-’feminist‘ attitudes