Sex and Silence at Yale

Does anyone else care about Naomi Wolf's claim that Harold Bloom "encroached on her sexually" when she was a college student? Here's her long piece about it: Sex and Silence at Yale

If you go to Arts & Letters Daily, you'll find (left column, a few slots down, now) several responses to Wolf. All are from women, and all castigate her, more or less, for betraying the women's movement by crying Wolf. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

The thing is, she's not really trying to claim she's a victim. Or that's not how I read her piece. I think she's talking about how institutions deal with women and their claims of harassment and the like--and I think that's important. Now, Yale claims she is exaggerating their non-responsiveness, and I think it's important to sort out what really happened, who said what when, etc. But if what she says happened really did--not that Bloom put his hand on her inner thigh, though that's gross, but that Yale gave her the runaround when she wanted to talk about it twenty years later--I think that's a problem.

What feminism should be about, it seems to me, is authorizing women's choices (see below on the nanny wars). If Camille Paglia and her friends chose, in full adult manner, to have affairs with faculty members when they were undergrads, that's fine. (I guess, though it strikes me as unlikely that they could really make an informed choice. But say they did.) Wolf says she did not so choose, and that when she didn't she was demeaned, isolated, etc., and that further, when she chose to talk about it, she's been isolated and attacked. Is that right or fair?