Camille Paglia - The Dissident Feminist

Piliger

Paglia is a brilliant character and writer and lecturer. I have read several of her books and she has a real handle on the reality of men and women, and the nonsense of the modern feminist agenda.

She gave a fascinating interview last week that is well worth reading.

"This obsession with rape [in North America] is neurotic. There are attacks on men also. This privileging of the female victim is a distortion. To see the world in terms of rape is absurd. Throughout history there have been atrocities of every kind. Throughout history honourable men don’t rape."

Mister R

While she says some interesting stuff she is can put out ridiculous stuff too, she almost seems to just try to be contrarian sometimes.

Fukuyama

I can see this turning into the usual pitched battle concerning rape, with one side assuming men are cock guided rapist missiles, and the other assuming women are fascist, strategist manipulators using civil rights as a tool of oppression.

I'll be over here, not raping anyone, getting on with life.

ToxicPaddy

MOD NOTE

Dean0088, Keep it civil please.

If you have nothing to contribute please refrain from posting

Piliger

I see no reason why this should descend. My quote was for illustration purposes only and not intended to focus on the rape issue. Apols if I gave the wrong impression.

I have read Paglia's books and she has a really mature wider view of masculinity and femininity. She values men remaining men, though not cavemen!, and women remaining women - while achieving a balance of rights and life roles. She also has very enlightened and pragmatic views on how girls should be raised.

She is also a really feisty woman with a sharp tongue and walked out on a David Dimbleby interview some years ago when he was incredibly rude to her from the get-go.

In the midst of the current insanity where a radical militant feminism has taken over the press and the international agenda, she is a really welcome anti dote.

I would recommend guys here to do a bit of back reading of her on the web or even in book form, not limited to the standard scurrilous media quotations.

And just in case someone jumps on my head because they find some buried wrongun' gem of a quote from her .... I am recommending her, not endorsing every single utterance.

Sleepy

If she was part of the solution she wouldn't be calling herself a feminist.

Mister R

She reminds me of Ann Coulter and not on the basis of content but the basis of what reaction she wants from commentators. Like Ann I feel the whole thing is an act for attention.

I also don't think she is positive for men, she propagates the idea that men be "manly", "tough", and "masculine" and some of her comments regarding how gay men are an example of real masculinity because of all the random sex they have is rather insulting to me as a gay man to be honest, even if gay men do have more random sex I don't see how that is amazing when HIV is back on the rise in some Western states, or are women/modern not tough men to blame for HIV.

Also these old fashioned stereotypes of men are partially to blame for so much male suicide, being a tough guy means not discussing your problems or feeling so sending men back to the 50s is damaging for men possibly more so than women.

Also unrestricted masculinity has hardly been great for society in the past, colonialism, genocide, most human rights restrictions are dreamt up by "tough guys".

She not a feminist but she isn't an egalitarian either, she clearly rates men on a higher level to women but most of her crap is actually bad for both genders.

Piliger

Sleepy wrote: »

If she was part of the solution she wouldn't be calling herself a feminist.

She doesn't........ :rolleyes:

Piliger

Mister R wrote: »

She reminds me of Ann Coulter and not on the basis of content but the basis of what reaction she wants from commentators. Like Ann I feel the whole thing is an act for attention.

I also don't think she is positive for men, she propagates the idea that men be "manly", "tough", and "masculine" and some of her comments regarding how gay men are an example of real masculinity because of all the random sex they have is rather insulting to me as a gay man to be honest, even if gay men do have more random sex I don't see how that is amazing when HIV is back on the rise in some Western states, or are women/modern not tough men to blame for HIV.

Also these old fashioned stereotypes of men are partially to blame for so much male suicide, being a tough guy means not discussing your problems or feeling so sending men back to the 50s is damaging for men possibly more so than women.

Also unrestricted masculinity has hardly been great for society in the past, colonialism, genocide, most human rights restrictions are dreamt up by "tough guys".

She not a feminist but she isn't an egalitarian either, she clearly rates men on a higher level to women but most of her crap is actually bad for both genders.

Well ... so much for that. I have read four of her books and other papers and I don't recognise one single sentence of yours in her views.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

She doesn't........ :rolleyes:

And even if she did, no biggie. Much as men's rights activism isn't all one homogenous group, neither is feminism.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

And even if she did, no biggie. Much as men's rights activism isn't all one homogenous group, neither is feminism.

She isn't a feminist and doesn't call herself a feminist. That's what I meant.

tsiehta

Piliger wrote: »

I see no reason why this should descend.

Piliger wrote: »

In the midst of the current insanity where a radical militant feminism has taken over the press and the international agenda

:rolleyes:


EDIT: Reading bits of articles of hers I've found online (specifically here: http://www.salon.com/writer/camille_paglia/), I'm detecting homophobia, and a lot of policing of the male gender role. She seems to be one of those feverent, contrarian, anti-liberal commentators. The comparison with Ann Coulter above seems very apt.

Mister R

Difference being Ann Coulter is occasionally witty with her tripe, this woman is anything but.

Piliger

tsiehta wrote: »

:rolleyes:


EDIT: Reading bits of articles of hers I've found online (specifically here: http://www.salon.com/writer/camille_paglia/), I'm detecting homophobia, and a lot of policing of the male gender role. She seems to be one of those feverent, contrarian, anti-liberal commentators. The comparison with Ann Coulter above seems very apt.

Bizarre. You can have the thread. I'm finished.

Sleepy

Piliger wrote: »

She doesn't........ :rolleyes:

Apologies... in a thread entitled "Camille Paglia - The Dissident Feminist" linking to an article where she's described again in the first sentence as a "dissident feminist" how could I be so stupid as to think the woman considered herself a feminist. :rolleyes:

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

And even if she did, no biggie. Much as men's rights activism isn't all one homogenous group, neither is feminism.

And what has that to do with my point? Neither group has much to offer in my opinion.

I can understand why male rights activists feel they needed to create such a movement, in the same way that I can understand why the suffragettes felt they needed to create a feminist movement or (to take an example from outside of gender politics) the reasoning of the founding members of the provisional IRA that a defenderist movement was needed to support the Civil Rights campaigners in the north.

Being able to empathise with their feelings, however, doesn't mean that I see them as being useful in obtaining the goal of equality.

clairefontaine

Camille Paglia is not a feminist. She is an enfant terrible of academia, an old school Italian American, who has very politically incorrect and uncomfortable views of sexuality and who has an irrational crush on Madonna and Elizabeth Taylor.

Femme_Fatale

God, she seems like a complete pity - comparison with Anne Coulter is about right.

I used to have time for her when she was more moderate, in particular because she stood up to that reprehensible witch Julie Burchill, but Paglia has obviously descended into madness in the 20+ years since.

Sleepy wrote: »

Neither group has much to offer in my opinion.

I can understand why male rights activists feel they needed to create such a movement, in the same way that I can understand why the suffragettes felt they needed to create a feminist movement or (to take an example from outside of gender politics) the reasoning of the founding members of the provisional IRA that a defenderist movement was needed to support the Civil Rights campaigners in the north.

Being able to empathise with their feelings, however, doesn't mean that I see them as being useful in obtaining the goal of equality.

All I mean is that you repeatedly post insulting moderate feminists as if they all think like the looney fringe, which is the same as equating all men's rights activists with the Paul Elam "Women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped" types.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

Bizarre. You can have the thread. I'm finished.

Not sure what's bizarre.

And "A radical feminism has taken over... the international agenda". Huh?

Femme_Fatale

Well she certainly shares one thing in common with the radical feminists she seemingly despises; transphobia.

Paglia has criticized transsexualism as a current fashion and has claimed that transgender celebrities such as Chaz Bono are "mutilating"[67] their bodies and "are popping their pills and shooting themselves up with male hormone every day."[68]

Yeah.....I think I'll reserve my admiration for less prejudiced people, thanks.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

And even if she did, no biggie. Much as men's rights activism isn't all one homogenous group, neither is feminism.

+1
It's amazing how many people seem to think all feminists are the stereotypical man-hating "Feminazis" who think all men are rapists and are the sole cause of all evil in the world. At university I met quite a few women who were involved with feminist causes/movements and none of them were ever man-haters or extremists who thought all men were control freaks.

I don't go out of my way to identify as a feminist but I fit the dictionary definition of believing that women and men should have equal rights, so I'm not offended at being connected to the term either. That doesn't mean I agree with wretched people like Sheila Jeffreys or the crazy Radfem extremists you find on Tumblr.

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

I fit the dictionary definition of believing that women and men should have equal rights, so I'm not offended at being connected to the term either.

I don't think that's a good definition of feminism. One can believe that and not be a feminist.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

It's amazing how many people seem to think all feminists are the stereotypical man-hating "Feminazis" who think all men are rapists and are the sole cause of all evil in the world. At university I met quite a few women who were involved with feminist causes/movements and none of them were ever man-haters or extremists who thought all men were control freaks.

Very few think this. However the belief that feminism is a movement for the promotion and protection of the interests of only one gender is a lot more common.

You don't need to hate anyone to do that, just not love them as much as the gender you're representing.

I don't go out of my way to identify as a feminist but I fit the dictionary definition of believing that women and men should have equal rights, so I'm not offended at being connected to the term either.

If the stated aim of feminism is that women and men should have equal rights, then should feminists not support areas that would mean loss of rights for women that would bring them to a level of equality with men?

If so, how come no feminists does so?

Sleepy

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

All I mean is that you repeatedly post insulting moderate feminists as if they all think like the looney fringe, which is the same as equating all men's rights activists with the Paul Elam "Women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped" types.

I don't think moderate feminists think like the looney fringe, but by failing to denounce the nutjobs they legitimize them.

Honestly though, even moderate feminists are as wrong as male rights activists imo. Gender equality simply cannot be achieved by only promoting the interests of a single sex.

Femme_Fatale

I don't have a problem with normal sane men's rights activists not denouncing woman-haters that claim to share their cause - I'm a grown-up, I don't need it confirmed to me; I know that normal men who care about men's rights don't share the same opinions as the fruitcakes.

Sleepy

Are you trying to imply I'm a child for disagreeing?

By not denouncing the extremists, feminists have allowed the nut-jobs to speak for them time and time again. Whether it's claiming that all men are potential rapists, inaccurate reporting of salary gaps or insinuating that all domestic violence is perpetrated by men, by remaining silent on these issues the feminist movement gives them tacit approval to speak on their behalf and unfortunately, since feminism is (wrongly imo) perceived to be a voice for equality, this lends them credibility they don't have any right to.