Maybe that’s why they stay so soft? 
1 Like
I’m not “super-obsessed”? I just pay attention to her female MRA gimmick, and I have a deep, black sense of humor (lighten up?)
She’s not joking, or at least isn’t so much as Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, or any of the other AM Radio stalwarts that she literally confessed to admiring the rhetoric of and wished “the left” had more of.
My dislike for Paglia and what she represents isn’t an attack on your article, I was observing that she has little over Trump in the populist media buffoon department.
9 Likes
Wow, that was ultra condescending. Just, wow.
1 Like
So - you think it’s impossible to find someone who is offensive to be offensive?
And that’s why you like her?
OK, thanks. If you have a deep, black sense of humor, I’ll bet you would enjoy Highsmith, btw.
2 Likes
Here’s an article which synergises with your username:
Donald Trump: Master of the demolition derby
Nick Bryant July 21, 2015
Somewhat ironic given that The Media is supposed to be tightly controlled by liberals intolerant of anything outside of their groupspeak.
4 Likes
Paglia writes fiction?
1 Like
News flash: MRA sea lions love Camille Paglia. Stop the presses. Who would’ve thought it.
3 Likes
Mindfu thinks Camille Paglia is the worst comedienne since Ann Coulter.
1 Like
If so, her fans don’t realize it’s fiction.
2 Likes
Doubtful. If she really does, she needs to get her spoken ideas in line with her actions.
1 Like
Will do! It’s a lot easier to laugh when the person is in on the “joke”, the target is this horrid world and the people in it, and the punchline is not “feminists”.
I asked you to provide evidence that she’s a republican or conservative, and not only do you completely fail to do that, but you go one step further and call her a social conservative. This is just too much! Rejecting radical feminist ideology does not make one a social conservative, this is a woman who is a lesbian, she is pro-pornography, pro-drug legalisation, pro-abortion, and you’re calling her a social conservative??!? Hilarious.
You’ve spent too long in the echo chamber I’m afraid, time to go out and get some air.
Being a lesbian hardly precludes one from holding regressive beliefs. There is plenty of sexism and racism in queer communities.
She hasn’t just internalized the traditional republican antifeminist and sex-negative beliefs (SHOCK! WOMEN HAVE CASUAL SEX AND THAT IS HOLDING WOMEN BACK!), she parrots them as well. Being pro-cishet dude porn doesn’t make her any more supporting of her fellow women.
“This is just too much!”
Bring on the fainting couch!
“pro-abortion”
Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women’s movement — leading to feminists’ McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women — an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.
But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.
On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?
What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.
The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.
And you seem content with her dumbed-down regressiveness. I expect better than this nonstop trolley-appeals to conservative America.
Again, it’s her shtick. It’s all she does.
You can disagree with me all you like, but your defenses of her are flimsy as anything. She is paid in appearances to embrace the political right, and her positions exist to erode feminism in the popular media. You seem utterly oblivious to insincerity.
2 Likes
You would think one of those clowns would pick a persona other than rage clown. Nope, all rage clowns.
2 Likes
In my very first post here I said I don’t agree with her on everything, in my next post I agreed she was a Troll. I just happen to like her because I find her trolling of people I also find ridiculous to be amusing, she’s funny, and she does make some good points at times too.
It’s true she does say some ridiculous shit at times (and some on the right might like to jump on these for their own gain). Palin as the future of feminism was pretty hilarious, she can’t have actually been serious with that one. But none of that, or any of the quotes you’ve provided thus far, has anything to say about whether she’s a social conservative or not, which she clearly isn’t, your waffle about the fact that some lesbians might be racist is not evidence of anything I’m afraid. The section you quote on abortion rights just backs up everything I’m saying as well, I don’t agree with her moral stance on the issue, but her legal stance on the issue means she cannot be considered a social conservative. Maybe you just don’t understand the definition of the term?
1 Like
I find Ms. Pagillia is a great example of the true racial problem in America. She’s a Jewish boomer liberal who hates the encroachment of the Arab/Islamic rhetoric in contemporary academia has pushed her ideas on foreign policy to the right. I am sure the 60’s were a great time for her and her peers, I doubt black, latinos, hispanics and other brown people would agree.
I do enjoy reading her, since being provocateur in today’s world is so rare, especially among liberals.
Is it Arab/Islamic rhetoric? I thought her problem was more with the postmodern turn in literary criticism? At least according to the interview linked here, she thinks that the postmodern approach to scholarship is kind of bunk, and that sitting around applying Foucault isn’t activism (I’m paraphrasing).
Is there a “Arab/Islamic rhetoric” in academia? There is certainly an explosion of positions for middle east/Islamic world folks more broadly, but doesn’t that have more to do with the post-9/11 world, and the drive to understand what’s happening right now?
2 Likes
I was guessing by she is not saying, and maybe I am superimposing my own biases here, but she sounds no different to me than Bill Maher.
To be fair to them, at least they try to class their prejudice up. I have been a Pakistani all my life and have never spent a political discussion that wasn’t colored by anti-semetism. America’s race problems not just, both in a literal and a metaphoric sense, black and white.
