From the WSJ - Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues
I thought many of you would be interested. This interview is the only thing I’ve read from her, but so far I like her. She’s spot on, in my opinion. A smart, pragmatic feminist I can relate to.
Great read.
She had a small article in Time magazine recently. Very refreshing. Let’s hope this “feminist” is the view that other feminists (I actually hate that term, but that’s another story) latch onto.
Schools will only get worse for boys as liberal elites like Bill Gates and the whole Teach for America sham are taking over.
So many things struck a cord with me in that article.
She talks about the lack of military experience/diminished status of military service in the elite class now. “The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service - hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. …These people don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.”
I’ve thought about that quote all morning. I think she’s right about the idea that benevolent “do unto others diplomacy” only works when you are dealing with the good guys.
Regarding the military - My son is 18. He has one friend who is in his first year at the Air Force Academy (his dad is a career air force pilot). One friend got into West Point but decided to head to Princeton instead. How many friends does he have in the military, or who are planning to serve when they graduate? Exactly zero. Related, my husband has actually sat in on discussions about hiring people (with female management) where military service was viewed as a possible negative - as in might be too aggressive.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
So many things struck a cord with me in that article.
She talks about the lack of military experience/diminished status of military service in the elite class now. “The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service - hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. …These people don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.”
I’ve thought about that quote all morning. I think she’s right about the idea that benevolent “do unto others diplomacy” only works when you are dealing with the good guys.
Regarding the military - My son is 18. He has one friend who is in his first year at the Air Force Academy (his dad is a career air force pilot). One friend got into West Point but decided to head to Princeton instead. How many friends does he have in the military, or who are planning to serve when they graduate? Exactly zero. Related, my husband has actually sat in on discussions about hiring people (with female management) where military service was viewed as a possible negative - as in might be too aggressive.
[/quote]
Has the author lived underground for the past decade? Military worship is rammed down citizens’ throats everywhere we go. Most of the citizens of this country fear EVERY OTHER country. Most believe that cutting a penny from the defense budget will result in brown and yellow people conquering us in a matter of hours.
[quote]H factor wrote:
She had a small article in Time magazine recently. Very refreshing. Let’s hope this “feminist” is the view that other feminists (I actually hate that term, but that’s another story) latch onto. [/quote]
Thanks, I will look for the Time article. And I agree about the term “feminist” - people mean very different things, and it’s been owned by the radical edge - Any movement is always defined by the people on the fringe, but this one is in no way “a big tent” in my experience.
I’m not surprised that Camille Paglia is seen by the establishment as a heretic or a scourge. I once went to a feminist retreat with about 20 other women. I was the only political conservative in the bunch, and I found out that many of my concerns were not their concerns, or at least their “solutions” were not mine. It was pretty eye opening, and they didn’t know what to make of me.
I really doubt women will make special forces but most war is not hand to hand and the closer you can get women to men in war is a good thing IMO
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
So many things struck a cord with me in that article.
She talks about the lack of military experience/diminished status of military service in the elite class now. “The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service - hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. …These people don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.”
I’ve thought about that quote all morning. I think she’s right about the idea that benevolent “do unto others diplomacy” only works when you are dealing with the good guys.
Regarding the military - My son is 18. He has one friend who is in his first year at the Air Force Academy (his dad is a career air force pilot). One friend got into West Point but decided to head to Princeton instead. How many friends does he have in the military, or who are planning to serve when they graduate? Exactly zero. Related, my husband has actually sat in on discussions about hiring people (with female management) where military service was viewed as a possible negative - as in might be too aggressive.
[/quote]
Has the author lived underground for the past decade? Military worship is rammed down citizens’ throats everywhere we go. Most of the citizens of this country fear EVERY OTHER country. Most believe that cutting a penny from the defense budget will result in brown and yellow people conquering us in a matter of hours.[/quote]
You completely missed the point in your quest to be contrary. It’s not that military people are not respected (although even that varies) but that it isn’t seen as something prestigious for those she refers to as the elite.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
So many things struck a cord with me in that article.
She talks about the lack of military experience/diminished status of military service in the elite class now. “The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service - hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. …These people don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.”
I’ve thought about that quote all morning. I think she’s right about the idea that benevolent “do unto others diplomacy” only works when you are dealing with the good guys.
Regarding the military - My son is 18. He has one friend who is in his first year at the Air Force Academy (his dad is a career air force pilot). One friend got into West Point but decided to head to Princeton instead. How many friends does he have in the military, or who are planning to serve when they graduate? Exactly zero. Related, my husband has actually sat in on discussions about hiring people (with female management) where military service was viewed as a possible negative - as in might be too aggressive.
[/quote]
Has the author lived underground for the past decade? Military worship is rammed down citizens’ throats everywhere we go. Most of the citizens of this country fear EVERY OTHER country. Most believe that cutting a penny from the defense budget will result in brown and yellow people conquering us in a matter of hours.[/quote]
You completely missed the point in your quest to be contrary. It’s not that military people are not respected (although even that varies) but that it isn’t seen as something prestigious for those she refers to as the elite. [/quote]
That’s how I understood it too. She’s concerned about the people who are running the country in terms of both politics and business. In terms of military participation/ attitudes, you are going to see regional, and certainly socioeconomic differences.
Sorry to threadjack my own thread. It’s really not about the military, it was just one of the things that stood out, probably because I hadn’t given a lot of thought before.
Some of the topics covered in the article I’d thought about a lot more. Especially raising boys/ the shortcomings of primary education.
Also, how to handle issues such as the female “reproductive disadvantage” - Paglia’s very straightforward on that one, which was refreshing. It’s something that comes up all the time. Just this past week I was talking to a friend at the gym I lift at, and she was agonizing about when to start having kids. She’s 27, recently married to a guy who has a great career, but she’s currently pursuing a PhD and wants to post doc abroad. I often hear about how “lucky” I am from young women like this, but of course it’s often just a matter of choices.
I wondered if a lot of you would relate to her discussion of PC gender politics in the universities, and how it negatively effects communication. I thought that part was interesting, but I’m not sure I understand what she’s trying to say, because so many topics get passed over very briefly in the article. Thoughts?
"…She sees the tacit elevation of “female values"such as sensitivity, socialization and cooperation as the main aim of teachers, rather than fostering creative energy and teaching hard geographical and historical facts.”
By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. “This PC gender politics thing” the way gender is being taught in the universities in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness." The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything. . . . They understand the agenda.” In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.
Politically correct, inadequate education, along with the decline of America’s brawny industrial base, leaves many men with “no models of manhood,” she says. “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.” The only place you can hear what men really feel these days, she claims, is on sports radio. No surprise, she is an avid listener. The energy and enthusiasm “inspires me as a writer,” she says, adding: “If we had to go to war,” the callers “are the men that would save the nation.”
And men aren’t the only ones suffering from the decline of men. Women, particularly elite upper-middle-class women, have become “clones” condemned to “Pilates for the next 30 years,” Ms. Paglia says. “Our culture doesn’t allow women to know how to be womanly,” adding that online pornography is increasingly the only place where men and women in our sexless culture tap into “primal energy” in a way they can’t in real life."
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
From the WSJ - Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues
I thought many of you would be interested. This interview is the only thing I’ve read from her, but so far I like her. She’s spot on, in my opinion. A smart, pragmatic feminist I can relate to.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920[/quote]
I used to read her stuff a lot - interesting energetic writing.
But the constant references to Apollo and Dionysus - to the exclusion of all other gods - got on my nerves. 
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
I wondered if a lot of you would relate to her discussion of PC gender politics in the universities, and how it negatively effects communication. I thought that part was interesting, but I’m not sure I understand what she’s trying to say, because so many topics get passed over very briefly in the article. Thoughts?
"…She sees the tacit elevation of “female values"such as sensitivity, socialization and cooperation as the main aim of teachers, rather than fostering creative energy and teaching hard geographical and historical facts.”
By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. “This PC gender politics thing” the way gender is being taught in the universities in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness." The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything. . . . They understand the agenda.” In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.
Politically correct, inadequate education, along with the decline of America’s brawny industrial base, leaves many men with “no models of manhood,” she says. “Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.” The only place you can hear what men really feel these days, she claims, is on sports radio. No surprise, she is an avid listener. The energy and enthusiasm “inspires me as a writer,” she says, adding: “If we had to go to war,” the callers “are the men that would save the nation.”
And men aren’t the only ones suffering from the decline of men. Women, particularly elite upper-middle-class women, have become “clones” condemned to “Pilates for the next 30 years,” Ms. Paglia says. “Our culture doesn’t allow women to know how to be womanly,” adding that online pornography is increasingly the only place where men and women in our sexless culture tap into “primal energy” in a way they can’t in real life."
[/quote]
Unfortunately she only notes the effects of the Marxist takeover without realising the causes. And I disagree that men are silenced blah blah blah because most of the academics who brought this stuff were men, the heads of the universities are men as are the heads of most departments. Still, she is always interesting.
Yep - she’s pretty awesome.
About a month ago she landed blows against the sham that is rape culture
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/16/camille-paglia-on-rob-ford-rihanna-and-rape-culture/
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yep - she’s pretty awesome.
About a month ago she landed blows against the sham that is rape culture
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/16/camille-paglia-on-rob-ford-rihanna-and-rape-culture/[/quote]
Thanks, Raj. She covers some of the same material there, for people who are interested.
Also, here’s the Time Magazine article that H Factor mentioned.
On a lighter note, just because Paglia is a feminist lesbian who likes to wear androgynous pantsuits, a little humor from Portlandia.
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.
On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.
On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?
[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created.
Isn’t it interesting to see anti-feminist opinions being covered in mainstream outlets such as WSJ and Time magazine?
2-3 years ago I highly doubt you’d ever see them openly expressed without severe backlash.