Feminist Badass: Camille Paglia

176px-anarcha-feminism-svg

Equal opportunity feminism, which I espouse, demands the removal of all barriers to woman’s advance in the political and professional world — but not at the price of special protections for women which are infantilizing and anti-democratic.

I was cruising around the net tonight and discovered, Camille Paglia, who I think is a class A feminist badass.

While I don’t agree with her on everything, and I haven’t yet had a chance to read her books, I love her idea that feminism needs to get back to its historic roots. She says in one of the videos that the feminism of today has become ‘weepy-whiny’.

Here’s a few quotes from her:

It took most of my life to realize that men are not tyrants or egomaniacs. I had an epiphany in a shopping mall recently that put it all in perspective. I was having a piece of pizza and I saw all these teenage boys running around in the mall. They were wild. I looked at them and saw this desperation. When I was their age I hated those kinds of boys because they were so obnoxious. They are so involved in their status, gaining it, afraid of losing it. I’m glad I don’t have to be that age again. So they sat down near me and they didn’t notice me. I didn’t exist on their radar map. I was thinking, This is great. I was watching. They were full of energy and life. And I suddenly realized, My God, the reason they are so loud, the reason they are so uncontrolled, the reason I hated them at that age is that they bond with each other against women. It was the first time they were able to be away from the control of a woman — their mothers. They were on their own and for this period they’re very dangerous. Women have to watch out when they go to fraternity parties, because the men are all trying to up their status among one another and there is all this testosterone. And then some girl will snag them. And that’s it. It’s over for them. They get married and they’re under the control of their wives forever. You hear these women all the time, on, like, Ricki Lake, saying, “You know, I have two children, but actually I have three children” about the husband, and it’s true: The husband becomes a child again. Even when men are doing their share, taking out the garbage, doing the mopping, whatever, women are still running the household. They are in control and the men become subordinate again. So that’s what the feminists are so worried about? Men who are subordinated by their mothers and then by their wives? Men are looking for maternal solace in women, and that’s the nature of heterosexuality. Now you tell me, who really has all the power?

I love that last bit.

Madonna won my undying loyalty by reviving and re-creating the hard glamour of the studio-era Hollywood movie queens, figures of mythological grandeur. Contemporary feminism cut itself off from history and bankrupted itself when it spun its paranoid fantasy of male oppressors and female sex-object victims. Woman is the dominant sex. Woman’s sexual glamour has bewitched and destroyed men since Delilah and Helen of Troy.

I love her ability to speak what she thinks is truth. She doesn’t apologize for her views and challenges people to prove her wrong. She doesn’t sit around and dwell on some mythical miasma called the patriarchy, but instead boasts about the strength found in women.

Women’s studies is a comfy, chummy morass of unchallenged groupthink. It is, with rare exception, totally unscholarly. Academic feminists have silenced men and dissenting women.

Ouch!

I also like how she champions free speech. She strikes me as a very strong person, with a strong personality, strong opinions and strong, straightforward manner of speaking.

I want a revamped feminism. Putting the vamp back means the lady must be a tramp. My generation of Sixties rebels wanted to smash the bourgeois codes that had become the authoritarian totems of the Fifties. The ‘nice’ girl with her soft, sanitized speech and decorous manners had to go. Thirty years later, we’re still stuck with her — in the official spokesmen and the anointed heiresses of the feminist establishment… Equal opportunity feminism, which I espouse, demands the removal of all barriers to woman’s advance in the political and professional world — but not at the price of special protections for women which are infantilizing and anti-democratic.

So there you have it. I just wanted to share a few bits that I found tonight while reading up on feminism as a whole. When I ran across one of these video clips, I just had to know more about Camille Paglia.

What do you think about the quotes, videos or Paglia in general?

 

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. Interesting perspective, but I’m not sure I altogether agree. Feminism isn’t a perspective of SOME women, but a combined perspective of ALL women, taking into account different cultural experiences. Her perspectives seems limited, in my opinion.

      • I am not saying ALL women are feminists or that men can’t be feminists. Feminism is beneficial for men and women, and needs to be supported and appreciated by ALL people. But it is FEMINISM because it is about WOMEN’s empowerment, so it must take into account ALL women’s experiences and perspective, and not pander to those with the largest voices…otherwise, it becomes something other than Feminism.

          • Victim ideology and Feminism are too different things. I agree with some of her thoughts, but her conclusions are wrong. I disagree that women are the dominant sex, and I believe it is a mumbo jumbo some Feminists are trying to sell. Like some religious people will claim certain things by faith that they truly don’t believe and they have no reason to…just because it is inspiring…it makes them feel more powerful than they really are. If women are truly the dominant sex, why was there need for a LIBERATION??? We need to accept the truth before we can change our reality, but she is painting the reality she wants to believe and telling us that is the truth. Also, there are soooo many differeny dimensions to the feminist discourse, and her think hers is mainly on sexual liberation, which is why she’s bulking at others who approach it in terms of women’s political and economic influence and contribution to society. Women need to hear women’s real perspectives rather than TELL women what our perspective should be… Then we change our oppressors from men to women… And that’s the problem with feminism today. Women with a voice use it at the expense of other women…but united we stand, divided we fall!

  2. I haven’t had a chance to watch the videos, I’ll have to do that after work.

    I’m sure you’re going to be shocked but, like Ufuomaee, I disagree with the conclusions drawn in the excerpts you’ve chosen. While I don’t disagree with some of the thoughts, such as young boys seeking to find their independence from their mothers.

    I am somewhat dismayed and offended by this notion:

    Putting the vamp back means the lady must be a tramp. My generation of Sixties rebels wanted to smash the bourgeois codes that had become the authoritarian totems of the Fifties.

    Must I be a tramp to be a real feminist? Being a promiscuous woman who lords their sex-appeal over men is a feminist? No. Just. No.

    Women are not the dominant sex. Not because of sex or anything else. In fact I find that this piece infantilizes men. Which is not what feminism is about at all. If a man cedes over his power in a relationship to his wife it is because he has chosen to do so, not because she has the power to demand it. That a man wants another mother and that is why he marries is an insult to men. And in doing so, he is not necessarily subordinating himself to his wife. He’s charging her with a task. The task of taking care of him, his needs, his wants, his desires. So.no.just.no.

    None of this is to say that I don’t know of marriages where the woman “wears the pants” but I don’t know many. It isn’t the norm, at least where I’m from.

    • “Must I be a tramp to be a real feminist? Being a promiscuous woman who lords their sex-appeal over men is a feminist? No. Just. No.”

      Also, are we saying that men are just animals whose need/desire for sex incapacitates them to take care of themselves, act like adults, or to realize that a particular woman is at least attempting to manipulate him?

      • I also don’t think (although I’m not entirely sure) that she’s not saying tramp as in promiscuous but more like tramp as in sexually free – as in not told by society. More like doing away with the whole idea that a woman who sleeps around is a slut and a man who does is a stud. That whole double standard thing.

        It also seems to me that she’s heavily influenced by Freud. The quote about the boys playing makes me think of Freud.

    • You said my mind Ruth! Those where the main quotes that irritated my sensibilities about the woman. The video even reveals more about her narrow-mindedness on Feminist issues. She’s got just one angle, and that is sex. So if we are not tramps. we are disempowered… WIsdom or foolishness?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s