Earlier this year, Camille Paglia gave a problematic interview to New York Magazine. Paglia is best known for her feminist writings, or her critiques on modern feminism, gender, masculinity, what have you. I enjoy reading her interviews because she makes me think, but I rarely agree with her about anything. Paglia is something of a Trump defender, or maybe something like a “sympathetic analyst” of Trump and Trumpism. She doesn’t see him as a racist bully or a white supremacist or a sexual predator. She sees him as a man’s man who owns his (dated) concept of masculinity admirably. Paglia has a lengthy interview with The Hollywood Reporter and my God, this woman can talk. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:
Hugh Hefner’s importance: “Hugh Hefner absolutely revolutionized the persona of the American male. In the post-World War II era, men’s magazines were about hunting and fishing or the military, or they were like Esquire, erotic magazines with a kind of European flair. Hefner reimagined the American male as a connoisseur in the continental manner, a man who enjoyed all the fine pleasures of life, including sex. Hefner brilliantly put sex into a continuum of appreciative response to jazz, to art, to ideas, to fine food. This was something brand new. Enjoying fine cuisine had always been considered unmanly in America. Hefner updated and revitalized the image of the British gentleman, a man of leisure who is deft at conversation — in which American men have never distinguished themselves — and the art of seduction, which was a sport refined by the French.
Trump as the Playboy Man: “Before the election, I kept pointing out that the mainstream media based in Manhattan, particularly The New York Times, was hopelessly off in the way it was simplistically viewing Trump as a classic troglodyte misogynist. I certainly saw in Trump the entire Playboy aesthetic, including the glitzy world of casinos and beauty pageants. It’s a long passé world of confident male privilege that preceded the birth of second-wave feminism. There is no doubt that Trump strongly identified with it as he was growing up. It seems to be truly his worldview. But it is categorically not a world of unwilling women. Nor is it driven by masculine abuse. It’s a world of show girls, of flamboyant femaleness, a certain kind of strutting style that has its own intoxicating sexual allure — which most young people attending elite colleges today have had no contact with whatever.
When men were men and women were women: “The unhappy truth is that the more the sexes have blended, the less each sex is interested in the other. So we’re now in a period of sexual boredom and inertia, complaint and dissatisfaction…With the sexes so bored with each other, all that’s left are these feminist witch-hunts. That’s where the energy is! And meanwhile, men are shrinking. I see men turning away from women and simply being content with the world of fantasy because women have become too thin-skinned, resentful and high-maintenance.
On Gloria Steinem’s critique that “what Playboy doesn’t know about women could fill a book.” “What Playboy doesn’t know about well-educated, upper-middle-class women with bitter grievances against men could fill a book! I don’t regard Gloria Steinem as an expert on any of the human appetites, sexuality being only one of them. Interviews with Steinem were documenting from the start how her refrigerator contained nothing but two bottles of carbonated water. Steinem’s philosophy of life is extremely limited by her own childhood experiences. She came out of an admittedly unstable family background. I’m so tired of that animus of hers against men, which she’s been cranking out now for decade after decade. I come from a completely different Italian-American background — very food-centric and appetite-centric. Steinem, with that fulsomely genteel WASP persona of hers, represents an attitude of malice and vindictiveness toward men that has not proved to be in the best interest of young women today… Steinem is basically a socialite who always hid her early dependence on men in the social scene in New York. And as a Democrat, I also blame her for having turned feminism into a covert adjunct of the Democratic party. I have always felt that feminism should transcend party politics and be a big tent welcoming women of faith and of all views into it…”
She goes on like that for like seven pages. I can’t. I just… can’t. I don’t think Steinem is a perfect feminist either, and you know why? Because there’s no such thing. It’s about the conversation, it’s about the progression of ideas, and it’s about working towards tangible achievements, like educating police and prosecutors about rape, sexual assault, harassment and stalking. It’s about pay equity and a culture of consent and sexual agency. It’s about reproductive choice. The fact that Paglia is basically defending Trump because he views himself as a throwback “playboy” is gross. I also get the feeling that Paglia sort of hates women? Just in general, she thinks women are subhuman.
Photos courtesy of Getty.
Go away, Camille. Your time in the sun has been over since 1990-something.
So has her mullet’s.
Hahaha! 😀
I pretty much agree with everything she says. and im happy she’s still got a platform to say it, because too many people who disagree with mainstream PC identity politics and the current toxic feminism and dare to swim upstream like this are just silenced because it offends some peoples’ sensibilities.
Yes, it’s the current feminism that’s toxic. (rolling eyes). Not the asshole who thinks he’s entitled to grab women by the pussy, or kiss them because he feels like it and when you’re a star or rich, they let you – because they are afraid to speak up and be labeled.
You demonstrate exactly why Paglia is wrong from A to Z, and why the US ended up with a moron in chief. Because you admire bullies; unable to attract attention due to your personality, you aspire to the Trump view of success which is essentially that of a man who inherited wealth and then used it to cheat, bribe, lie and steal to cover up your inability to actually create wealth, or a successful business, or have a loving relationship, instead choosing to purchase willing gold diggers and strut around as if that were some major accomplishment. It’s not. There have always been women willing to sell themselves into a loveless marriage for the sake of material comforts. That is not an “European” view of the world where men are men and women are women. That goes back all the way to living in caves huddled around a fire, and some of us have evolved since.
#nastywoman #istandwithher and hell yeah I’d rather be a “toxic” feminist that a purchased bride any day of the week
You nailed it bros.
Identity politics are people’s children, like my gay daughter.
Dare to swim upstream? You rebel, you.
Really? This whole thing read as a basic bitch’s intro screed on MRA politics. She looks at the issues with only the barest scratching at their depth, and it weakens every even remotely salient point she makes.
For example,
“I see men turning away from women and simply being content with the world of fantasy because women have become too thin-skinned, resentful and high-maintenance.”
As yes, we should go back to compliance. Forget about the women who are turning away from men because MEN are too thin-skinned, resentful of equality, and high-maintenance. Forget that the American congress is trying to pass anti-science anti-woman legislature. Forget that 97% of rapists are never charged. Forget that women are still shamed for sexuality, even while ‘conquests’ are promoted as the pinnacle of manliness.
Paglia focuses on what feminism means to men, without considering why it exists in the first place. She consistently turns her voice to how women are letting men down. As a feminist thats hilariously hypocritical.
I won’t even touch the nonsense she says when she approaches discussing women in the sex trade.
Totally agree- and that probably is because of my age. I feel bad for kids today it seems like an unhappy headspace full of grievances.
“… [people that] dare to swim upstream. . . are just silenced because it offends some peoples’ sensibilities”
So tired of deluded, self-centered contrarians that fancy themselves as “up stream swimming”, counterculture rebels. Most of these people, usually white or European men in my experience, never bother to fully understand why someone might be offended or even comprehend the history of why so many demeaning “identity” labels still exist in modern culture.
The erroneous post-racial concept for example. The attitude that, “there’s a black man as president, so no more complaining”, or “black president means your identity problems don’t exist anymore”.
Contrarians like to argue “just get over it”. “It’s not 1950 anymore, and they meant no offense”. Therefore they should not be held responsible for the past and told they need to change.
So again it’s all about them. How the world needs to acknowledge their experience rather than seeing beyond themselves to the inequities still in our culture and making a contribution to change it.
I can’t stand Camille Pag….. she always seems so bitter.
Anyway…. A very refined elderly neighbor told me once that she was a Bunny in the late 1960’s, she said basically she was a waitress who served food and drinks and wore a bunny costume, she never did anything with the magazine, just worked in the club and paid her way through New York University.
I was floored. lol
Well that would explain her then. I believe it.
It seems like she’s projecting her own self loathing all over these responses. I think she’s just got some internalized misogyny, I think it’s a generational thing even though we all have some of it. My mom is a Trump voter and actually looked me in the eyes and said “I love abusive, misogynistic assholes.” with complete sincerity when I asked her to defend trump. She’s close to Paglia’s age. Did anyone else think Playboy and sexuality are not interchangeable as she suggests? Like, she’s listing off this list of life’s ‘indulgences’ and instead of saying that women’s airbrushed, fake, idealized bodies and made up personas were put among the categories of find food and jazz music, she says it’s sexuality. Whose sexuality does she speak for? It seems very white. She doesn’t seem like she knows who she is or what she’s talking about and she should probably stop talking. She’s considered thought provoking and intellectual in these times? Wow. We’re in worse shape than I thought.
I honestly have no use for Paglia. She basically hates anyone who isn’t her.
It’s just purely illogical to compare fine art with all that is Hugh Hefner, this premise is like comparing cheap plastic nylon to vintage silk. The metaphor is a stretch to the point of breaking. Please. Gloria Steinem is a beautiful, smart and sensual woman whose courage has inspired trillions. I find it telling that Paglia needs to include disparaging remarks; it’s apparent she is projecting her own asexuality.
” I find it telling that Paglia needs to include disparaging remarks; it’s apparent she is projecting her own asexuality.”
Exactly this. Her excessive dwelling upon appetites and pleasures she clearly does not possess is laughable (and telling).
She lost me after, “but it is categorically not a world of unwilling women”.
Women might pose for Playboy of their own free will, but remind me again how many women accused Trump of the sexual harassment/assault he openly admitted to enjoying…
Beautiful summation.
This. She’s almost always arrogant toward other writers, feminists, and anyone else with any intellectual ambition – but with her predictability I don’t get why. She rarely to never surprises and she’s so bitter. Zzzzzzz.
Maybe she’d make me think if I read the whole piece, but this snippet just sounds like a well-educated “mans man” masquerading as a woman who wants a better version of feminism. Also, feminism does champion and support all women; it’s that not all women support feminism.
She’s a contrarian by nature. Always has been
You take one side and she’ll take the other even if she doesn’t actually believe what she’s saying.
I agree. The word “contrarian” did come to mind when reading this.
I find her point of view useful, if irritating at times…it’s important to see feminism filtered through different lenses.
yep. you don’t have to agree but it’s true, she makes you think. she has a point of view and she’s not wrong. it’s great camille is covered here. i love my fellow feminists, but the dismissive and condescending tone in a lot of the comments totally exemplifies her point about the feminist-outrage machine.
+1
Nope. Sorry but the comments posted are a natural and appropriate response. She is insulting, dismissive and is categorically putting down a very serious issue. It’s one thing to disagree and be critical, but she is the one who is first to be condescending and dismissive. I suppose to stir up controversy and make herself relevant in the current public discourse.
LOL my god does this woman actually believe her own bullshit?
She says that Playboy redefined masculinity and made “fine cuisine” appealing to men then has the balls to say that Trump defined the playboy aesthetic that she describes.
So is overdone steak with ketchup, big macs and Doritos considered “fine cuisine” now?
Excuse me, Kitten. 45 eats his fried chicken with a knife and fork. THAT is CLASSY.
Same with only dating women who are fake tanned, fake breasted and blonde. CLASSY.
Fuckin Hef. He definitely had influence, I mean he’s made poor Paglia think McDicks is the Fat Duck, in terms of class and taste.
We sure she’s not still on the ‘ludes?
That’s a good observation!
Logic is not Paglia’s friend.
I totally agree. Her thesis really is just a bunch of bullsh^t. I was almost impressed by her ability to spin it with such seriousness.
Well, she’s a much older woman who is very pervy towards much younger women. You can almost see her salivating over them in one interview I saw. She can relate to Trump and Hef.
Whoa. Well that also explains a lot. Listening to her, she definitely sounds like she disdains women or at least self empowered, outspoken women.
Paglia sucks.
She’s who MRAs quote when they want to victim blame with a veneer of academia.
Camille Paglia was a troll before trolls were trolls.
Beyond that, wow, does she ever overthink the simplest things. In an effort to be the smartest person in the room, she comes across as needlessly bombastic. Girl, bye!
“Troll” is exactly the word that came to mind as I was reading this.
Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahaaaaaaaa
Sorry, what were you saying? Still cackling over the fact that Paglia thinks anyone gives a single sh*t about anything she has to say. Delighting in the fact that she’s STILL harping on about how she’s from this sprawling Italian-American family, as if that fact gives her some sort of unique critical insight.
You know how MRAs will claim feminists just wish they were men? No. Paglia is an anti-feminist who truly wishes she had the social/political/cultural capital of the straight, cisgender white man. My overwhelming impression of her work has always been of a woman who desperately wants to be a man. It’s…bizarre.
Has anyone caught her cameo in the classic queer film The Watermelon Woman? The director of that film trolls her beautifully.
“STILL harping on about how she’s from this sprawling Italian-American family, as if that fact gives her some sort of unique critical insight.”
I know, right.
As if the Italians are the only culture that subjugated and oppressed women. Women have been oppressed across all western and eastern societies. Just about every culture imo – 90%.
She seems to have a chip on her shoulder about wasp, middle class women that are re-claiming their power, and I say this as a poc.
I always get the sense that Paglia is an attention seeking show woman who doesn’t really believe what she spouts, just like baby fists.
And about complicit women who provide the showgirl backdrop for creeps like drump and Hefner, that doesn’t tell the entire story. A now deceased friend who was a psychiatrist in Chicago treated many many young women who worked at his clubs. Hefner referred them because many had deep psychological problems to the point that they were hospitalized for psychosis. She said they were so beautiful but deeply disturbed. That’s all she told me but I would imagine their objectification all in the name if fun would damage quite a few young, naive, impressionable young women who bought into Hefner’s fantasy.
Well, many sexually abused children “grow up” to take vocations in the sex industry. The sex trade (yes Playboy clubs are included in this) further damages vulnerable people. Once the lid has come off these “showgirls”, the whole manipulative culture becomes less about “sexiness” and more about tragedy. I agree with some premise of “adult sexuality”, but for every confident and liberated porn star, there are trillions of humans in underground human trafficking. The entire industry promotes abuse; someday we will have liberated sexuality, but we are currently far from the abuse of children.
I think it is problematic to think the sex industry is about abuse and tragedy because they are not the same issue. There is criminal behavior, and then there are women who choose it, and those shouldn’t be lumped together. It denies the power of one group of women because of the victimization of another. Some of the victim angles are overstated and accepted because it feeds into the idea that any woman who owns her sexuality and enjoys it must be damaged or just sluts.
Just like sexual appetites, what is controversial for one couple is exciting for another, barring crime of course.
To be honest, I don’t get why anyone would willingly choose the sex industry if they have other viable choices. I understand that some women do make the choice on their own, but even if they’re using agency to make the decision, I don’t see how that’s actually owning one’s sexuality, if one is be being paid to act out real sexual acts for someone else. If a monetary value is attached to that act, even if the performer feels she’s made the decision by choice, I think the situation becomes more about capitalism and commodification rather than whether the woman is enjoying her sexuality.
Perplexed,
I agree with every single word.
The commodification aspect does not get enough space in most fake-empowering, romantic narratives, but I feel it’s the most important.
@magnoliarose
The sex industry and sex trafficking are related issues. At their core they function on the belief that women are sexual objects. To the consumer, the viewer or user, a women’s purpose is for the gratification of men’s needs. They are not viewed as equals, as feeling people. They are commodities in both industries.
While some sexually liberated women might choose this profession, they are still commodifying their bodies which in and of itself is part of the problem. As long as there is profit to be made, someone, traditionally men, will exploit the disenfranchised and vulnerable, usually women and children, hence the existence of the sex industry and sex trafficking.
If a woman chooses to commodify her body, then she owns her choice. If it is genuinely her choice and sometimes because of the large amounts money that can be made without a degree or connections.
There are different segments of the sex industry, so I do want to be clear about that, and I am not talking about sex workers who are addicts or tricked or pimped out.
Dita von Teese is not a victim, she made a choice to use her body as a product. There is a strip club out west owned by women, and they do burlesque, and old-fashioned strip shows and some of the women are artists who also do erotic films. They are in the sex industry, but they aren’t trafficked.
Some women don’t have traditional views about sex and approach it from that place and can be brilliant and interesting women with no problems that pushed them in that direction. Very high end escorts sometimes feel the money and perks are worth it. There is porn made by women, dominatrixes who aren’t trafficked and strippers who do it to go to college.
I am not saying these are the majority, but it is a different segment of the sex industry.
CP likes to be shocking and she talks in so many generalizations and twisted logic she can hurt some points rather than help.
We choose to commodity our bodies in a variety of ways, athletics, modelling and sex trade included.
IMO agency can’t be denied to women who chose these professions, but there are two very differing feminist views on the sex trade.
One is that women are always victims, and this is often called the Nordic style of thought, because Sweden and Norway have enshrined this ideology in their sex trade law. The second is more pro sex trade if you can call it that. This approach states that by labelling all these women’s as victims, we diminish their personal choice, their agency. This approach is often adopted by outreach and sex trade industry organizations themselves, and more closely aligns with my personal beliefs, which are similar to what Mag stated.
@detritus
Self directed agency or victim, it’s all within in a system made by and still dominantly serving men. The commodification of sex using women’s bodies to gratify men and reasserting women’s worth as solely for the service of men. We still have the same patriarchal system that anyone including women can participate in at any level, consumer, exploiter and/or exploited or object. Now we objectify men’s bodies too, but still nowhere to the extend that women are objectified and commercialized throughout popular culture.
also – do not invoke your (and my) Italian heritage as some excuse for your shitty worldview Camille!
Hi, I’m Camille Paglia and I’m a bit lonely so I just thought I would draw some attention to myself by hinting that Gloria Steinem has an eating disorder and is a bitter man-hater and that Hef liberated American men by telling them it was ok to think of women as just a pair of boobs and Trump is so good for women and I enjoy eating pasta and drinking a lot. I’m drunk now. Maybe Donny will share some cake if I flash my boobs.
Lol, this is perfect. I’d say you have her inner monologue down pat.
Paglia is the ultimate “chill girl”, the kind of woman who wants to be a “Bro”, totally better than those humourless, carbonated water drinking, man hating feminists, right?
/Sarcasm
Sounds like she was projecting with Steinem. If anybody sounds vindictive and hateful, it’s her.
Camille Paglia made her bones praising the patriarchy and running down on women. She is going to beat that horse till it drops, so long as people keep giving her the attention she craves.
Except that Trump is really nothing like the classic “man’s man.” He’s sniveling and weak, and is without the strategy or grit to make any of the hard decisions successful. Even worse, he casts blame at everyone else. He’s more rich boy villain from an 80s movie than John Wayne. There is nothing to respect about him.
If nothing else, that throwback masculinity required personal accountability, integrity, and the determination to see things through. It also required a stiff upper lip, none of this poor-me daily 4am Twitter meltdown. I would take that 1940s masculinity over Trump any day.
drump is a YUGE sniveler, whiner, projecting POS.
Yes! My image of a man’s man is someone British, like a James Bond character. Trump doesn’t have any of these qualities; he is weak, vain, pompous, indecisive, stupid, a mean-girl bully, and a liar. Only in the most superficial ways does he represent the problematic ideal of a man’s man.
I don’t think he is even particularly interested in sex! He talks about it like he is, but at heart I don’t think he has much physical appetite for women.
Eh, I agree with you on Trump but I disagree that the “throwback masculinity” she idealizes isn’t as virtuous as it may appear on the surface to some people.
Camille Paglia made me so uncomfortable when I first encountered her in the 90’s. She seemed to embrace all that was masculine, denigrate the feminine and clearly preferred voluptuous sirens to flat-chested tomboys like me. But recently, I find her fascinating and brilliant. I think she’s spot on about Hef and she has a point about Gloria Steinem, too, who I love. I’m not sure she’s apologizing for Trump, as much as contextualizing. To me, though, Trump represents the grossest aspects of a “Playboy”, none of the intellectual, classy and refined qualities that HH was promoting before he became a caricature of himself.
Shut up, Camille. If you’re that old and still haven’t figured out that men won’t welcome you into the boy’s club no matter how much you throw other women under the boss, you’re useless to the rest of us.
Again, agree with you. She’s a classic case of “the boys won’t like us if..” I have been hearing this since my sorority days in the early 70’s. I don’t need the same message from a faux intellectual.
53%
She sold out to the winning side, patriarchy years ago and along with it adopted their deeply misogynistic attitude towards women as objects and not simply human beings. She doesn’t give a toss about women she cares about herself, about being seen as ‘relevant’ and about winning, hence the Trump fandom, she is exactly like him, a transparently horrible bit of detritus that floated to the top of an increasingly shitty (international) cultural landscape.
I showed my son a video of Charo; she was a bit of a hero to PR people in the 50s 60s. My middle school child was shocked at what he identified as “weird” talking, and he didn’t mean the accent. Many stars of that era had this overtly sexual demeanor, an accepted cookie cutter presentation as a wiling sexual objects. If we ever need to view progress, check out some Dean Martin interview of Charo, and trust me, anyone would cringe. Sexuality is a beautiful thing, of course, but the point is that as human beings, we are all More, and have the right to explore More of ourselves than exclusively sexual objects. Paglia has it wrong, the era that glorified that old paradigm is humiliating. Praise the end of an era!
You are sooo right. I can’t even handle old Jackie Kennedy videos. That breathy fake crap. Same for Ginger from Giliigans Island and early Goldie Hawn. I guess it all stems from the OG sexy subservient female, Marilyn Monroe.
I haven’t read the interview and will later, but I have always had an issue with some of her ideas, but at other times she has been well ahead of the feminist movement.
She is a provocateur, and I think it is good that she pisses us off because it keeps feminism from being a homogeneous gang of people with a stranglehold on the word and meaning.
I do agree with the witchhunt mentality since it usually keeps women who are unsure of themselves from expressing their views or asking questions. Sometimes feminists are too rigid and unyielding to other especially concerning traditional roles and men.
Her assertion that the sexes are blending is absolute truth in my view. I love men, and I like them to be very masculine and not feminized at all. But my definition of feminized doesn’t mean weak or overly emotional; it just says I don’t expect men in my life to behave like a girlfriend or to relate to me as women do. There are traditional things I do like and find sexy and appealing, but it is not subjugation on my part.
Testosterone does not equal misogyny, and sometimes that is thrown around hard by feminists who aren’t attracted to men or don’t like them or have a problematic history with them. I have debated with feminists about misunderstanding women who love drawing men and find power in it and women who depend on it for self-worth. I have also argued chivalry and the fact that I don’t see some male behaviors as insults.
Male feminists at times think they have to emulate feminine qualities to be a feminist and it isn’t true either. We are different biologically, and our instincts aren’t the same. I grew up with brothers and male cousins, and I am close to my father, so I am not suspicious of men and don’t assume they are always unaware or have malignant masculinity.
Her views on Trump are just ridiculous and wrong. I know what she is going for, a Carey Grant type, but he isn’t that kind. He is a rapist and a misogynist period.
So to sum it up: Whataboutthemenz???
“Sometimes feminists are too rigid and unyielding to other especially concerning traditional roles and men”
Do you understand what feminism is? Its exactly that and feminists are nowhere near rigid enough when it comes to men. They are the number 1 problem in everything.
Of course, I understand feminism, but I argue that women as proxies are the number one problem. I don’t expect the same level of understanding from men as I do from women. Women who internalize patriarchy but see feminism as one theory are telling women who have a different argument that they don’t understand themselves which is what society tries to convince us is correct.
We approach feminism from a million different places depending on race, class, education, geography, religion, sexuality, economics and social experiences. There can be no such thing as a correct view because the person’s theory is based solely on their observations of their own background. To tell another woman HOW to experience feminism is to try to force another woman to conform to an idea that is possibly outside her realm of understanding.
I experience my gender differently from you, and you experience it separately from your neighbor.
No, it isn’t what about the men like you think I mean. But I am not a mother of only daughters, I have sons, and I do consider their upbringing and do observe that no matter what my intentions are societal construct is larger and more potent than my gender-neutral treatment of my children. Until society changes, we will continue to fall into the two accepted gender identities.
What QueenB said, well put!
[[We are different biologically, and our instincts aren’t the same.]]
This statement is not particularly accurate speaking either biologically or psychologically. It is an entirely socially defined ideology that men and women are fundamentally different. Even our understanding of biological sex have changed significantly in the last couple of decades.
Gendered differences are almost entirely due to perception generated by social constructs, just as gendered labor has always been socially defined. If you pick up any women’s psychology book, you will find dozens of study that show gendered differences are almost entirely performative. Meaning that when they are unaware of being observed and the study is objective, the differences lack any practical significance. It’s only when people are aware of the perception of others that they subconsciously produce more gender-specific behavior.
While there is certainly something to be said for the problems of creating feminist ideals that are equally as restrictive as patriarchal ones, basing it on the idea that men and women live in separate spheres of existence is more or less a purely culturally created narrative. Those spaces exist because of society, not because of nature or any inherent major differences.
Veronica, many thanks. You expressed this far better than I could have. My wonderful daughter [gender studies degree] has taught me so much in the past few years, but I was wracking my brain about how to say what I wanted to say.
Also, who in 2017 does not know that gender is a social construct? Even my beloved freshmen students can come up with that.
Honestly? A lot of people. There’s a lot of culturally encoded misinformation out there, and plenty of improperly defined “research” that utilized a biased approach that’s confused our understanding of gender. We seriously take for granted how much our laymen’s knowledge isn’t particularly based on any real scientific data. It also speaks volumes to the real intent of the anti-intellectual movement that’s invaded politics – the less informed the population, the easier it is to convince them of entirely illegitimate concepts and ideas.
I agree with you, and I didn’t word it well.
I should have said our instincts within our social constructs and how we are shaped to react to the world and decipher our experiences.
Even when I discuss men and masculinity, it is still the idea within social constructs because even in matriarchal societies the roles for the genders are different. When experiments are performed where women only live with women, our behavior changes but is it still a social construct or is it our natural state?
The scientific data has been all over the place it seems though I do think false science is used to discount feminism continually. But again, we group ourselves as women and men so beyond physically there are many factors involved in the way we experience our gender and part of that is our biological differences. Pregnancy and fertility can inform our choices and behaviors based on gender. Hormonal fluctuations like PMS is a woman’s domain. Our periods limit some of our physical freedom and menopause is something a man could never understand or how it affects us emotionally.
I believe the new direction of research should be about separating sex/biology studies from gender because I think there are more than two genders anyway that pure biology can’t fully explain. But that is another subject altogether.
“Male feminists at times think they have to emulate feminine qualities to be a feminist and it isn’t true either. We are different biologically, and our instincts aren’t the same. I grew up with brothers and male cousins, and I am close to my father, so I am not suspicious of men and don’t assume they are always unaware or have malignant masculinity.”
I guess what I’m curious about is which qualities specifically that you would define as “feminine”.
I had a feeling my post would be an incomplete explanation, but it is hard to discuss this concisely because feminism is so broad and personal. I don’t even deal from the “old school pink for girls” type space but after I wrote that I was talking with my friend and realized I fall into the trap of articulating thoughts online as if I am talking to people who know me already so I forget how words can sound to strangers.
These links are better at describing my meaning:
https://siuewmst.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/masculinity-studies-what-is-it-and-why-would-a-feminist-care/
http://mensstudies.org/?page_id=4460
I have been interested in Masculinity Studies but only somewhat recently began to learn more about it. IT IS NOT MEN’S RIGHTS ridiculous crap but delves deeper into gender, sexuality, feminism and patriarchy and other issues. It also deals with race and masculinity and LGBTQIA about gender etc. My husband became interested, and I hope more men and women do too because in this age of 45 and malignant misogyny there have to be new definitions and words to use. It isn’t a rebuke of feminism it the complete opposite and is an affirmation instead.
She’s totally out of touch with young feminists and their attitudes anyway. “It’s a world of show girls, of flamboyant femaleness, a certain kind of strutting style that has its own intoxicating sexual allure — which most young people attending elite colleges today have had no contact with whatever.”
Maybe we didn’t have contact with the alluring, bunny eared world of Playboy that Pagalia claims is Trump’s world, but we had Playboy. The Playboy I grew up with was the girls-gone-wild pastel pink and tongue piercings of the early 2000s Playboy. At that time, there was a massive backlash against feminism – and it was instead replaced with this hypersexual laddish culture where women were almost objectifying themselves to be a part of it. Fake boobs and sex tapes. (Female Chauvinist Pigs, I think Ariel Levy called them)
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing inherently wrong with any of those things. But I think young feminists are in a way a rebellion against that. We grew up in a culture that hated and hypersexualised women, which women in popular culture participated in. We’re not frigid now. We’re just having sex for us, not to prove we’re sexy or down. We understand consent. We’re armed with a wealth of knowledge about sex from growing up in a culture where porn was everywhere we’re just choosing how we use it. Honestly, any man that wants to “turn away from” me as a young femist can go ahead. He’s not welcome.
Babadook I love this comment. Insightful and thoughtful and at the risk of sounding condescending, you make me hopeful for your generation. I was an adult (working) in that early 2000s era and could never really wrap my head around that culture/style/mindset and attributed it to my (older) age. I was the generation (before) when feminism, strength and independence was encouraged…needless to say I had a really hard time processing the young girls trying so hard to be sexy. I used to joke and say, “we never worked hard to get a guy to sleep with us. They were the ones that had to work hard. Now it’s opposite.”
I almost always enjoy whatever Paglia has to say as, if nothing else, I find her highly entertaining, even when I disagree. That’s just me. On this subject she stuck to Hefner’s image and social influence and avoided the lived reality of many of his “girlfriends” who lived with him at the mansion. The many many reports of the his paranoia and bizarrely controlling ways – not to mention the sad, desultory sex – Paglia can’t deal with that sort of thing, except to say the women were there voluntarily. She can’t acknowledge how that Hef’s freedom was not freedom FOR THE WOMEN, it was actually at their expense. I think Paglia actually identified with Hef and who knows may view women as sex objects herself.
Ditto.
I keep thinking it’s a photo of Paul McCartney when I click onto the CB page.
😂😂😂😂😂
Camille Paglia is an asshole.
Her comment about GS only having water in her fridge is disturbing. This disqualifies her observations because …?? Sorry, little man. Not buying what you are selling either.
Paglia and Ann Coulter are actually the same person.
I’ve met them both–Paglia briefly, and with Steinem I had the privilege of having dinner. I used to be a philosophy prof, and taught gender studies classes. I can tell you this much: Paglia was a deliberate provocateur. While I think there’s *some* room in this culture for that kind of person (think Christopher Hitchens etc.), it was clear that she was very one-note when it came to actual ideas, and her posturing was just that–posturing. She was an attention seeker and definitely not the intellectual she wants to be.
Steinem was magnetic. She was funny, self-aware, cared deeply about both ideas and practical issues. She took time to talk with my undergrads and was intellectually generous. She was a fantastic speaker, and also a sincere person in a smaller setting.
There is no comparison to me. And Paglia’s tired old trope that feminists hate sex or men… That’s just fodder for MRA and alt-right hacks, and the more she goes on about it, the more dangerous it is, because it gives them cover, and it disgusts me.
Many thanks for the insights.
Very interesting and thanks for sharing.
“ It’s a world of show girls, of flamboyant femaleness, a certain kind of strutting style that has its own intoxicating sexual allure — which most young people attending elite colleges today have had no contact with whatever.”
BULLSH¡T.
They most certainly have had contact. It is called the movies tv internet and especially smartphones. Women (and men even!) strut it out all the damn time. They curate precisely their struts and there seem to be plenty willing to pursue it full time.
She’s not living in the world where every aspect is hyper-sexualized? I think those elite children live in this world and know they too can achieve “success” by strutting their stuff for reality tv. Far more lucrative glamorous drug-addled etc than being a mere “showgirl”.
Idk has she not been out in public in a decade? She hasn’t noticed the boom in cosmetic procedures? Idk how much more flamboyant femininity you can have than inflating your butts boobs lips beyond what we currently have going now. Women are doing these things to themselves not to be a successful showgirl but to be a mom! Have to be showgirl sexy to be a mom now Camilla.
But your “idols” had no hand in this.
Jeez she is out of touch.
Well said, poppy. Paglia was mistaken for an “intellectual” long ago. In truth, her arguments can be refuted with evidence, which you did.
Skankhunt42, Jane Lynch has tremendous hair and would like you to cease and desist copying her tresses.
I watch too much South Park lol
It’s amazing to see someone make a whole career out of being contrary.
It was James Bond who “revolutionized the American male,” not Hefner. Hefner just wanted to have a harem and party.
Camille Paglia has never been a feminist. I don’t know how she convinced people she is.
Love me some Paglia. Super smart, provocative, unapologetic.
Reading up on Camille Paglia is useful for two reasons. The first is that it goes a long way in explaining why women, or feminists of a certain age group, who have been feminists for a couple of decades now, are the way they are. And the second reason is the fact that Camille Paglia is basically the predecessor and the living embodiment of white feminism in all of its glory.
At any rate, as a woman of colour, I’m beyond pleased about the fact that I don’t have to take my cues from her, nor do I have to answer for her opinions. But the fact that she explains so much of what I feel is wrong about the way white women (especially white women of a certain age group) approach feminism is something that I would think should prompt some inquiry on their parts.
Meanwhile, I’ll stick to bell hooks and Sara Ahmed.
I don’t dismiss any feminist since I think there is value in learning even when it isn’t something I support or remotely agree with or understand. There is no consensus but there are patterns and like you said she embodies white feminism even though CP doesn’t realize it. Gloria Steinem is more like my mother, but it is still white privileged feminism. At one time CP probably thought they were the epitome of opposites and differences, but then that assertion ignores women of color, transgender, class, economics, geography, sexuality, and education.
Uh actually Camille,
I think lots of people are still interested in sex. Maybe they’re just not that into YOU Camille.