Camille Paglia is back as the oracle of anti-woke young Neo-cons?

The grimace lift didn't affect the grimace.

It just took the heavy sag out.

Oh. Her "commentary"?

Garbage.

She was always a piece of shit who happened to occasionally say something interesting or relevant.

Ever the narcissistic cunt.

#CancelCamille

Women haaate her because she makes women take accountability.

She's irritating, derivative, and singularly irritating just like her idol Madonna. I remember when she used to be a lesbian or was it bisexual? Now she identifies as trans-- except she's not really in favor of trans rights. People who are unendingly contrary and wear it as a badge of intellect are a pain in the ass.

R6 What’s contrary about finding your sexual orientation?

And I don’t find her work to be based in sexual orientation, it’s more man and woman.

She writes some interesting and insightful stuff but does the same thing a lot of these public intellectual types do. They make a decent point and then take it way too far. She is right about the dearth of beauty in a lot of modern art.

I like her and have always found her interesting and not crazy.

I agree she's a narcissistic, social provocateur, but there's no denying she's quite a prolific thinker:

We cannot have a world where everyone is a victim. "I'm this way because my father made me this way. I'm this way because my husband made me this way." Yes, we are indeed formed by traumas that happen to us. But then you must take charge, you must take over, you are responsible.

“We are plunged once again into an ethical chaos where intolerance masquerades as tolerance and where individual liberty is crushed by the tyranny of the group."

-Camille Paglia

Men love her because like any woman who wants to succeed professionally and financially, she always takes the mens’ side and shits on women hence the male applause on here for her allegedly holding women “accountable”.

r11 Ah, the ol' if you don't agree with us, then you're a whore side of feminism.

She's a stupid person's image of a smart person. And, r10, what's so provocative about that? It's kind of banal, actually. And we know she doesn't really mean it. Conservative criticism of victimilogy is selective. We passed all the 2010s with conservatives calling youths delicate and snow flakes, saying they're unprepared to adult life due to excessive coddling from society. Then covid happens and what do conservatives say? That young people's lives are being destroyed by anti-pandemic measures, that we must let them go out and spread the virus because they're too young to act with discipline. I didn't follow Paglia's comments on the pandemic, but I can wholly picture such words coming out of her mouth. Her contrarianism is merely a byproduct of her self-presentation as a feminist and a dyke. You take out these labels, and we have a run of the mill conservative with a bloated prose style. She's very much the beneficent of the identity politics she loves flogging to death.

I love Camille but not the idea of her being an icon for young conservatives

She calls herself trans now?!? Hahaha. Well, that tells you all you need to know about this airhead.

“She offers an antidote to the stale jargon and stagnant ideology of the Social Justice movement. Paglia represents individuality, dissent, passion, humor, wit, a love of art, an interest in history, and an appetite for learning. In contrast, the Year Zero, collectivist mentality of the Social Justice Left is a dead end.”

Huzzah Camille

R11 Where’s your proof?

She doesn’t believe in male bashing because she understands female nature and male nature and how and why they clash. Her defense of men is men and male nature shouldn’t be condemned because they don’t think and behave like women.

And she’s stood the test of time compared to her generation of feminists. I think her ideas of feminism are more contemporary and are still hot topics among younger generations and so it makes sense.

Whereas a lot of feminists from the 60’s - 90’s like Dworkin and Steinem are very dated at this point. Dworkin was an anti-porn feminist and we’re living in a world today where women are not only making millions doing it but they’re directors and producers and making their own content. The whole anti-porn movement of the 80’s and 90’s has been dismantled. And people who believe it hasn’t are old or ignorant.

And then you’ve got feminists like Kate Millett of the 70’s and 80’s who’ve ended up institutionalized and are examples of how the mentally ill latch on to social activism because of their illness and trauma snd vengeance and nothing more.

Camilla has survived all of that.

Camilla has s̶u̶r̶v̶i̶v̶e̶d̶ 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 all of that.

"Paglia has compared her commitment to scholarship for its own sake to that of medieval monks, eschewing the careerism of academics whose goal is to attain mass readership and to work their way up the university ladder. In her eyes, a true scholar is much like a prophet: she won’t be fully understood or appreciated for generations to come."

[quote] there's no denying she's quite a [bold]prolific[/bold] thinker:

You're using this word incorrectly.

My dissertation advisor was in the same graduate program at Yale in the 70s as Paglia. I once asked my advisor what she thought of Paglia. She said all the women in the program were physically afraid of Paglia, who had a reputation for getting into bar fights.

I like the French feminists whose philosophies are grounded in a great deal of psychology. She's written some interesting theories about gender and specifically about female subjectivity.

She looks the part. Like the grim reaper.

R14 It is nothing new I was in college 20 years ago and she was big among College Republicans. Her fans on college campuses seem to be on the right, and like maybe two lesbians in the Women's Studies department, who dislike their new queer colleagues.

I think she said something like the majority of artistic geniuses are men because men are more prone to being OCD. So it's the old story of you've got millions upon millions of men pounding away on typewriters and one manages to pound out Hamlet and another one pounds out Hello, Dolly!

Harold Bloom conferred upon her delusions of adequacy.

[quote] She's irritating, derivative, and singularly irritating just like her idol Madonna.

R6 She despises Madonna now though. Thing is, she always took M to seriously, much like everything else.

[quote] People who are unendingly contrary and wear it as a badge of intellect are a pain in the ass.

R6 This is spot on with her. She's become contrarian for the sake of so, like so many of these public intellectual contrarians.

[quote] She writes some interesting and insightful stuff but does the same thing a lot of these public intellectual types do. They make a decent point and then take it way too far. She is right about the dearth of beauty in a lot of modern art.

R8 I've always felt the same. She occasionally makes a good point, then takes it way too far. Or uses it to back up some ridiculous idea of something else, especially as of lately. Like she's so caught up in the "intellectual" side of something that she totally forgets how it all plays out in the real world.

(She was right about Taylor Swift though. LOL!)

I remember when she was wooing Madonna in the 90’s. It was amusing that Madonna completely ignored her.

Why does Camille hate Madonna now? Because of the rejection?

A new generation gest to find out how tiresome and self-involved she is. The contrarian schtick was very 1990s. She needs a better way to reinvent herself rather than painting herself tortuously into rhetorical corners.

Rediscovered by a handful of literally-who podcasters? A storm of glory! Her lazy contrarian grift is clearly a model for them. There's a certain market for it but I always found it more dignified to just have a real job. When your only fans are dull-as-dirt conservatives, maybe you're not the edgelord you think you are.

The Peterson video is hilarious. They're yelling past each other like two lunatics at a bus stop.

I think Paglia said that if civilization were left to women, we would still be living in grass huts. That is a deeply misogynistic statement, no way you can back that up with facts. Men love it when women put women down. As for her, "there are no female geniuses", we don't know how many female geniuses were denied an education. Women in 2022 are still denied an education. So yeah, men love misogynistic women who take care of putting women down. Puglia wants to be the house nigresse.

R32 Women are better educated than men across the world. This has been true for a while. It's true that we're unlikely to see a female DaVinci, but we're unlikely to see a new male one, too - in our days it's not possible to become great in so many disparate fields of knowledge anymore. However, reading the discoveries that have taken place in physics and mathematics since the 19th-century, yeah, women have played a role. I used to doubt a female Einstein could exist, but I don't anymore.

R29 in Camille’s defence, her current disdain for Madonna is for the same reasons we make fun of her.

R32 You’ve taken what she says out of context.

Women are more balanced and fall less on one side of the spectrum than men do.

Camilla’s point about the grass huts is that women are more content with nature as their bodies are more connected to nature and the universe. Women’s bodies cycle around the moon. They give birth, etc. Healing, witchcraft, paganism - all things even modern women take interest in, is centered around the earth and nature. Crystals and shit. Even women kill most with poison and toxins from the earth vs. man made weaponry.

Men have less of a connection to nature and earth so there’s more curiosity and they’re not afraid to tear it down and destroy it and build it up and etc.

There’s a reason why men become more depressed than women when they retire. Women finally feel at peace and can do whatever they like and men get depressed they’re doing nothing, which a lot of women enjoy doing. A lot of women love sitting around getting pampered, doing nothing, female pampering is a billion dollar industry.

Women have very much contributed to invention but that they defy their nature in order to do so, which is how it should be.

Camilla’s point is the opposite of what you’re talking about. Female nature is different from male nature and there’s nothing WRONG or oppressive about it.

Women didn’t WANT to do a lot of things just they like don’t want to do a lot of things now. Women make something like 99% of their male co-workers working in construction and trade jobs. But there’s not enough women who want to do it to make the pay gap balanced.

The pay gap will probably end when deaths on the job balance out. I think it’s 90% of men die on the job because they take the dangerous ones. When more women start doing it, it’ll all balance out properly.

That pic of her is so very Aspergers

R35: wtf? Women are so “in tune with nature, with the moon”, how fucking retarded!

I'm a woman, R5, and I don't hate Camille Paglia. In fact I would say she's the only living person I borderline idolize. I'm also not a conservative or a misogynist and I can tell that most of the feeble ad hominems in this thread are from people who've never read Sexual Personae and are just going along with the 'Camille bad' idiot-faction of the left.

There's an irony in the feminist offense taken at the infamous grass huts line (which the right wing MRAs also misunderstand and misuse constantly). Why be mad that Camille says women would have us living in grass huts? Why not ask yourself why you think female work - caretaking, homemaking, child-rearing, husband-soothing etc. - doesn't count or is somehow lesser than fixing toilets or chopping down trees. Isn't the undervaluing of that kind of work one of the things feminism is supposed to be solving?

CP is as critical and snarky about men as she is about women. But no one is interested in those quotes because they don't serve the MRA or the Lightweight Feminist agenda. She also, via her own life, obviously acknowledges that her comments on "men" and "women" don't and won't apply to literally every single biological female or biological male in existence. She certainly hasn't spent her life tending a grass hut.

She does have a real job, she's a professor.

Democrats have explicitly rejected feminism is favor of trans.

Please, she is desperate for her 15 minutes in the limelight. She is merely Malcom Gladwell with a vagina.

[quote]Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It's an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. That's what the strip clubs are about; not woman as victim, not woman as slave, but woman as goddess.

[quote]It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal.

She’s continuously been right. Thank god she’s still taking idiots to task.

[quote]Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman’s attention.

and

[quote]It is woman’s destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance.

These are not quotes from someone who views women as weak and dumb.

Camille takes on what the Left is too chicken shit to take on these days. She can’t believe what is going on at campuses, and she rejects the pronoun insanity and rightfully points out that had she been growing up today, she would have done something stupid like transitioned instead of embracing androgyny. She is beyond intelligent and actually knows real working people. Have I agreed with everything shes said? No. But Paglia has been right on the money too many damn times to be ignored and she’s actually quite funny and self-deprecating. What’s going on culturally now, this regressive leftism is shit that used to stay on college campuses. She knows the origin of this shit inside and out. Thanks to social media, it’s leaked out into the mainstream causing people to act hysterical.

Paglia has always embraced First Wave feminism and what she calls Amazonian feminism. She believes women have to take responsibility and not run crying to daddy to fix their problems nor trying to turn men into men to survive.

Jordan Peterson’s interview is amazing.

She’s always said that women need to learn from gay men of yesteryear who went through horror and carried on. They didn’t wallow or act like tainted goods.

Camille on trans insanity.

She was recently talking about how children in her class didn’t know who Hitler was and then it occurred to her that the amount of years that have gone by is the same as it was for her generation with WWI, which people didn’t know about. Camille is one of the few academics that isn’t an elitist snob and finds art in everything, even camp and pornography.

I love her takedown of people like Andrea Dworkin.

More.

[quote]a nearly two hour long interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson in which the two engage in a spirited discussion on Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian archetypes, and the hegemony of poststructuralism in universities.

When I read stuff like this I just want to go do a bong hit and celebrate my simple-mindedness.

Some people dislike her for the same reason they dislike Jordan Petersen: because, for all Paglia and Petersen's ticks and toks, and occasional madnesses, they talk a lot of simple basic common sense. And common sense is in short supply these days.

I used to listen to talk radio, I loved flipping between NPR and right-wing talk. Sean Hannity would have CP on as a semi regular and it was great. She would provide a different perspective but she is also one of the few guests not in office, that he treated with total respect, not talking over her, letting her make her point. And, I get it. She seems like she would be THAT teacher, the one you remember for the rest of your life. And, Hannity looks like a teacher's pet kind of a kid. That is basically how he is with Trump, as well.

And.

One of the few brilliant minds that points out that the entire trans movement is a binary movement.

Her university tried to get her fired because they didn’t like what she said and then this. Complete insanity. Exactly the reason schools are churning out idiots.

She completely sums up what needs to be fixed in schools.

It’s amazing how simple common sense has gone completely out the window.

[quote] simple common sense has gone completely out the window.

Simple common sense is 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒.

I reject the comparison between Paglia and Peterson. The former is on another level entirely not just in terms of learnedness but in terms of output. Camille is a researcher and academic, deeply knowledgeable and well-read. Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, nothing more, one who had clearly not read the Communist Manifesto when he showed up to debate Marxism with Zizek.

Camille Paglia is a serious public intellectual. Peterson is more and more a clown who did, earlier on, have some worthy (if obvious) things to say to a certain group of people who perhaps needed to hear them.

Thank you, R59. That was marvelous. So much I agreed with before I ever first heard her speak or read her. Even our disdain was similar.

She's no Germaine Greer.

It's fascinating watching the video at R58's post: the women in the background at the beginning are talking over her amongst themselves and shuffling papers, clearly uninterested in what she has to tell, but preparing to shut her down the moment she voices an opinion they don't agree with.

[quote] but preparing to shut her down the moment she voices an opinion they don't agree with.

Well it usually works

Has this woman ever been happy in her life?

The idiot students in R48's video don't deserve her. In any way.

It's incredible that, obviously aware of the ridiculous triggering constraints academics now work under, she avoids even showing the genitals on a statue in the Louvre, and makes a specific reference to this. I feel so sorry for her.

Jesus christ. Has DL always been filled with conservatives?

r68 the DL has always defied the convention limitations of politics. . .

but in recent years, the polarization assumes you must be one or the other. . . but all are tards.

r49 Incidentally, that wasn't on trans insanity but the root of where the ideology comes from: women studies and popularized feminism. But you'll trigger the terfs with that one.

Paglia's scholarship is always riddled with errors of detail and fact. It's impossible to take it seriously, with foundations about as steady as Burnham Wood.

Paglia is no feminist. Women should be more like gay Men? That is ridiculous. Women and gay men are not the same. Women have greater challenges to deal with than gay men.

I luvs me some Camille.

At least, I love how she sends the DL into a tizz.

Adore Camille. ADORE her. She practices the only feminism I could adhere to. Her feminism comes from women believing their power, not their victim status.

Her defenders clearly showed up.

R77 She's got quite a few fans in the gay community, so not surprising.

R37 How is that retarded? It makes sense.

People make money off retarded women buying crystals and useless herbs and shit.

Common sense? Her convoluted writing could hardly be called that.

She is irrelevent. Conservative cunts bring her name up here every once in while to stimulate discussion.

R74 You know, I reckon I've heard /read that statement "Women have greater challenges to deal with than gay men." a lot lately. Mainly here on DL the past six or seven years to be more precise. I wonder who exactly was the first woman making that claim. I don't think or wish for women to be anything like gay men actually, yet I find the statement odd for several reasons.

In many threads here over the years, there is always a female voice, sometimes gay, but not always; making similar claims which pop up as non sequiturs vis a vis a gay man's struggle. It doesn't matter the struggle: i.e. physical violence, or bullying gay children, pales in comparison to the violence and rapes perpetrated against woman from the beginning of time.... If it is relating to occupation, education, or anywhere discrimination may be present, it's always going to be claimed that women have it worse.

It never is put out here in a way which engenders solidarité, or sympathy. It always sounds snide, and the term "victim olympics" comes to mind. (Especially on a gay board) Such comparisons are in fact ridiculous, as well as useless, unless we're drawing a parallel or comparing and contrasting two SPECIFIC individuals' lives.

SOME women may have the world by the arse, and have it much easier than SOME gay men, and certainly the reverse can be true as well. Comments such as this (and I've seen some similar which were slightly worded better) simply amount to MORE vague but BROAD and SWEEPING generalisations here by the DL's heavy-hitting intelligentsia.

Would you at all be tempted to elaborate on your conviction? Are these struggles amounting to greater suffering AND importance, or just one or the other?

To answer you R82....to paraphrase Animal Farm: as Israel teaches us all: All victims are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Ahem.

R83 Curious, are you indeed R74? Forget to sign? Thanks for the reply, yet you don't answer the question for R74. I shall repeat: (hopefully more clearly) is the suffering greater, or the accomplishments achieved from the struggle greater in importance? Still isn't clear for me.

R76 Exactly, I have always considered myself a feminist, but I rarely see feminists in the media I can relate to other than her. I might be a guy but I've always believed in total equality between the sexes and by that I mean equality not preferential treatment. There is not a man alive who would be alive without a woman. Therefore it is idiotic to believe that a creation which comes into this world through a woman's pussy is somehow superior to her or those like her. My early feminism was shaped by tv such as Murphy Brown and Designing Women and movies like 9 to 5. These were women saying they were equal, so deal with it. They weren't victims and when they were victimized they fought back and refused to kept down. To me that is the more authentic and natural brand of feminism. It is the modern version of the suffragettes. That is also the type of organic feminism espoused by women such as Loretta Lynn.

That happens to also be my brand of LGB rights activism, as well. Equality, nothing more, nothing less. I don't like this perpetual victim mentality that has become very pronounced since the T took over LGB organizations.

Meghan nabbing a prince is today's idea of feminism and activism for a lot of people. Well when you've got a worldwide conglomerate making huge profits off of princesses who only have any validation because of the man that saves and marries them you've got a problem. I guess it's still a fantasy for straight women who have careers and achieved much on their own. Certain fantasies from childhood remain with you even as an adult.

Right on R86. Lets grab a drink.

I don’t think Meghan is an example of feminism, I think Meghan is an example of anti-feminism that’s embraced and excused by women.

A woman is automatically idolized by her status to a man and it’s always idolized by other women. She’s considered a heroine, brave, courageous, stunning all because she married a Prince.

That’s anti-feminism but it shows that women very much latch onto traditional roles because to a capacity, they’re embraced and desired by women. Because it’s an element of female nature.

And some woman here is going to say OH that’s sexist!! But oh that’s exactly what’s happening. And the moment you call it out, you’re sexist cause women are only supposed to want what men have or want.

Her take on Lena Dunham in r69! Holy shit, is Camille a DLer???

[quote]Paglia is no feminist. Women should be more like gay Men? That is ridiculous. Women and gay men are not the same. Women have greater challenges to deal with than gay men.

Tell us you’re a retard, without telling us you’re a retard. You missed her point, snowflake.

r90 Whether they agree with her or not... she's reflective of many of the eldergays here, as in being a polymath with an obsession in the arts (classical & modern) and culture. Most of us have the same core intellectual foundation and influences . . . even if we arrive at other conclusions. But to this modern world that calls for the banning of the great books from the east to the west, I suppose, all these old roads lead to Oz.

Why hasn't Tracey Ullman done a Camille Paglia character? It would be comedy gold!

Boy it looks like Paglia is on speed in R69's video. I had to turn it off. And she really does sound like a DLer.

lol

She's right about Lens.

R89: NO one really cares about Meghan except obsessed loons like you.

[quote] I reckon I've heard /read that statement "Women have greater challenges to deal with than gay men." a lot lately. Mainly here on DL the past six or seven years to be more precise. I wonder who exactly was the first woman making that claim.

If you knew anything about feminist history, you'd know it was men who said that first. "Women have it harder, so we have to take care of the fairer sex" was the reasoning behind everything from opening the doors for women to refusing to let them have their own bank accounts, because they shouldn't have to worry their feminine little brains with things like budgets and numbers. It's basically reframing the old Biblical idea of women being submissive into a way to make it look like you're actually doing women a favor.

R97 not op but you are talking about benevolent sexism, something that present day feminism says they are against but exploits to this day.

R97 There is also more to it. In the Victorian era there developed this benevolent sexism where as they weren't so much as arguing women were inferior so much as above such things as politics and commerce. In the South, especially, after the War there developed a cult of Southern(white) womanhood that was largely built around benevolent sexism. They then used that cult to justify Jim Crow to protect the women. There is a monument to the Women of the Confederacy on the SC statehouse grounds, which is a great visual representation of the cult.

Though I would say, being a "mama's boy" is a form of naturally occurring benevolent sexism, that combined with the Cult of Southern womanhood, could still create progress. And, I love to point out to women who say they don't like mama's boys, that it was a mama's boy who was responsible for the 19th Amendment to ratification in Tennessee, thereby enshrining women's right to vote in the Constitution. Harry T. Burn, a young Republican from east Tennessee was only 24 and voted against the measure twice on procedural grounds. Then his mother sent him a letter telling him to vote for ratification, which he did. He explained his vote by saying, "I knew that a mother’s advice is always safest for a boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification."

OP, you're not using "neocons" correctly; it doesn't mean "young conservatives" or anything like that. It means people who want an aggressive foreign policy of "spreading democracy" and capitalism around the world.

Neo-cons are mostly dead now.

And, Neo-cons tend to be liberals who become conservative, especially on security issues, so those liberals become new(Neo) conservatives(cons). And they exist in both parties, I would say Hillary was a neo-con on security issues and Obama was, as well, by the time he left the WH.

R101, no, they're very established - they control our foreign policy. Why do you think we're spending $70 billion in Ukraine (vs. the EU's combined maybe $2 billion) and want war with China over Taiwan? They're solidly backed by the defense industry (which makes sense).

Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan's husband; Kagan is cofounder of Project for a New American Century, and her family runs the Institute of War).

"women" (more like femules) today are professional victims and they hate camille because she refuses to be one!

r99

Is Camille a lesbian? I have noticed a lot of lesbians kiss (straight) men's asses

R108, she is supposedly bisexual , is attracted to both men and women but only has romantic feelings for women.

And you don't really know alot of lesbian, do you.0

Everything she writes supports men and criticizes women. She's quite tiresome....R86 you're not a feminist.

[quote] Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It's an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. That's what the strip clubs are about; not woman as victim, not woman as slave, but woman as goddess

Did women actually buy into this crapola? As if men are run ragged from the sexuality of some middle aged woman with stretch marks and sagging boobs or some homely chick like Camille. Straight men want to fuck hot young women, I doubt many old uggos are treated like goddesses

Calling Camille Paglia an important public intellectual is like calling Dan Brown an important literary figure.

R110 Then define what feminism is to you. To me it is simply equality.

Buttmad MRA R111 coming in immediately to disprove R110's bullshit. You're both mad because CP refuses to take the dumbass route you both have and take one side over the other.

Feminism isn't thinking women's shit don't stink. And dipshits who think it does don't get to dictate who is and isn't a feminist.

[quote]Did women actually buy into this crapola? As if men are run ragged from the sexuality of some middle aged woman with stretch marks and sagging boobs or some homely chick like Camille.

Camille didn't say "old fugs," she said "female sexuality" and in the case of straight men she is 1000% right. Men will do anything, make utter fools of themselves, self-destruct, fuck over family members and wives, for the barest sniff of attractive pussy. It's literally the reason dudes like you are mad - because you KNOW it's true.

And fwiw, straight women aren't into old/fug dick either. Youth being attractive is true for both sexes. Again, I'm talking about dick, not about bank balance.

I love this video of her and Susan Sontag being bitchy about each other. Sontag's dismissive arrogance vs. Paglia's manic narcissism

Sontag at her cuntiest is in the running for the cuntiest cunt who ever cunted.

Camille is a national treasure. She loves gay men and pays them their due. She was asked about Ayn Rand, and while she shares some similar perspectives on personal responsibility, says she believes government does have a role in society to take care of the poor and disabled. She also hated Rand’s looking down on religion and not seeing it for its role in history. Paglia says you can get a deep understanding of where the world was just by looking at religion. She goes into how each religion took from something else. She’s one of the few rational intellectuals alive. She knows that people have made a killing teaching gender studies bs. I’m not sure if someone posted the video of Gloria Steinem dismissing her and the audience booing the mere mention of Paglia, but it sums these people up perfectly. Paglia is a First Wave feminist and makes a strong case for it.

R97 Thank you for your thoughts, yet I'm afraid your answers are about as helpful as R83s. I distinctly recall I specifically said "the first woman". Sorry to disappoint you you believe I know NOTHING of feminism, but you have no clue as to what I know... furthermore, the remark was really meant to be sarcastic, as I find it incredulous that an attribution could be made. I think you know nothing of being facetious to make a point.

My sentiments were meant as partial mockery of the premise, and that I'm bloody sick to death of hearing it!

If you happen to he born a woman in Afghanistan, I agree. If you happen to be born into an Orthodox Jewish family in a repressive community.... the same, as I'm not singling Muslims out here. It's simply that the statement is a rubbish statement. It may have been true ages ago as a general truth, but that isn't germane to the present discussion.

Camille totally kisses men’s asses and shits all over women, that is why the men on here LOVE her and don’t refer to her as gash or fish. Camille is a good little girl confirming their male superiority complex.

R97 & R99 Thank you for the American history lesson, which I do find very interesting, as well as germane to the shaping of American Feminism, and opinions. The benevolent sexism you speak of is well understand by me, and I thank you both for not insulting me straight out the gate here.

I don't think insulting posters on such topics does anything to further understanding, or to change the prevailing culture either. Poking fun at the rhetoric, or suggesting there's a bit of hyperbole in some of the claims in modern, Western culture doesn't mean one is insensitive to women's ' struggles... personally I simply try to put it into a more realistic perspective.

Oopsie daisy, meant that post for R98 & R99. R97 was the insulting one here. You have been thanked already for your thoughts, and that was being most generous on my behalf.

She's definitely unique. I agree she's too contrarian sometimes, but I always enjoy reading her.

Women still don't have to register for the draft and no feminist complains. Oh that's right because wars are started by men! What they don't seem to get is that everything was fucking started by men!

R124 ……

Isabella I was a huge fucking colonizer who forced indigenous into Christianity.

She paved the way for all the bullshit in the world.

Again. Accountability!

R120 absolutely. But also if she was a talented, mentally ill drug addict, they would respect her too. It's confident normal women they despise. Especially if they're good looking.

R113 a feminist is someone who considers men and women equal. Not someone like Camille and yourself who thinks women's power is in their tits and ass and their ability to make men drool over them. Camille can't attract a man so sucks up to them, feeds into their ego, and then claims bisexuality/lesbianism because despite all her ass kissing, she's still unfuckable to men. I've known tons of self described "bisexual" and "lesbian" women just like her.

[quote] Therefore it is idiotic to believe that a creation which comes into this world through a woman's pussy is somehow superior to her or those like her

And yet this is exactly what men think R86, which is why you briefly mentioned it before casually changing the subject. Even borderline retarded men think they are superior to women.

R115 yeah. Attractive pussy, which eliminates the majority of the female population. The majority of men are trying to fuck a very small minority of women (young, above average).

But I have to laugh that you admit female sexuality doesn't include ugly or older women.

R128 I have never believed that a woman’s power comes from her tits, ass, or having men drooling after them and I don’t think CP believes that either, you are projecting. I too just believe in simple equality between men and women. I don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

That is exactly what Camille believes R132.

[quote] Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It's an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. That's what the strip clubs are about; not woman as victim, not woman as slave, but woman as goddess.

[quote] Paglia is a First Wave feminist and makes a strong case for it.

That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Here's the definition of first-wave feminism:

[quote] First-wave feminism was a period of feminist activity and thought that occurred during the 19th and early 20th century throughout the Western world. It focused on legal issues, primarily on securing women's right to vote.

Camille Paglia wasn't even BORN yet when the first wave of feminism was over in the US and the UK, when women were granted the right to vote in 1919-20.

Camille invented feminism. Get with the program.

R133 that is one quote. Also you can believe that women’s true equality doesn’t come from those things but simply looking at history it has shown that women have used those powers since time begin, often because that was the only power they had.

The quote at R133 isn't about women, it's about men. Specifically about the male sex drive. You're either deliberately misreading to make a point, or you're unfamiliar with Camille Paglia's most known work (Sexual Personae), or you're an idiot. Camille Paglia doesn't believe, nor has she ever said, that a woman's fuckability is her source of power or worth.

Why do you sound so angry, R130/R131? Has someone "won" because humans are attracted to attractive people? Has Camille Paglia ever claimed to be an object of male desire? I'll answer for you: no, she has not.

r109 shall we start another lesbians love gay porn but political lesbians only lie back and thin of Queen Victoria

r120

[quote] and don’t refer to her as gash or fish.

which men refer to other feminists as gash or fish?

So, any feminist that is liked by men is not a real feminist?

Are all women who do not hate men. gay men especially, whores?

[quote] Has Camille Paglia ever claimed to be an object of male desire? I'll answer for you: no, she has not.

"*Men* can take me seriously as a sex object because, you know, I have tits and ass, like *that*. And I *do* feel the lust between men and women."

Camille on The Real Housewives

R144 again, she says what men want to hear.

r145 Men want to hear about the real housewives and soap operas? What exactly did she say that you believe "only men" want to hear?

Men want to be told that porn and prostitution is morally okay

r145 What do you believe she should have said? What are your values on the relationship between males and females? How do you define feminism? Do you agree with the many feminists that women seemingly like that call for abolishing gender? Do you believe gender should be abolished?

r148 Morality is a different subject. Are you sure, you really want to open this up to morality?

r148 what are the limits of prostitution to you?

Many of you suggest Paglia is a prostitute that only caters to the masculine ego.. . likewise the type of feminism that has risen out of that also tends to present women as innate asexual and purely emotional and evolved to to the extent of lookng down upon female masturbation and sexuality in general... more so, the sexuality and inherent culture of lesbians, such as the other video above that suggests that lesbians are void of self agency and the bulk of modern lesbian culture, including sexual practices and physical attraction, is the result of gay men... which they demonize on a level akin to the religious right with little deviance in premise?

If we all agree that Camille is a goddess, the premiere authority on what's good for society and not a motormouth bore (like yourself), will you shut the fuck up and stop asking questions?

r151 No.

Camille's clit tastes like ice cream

r151 Why exactly are questons offensive to you?

r153 Why is there a need to insult people because they question you and try to learn of your prospective? Why do so many feminists denigrate and demean women that disagree with the majority at any given time?

Feminists routinely say feminism is about the equality between men and women ... but is it?

They express a desire for and demand that men fight their battles.... exclaiming they are the most vulnerable and weak and it's our duty as men to protect them and yet then screech in protest when they do.

Why do you hate women spaces so much that you'd rather spend your time in this predominately gay male but mixed space?

I can't count how many times , after declaring I didn't identify as a feminist, I've gotten the whole "do you believe in equality? Then you're a feminist" rhetort, only to turn around and hear them decry how some right wing or pro life or even non patriarchy believing self proclaimed feminists isn't really a feminist (like has literally happened on this thread)

[quote]Why does Camille hate Madonna now? Because of the rejection?

I think that has a lot to do with it. Camille wanted that pussy in the worst way.

[quote]Camille wanted that pussy in the worst way.

Knowing Madonna, that's the only way anyone is gonna get it.

No doubt she's been rediscovered by somebody. But, it's hard to gauge just how broad the rediscovery is. The article tries to make it seem like Paglia has truly blown up among young people and is on the tip of everyone's tongue and I just don't think that's the case. She's worth exploring, IMO.

Camille also really wanted Jodie Foster's pussy. She once bemoaned in the 90s that Jodie had been an undergraduate at Yale, and said Jodie should have gone to a private art school (guess where Camille teaches).

R163 Well, at least she didn't shoot anyone to try to get it.

So, your defense of Camille Paglia is that at least she's not John W. Hinckley, Jr.

Sterling praise, indeed!

[quote] Men want to be told that porn and prostitution is morally okay

Women want that. Men don’t care. Women take pride in being sluts and see sex work as a valuable thing.

[quote] Women take pride in being sluts and see sex work as a valuable thing.

They do? Could have fooled me. Most efforts to criminalize prostitution have been headed by women.

R168 bullshit. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my highly conservative mother and her friends do not see sex work as a valuable thing. Many men do, for sure, because it benefits them. And many young women do because of economic anxiety and instability.

"Most efforts to criminalize prostitution have been headed by women."

Prohibition was headed by women too. Yet tons of women enjoy drinking.

What's your point R171? The statement "women see sex work as valuable" is incorrect given how many women are against sex work. And btw, Prohibition was not meant to curb drinking in women. It was started by suffragettes to curb violence against women and children, which they believed was caused by alcohol consumption in men.

Old video at R167, in which she explicitly rejects the idea that biology is destiny, and reiterates that men are not inherently more creative than women.

I'm not sure if people willfully don't see this or genuinely don't see it but general statements about male and female tendencies or nature etc. are necessarily that...general. They also - differences between the sexes - exist. This fiction that men and women are entirely the same except for the physical genitalia is one of the obviously untrue beliefs dragging certain schools of feminism down over the past ~50 years.

None of those general differences necessarily say anything about any given individual man or woman, and again Camille says in this interview that she believes we have almost a duty to defy our natures, she reiterates that she has never lived with or depended on a man etc.

The idea that she's some kind of barely concealed traditionalist is just BS. She's anti male-bashing and that gets panties in a wad for the same reasons MRA and incel panties get wadded when someone tells them their misogyny is a problem. The freedom and self-actualization of one sex does not depend on the trashing of the other and it's so telling that so many "feminists" get angry and start calling names when you point this out. That's not really feminism, it's just wanting to bash men.

It's not male bashing to admit that the vast majority of destruction on this earth is caused by men. Those are just facts. But I do agree with her on one thing--men are not going to suddenly come to women's rescue and it's ludicrous to think men will or should.

The biggest bone I have to pick with feminism is the idea that the group of people who are most responsible for the misery on earth are also the same group who will rescue humanity from that misery. Ain't never gonna happen and women need to wise up.

[quote] Why do so many feminists denigrate and demean women that disagree with the majority at any given time?

That characteristic is not confined to women

Paglia is like a typical gay conservative. She wants to be accepted by straight, white, christian males, so she adopts their attitudes of hatred even for people like herself. Like Andrew Sullivan she identifies as "not one of those types of gays" by mocking and condemning kindness, open mindedness and gay culture in general.

[quote] They do? Could have fooled me. Most efforts to criminalize prostitution have been headed by women.

You are seriously behind the times. grandpa. It’s all about not slut-shaming as pro-sex work today.

Wrong, r176.

[quote] It's not male bashing to admit that the vast majority of destruction on this earth is caused by men. Those are just facts.

And the majority of art, medicine, and advances in everything are thanks to men, sweetheart, not women.

[quote] The statement "women see sex work as valuable" is incorrect given how many women are against sex work.

Honey, that line of thinking was 4 decades ago. Millennials and Gen Z are pro-sex work.

[quote] I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my highly conservative mother and her friends do not see sex work as a valuable thing.

They’re from a different time. Millennials and Gen Z are the majority today. They are pro-sex work and anti-slur shaming. You really are out of touch. Second Wave feminism is completely rejected. We are now on Fourth Wave feminism. Educate yourself.

Support for decriminalizing sex work is at an all-time high

ACLU.

The Majority of Voters Now Support Decriminalizing Sex Work. It’s About Time.

What is your point idiot? The term women includes all women, not just women of a certain generation. The irony of using younger generations as a yardstick for the acceptance of prostitution considering they are the ones who self identify most as victims, is not lost either.

I bet anything the poster calling others old and behind the times, is 80 years old himself. You give yourself away too easily, gramps.

That is one of the differences between the feminism depicted on shows like Designing Women and the current strain. Julia Sugerbaker was a feminist, so against porn she kept running into the news stand with her car. Today she would be met with masses of Woman's Studies majors picketing her home.

[quote]Millennials and Gen Z are the majority today. They are pro-sex work and anti-slur shaming.

Are you sure? Is that a twitterati thing, or is that real, as in most, not just most people on elite campuses? And I'm not asking because I think being pro sex work (though can we be real, and say pro-prostitution?) is necessarily wrong, but is it actually a popular idea outside a few bubbles?

lesbian feminism perspectives in a digital book:

R188 It is one of the things that I think has worked its way into the culture. I don't live in a super liberal area and I've seen young women wearing t-shirts that say "Sex work is work" several times over the last few years. Did anyone ever think it wasn't work? The opposition wasn't because it isn't work. The Soiled Doves of the Old West worked as hard as any miner. It isn't the work that people have problems with it is the type of work. I'm sure mobsters and assassins work hard as well, but that doesn't make their work appropriate.

Personally, I take the position it should be legal and open, because we will never stamp it out, and it is better for everyone if it is legal and regulated.

To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they engage in sex (fucking) exclusively with (or upon or to) the other sex, i.e., women.(6F) All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honor, reverence and love they desire... those are, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honor is removal to the pedestal. From women they want devotion, service and sex.

Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving. This is perfectly consistent with its being hetero-sex-ual, since in this scheme sex and love have nothing essential, and very little that is accidental, to do with each other.

Gay male culture is also homoerotic. There is almost nothing of it which suggests any extension of love to women, and all of the elements of passion and attachment, including all kinds of sensual pleasure and desire, are overtly involved in its male-male relations. Man-loving is, if anything, simply more transparent to the lovers and more complete for gay men than for straight men.

....

If man-loving is the rule of phallocratic culture, as I think it is, and if, therefore, male homoeroticism is compulsory, then gay men should be numbered among the faithful, or the loyal and law-abiding citizens, and lesbians feminists are sinners and criminals, or, if perceived politically, insurgents and traitors.

Usually, patriarchy calls us bigots, TERFs, man-haters, perverts, ugly, women-who-have-not-found-the-right-man-yet, women-who-behave-like-men. But mainly, they just erase us. You see, patriarchy’s main rule and strategy when it comes to deal with lesbians and the threat we represent is simply to pretend we do not exist in the hope we will go away.

When male homosexuality was a criminal offence in the UK, lesbianism was NOT. This is not an oversight; this does not denote a strange liberal view on female homosexuality that was not accorded to gay men… No, no, no. This is deliberate. You see, passing a law criminalising lesbians means publicly acknowledging that lesbians exist. And acknowledging lesbian existence is dangerous. It could backfire and it could give women dangerous ideas. Imagine ! They could want to be lesbians!!. The unspeakable L word is one aspect of lesbian erasure.

---

Yes, the criminalising of gay men was all about LESBIAN ERASURE! The patriarchy! the gaytriarchy! phallocracy!

trigger warning

One of the odder things about feminism and U.S. politics and power is that women could actually "take over" this country if they felt like it. They are a majority of voters. And while there are all sorts of roadblocks like gerrymandering and the Senate giving all sorts of power to sparsely populated rural states, all that, depends on women going along with the patriarchal assumptions of the Republican Party. Districts are gerrymandered for race, for age, for education, of course for income, for all these discrete areas, it's a whole big science, but they really can't gerrymander for men versus women. Men and women do tend to live in the same places and houses, etc. It's the one thing they can't gerrymander, and women actually could turn all that on its head if they felt like it.

R194 That would only be if all woman thought the same, which they do not, just as black people and gays are not monoliths. Abortion, for instance, is an issue people can't seem to figure out isn't supported by all women. I would say the majority anti-abortion people I've met have been women.

Just like if Christians wanted to they could control the whole country, but a theocratic takeover of the US would NEVER work, because the different Christian groups would never be able to agree on anything.

Yes, true, r195. It would be nice as a start if all women "thought the same" about actual misogyny, but even there, of course, they don't. Of course it would be nice if all gay people rejected homophobia, but that is not actually the case. Some accept it, even embrace it, for fucked up reasons.

And while it is definitely true that a lot of women are "pro-life" the Republican Party right now is forcing them to decide just what that means. Does it mean throwing some 10-year-old rape victim in jail because she was raped and got pregnant and she and her mother would really, really like it if she got an abortion instead of giving birth? That is kind of on the ballot this November, as this issue has gotten real in a way it hasn't in decades.

R197 Yes, it has surprised me that both sides seemed to have never prepared for the day with Roe would overturned. I don't understand the pro-life people who are pushing through laws without rape, incest, or health exceptions, those are unpopular even among many pro-lifers. They are trying to pass one in my state, but the Senate, has been pretty clear that they are not going to pass it unless they are inserted. I mean if the pro-life side wants to lose the moment they have dreamed of, they are on track.

Personally, I don't like abortion as a form of birth control, now that we have a plethora of working contraception options. I don't like it but I accept it as permissible in rape, incest, and for medical reasons. I would never support banning it completely. And, I do find the whole abortion debate a perfect example of why equality is difficult if not impossible to achieve. In cases other than incest or rape. A woman willingly has sex with a man fully knowing the consequences that could occur, so does the man. Yet, because pregnancy occurs in women, they have all rights over the fetus even though its DNA is half hers and half the guys. Also, if the woman decides to have the child, it is very difficult for the father to just walk away, without being on the hook financially. So, I don't know how to make that more equal without making MRAs happy and feminists angrier than Chrissy Metz when she pulls up to Golden Corral and the sign says closed.

Oh come on, r198. It's because the woman has to physically carry the child, and that is actually a huge burden. Getting back to La Paglia, it's biology, and we can't just ignore biology and pretend that everybody is equally involved in the pregnancy. They ain't. And historically, they ain't even equally involved in the child. It's always just more the woman, on a practical level. The guy may (or so very, very often may not) care, but it really is the woman's burden primarily.

There is no "making that more equal," R189. Biology irrefutably puts the decision about whether or not to end a pregnancy in the woman's court. If no abortion occurs and a baby is born, of course the state is going to come after the father to support his child. No one, especially taxpayers who don't give a fuck about either of the new parents, don't want to be responsible for paying for other peoples' children.

In light of these facts, it's funny you talk about women knowing the consequences of sex. If I was a man I would be even more careful than a woman, knowing I was a)going to be on the hook financially if my unprotected sex resulted in a baby and b)not going to have any control over whether or not any pregnancy I caused does result in a baby.

And honestly, I don't see the big huge difference morally between birth control and abortion within the first few months. Both are about preventing unwanted childbirth, and that embryo and fetus are really just "human beings" in the most abstract and meaningless way.

[quote]If I was a man I would be even more careful than a woman, knowing I was a)going to be on the hook financially if my unprotected sex resulted in a baby and b)not going to have any control over whether or not any pregnancy I caused does result in a baby.

Yup, and of course this has been true for a very long time, and 99 percent of the time, no straight man actually gives a fuck (well, okay, they do literally give a fuck), not actually cared when that dick is hard and that pussy is there.

I agree, R200. Straight dudes will, in the moment, literally beg not to made to use condoms. Knowing perfectly well that they have no say in the consequences if the woman gets pregnant. We're all just animals.

R199 I'm not saying it isn't a huge burden. But, the women who willingly choose to have sex, especially unprotected sex, should know that a baby can occur. The same with men. Thankfully there is hope that a male pill will soon be on the market. MRAs want to allow men to more easily say, I don't want a kid and to walk away, which would be fairer to the men, but probably not for society or the women. I think they like referring to it as a legal abortion. And, I don't like it, either. To me it just goes back to you willingly made your bed, so you have to lie in it. It isn't fair but just the way things work.

R201 To me it is just simple biology. Once the process occurs and the pregnancy has started, human life has started, because the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg that is when we started, that is when the male and female DNA mixed to create our unique DNA. Anything, before that moment, i.e. contraception, is different than abortion. That includes the morning after pill, which stops fertilization from occurring, therefore it is not an abortion.

R203 That is what I always feel is behind so many pro-abortion guys on twitter, they just want unprotected sex and think thanks to abortion, they won't have any consequences. I've always thought of it as something most wanted by playboy types. I can never see it as just a clump of cells like a tumor. Because a tumor will never grow into a living breathing life.

Also, we need comprehensive sex education in our schools.

Well at times women choose to have sex for the same reason men do, horniness and drunkeness and in the moment and the illusion of love and all of it. Nobody is quite thinking it all out in those moments. If pregnancy happens in those instances, it should probably be ended. It'll just turn into a huge burden for everyone, and it seems completely unnecessary. And that "human life" is so abstract you might as well talk about the human life encapsulated in every cell in your body. Who the fuck cares until it becomes an actual baby, or is far enough along that it is really on the verge of babyhood. Some philosophical ideal of human life is just horseshit that everyone should properly ignore, as indeed many did for a lot of human history, even in obsessive and religious medieval Christendom.

And yes, not inflicting "punishment" for sex is actually okay. Punishing the two sinners for their sin of sex creates more problems than it solves.

R205 Too me, the child created in such a situation should be born and placed for adoption. The whole reason people kept importing babies is because it is difficult to find babies in the US to adopt. And, one pro-life policy that would work much better than an abortion ban, would be for the government to provide some sort of financial incentive to placing your baby up for adoption. And, streamlining the adoption process and removing it from third party, especially religious, organizations. There should be no discrimination against gay couple. Even if a person hates gay people they should be able to admit that having two loving fathers is better than a life in foster care or being raised in an unloving home.

I don't see pregnancy as a punishment for sin, just what naturally occurs as a result of an action. It is like people who like spicy food, even though they know it gives them heartburn. They knew going in, so the heartburn isn't a punishment just a natural occurrence.

Well consider abortion heartburn medication I guess. A way to avoid the consequences of your terrible sin. So be it. You ate the spicy food, you terrible sinner, knowing the consequences of your sin, but lo and behold, God's Will is thwarted and the heartburn will not come upon you.

And why is it so very, very important to bring that unwanted child to term? So gay couples can adopt locally, and not be forced to go abroad? Come on. You don't actually think that. You have a religious attachment to this abstract idea of human life, and you need to justify that.

I don't know why you keep saying sin? I never did. It isn't about sin to me. It isn't about sex. It is about the fetus, which I view as distinct from both parents.

Well, fine. I think it's a clump of cells until many months into the whole process. Maybe six months, maybe a a little more or less. I don't see any reason why anybody should be forced to ensure that particular clump of cells makes it out of the womb. Most don't, quite naturally. If some women choose to help that process along in the early months, for really whatever reason, I really don't see why so many unconnected people care about it. (And yeah, deep down, I think the idea of sin and punishment is really behind a lot of this, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that.)

People are always taking like adoption is so great. Many adopted children end up in homes where they are abused.

[quote]What is your point idiot? The term women includes all women, not just women of a certain generation.

The point is, your frau cunt of a mother is in the minority. That’s the point, dummy.

[quote]Straight dudes will, in the moment, literally beg not to made to use condoms.

How the fuck would you know?

[quote] The point is, your frau cunt of a mother is in the minority.

Camille lovers always show their true colors

r203

I'm a straight woman, R212. And if you think I'm implying I am/was hot shit, no, not at all. Men will plead and cajole not to use condoms with even non-supermodels.

r215 in western nations, at least, women aren't big fans of condoms either.... they also tend to believe condoms are the man's responsibility. Though Canada has passed a law for women to claim sexual assault if a man doesn't wear a condom upon request. The details of how this would be proven beyond he said, she said are vague.

lesbians are even less inclined to use safer sex measures.. with many believing they're immune, especially if they remain a gold star lesbian.. which becomes another aspect of the biphobia and sexual policing in the lesbian community.

And practically no one uses dental dams, finger protectors or gloves... but this is largely a generation gap. . . gen x, boomers and older millenials rank higher on condom usage than younger milllennials and gen z. But most people, male and female, in general don't like safer sex.

more women use birth control for off label uses than pregnancy prevention.. which has led to more unexpected pregnancies.

and yes, the PreP generation is pretty clueless to its usage. . .

most young women these days have never seen a gynecologist... just as young gays don't get tested as regularly as older gays. Fewer tell medical professionals of their sexual habits.

and the female condom has more use in other nations, where rapes occur more frequently, as an anti-rape device. . .

The feminists that frequent here will scream MRA if you question them on any of the figures they hold in high esteem. . . especially when they're homophobic. They try to minimize their influence but the degrees of separation are few.

Ever ask a terf to advocate for your rights when they're asking for support from you? They consider that to be MRA.

Certainly there are extremes among MRA but simply discussing men's issues is a grave offense to some... especially asking for equal billing.

They don't want men talking about men's issues but they frequently discuss men's issues, even own to making assumptions about gay male sexuality that sound no different than religious bigots. Not that different from their trans rhetoric. In fact, many of them blame gay men for TRAs while asking them to support them in this cause.. from the philosophy and political cult that wants to abolish gender.. . . and think that male sexuality, in particular gay male sexuality is constructed around the hatred of women.

So, the few women that do speak out in favor of men, especially gay men... or other issues that divide feminists. they condemn with ferocity. You'll witness how they target these women throughout social media. They're sluts, their whores, they're only trying to please men, phallic worshippers, women haters... how they want to snatch their vaginas away and not "real" women.

but in all things, they'll retort after getting offended at questions and telling you it's not their job to educate you, that men are worse... on here with every thread of female crimes and crying of the patriarchy, claiming even posting about crimes by women is a symptom of misogyny. The drug induced, road rage, rampage of Anne Heche was the result of her daddy. . . she has no accountability because of addiction, mental health and the patriarchy. . . to say otherwise is not to understand the plight that every woman faces, you cockman oppressor you.

[quote]Conservative criticism of victimilogy is selective. We passed all the 2010s with conservatives calling youths delicate and snow flakes, saying they're unprepared to adult life due to excessive coddling from society. Then covid happens and what do conservatives say? That young people's lives are being destroyed by anti-pandemic measures, that we must let them go out and spread the virus because they're too young to act with discipline

Criticizing the extremely permissive upbringing that modern kids receive which make them act like 2 yo when they are 12, doesn't mean you want to lock them up for years and deny them normal youth, because some 80 years old granny might be infested with virus and die.

Don't get me wrong. It is not that I don't care for old people, and 80 years old can still have a good life if they are healthy. But, the Covid hysteria was over the top. Reasonable measures are one thing, work from home, masks etc are fine, but trying to stop the life because of the epidemy that was killing a fairly small percentage of people. Older men mainly, and perhaps that is the answer to the hysterical reaction. If it was a disease that was killing gays, nobody would care.

It was as if somebody decided to banned the motor vehicles, because of people dying in accidents.

Camille: “Nothing is boring. If you’re bored, YOU’RE boring.”

Camille is the only English speaking public intellectual with any weight since Christopher Hitchens.

Having said that, it's entirely possible I just haven't been exposed or don't know of someone I'm missing. Instead of shitting on Camille, can people suggest anyone else? I don't care about their political bent and I'm aware of people like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson (lol) etc. and don't count them as on the same level. There really doesn't seem to be anyone other than Camille since Hitchens died.

I sort of love this. I don't really love what everyone is saying here, but I still love that they feel free to say it. Her comments on the OJ trial, or really the OJ marriage, near the end, are rather difficult, but again there seems to be an honesty going on here that I don't think really exists anymore in national culture. And Bill seems so fresh, when now he just seems so stale, when every week on realtime just seems like another sermon on the woke. I guess it could just be age, but I do think something has changed in our culture too.