I have read her stuff for years on and off and I agree that the women’s movement was needed at one time. Personally I think it has outlived its usefulness and should end up in the ash bin of history, as another left wing idea that did more harm then good. I think that we will have equality of the sexes when a man can punch a woman in the mouth and not automatically be tossed into jail. Just kidding...sorta.
Liberals aren’t necessarily Leftists.
I have always liked her. She’s intellectually honest, a thinking feminist.
Whether I agree or disagree on any given point, I find her views valuable and instructive.
Camille Paglia is classical liberal. She is not a progressive. There’s a BIG difference. I like reading her articles, especially when I agree with what she writes.
Funny, just last week I sent her a copy of “Patriot’s History of the Modern World” last week.
I’ve read a some of Paglia’s books, and a few of ideas are nutty...especially the ones concerning sex. But overall she’s fun to read because she kicks sand in the faces of all the feminist heroines like Steinem and the others whom she exposes as anti-American, petty fascists.
So I like her.
I love Paglia. I was lucky enough to invite her to my reading series in NYC in the late 90s when her star was at its highest. She spoke for two hours off the cuff and took questions for another hour. And she was my husband’s dinner companion that night and he loved her.
She’s right on so many issues and her books are works of art.
And now I’ll say one more thing: until she addresses her Arabist leanings and her love and admiration for Edward Said, she will never be right on all issues - particularly the issue of our time.
For example, when in a tight spot she will reference back to her Italian heritage for clues, further as a man that began my career mixing mortar and toting brick I appreciate that she appreciates what thats all about.
However, like Oriana Fallaci, the late GREAT Italian journalist, she's no one's dray horse; she'll be hitched to no wagon nor sledge.
She's more iconaclast than icon, even when she defends western canon against the imbeciles of academe. I think she does it because imbeciles in academe are a target rich environment. It's too easy and too much fun for her to pass up.
Ulimately, like Fallaci, she'll complain about muslims pissing on the sides of great cathedrals even as she pisses on the floor.
She's a "one-off" and as such she's tolerated in academe. I don't think she has any desire to be a part of a movement.
I have always read whatever she wrote and for the most part agreed with her. I guess I must be a lesbian.
She is a classical liberal with a few odd opinions but she may be one of the more intellectually honest out there.
Sort of like a female Andrew Sullivan.
...
If you disagree with her she will point out why she disagrees rather then pulling the "you're a racist bigot sexist homophobe" and then changing the subject.
bkmk