Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Camille Paglia Vs. Orthodox Feminism

Whatever the hell orthodox feminism is, exactly. Steve Sailer writes:

Looking back on a lifetime of feminist dominance of the media, I can recall distant eras when certain feminists tried to be logical, but those attempts alienated other feminists. So, today, feminism is whatever any woman is upset about. It doesn’t have to be consistent with what other feminists are upset about. It doesn’t even have to be consistent with whatever other things that particular feminist is upset about. All that matters is that whoever is bitching claims the mantle of Team Women.

His whole piece is HERE.

Well, that sort of sums up the basic intellectual rigor of feminism these days.

Me, I tend to think of feminism as an arm of liberalism, or some kind of organ of it, anyway, that is probably the most refined form of liberalism, in its total rejection of both the evidence of the senses and the application of logic to it.

You know, naive old me, it took me awhile to realize that when the feminists talk about 'rape culture,' they mean fresh frat boys who drink too much, not actual rapists, who are mostly from the protected classes, and are therefore above criticism. Feminists certainly don't want to open that can of worms and deal with exactly who is raping whom and why. Much more fun to bitch at their castrati boyfriends or whatever they are, because they'll agree and won't knock them down.

And here comes Camille Paglia, who must really piss feminists off.  This is from:
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2014/09/camille-paglia-on-rape-culture.html

Camille Paglia on Rape Culture


Feminist rabble rouser Amanda Marcotte has encouraged young women to take naked selfies. It’s good clean fun, don’t you know.

Marcotte wrote:

It’s the nude photo leak version of blaming a sexual assault victim for a short skirt. It isn’t just that it shifts blame away from where it belongs, on the perpetrators. It’s not just because it’s the typical misogynist tendency to assume a woman is to blame for attacks on her. It’s because this attitude is anti-creativity, anti-fun, anti-sex and, in many cases, anti-love.

According to a leading feminist, love is sending naked pictures of yourself to … whomever.

By her lights, if anyone passes the pictures around in the locker room, if you suffer humiliation, you can console yourself with the idea that you are not to blame.

As though anyone ever believed such a thing. It is fair to mention that attorneys defending rapists sometimes try to exculpate their clients by saying that the woman’s attire was provocative, but you do better not to live your life preparing to testify against someone who assaulted you.

As every mother knows and as every mother tells her daughter, it is best to ensure that it not happen at all.

Marcotte, however, advises women to be reckless, irresponsible, incautious… because if anything bad happens to you, feminism will console you by saying that it wasn’t your fault.

Marcotte exemplifies a mindless feminism in which older feminists are willing to sacrifice, if not pimp out young women for the cause.

To counter this message, feminist firebrand and notable anti-prude Camille Paglia has offered a few words of sage advice for young women.

Beginning her Time column with a reflection on Hannah Graham-- the University of Virginia student who vanished a couple of weeks ago and who was presumably abducted, raped and murdered—Paglia responds that young people have been coddled into thinking that sex is just good clean fun.

They have not learned that sex comports serious risks and dangers, especially when you go out and have a drink with a stranger you met on the street in the middle of the night.

No one is saying or thinking that Graham is responsible for what happened to her, but it is worth pointing out that she seems to have behaved recklessly. There is no consolation is knowing that she was not to blame.

Paglia has no patience with the feminists who are railing about the rape culture on college campus:

Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.

Feminists who denounce the campus rape culture are failing to inform young women of the dangers that exist off campus. And they are lulling young women into believing that they can go where they want, when they want, with whom they want… without fearing any consequences.

Apparently, people believe that if everyone keeps saying that women are “strong” and “empowered” then women will become strong and empowered. In fact, women who buy into the incantations become deluded about their true strength and forget that they are vulnerable.

Paglia continues:

Too many young middleclass women, raised far from the urban streets, seem to expect adult life to be an extension of their comfortable, overprotected homes. But the world remains a wilderness. The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense.

If it’s all a social construct, evil exists only within the hearts and minds of those who belong to the ruling class. The oppressed of the planet will behave well if only we feel sufficiently guilty for their condition and show them sufficient empathy.

It’s reminds one of the Obama administration notion that if we reach out to Muslims with an open hand of friendship, terrorism will disappear. After all, terrorism is merely a just reaction to Western oppression.

Paglia writes:

The horrors and atrocities of history have been edited out of primary and secondary education except where they can be blamed on racism, sexism, and imperialism — toxins embedded in oppressive outside structures that must be smashed and remade. But the real problem resides in human nature, which religion as well as great art sees as eternally torn by a war between the forces of darkness and light.

She adds:

Misled by the naive optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.

Young girls are told that they can do what they want, that they can become whatever they want and that nothing can hold them back. They never learn that their attire, for example, is sending messages and that these messages might be misread by sociopaths. If Paglia is correct, many young women do not even understand what it is to be a sociopath.

Clearly, a woman is not to blame if she is assaulted by a sociopath, but how much of a consolation is that, really.

Today’s young intellectuals no longer believe in God. Perhaps that is why, as Paglia suggests, they fail to grasp the reality of an evil that is not a social construct:

Liberalism lacks a profound sense of evil — but so does conservatism these days, when evil is facilely projected onto a foreign host of rising political forces united only in their rejection of Western values. Nothing is more simplistic than the now rote use by politicians and pundits of the cartoonish label “bad guys” for jihadists, as if American foreign policy is a slapdash script for a cowboy movie.


The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men.


And today’s therapy culture, as I would call it, is not doing any better.

In Paglia’s words:

But today’s therapy has morphed into happy talk, attitude adjustments, and pharmaceutical shortcuts.

----------
Quibcag: Here we have the adorable tomboy Masumi Sera (世良 真純 Sera Masumi), of Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), in her sensible underwear, leaping to kick a miscreant in the head. She has found that head kicks work far better than candlelight vigils or slutwalks or even insisting that the University Teach Men Not To Rape. You've been so good as to read this whole post, so your reward is this lead-in to the illustration:

4 comments:

  1. Feminists are right in principle but wrong in practice.

    It's like anyone has the right to walk around safely in any part of America without being attacked, robbed, or killed.

    No one should be attacked or robbed for walking around Detroit(even at night). But anyone who knows anything about reality would be irresponsible to tell kids that it's okay to go to Detroit and walk around like it's a safe neighborhood. And if something bad happens, it'd be disingenuous to say they don't deserve any blame for their stupid lack of regard for reality.

    Another thing. Do feminists know what it means for women to flaunt their sexuality?
    Sexuality, especially among women, isn't about promotion of female independence. Female sexuality isn't about female power independent of male power. It is about the power of female sexuality to attract and AROUSE male lust. Its value is totally linked to its effect on male psycho-sensuality.

    After all, why are women proud of their sexuality? Ok, partly because women wanna look good and attractive. But then, to whom are women trying to look attractive? Men. The whole appeal of sexuality is to arouse the opposite sex. It is a game of turn-on and a come-on.
    So, if a woman goes out of her way to look sexy, her body isn't saying "I represent female power independent of male power" but saying "I have the power to drive men crazy."
    The point of sexuality is to turn men on, to get them horny and stiff, to make them drool and become 'hungry like a wolf', to make them feel like Beavis going 'boing!'(Paglia the lesbian knows this because she looks at women through men's eyes.)

    So, if women really want power independent of men, they need to suppress their sexuality.
    But if they choose to flaunt their sexuality, they should know they're attracting and inflaming the attention/passion of men.
    If a woman lived alone on an island, would she bother to look sexy? No, a woman tries to look sexy because she wants to attract and arouse the attention of men. Sexuality doesn't exist in a bubble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. luckily, even if these women were to take that risk and expose themselves to the chance that they might be victimized, it's extremely unlikely that it will even occur. the fact is that these phantom rapists are not appearing in the numbers that women desire.

      and maybe that is what feminism's true goal is. they sure as hell don't want to PREVENT rape, so maybe we had it backwards the whole time.

      maybe feminists just really want to get fucked hard until they are sore.

      Delete

  2. Also, women need to be mindful of the fact that displays of female sexuality can cause a great deal of discomfort in men. So, women should flaunt their sexuality ONLY IN FRONT OF MEN they wanna be with. Though no man should sexually assault a woman, a woman is taking a risk if she causes sexual discomfort among strange men by arousing them.

    It's like dogs and food. If you hold out a piece of meat to a hungry dog, it will drool and wanna lunge at the meat. Even if the dog has been trained not to eat without permission, something inside that dog feels an almost uncontrollable urge to strike at the meat.

    Most men have been morally and socially conditioned to control themselves even in the presence of women who dress and act like 'hos'. But there will always be men with less self-control out there. And if women dress and act in ways that virtually tease them into a tizzy, there can be trouble.

    It's just a reality of biology.

    PS. Would it be cruel to tease a hungry dog with a piece of meat that it can't have? I think most people would agree. Dogs shouldn't be emotionally/sensually teased that way.
    It's true of people too. It would be mean-spirited for someone to go among hungry people and show them a piece of cake they cannot have. It would be mischievous and cruel.

    Then, one could argue it's also cruel for women to go around flaunting their sexuality before strange men who are not allowed to have a taste of it. Her sexual style is a kind of tease that says, "see how sexy I am; you want me, but you can't have me."

    Thankfully, most men are big enough to control themselves and obey the law even around hussies and tarts, but there are always gonna be bolder, wilder, more aggressive, and less self-restrained males who are gonna feel like a hungry dog teased with a piece of meat.

    So, women mustn't tempt strange men with what they don't intend to give them. It's okay to dress attractively but don't dress and act like a whore among strange men. It's like mentally torturing hungry dogs with a piece of meat you don't intend to give them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ultimately, I think we are past the point of no return with feminism and leftism.

    it needs to be pushed further, to the breaking point. let the future generations of human civilization see what happens when we give women authority over others, as an object lesson to never let it happen again.

    ReplyDelete