Camille Paglia

An interesting interview:

Next was the argument over hormones. Again, screaming argument over hormones. I was told by the founding members of the Women’s Studies Department at the State University of New York at Albany that I had been brainwashed by male scientists to believe that hormones even existed, much less had any role in the shaping of our identity and character.

So I was banned from the women’s movement from the start, but I kept going on. I was pro-pornography, pro-prostitution on libertarian grounds. For years, my wing of feminism—which had been silenced and ostracized by the Steinem wing, the establishment wing, partisans of the Democratic party, my party, but nevertheless, I don’t feel that feminism should be subordinated to any party—finally, we rose in the ’90s and the pro-sex wing of feminism won in the ’90s thanks to Madonna having changed the culture.

…If you’re going to be a woman president, she must communicate strength, reserve, and yet compassion. That formula—I’ve been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for it. The only person in America who’s had it as far as I’m concerned was Dianne Feinstein, and she didn’t put herself forward for whatever reason as president.

But Hillary does not have it. Hillary is a mess. And we’re going to award the presidency to a woman who’s enabled the depredations and exploitation of women by that cornpone husband of hers? The way feminists have spoken makes us blind to Hillary’s record of trashing [women]. They were going to try to destroy Monica Lewinsky. It’s a scandal! Anyone who believes in sexual harassment guidelines should have seen that the disparity of power between [Bill] Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime. He’s a sex criminal! We’re going to put that guy back in the White House? Hillary’s ridden on his coattails. This is not a woman who has made her own career. The woman failed the bar exam in Washington! The only reason she went to Arkansas and got a job in the Rose Law Firm was because her husband was a politician.

And then there’s this:

I’m happy that this talk about medical sex changes was not in the air, because I would have become obsessed with that and assumed that that was my entire identity and problem. This is why I’m very concerned about the rush to surgical interventions today.

At any rate, I was attracted to men—I dated men—but I just fell in love with women and always have. Yes, there’s absolutely no doubt: I was on the forefront of gay identification. When I arrived at graduate school at Yale, 1968–1972, I was the only openly gay person, and I didn’t even have a sex life. To me, it was a badge of militance. And I was the only person doing a dissertation on a sexual topic. It’s hard to believe this now.

I’m sorry, but isn’t it blindingly obvious that if you’re attracted to men, and also attracted to women, that you are not gay, but bi? I wonder how she’d respond to this question.

10 thoughts on “Camille Paglia”

  1. Gender and Racial studies are hate classes, by their own definitions and symmetry. Time to get hate off campus.

  2. I agree with her on some things, disagree on many others, but I always have respect for Camille Paglia – she’s almost always intellectually honest. And she’s spot on about the Clintons.

  3. I hold Paglia up as an example of someone on the other side whom I greatly respect. She’s definitely on the list of top 20 people I’d like to meet.

  4. This is what I have never understood of anyone who apologized for Bill Clinton’s behavior:
    Anyone who believes in sexual harassment guidelines should have seen that the disparity of power between [Bill] Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime.

    Any Democrat who supports the abuse of Title IX (or the statute at all), should have the above quote thrown at them.

  5. I’m sorry, but isn’t it blindingly obvious that if you’re attracted to men, and also attracted to women, that you are not gay, but bi?

    Sounds like the strength of the attraction is not the same (eg, using “like” versus “love”). I’m willing to let someone be the judge of what they think they like, unless of course, it’s a transparent ruse to belong to an entitled group.

    1. Whether it’s exactly symmetrical isn’t the issue. If you can swing either way, you’re bi. Such people are the only ones of whom it can be said they have a sexual “preference.” I don’t have a preference, I have a non-negotiable requirement.

      1. I don’t have a preference, I have a non-negotiable requirement.

        Thank you for clarifying, Rand. I’ll sleep better tonight.

    1. So you do not think that the Senator from California (Feinstein, gosh no, not Boxer) would be a lot less bad than Hillary Clinton?

      I don’t agree 100% with Senator Feinstein, but whenever I see her on a Sunday morning program, I get the impression that she is one of the “adults” in her party regarding national security and other matters.

      Whenever I see a certain announced candidate speak out in her Park Ridge accent, I cringe (yeah, yeah, I spent my speech formation childhood years there, I probably talk in the same nasal greater-Chicago accent).

      Seriously?

Comments are closed.