Gay Patriot Header Image

Does Camille Paglia’s example prove or disprove a notion that women shouldn’t vote?

A commenter pointed us to this Weekly Standard interview with Camille Paglia. As in most of her work, she says true and fascinating things – on the way to wrong conclusions. As a sample, here she is on the election:

Hillary, with her supercilious, Marie Antoinette-style entitlement, was a disastrously wrong candidate for 2016 and that she secured the nomination only through overt chicanery by the Democratic National Committee, assisted by a corrupt national media who, for over a year, imposed a virtual blackout on potential primary rivals…

After Trump’s victory (for which there were abundant signs in the preceding months), both the Democratic party and the big-city media urgently needed to do a scathingly honest self-analysis, because the election results plainly demonstrated that Trump was speaking to vital concerns (jobs, immigration, and terrorism among them) for which the Democrats had few concrete solutions…

She has much more to say; RTWT. For example, she slams the transgender movement of today as dupes of Big Pharma:

…the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers…I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.

And she covers President Trump’s recent “infrastructure” speech, which indeed was awesome.

But then, whom did Paglia support? (Disclosure: I supported no one; a registered Independent, I came close on Gary Johnson but even he wasn’t good enough for me.) As Paglia explains:

I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I’ve had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.

Which is downright silly.

In travelling the “alt” opinion world, one occasionally comes across a strange theory that women shouldn’t vote. Here is an example from the vlogger Black Pigeon Speaks (who is center-Left on many issues, but right-ish on immigration, culture and terrorism). For the record: I disagree with the theory (that is, I think women should vote). But I’m going to describe it.

The essence of the theory (which again, I think is a broken theory) is that biology has wired men to take stands on issues and to initiate projects in the world; while it has wired women instead to be concerned with immediate safety and securing benefits from the group (and/or some patron). Because of that, says the theory, women voters over time will drag a country toward both appeasement (of its enemies) and socialism. Which is not good.

Is Camille Paglia evidence for that theory? Here we have a woman with a talent for grasping and expressing truth, yet she still can’t see through the people-destroying ruse of socialism.

Share

24 Comments

  1. Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders is a retarded choice. I guess she’s not so smart in some areas.

    Comment by James — June 16, 2017 @ 1:17 pm - June 16, 2017

  2. You certainly have a stronger stomach for two things. Reading the Never Trump Weekly Standard & perusing the fringe Alt people. It’s a pity about the Weekly Standard cuz I know they must still have something worthy to read & it’s a commentary on your strength of character to attempt an understanding of the un-understandable freaks in the fringes.

    I can’t stand the supreme commies in the outer darkness on the Left & the idiot nothing-to-do-with-the-GOP Crusade people who sport their red crosses & tacit approval of lynching all black people way, way out on the far Right. I’ll leave it to you intrepid scouts to inform us of the insanity that is mostly hidden.

    Meanwhile, I have some Liberals to torture. Pointing out that Trump has hit 50% approval on Rasmussen, that he’s not in trouble, that his tweets keep his solid loyal base intact & that today he’s going to reverse yet another Obama nightmare. The Cuba thing.

    Comment by Hanover — June 16, 2017 @ 1:21 pm - June 16, 2017

  3. Thanks, Hanover. And I must say: although I did not vote for Trump…today, I would.

    Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sold me. Knowing (or having high confidence) that I’d get that one action, is worth it. And the entertainment value – watching lefties’ heads explode – is like morphine-infused gravy.

    I did like many of Gary Johnson’s positions but in the end, I said…This guy just smokes too much pot. I mean, I wouldn’t vote for an alcoholic either. Even though I drink, socially.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2017 @ 1:34 pm - June 16, 2017

  4. Sort of off-topic, but has Jennifer Rubin always been Bat Sheet Crazeh… or just since Trump was elected:

    https://t.co/bMzkfk7mTN

    Comment by V the K — June 16, 2017 @ 1:38 pm - June 16, 2017

  5. She was sort of OK for awhile. I seem to remember Dan Blatt being into her, but me seeing some cracks. Then time went on and she became a crazy.

    V – I see that Bruce’s Twitter stream is back. Let us know if you heard what that was about.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2017 @ 1:47 pm - June 16, 2017

  6. V, I communicated with Rubin over two years ago & found her initially an okay voice at the NYT. After a time she took a couple of definitely not GOP stances, verifiably not conservative stances on a topics; I called her out on it on the NYT & she responded like a crazy woman.

    Some people appear cogent, rational. After a while, one sees the flaws. I blocked her out on Twitter on my main account that sports my real identity & stopped commenting on her NYT posts. Because she semi-stalked me for a short while. Never seen someone go after a reader & mere commenter instead of just ignoring. Yeah, she’s nuts. Didn’t bother me, she’s vindictive. Also, I notice she descends from her perch to comment on various things, as if it’s an attempt to get readers. She’s not your average anything.

    Comment by Hanover — June 16, 2017 @ 2:09 pm - June 16, 2017

  7. Sorry, that was WaPo not the NYT regarding Rubin.

    Comment by Hanover — June 16, 2017 @ 2:11 pm - June 16, 2017

  8. Ah, Camille. Sometimes, so very, very right… and others, so very, very wrong.

    Comment by Sean L — June 16, 2017 @ 2:31 pm - June 16, 2017

  9. There is who Camille says she votes for to keep her cred as a Leftist -Liberal and then who knows who she really votes for in the privacy anon of the voting booth.

    Comment by Sandra — June 16, 2017 @ 2:33 pm - June 16, 2017

  10. Camille Paglia is unknown to me except for her essays which I read no matter where they are printed. She is an exceptional wordsmith and brilliant essayist, even when I don’t agree with a word of her assessment.

    I would like to hear her justification of socialism and how she came to accept the concept of the state as equalizer. If anything, she would be colorful.

    Jennifer Rubin is a “House Conservative” with the emphasis on “house.” She sees things through the establishment lens
    which means “practical” politics which sustains the establishment status quo. Undoubtedly, Trump so unhinges her that she yearns for the good old days of Obama.

    The WaPo was a teetering mess with Graham kids running it. Now with Bezos treating it like a pet, the WaPo crowd is really schizoid. It can not be long for the world. Bezos and his internet shopping is closing malls at a rapid pace. He will be unable to sustain 24 hour old printed news without a strong advertising base.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 16, 2017 @ 3:16 pm - June 16, 2017

  11. I heard one interview of Gary Johnson on foreign policy and it reminded me of why despite loving the philosophy in general I can’t vote for libertarians in specific. Flat out insane foreign policy, open. Orders ….

    Comment by Rdm — June 16, 2017 @ 3:49 pm - June 16, 2017

  12. There’s libertarianism and then there’s the Libertarian Party. The former is a kind of philosophical idea, one with which I generally agree. The latter is a group of election spoilers, whiners, grandstanders, kitchen table lawyers, women who own 27 cats, druggies, dweebs and dweebettes, contrarians, would-be authors, Republican Party rejects, the mathematically challenged, druggies, nihilists, leather queens w/out high school diplomas, and other fans of George Noory.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 16, 2017 @ 4:18 pm - June 16, 2017

  13. I remembered reading an article by Kate O’Beirne in NRODT some years back where she explored the male-female knowledge-gap on public issues. I gathered she doesn’t think much of the 19th Amendment.

    (To be clear, she points out that people, male and female, are dreadfully ignorant of basic civics but that women are more ignorant than men. She didn’t mention the other 55 genders; I don’t think they’d been discovered yet.)

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447156/kate-obeirne-women-less-informed-about-politics-abolish-19th-amendment

    Comment by KCRob — June 16, 2017 @ 6:32 pm - June 16, 2017

  14. I didn’t support anyone either. Still, being disappointed by how much Donald Trump hasn’t done is still preferable to being horrified by all the things Hillary would have done.

    Comment by V the K — June 16, 2017 @ 9:54 pm - June 16, 2017

  15. Could it be that Camille doesn’t know? As a philosophy socialism seems to promise utopia. It merely fails to deliver anything but HELL on earth.But our MSM (including Fox News Radio) fail to point out it’s failure. Or if they mention it at all , they will quickly find a scapegoat.(Price of oil , wrong people in charge or something as important as World Wide SOCIALISM shouldn’t be left to Russians.) You would hardly blame her because there is no policy decisions in the news media.

    Comment by Matthew the Oilman — June 16, 2017 @ 10:01 pm - June 16, 2017

  16. Camille Paglia is proof that Camille Paglia is an idiot. She keeps voting for socialism and is then disappointed when it turns out badly. She is one of those Marxists who think surely THIS time it will work, they come in both sexes.

    I have no idea why so many people on the right praise her. There are plenty of women who write against the feminist movement who are not Marxist idiots. Paglia is not one of them.

    Comment by BurkeanMama — June 16, 2017 @ 11:26 pm - June 16, 2017

  17. ” Here we have a woman with a talent for grasping and expressing truth, yet she still can’t see through the people-destroying ruse of socialism.”

    She supports Kamala Harris from California, former crooked ACORN executive director and best friends with Obama, on the fast track to our next president too, the same way Obama was installed.

    Need anything say more.

    Paglia is a communist and doesn’t even know it.

    Comment by mark — June 16, 2017 @ 11:46 pm - June 16, 2017

  18. I think Sandra may have a point about Paglia in her comment above. Paglia’s remarks about the shortcomings of the Clintons, Obama, and other Democrats are always too cogent to explain how or why she could regularly support socialists. She usually explains her vote in terms of the “idealism” of the 60s, but even 27 years ago in Sexual Personae she wrote about liberal delusions from Rousseau onward, so it is awfully hard to accept that the “idealism” claims have any merit except as a way to throw some would-be leftist critics off course–though few of them are even persuaded because she spends so much time skewering icons of the contemporary left.

    Comment by Kurt — June 17, 2017 @ 1:18 am - June 17, 2017

  19. It’s possible that she’s a libertarian-by-stealth, i.e. that she’s a professional leftist but a personal rightist. (No modern leftist is anything close to libertarianism, btw. The only part of the American political spectrum that defends any type of liberty anymore is on the right.) In reading her criticisms of the GOP field in 2016, she seems awfully focused on surface appearance and mannerisms rather than actual substance and she criticizes the Democrats for their lack of substance (which is very true).

    Ayn Rand believed that the US national defense should be funded via voluntary contribution. Whatever one may think of her philosophy, that position is so far removed from the real world that only an intellectual could take it. Paglia is Paglia and doesn’t represent all women. (I’m sure she would agree.) She is an academic first and foremost and suffers from a lack of experience beyond research and pontification.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 17, 2017 @ 9:58 am - June 17, 2017

  20. The manosphere has some good points to it even though it’s mainly geared towards straight men.

    Comment by James — June 17, 2017 @ 10:08 am - June 17, 2017

  21. @18: Ah, the 1960s. The decade that refuses to go away.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — June 17, 2017 @ 11:29 am - June 17, 2017

  22. Camille Paglia votes for these losers because it gives her credibility with the left (well, supposedly). That way she can critique from within, rather than from without. Also, her strong suit as a critic is not politics but the personas of politicians. In that, she is quite brilliant.

    Personally, until American women grow up and stop wearing pussy hats, playing the victim 7/24, I would gladly give up my right to vote and let smart, conservative guys guide the country.

    Comment by miss marmelstein — June 17, 2017 @ 11:56 am - June 17, 2017

  23. I read her essay somewhere else and immediately had the same reaction as Sandra #9. Paglia is way too smart to draw such a stupid conclusion. She’s preserving her public Leftist creds.

    Comment by Rusty — June 18, 2017 @ 11:28 am - June 18, 2017

  24. The further global society has moved from the 1980s toward the 2020s, the more and more angry I have become toward my sex. (God, how I hate that euphemism “gender.”) My fellow women vote with their “feelz” not with their reason. Watching women showing up at the capital in pussy hats, dressed as genitalia, only to scream into a mic because their candidate did not win as promised, while antifa protesters rioted a couple of blocks away, was my breaking point. We women have proven our lack of fitness to vote.

    Comment by Gwen Ives — June 19, 2017 @ 7:26 pm - June 19, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.