Thoughts? I always thought she was a critic of feminism, not a feminist.

Thoughts?I always thought she was a critic of feminism, not a feminist.
I’m not well studied in her but her name ALWAYS pops up eventually.I consider her a basic libertarian, that’s all.
  as far as I know, I don’t think she fit there either. Always seemed to be the critic of femiinism, but maybe I’m from early 3rd wave and don’t know much about 2nd.
 Who knows who who is? I’ve seen her name pop up for 29 years now and I was never impressed.Why would I care suddenly now?
 Her name would always pop up whenever an edgy Catholic publication wanted “their feminist” to show up. Granted it was a better view of women than standard Catholic but I wasn’t impressed. Still not.
March 1, 1994
A professor from my college (whose “women in media” presentation blew my mind about symbolism in music videos and films), wrote a book in 1994 that basically predicted today.
In it, there’s Camille Paglia mentioned.
Not as a rape expert or as a feminist but called a “literary critic”.
Camille Paglia gets pulled in whenever an anti-feminist “What’s the state of feminism today and why is it wrong?” article gets written.
True in 2019.
True in 1994.
Probably true long before.
 It’s just “one of those names”, much like Ann Coulter that makes me roll my eyes when I see it.
 She’s a critic who says silly things I disagree with. Not that interesting to me. But if you like her, by all means, go for it. She shows up in everything so not hard to find.
  If that’s all it takes for you to know my ideas – and I’m right here to offer corrections or confirmations – then how are you better than my judgement of Camille Paglia ?
If anything, it can be said:
Meet Shallow.
 Not at all. I prioritize information intake.Don’t you?
 Most of those biases are algorithmic.FB doesn’t show me those other posts of yours. I go by my feed most of the time.
 How did I mention you in this post?As far as I know, I only talked about Camila and my justification for rejection. Not about you.
 Oh, I think Naveed’s center-left. I only compare him to right when I want to get his goat a bit.But, I’m far left, so anything right of that is right. So, that’s my bias.
 All I know is: You like the Camila lady and I don’t have much use for he based that she’s been a long standing critic of stuff I agree with.I don’t think of her as a feminist but as a critic. That’s all I’m trying to say.
 It was a moment when you said “Do I look like I care?”
That was my cue that you found the conversation as silly as I did. So I zapped it for you.
 Universities are usually pretty safe, unless you get involved in university politics and stuff. It’s got a limited span. Once you’re out of it, you can’t realistically get back in. System’s geared that way.
 I actually find 57% of Tucker as ok. But that’s other % is awful. And Shapiro? I like memes mocking him but don’t have much use otherwise. Oh, and two or three catchphrases of his are funny.
It’s fun. Personality sorters. Gives a “basis for comparison”. I wasn’t crazy about coming up as “Prog Activist” but it was ‘close enough’. Fit me better than any of the others.
 “Do you like yellow or purple?”
“Which of these five governments are best for everybody?”
It’s all silly. But it’s something.
  What I don’t understand is folks that don’t WANT to find out what a test might say.I’m a libtard? OH NO I’m not the centered centrist I thought i was. That’s about as deep as it got. I got over it. I’m biased and I work on listening sometimes.
  What’s funny is: This?“n brutal, grisly language, Farrell dramatizes the carnage of “male-killing” throughout history — the one million men, for ex- ample, slain or maimed at the Battle of the Somme in World War I. Men are not, he insists, the powerful sex but “the silent sex” and “the suicide sex.” They are “disposable,” dispensable, slaves to higher powers. Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves phys- ically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and chil- dren. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressors and callous exploiters.

Farrell’s blistering indictment makes powerful use of contem- porary anecdotes. ”

Is actually her rephrasing of


 So, I suggest this then, as THIS is what she was originally referring to.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× eight = 40

Leave a Reply