In a letter to the editor, the writer quoted “the lesbian Camille Paglia” saying homosexuality is not normal. I found one Salon article where she said that. The context was why do the radical gay left freak out so badly when there’s something that goes against their mandra. I searched her name and even adding homosexuality to the keywords a lot of stuff came up. Rather than slogging thru all her article to find that one or two paragraphs, what is the pervailing option of her ideas.
If someone has any decient articles they can point me to, that would be good. For or against, I just need to get some idea of her thinking. It’s my suspicion that she is taken out of context. I have to come up with something to rebut this…hmm…how should I say…less then informed individual. :rolleyes:
Not sure of the right forum, but I figured I’d get the most passionate opinions here.
You aren’t likely to get any objective opinions here on Paglia and homosexuality. Informed, maybe, but not objective. Best thing to do is read her stuff and make up your own mind.
I was going to say near the same thing. She is very very intellegent, but she says a lot of stuff for shock value. She seems to be very aware of what happens when her quotes get pulled out of context, and writes it anyway.
She makes more sense (in some cases a lot of sense, in other cases she comes across as a complete nutbar) in context.
She’s not a right-wing nut or a left-wing nut; she’s just plain nuts. Who loves the sound of her own voice and the sight of her name in print so much that she keeps blathering on and on and, for some reason, people keep printing her lunatic, self-contradicting ravings. She hates men. She hates women. She hates straights. She hates gays.
To paraphrase Mrs. Parker: What’s more annoying than Camille Paglia? Two Camille Paglias!
I’ll just add my voice to tell you that Camille Paglia is someone you really need to make up your own mind about. She tends to elicit very strong emotions pro and con.
I’d be willing to bet that even her most ardent supporters would concede that she’s a shameless publicity hound, and that even her most virulent detractors would admit that she is, at the very least, interesting.
Perosnally, i think she’s so concerned with being iconoclastic and un-PC that she ends up not saying very much that’s worth listening to.
Imagine if, instead of lambasting liberals from the outside, Rush Limbaugh declared himself to be a liberal, then positioned himself as an “alternative liberal voice” and lambasted liberals as an insider critting his own kind.
“Well, I’m a liberal and I don’t see anything wrong with laws making it illegal to unionize or speak out against the President. The problem with lots of liberals, if I may say so as a devoted liberal who really cares about liberalism, is that they say stupid things and then try to make it a party line, but that doesn’t fly with me. Capitalist oppression, as they call it, is just the natural behavior of the market and of power and its natural exercise, and there are cool rational liberals like me who embrace that and then there are silly-ass pathetic fools who try to speak for all liberals but try to convince us that what’s good for GM is bad for you and me.”
I tried to read one column that I think was being quoted in the newspaper letter. The words were not the same, so I don’t know if the quotation marks were right. It took some time to find that particular part as there were ranting about other stuff. So maybe she is someone who craves the attention.
Actually, maybe I should look into her works, maybe I can find some anti-Christian rant I can pull out of context and post in the newspaper!
She went on my permanent shitlist when she intimated that Matthew Shepard deserved to be gay bashed (in much the same way, we presume, that women who get drunk deserve to be raped).
I’ve seen nothing from her to alter my opinion since.
“There are some people who we absolutely do not want to be gay and I will name names. Camille Paglia! Stop her! …That’s enough. We should be able to make trades now, like in sports. Let’s trade Camille Paglia back, and in her place, let’s get Meryl Streep. What do you say?” - Maggie Cassella
Her memoir, Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady, includes her relationship with a woman during grad school. (It’s a great read.) In later writings, she described herself as having lesbian interludes.
In poking around Google/Yahoo search, I found CP “is also an atheist, though she thinks comparative religion should be at the center of world education.” Huh?
I guess her thing is to keep people guessing where she stands. Maybe it’s her way of getting into the Right’s camp as a leftist/feminist that rejects everything that is left or feminist. :rolleyes:
I’ll try the camilla paglia +christian search… I love to get some quote that I can wave to say, “but why listen to her?”
I remember being very struck by her assertion, at the height of Zero Tolerance, that “no doesn’t always mean no”. In context, she was talking about flirting, seduction, romance and all the other games people play, and one can see what she means, but after reading others’ comments on her today, I find it hard to see any other reason for her putting it quite THAT way, other than seeking to generate controversy once she was taken out of context. (Long sentence, huh?) If I wanted to make that point I’d have done it very differently. My purpose would be clarity and furtherance of understanding. I dare say Paglia imagines that generating such controversy will get her name known, her books read, and understanding furthered that way… but it seems a slightly roundabout way of doing things and it does conveniently involve lots of books getting sold and lots of people knowing who she is.
Mind you, that’s just what the university game is about, isn’t it? Is this lady an academic? She certainly seems to be operating in a way which would get her hired in as many places as possible, at some suitably ludicrous fee.
Actually, despite the fact that i have little time for Paglia, there’s nothing contradictory about this statement at all.
I also am an atheist. But i also recognize that millions of people worldwide are not, and that religion plays an extremely important part in the world’s social, political, economic and cultural problems and interactions.
While i might not place comparative religion at the center of education, i think that the world would benefit greatly if all its citizens had a passing knowledge of and appreciation for the beliefs and ideals of religions other than their own. You don’t have to be religious to study religions, or to appreciate their importance.
