Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 670 Editor's Choice: 46
-
Paglia’s editorials are always a mixed blessing.
[Read the article: Hillary's race against time]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No one wanted her to return to these pages more than I. Sexual Personae radically altered my life, and I can’t count the number of times I’ve read Sex, Art and American Culture. Of course she’s never been accepted by academia. That’s like expecting the teachings of Martin Luther to be adopted as Catholic dogma. She destroyed PC on college campuses almost singlehandedly, and she’s largely responsible for the plethora of feminist perspectives now available, as opposed to the monolithic (and dying, dying, but not quite dead yet) feminism of NOW and Ms. Magazine.
And it’s still wonderful to read her just for the letters section and all those shocked, shocked SHOCKED by what she writes. And always threatening to leave Salon if she isn’t booted (is it the same people each time, or like lemmings does a new group arise every few weeks to expell themselves from Salon Membership while the next assembles to toss themselves over the cliff?).
But sadly, he column is a lot of empty rhetoric and another opportunity to leap astride her dear old hobyhorses. How many times do I have to hear about Amelia Earhart and Katherine Hepburn (you know if one is mentioned, the other is not far behind) and Camille’s early years digging through news archives at the local library? How many times do I have to read a thumbing-the-nose-at-kneejerk-leftists praise for Rush Limbaugh (do even conservatives pay attention to this man anymore? Who cares what he advocates?). How many times do I have to read her hawking her old work? And there’s always the 60’s foreign film adulation, with a nod to American Elizabeth Taylor. Hey, I love Truffaut and Godard, and I agree the women of the French New Wave were sexy and mature in a way the Stepford Starlets of today are not.
But I’ve also read this from Paglia over and over for decades with nary an alteration of vocabulary or sytax. I could easily believe that she’s simply cutting and pasting passages from her old work into a new document to be sent to Salon as her newest “think piece."
Paglia has fallen into the same rut she (rightly) accused Susan Sontag of. Shocking for a second, stultifying over decades. The discourse withers after a few provocative publications, the promise never fulfilled.
There are a couple of good things in this article. She's obviously watched Hillary and noted some changes, instead of just phoning in her usual spiel. Referring to Obama (who I also support) as a diva is great. But that's it. Like Dairy Queen's ice creme, that's a very little substance for so much whipped air.
I wish Paglia would evolve. That doesn’t mean join the group think of the general left. Or right. It means I wish she would develop further her initial insights or just leave well enough alone, tell us her work is done, and suggest we read what she’s already written if we want to know where her mind is at.
Because she isn't evolving as a thinker or cultural critic. She's not much even applying her concepts to contemporary culture. She's pretending it's still 1992, and she's fighting the dragons of yesteryear.
You slayed them, Camille. Go on to other adventures. I, for one, look forward to them.
-
Wasn't this the book that got McCollough accused of plagiarism?
[Read the article: Forefather knows best]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glad to hear 1776 referenced, though. It shaped my image of the Founding Fathers, too.
-
Asking her to apologize has nothing to do with political correctness.
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I despise political correctness. But Ferraro didn't just say "His being black is part of what made his candidacy work." I'm sure that is true, as much as every factor about a candidate has an impact on what makes their candidacy work. I think a lot of politicians have gotten into office in part because (whether the nation thought of it consciously or not) they came across as authoritative white men.
But what Ferraro said was "If [Barack] Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
In other words, it has nothing to do with his skill on the campaign trail. It has nothing to do with his record in the Senate. It has nothing to do with his intelligence or vision for the country. It's all about skin pigmentation.
She's wrong. Anyone who says Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman is wrong. The days of "let's feel good about ourselves by promoting the oppressed" in government or business are, I think, long since passed. Now it's about proving your worth. Proving you belong. Both have fought against the tide of popular opinion, which had it that a black man or a woman just couldn't get this far. To claim the opposite, that only being black or a woman is what landed them in this sweet, sweet position, is just the reverse side of the same counterfeit coin.
Yes she should apologize for her comments. Probably also for her ignorance. Maybe for her jealousy, that the times, unlike those in her heyday, do not favor people solely in terms of their gender or race. And that those who have come this far on their own merits might actually go farther.