Joan Walsh wouldn't keep overestimating CP's vitality and smarts! Wildly overestimating. Wildly. :)

P.S. Have an old high school friend who lives in Idaho, is married to an avid hunter, has seven kids, graduated from some Idaho university, is very "socially conservative." I assumed she would be shoo-in for Palin, but she said, "She's the first woman politician on scene I can identify with -- but I don't know if she is qualified to be VP. She is like me, but am I qualified to be VP? I don't *think* soooo!" She also thought voting for Palin because she is attractive is lame. She's thinking of sitting out this election.

But what do those Red Staters know compared to an Ivy Leaguer like ol' Paglia?

Supposed feminist icons such as Hillary Clinton present a picture of women uncomfortable with their femininity and sexuality

Huh. And here I thought anti-feminists' labeling of feminists as "whores" was predicated on the fact we were TOO comfortable with our sexuality.

Mainstream feminism's condemnation of anything that smacks of genuine strength and femininity

"Genuine strength and femininity" are mighty subjective ideas. I don't think you are qualified to give a definitive analysis of either. Tomboys have been in existence long before any organized feminist movements.

I've never understood why a movement that's supposed to be about the advancement of women thought it could achieve it's objective by rejecting real womanhood.

Interesting. I suppose you also know exactly what constitutes "real womanhood" as well.

And how is it possible to gain real power by chronically playing the victim as so many feminists do?

(sigh.) Aren't we supposed to learn from history's mistakes? Noting past and current injustices help us to examine how far we've come, and what's left to do.

The emergence of a woman on the national scene who embodies the spirit of the pioneer women of the West, who climbs the ladder without breaking balls and playing the victim simultaneously, who celebrates her sexual powers of attraction, is married to the archetypal macho man so many feminists fear, and who has borne numerous children has set mainstream feminism on it's ear.

I'm picturing a Thomas Kincaid rendition of the typical Palin fan's fantasy "pioneer woman," etched on a commemorative plate (just above the Military Elvis collection). Not to burst your bubble, but my 94-year-old grandma, who endured more in her young farm days than most can imagine, can also see through the Palin/Republican ticket bullshit. To hold Palin up as a shining example of pioneer women as a whole is crazy; they were all individuals, with varying lives and opinions. To assume they collectively represent this fantasy that Palin has suddenly fulfilled is beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps you can shed some light on my own situation. See, I've never been attracted to "macho" men. Ever. I don't "fear" them, but I just don't find them at all sexy. Does this mean I'm not eligible for graduation into the "real womanhood" you describe above?

Only a handful of feminists have had the courage to challenge the conventional thinking of the movement.

This argument sounds like vegan desserts; you can make substitutions for the eggs, milk, sugar, and honey, with delicious results, but it's no longer a flan or ice cream.

I willingly joined and happily paid the money. Then Camille Paglia became a regular contributor. I did not renew my membership and told Salon why.

After a while, Paglia disappeared, thank goodness.

So I resubscribed to Salon.

Then Joan Walsh brought her back. Once again, I let my subscription expire and it will never be renewed as long as Salon chooses to insult my intelligence with this shallow, flippant attention addict.

Ball is in your court, Salon. Paglia's nonsense or my money. But not both.

It's always diverting to see a militant feminist's response to a woman out of her depth in a position of authority.

Who would have guessed that Palin's chronic inarticulacy and almost zen like lack of engagement are an artistic statement?

Paglia never said a woman is "asking for rape." You either can't read or your personal agenda prevents you from being honest.

Most everyone else cracks me up—as usual. They hate, hate, hate Paglia. She's just so "stupid." She's on "crack." She's a "bully" and a "sexist." She has "nothing new to say." Sometimes "since 1981" (even though she wasn't publishing back then...or is that the joke?)

What then does it say about these letter-writers that they never miss a column? And though they insist that Paglia is only kept on because the letters-column swells, they keep causing it to swell? Apparently, these brilliant contributers can't control whether or not they read and respond to her articles. They feel compelled to keep her column popular even though they can't stand it. They may want to look into that...

Camille, I am a former academic (film history) and have followed enthusiastically your attacks on instiutionalized feminism for years, and I think that your support for Sarah Palin logically follows from that. But it also seems to me that the longer you support her the more questionable your support for Barack Obama becomes untenable. Many of the same arguments you've used against radical feminists are, I think, equally applicable against BO and the whole structure of institutionalized black racism(I'm not sure what else to call it) that the Democratic Party has cynically supported for decades. It isn't only that Obama comes from, and is a product of, a corrupt Chicago political machine and its attendant baggage of radical leftists and Marxist black liberation theology cranks. More fundamentally, BO is the ideal candidate for the Age of White Guilt. Have you read Shelby Steele's "White Guilt"? Isn't there a feminist counterpart to his argument that black liberation was waylaid by a combination of black power thugs and their white liberal supporters eager to test the (limitles) limits of white guilt o se what perks, handouts, and general freedome from responsibility they can get? While feminism shows signs of moving beyond White Guilt's male counterpart (Male Guilt?) the race hucksters seem firmly in charge of their territory. Would anybody still tolerate a feminist counterpart of Al Sharpton? Imagine BO in feminist terms. Wouldn't you be suspicious of a Gloria Steinem surrogate who was programmed to be more intelligent, less confrontational, more reassuring, and more "inspirational" (your word)? I don't want to get too far OT, but it seems to me that the one argument begs for the other.

Randolph Man