2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Camille Paglia

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Lesbianism[edit]

She's said a lot of silly things about this. Probably worth adding something. Annquin (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, she seems to be a total gay icon among a segment of gay men, especially in the arts and academe. Annquin (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The first example that comes to mind and that I can locate right away is "Lesbians, in contrast [to gay men], refuse to leave the mother. ... Male homosexuality, pushing outward into risky, alien territory, is progressive and, overall, intellectually stimulating. Lesbianism, seeking a lost state of blissful union with the mother, is cozy, regressive, and, I'm sorry to say, too often intellectually enervating, tending toward the inert." ("Homosexuality at the Fin de Siècle" in Sex, Art, and American culture, 1992). However, also Camille Paglia: "We should be honest enough to consider whether or not homosexuality may not indeed, be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children band together by gender....Current gay cant insists that homosexuality is not a choice; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort" (in Vamps and Tramps, according to this). So there. She's said a lot of silly things about many topics. I have no idea where to begin to make the article in any way representative. On the other hand, I'm not sure if she's relevant as a crackpot anyway–do her admirers really buy into her world view as a whole, and is she infuential outside the academies? --Gamaja (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthropologist?[edit]

How is Paglia qualified to be classified as an anthropologist? Pinkerite (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It is completely reasonable to call her a cultural anthropologist. I don't understand why you are making such a fuss and are now rewriting the article with massively overstated accusations of antisemitism. MalAdeptus (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
If you can call Paglia an anthropologist you can call any dumb-ass pundit an anthropologist. Nobody else calls her an anthropologist, including herself. And my addition to the article is far more valid than your imaginary "anthropologist" accolade for that idiotic crackpot. Pinkerite (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article that supports the addition of that category. Carthage (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. It was inserted seemingly at random and out of the blue. Pinkerite (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

"The former tome is commonly considered to have been one of the earliest systematic approaches to gender."

Counterpoint:

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman 1792

The Second Sex 1949

Masculine, feminine or human? : an overview of the sociology of the gender roles 1978

Pinkerite (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor Pinkerite[edit]

Whenever I introduce some harmless claim that is somewhat positive, "Pinkerite" comes along and adds a whole section that's basically defematory in nature. This is a transparent strategy to make editing of this person's preferred topics impossible for someone that does not share their views. I'm pretty sure the editor also called me a racist a few days ago. I sure hope this will not continue with every single article I go on to edit. MalAdeptus (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Defamation is not equivalent to "saying mean things about someone." Antares (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
❤️️ Pinkerite (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Your claim is "defamatory in nature"[edit]

You seem to be completely unacquainted with the concept of "evidence" either in your claims about me, or your claims about Camille Paglia. Now either come up with evidence for your claim about Sexual Personae ("commonly considered to have been one of the earliest systematic approaches to gender.") or delete it. Or I will. Pinkerite (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinkerite came up with several counterexamples to this claim. I.e. she refuted the claim. If you make bad edits, you get reverted. It's that simple. Antares (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
❤️️ Pinkerite (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, I do still think that my edit was justified, but perhaps I was being too aggressive here. Your edits to the "Human sacrifice" article show some familiarity with cultural anthropology, so you weren't just following me around to spite me I guess. If I had to ground my claim about gender theory in more detail, I would say that she was objectively one of the first scholars to discuss gender as opposed to sex systematically and that her analysis was quite original in the way that it connects modern to ancient phenomena. The book is also far from politically one-dimensional, which is something I happen to appreciate. MalAdeptus (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I think some of the content of this article is tendentious. One quote in her defense would be the assertion that her "argument has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.” Accordingly, she'd simply be a political naturalist (“Nature is always pulling the rug out from under our pompous ideals.") who focuses especially on the historically recurrent issues that civilization brings. And it's not like she isn't a feminist despite her unique approach (“Old school feminism, coveting social power, is blind to woman's cosmic sexual power...") ... MalAdeptus (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)