for the love of god and everything holy, why do i read anything underneath camille paglia's name? why do i do it? i have never really considered myself a masochist, but at these moments, i have to wonder. so please, allow me a moment to rant.
at salon.com yesterday, camille oh so helpfully chimed in on a piece about Betty Friedan's Legacy. among numerous other political and academic luminaries, camille's entry stands out like a tantrum-throwing child in an upscale restaurant.
camille, is it possible for you to write six paragraphs about an icon of modern feminism and not reference yourself? well lookie here, apparently not! camille, is it possible for you to write six paragraphs without referencing madonna and her centrality to sex-positive feminism? results come back negative.
and please, please. i know your level of self-delusion is staggering, but consider this: there is no current strand of feminism that "rules the roost." except, maybe anti-feminism. so please, get off your high horse for two seconds and think about the fact that there's still work to be done. most of your readers are more concerned with that fact than whatever you wrote in a letter to newsweek in 1963, or whether you think your side has "won".
your egomaniacal prattling does a disservice to the name of feminism and feminists everywhere. do us all a favor and shut up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wait. . . so what you're saying is. . . you're not a fan?
I can't stand that woman. I couldn't have said it better myself, Kate.D.
Well, except for that rebuttal I wrote to Paglia in a letter to the editor of Newsweek in 1965... :)
She represents everything repellent about academe.
And I blame stripper-pole feminism on her.
Ack.
Post a Comment