The US and Canada are also at 1. Thirty years ago Iran was at 7. Today it is at 1. They achieved in 30 years what it took the EU, as a whole, two centuries to achieve. No plot. Even immigrants do so. They have become a cost and burden. So far, the United States, since , has aborted over 60,, babies.
How many geniuses did we kill? Finally, the need for Enlightenment is to see that the Soul Light is in each child and that children are the new emanation of the Creator who goes by many names. And I want to congratulate Camille on her insights about how rabid our society has become. The future looks grim to me, an year-old, white, male, father of four sons and married now 57 years.
Political correctness is just one of the causes. Atheism dear chap is the antithesis of ideology. As in atheist — a non believer in Theism it is a-ideology that is of no theistic ideology.
Second wave true Norwegian black metal: an ideologically evil music scene? | Emerald Insight
Ok atheists may be of other ideologies Nazi, Commo, Astrologist etc. You seem to be making a point that is leading to Jordan Petersons belief in the utility of Christian belief or observance as the way forward for civilised advancement of Homo Sapiens and the planet at large. You reject the existence of God based on… empiricism?
Why be an empiricist or a rationalist? Because you value — an ideological verb — those approaches to life. Non-valued living is impossible. I accept the existence of God based on historical testimony about the person of Jesus of Nazareth. A Christian framework also satisfies me philosophically regarding the origins of the natural world — creation in Christian parlance — and morality. Atheism also licenses ideology. If there is no God, there is no supreme authority or judge. And of course individual atheists can live their lives without worrying about a God who judges, which is an extremely attractive motivation for being an atheist.
And I am fairly certain that scientific and technical progress was primarily NOT encouraged by religion or its institutions per se. It seems far more that e. Care to provide what you demand of others, a narrative based not on conjecture but verifiable fact? The university original meaning: a unity of teachers and students was set up for inquiry into the divine and natural, based on the belief that God had revealed himself through scripture and creation. Since the duty of the church and laity was to know the God in whom they believed, a dedicated scholarly community was conceived as the best solution.
You get misguided religionists who insist on a flat earth. But when they bang on ahistorically about the brave march of science through the gauntlet of obstructionist religion I feel the need, simply as a pursuer of truth, to point out: your narrative is crap; please pay your dues to Christianity. This is crucial to our development as a species. This opened the door to comprehensive story telling which developed into comprehensive religions. The idea was, lard is for humans, but cats could be tempted to steal it, so what you should avoid in all circumstances, to have them too close together.
But in the meantime, we are friendlier to cats, and buy all kind of special canned stuff for them. Anyhow, what I know, ham is too salty for cats, they prefer fresh meat, or fish, or, better even, a live mouse or fish. Could not agree more. What is on display here is exactly what the interviewer and interviewee are supposedly railing against. This is the ultimate in sesquipedalian screed.
I almost quit reading amid the wilderness of college teacher jargon and argot. Then the author made her point. It is so spot on I can hardly believe it. Men and women are actually quite different at least until menopause. This has great ramifications for our modern society. The modern trend toward women in the workplace creates an enormous increase in the output of goods and services — we get materially prosperous. At the same time women and men instinctively want to live in different worlds as far as making a living is concerned.
This is hardwired into our species going back to our pre-agricultural origins. Of course, child care and household chores need to be split down the middle. Camille Paglia gives me optimism that we poor humans will somehow find a way to make women in the workplace happy again. Heather Mac Donald has been about it, for a while. Yes, Heather MacDonald is actually much better than Paglia in getting to the real point at issue.
Thank you but this was FAR too short! Will there be a Part II? The small nuclear family as a standard is spreading like oil all over the globe, the chinese appartment conglomerates are made for mom and dad and 1 or 2 kids whereas in the rural backyards, granny and the older aunts still reign in the homes. In rural Kenia, I still saw what Camille described so lively, partly even from remembrance of her own mediterranean childhood.
Men go out in men groups, going often hand in hand, the women in groups with the smaller kids elsewhere, in church women left, men right. Women talk not very respectful of men, to say the least and have often strong reason for that , and they even dance in groups. Men are not allowed in the kitchen, and eat with their friends at home what their women and daughters cook. So, no small nuclear standard family as in the West.
Not yet! However, all this is seen now as rural and backwards, the modern Kenyan youngsters try to adapt the Western lifestyles, with mixed succes. Now , after reading the above, I wonder whether this Western style, after all, should be the new role model. Somewhere in between North and South? The question of course is: where exactly!
The small nuclear family was spawned by the needs of the industrial revolution. Now comes the digital revolution and the modern family is mom, children, government programs and a smart phone. But where is dad, Lenny? Somewhere in an even smaller nucleus? All alone? Have they seen Paris, Lenny, or a landscape full of anxiety, anomie, resentment, and pervasive dissatisfaction?
Humans are currently attempting to run futuristic software on stone age hardware, with no idea of what they are doing, no foresight, no wisdom, and no restraints. Instead of sacrificing some of the present to make way for a better future, we moderns sacrifice the future for the present.
Paglia insightfully addresses an aspect of this evolutionary mismatch in discussing how our current social expectations are virtually impossible to fulfill given modern conditions. She also rightfully points out that secular humanism has failed in its attempt to serve as a stabilizing moral and ethical framework for the bulk of human beings. It relies on the remnants of Judeo-Christian morality from which it has steadily eaten, and devolves into a demented political mind-set where the ends always justify the means. For many who follow the new religion, achieving political goals is now the only virtue and principle.
I see things slightly differently. My take on this is that political goals that we once casually adopted, are turning out to be much harder to achieve than anticipated, and so rather than owning our false assumptions and weaknesses, instead we are compromising centuries old rights in a desperate attempt to save face. Western society is now like the hypothetical employee who has been promoted to his level of incompetence. Poverty is what creates that extended family, the need to cooperate and the reliance on kinship ties to do so.
Any time people have a chance to become more independent, as when they become better off, they take it. The small band of hunter gatherers, who when there was conflict, could just split up and move away, was the norm before sedentarization forced people to put up with a bad situation, no matter what.
What I also saw here and Ms Paglia also, even from family stories that there were a lot of advantages and positive features less stress and lonelyness that with rising incomes seem to evaporate from society. But, I am not a nostalgic, though little bit romantic,and realise very well that every different time and situation needs its own face and lifestyle. As long as it a conscious choice, or positive developemnt, no problems! Hakuna matata! Yet, even here, the family is subject to increasing interventions… as in romantic and sexual lives, by fashion designers,gym managers,dieticians,cosmeticians, and plastic surgeons.
I live in Louisiana where most men cook and lots of women hunt and fish. There was an American happiness survey done a few years ago and the top five five happiest cities were all in Louisiana. In a lot of standard metrics, Louisiana ranks near the bottom education, child poverty, etc. Great interview. Yes, in French, heart is masculine…. Camille Paglia is a type of near extinct Leftist. The type that one could sit down with have a beer, disagree all night and part friends with no one engaging in personal or ad hominem attacks. Her fidelity to ideals over political expediency is an admirable trait in persons of any creed.
I miss these Leftist. I had a similar friend at work. We would argue throughout lunch and remain friends. Today if I am painfully aware that should I attempt such dialogue with my younger Leftist colleagues, I will be reported for some type of harassment. Paglia is a treasure to both members of the right and left, because though one may occasionally disagree with her, everyone can learn from her insights.
There was a nice decade or so when one could sit down over beers with friends having opposing views and discuss pretty much anything. Its sad that the political cultists across the spectrum have so poisoned the culture. Thank you for your acknowledgment. Circuses and Bread. I was surprised that Claire used one of her questions to ask about the relationship of politics to cults. I was even more for surprised at the response. It is now violence to say something that a leftie does not want to hear.
Got Your ACE Score?
Camille Paglia cannot see that the former equal opportunity , is the cause of the latter special protections for women. Let me explain. Equal opportunity is an almost universally held philosophical position and general movement in Western societies. It faces virtually zero opposition, and is therefore unbounded in its extent or aims. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent it morphing from something pro-social, to something anti-social. The only way any idea can be opposed is to counter it directly — a countervailing force must specifically target the concept, rather than just arguing over its boundaries.
At the cognitive level, every belief, idea and value represented in the brain must be limited in scope by one or more inhibitors. The value of goods and services is inhibited by opportunity cost. The value of sex is inhibited by the risk of pregnancy and transmittable diseases. Criminal behaviour is inhibited by punishment and social ostracisation. What about our belief systems?
Western society has in effect, deemed it inappropriate to place any inhibitions on any of the following: equal opportunity, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, individualism. The rapid rise in both support for and policies of censorship, de-platforming and co-ordinated attacks on individuals who espouse ideas either contrary to or that in some way undermine these belief systems indicates that, rather than seeing the value of opposing ideas as regulators of the ideals that define the status quo regardless of whatever inherent value they may have , we see opposition as inherently harmful — something to be wiped out of existence by whatever means necessary.
In other words we inhibit the inhibitors of our political ideals. This does not bode well for the sanity of society. But she cant let go of feminism as it would be career suicide to do so as a woman academic in the arts. It is ironic her experience has not soured her on this idea of a wonderful all-female, gender-segregated society. It has been said men rank, women exclude, and that is very true imo. All-female groups are very exclusionary to anyone who does not fit in. Women should not think people like Paglia are truly feminist, nor any dominant male minded transgender person.
Everything in her relates to that which is masculine — it is why she so strongly supports equal opportunity ie for her own sake, not for females sake. To try and reclaim those underdeveloped ideas with that new phrase is futile I feel. Whatever forces have driven us to the place that Paglia accurately analyses- I cannot see any recovery for feminism, however qualified, as a label of properly managed equality of opportunity… Anymore than a new Paganism can become a counter to the divisive actions made in the names of the established religions. Very good analysis Andrew — you are absolutely correct that equality of opportunity is an almost entirely undisputed belief held across the political spectrum of Western thought, law, and practice.
This failure to close the gap has in turn has led to attempts to provide explanations that continue the narrative of more subtle and hidden forms of racism, sexism, phobias i. Great comment! I wonder, though, if it is not despite the efforts promote equal opportunity, but because of these efforts, that various gaps are as large as they are.
I believe Thomas Sowell has argued that the efforts themselves, which were largely aimed at equating outcomes e. TW — Prof. Sowell is absolutely correct that attempts to artificially generate equality of outcomes will have negative consequences for the supposed beneficiaries. Female board membership quotas enacted in Norway and recently in California also seem to be having similar negative reputation ramifications on female board members who otherwise needed no special favors.
Olson As long as we are chained by the wishful thinkings of Correctness, the Oppression narrative will stand. All Identities are exactly equal. Therefore all Identities should have identical outcomes unless they are Oppressed. All Identities do not have identical outcomes. Therefore some Identities must be Oppressed. Oppression is bad. Therefore Oppression must be ended. Oppression will not have been ended until all Identities have exactly identical outcomes.
Therefore we must hire more Oppression-engineers to fix the problem. We must do what is now nearly unthinkable and actually mention the elephants in the room. All Identities are not equal. For example, at the risk of being arrested:. The reason young black males are shot more often than other Identities is that they break the law something like 8X more often than other Identities. The reason that trans people commit suicide so often is that their minds are fundamentally disturbed. Olson — There can be no equality of opportunity any more than there can be an equality of outcome.
Equal protection under the law — would it ever be done in reality!
No, there is more that can be done to provide equality of opportunity. The fact is children are born into different circumstances, and so providing better conditions early on for children is the best way to help create equality of opportunity, before it is too late, to create more of an even playing field. A critical point in Western history occurred after WW2, when the very idea of genetic race and gender differences in cognitive capacities was deemed scientifically and morally unacceptable, and not only a threat to United Nations supported ideals of equality, but which also risked genocidal outcomes.
We have never come to terms with the Holocaust. This has left us with no choice but to suppose that unequal social outcomes are due to stubbornly widespread and acute levels of racism and sexism. The belief that the scientific understanding and dissemination of knowledge of race and sex differences could be socially disastrous, is truly odd given our understanding of how scientific knowledge of the natural world and universe has been a force against superstition and fear.
Instead we are now cultivating a new monster, whose name is Social Justice. The monster will grow and increasingly suffocate our culture, and will continue to do so until we summon the courage we need to slay it. This will not occur through violence, but by going to the tree of knowledge, and eating the forbidden fruit. To generalize what i am saying, consider the notion that social ideals and political systems exist somewhere near the middle of a nature-nurture spectrum.
The things we fight over are not fully defined concepts, that arrive in society after having been carefully architected by political philosophers, rather it is society itself that does much of the defining, and much of that involves the relative strength of oppositional philosophies. As an example, consider the decent of American culture into identity politics and victimology, subsequent to the demise of the Soviet Union.
I would also argue that the acceptance of the nurture dimension leads naturally to a belief in free speech, and its denial would lead to the opposite. Do you write elsewhere? I would enjoy reading more of your thoughts regarding the way concepts morph from moderate to extreme. But all it takes is for a society to give too much power to the extremists, and it is in trouble. The problem is that this creates a new normal. Further activism is pitted against the new normal, not the old. The process continues until the balanced position is eliminated.
What is required to prevent this outcome? One could naively suppose that the answer might come from the Humanities. Unfortunately, it seems that the role of the Humanities is not to produce this sort of answer, instead it is to produce the purists! It is quite a spectacle for society to be searching for wisdom to counter the influence of those who should be responsible for developing it.
This is a critical distinction due to the enormous success Western society has had in the later domain, versus the continuing struggles in the former for example, the Iraq debacle. It is fairly straightforward to demonstrate that technology is fairly immune to issues of perceptual shift, even when a strong political element is present. By contrast, sociological goals always result in re-adaptations and complex feedback loops, plus the usual re-organization of relative status amongst competing groups. Thinking about this has led me to an even more radical position than simply supposing that social engineering is prone to failure.
Consensus regarding the past is unachievable, because whatever change occurs results in a change in perceptions of the same magnitude. Societies can be viewed as a best effort to achieve something analogous for an entire population. Identity politics can be seen as an effort to undermine this. Every ideal can get taken too far, that is the definition of any extremism. Maybe some extension of the Pareto principle? That any ideal, system of thought, ideology, when generally accepted, will be moderately accepted by most people, while a smaller number will take it to extremes, and appoint themselves as the enforcers.
So you get the Puritans, the Inquisition, the Ayatollahs, the Kommissars, etc. Most people balance their beliefs with other considerations, like plain common sense and humanity, while others are purists. That is what we have done, they are now in charge of our major educational and cultural institutions, and indoctrinating the young. David — you are correct that equal opportunity can never truly exist, but what most rational people define as equal opportunity is the tearing down of barriers the restrict certain classed of people from even being considered for different types of educational and career opportunities.
Thus the termination of official or even unofficial policies that prohibited otherwise qualified blacks, Hispanics, women, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. Certainly someone born into poverty in some remote part of the world will not have an equal opportunity to be equally qualified i. Fair is only fair. Yes, equal opportunity is just that — they both should have a chance to prove themselves. It reminds me of the internal logic of certain systems like bureaucracies, which grow and grow until they reach some external and limiting force such as a competing bureaucracy or a shrinking pool of resources, etc.
I have also thought about how equality of opportunity has led many to equality of outcome. Chelsea Clinton was born with far, far more opportunity than the son of a divorced Appalachian coal miner and his single mom, or the inner city child raised by his aunt in subpar schools. They are not starting at the same starting line, and everyone knows it. As Thomas Sowell argues, likely the best we can do is to have neutral processes and systems, because when we attempt to engineer outcomes, the costs typically outweigh the benefits.
Some form of acceptance of inequality, as inherent to life, as something to be worked with, but which is ultimately inescapable and ineradicable? An acceptance which also allows for compassion and for helping those less fortunate, and which attempts to mitigate rent seeking, nepotism, and the like? Do we need current insights from genetics to emerge from the ivory tower and spread to the masses? How will that spread look, if it is filtered by our current media organs, which are largely staffed by extreme ideologues who religiously uphold the unbounded equality concept?
For any individual, we should consider what the limiting factor is on that individual, in terms of their ability to achieve and their capacity for flourishing, given both what they bring to the table of life, and the nature of the society in which they live. What is the bottleneck on any individual? Regardless of how we answer that question, the necessary follow-up is; at what point could we say that the individual or group would be or is no longer constrained by external factors?
To hear the idea of equal opportunity expressed, it sounds so sweet and intuitively right, that few of us ever bother to think of that question, let alone answer it. Any individual or group of individuals that are said to be held back by a lack of reasonable opportunities, are by definition victims of that societies unfairness, and so victim culture is the morality expression of equal opportunity, itself representing the same ideas that support victim culture, but reformatted for bureaucracy.
In that regard I see someone like Jordan Peterson, who both strongly supports the equal opportunity concept, and just as strongly opposes victim culture, as essentially a case study in hair-splitting. Again, by placing the onus of plausibility on the egalitarians. We can challenge them to contradict this premise:. I want to add another point. Liberalism was essentially founded on two main principles — Liberty and Equality. What we are seeing in the most progressive version of modern Liberalism is unbounded Equality attacking Liberty, and it looks to be winning.
As you pointed out earlier and as E. Olson has alluded to multiple times , it is winning because the concept which could constrain unbounded Equality is probably the biggest taboo that exists in the West. James, The existence of a few who misinterpret a concept does not invalidate the concept. It is my argument that you and Andrew are creating a straw man equal opportunity must mean equal outcomes , which helpfully avoids addressing the fundamental issue to which equal opportunity is a reaction: the deep-seated need for those in positions of privilege and power to put in place systems that maintain their power and privilege.
But that inequality, where it exists, should be based on the individual, free from societal power structures that are designed inhibit opportunity. I completely support and agree with you and E. As I see it, the problem is this. Progressives by and large believe that there are no biological differences between groups and genders. This is probably the biggest taboo in the West, again for historical reasons. Most progressives officially believe that even cultural factors such as the prevalence of single motherhood, increased spending habits on luxury items in the black community, etc. When Harvard President Lawrence Summers suggested that one reason out of several for the relative lack of women in STEM could be the fact that at the tails of the IQ distribution, men significantly outnumber women, and certain fields such as theoretical physics require very high IQs—he was accused of sexism and fired.
As the professor at American University said, when I see disparities, I see racism. This is a central plank in modern progressivism. Now to the fly in the ointment. One can be a good faith progressive, and wonder- do we truly have equality of opportunity? These words are kept vague. As far as providing significant examples of the principle of equality of outcome driving policy, look no further than affirmative action, where equality of opportunity has become a joke.
Can admission to Harvard or any other college be anything but an opportunity? Surely you must agree that admission is not an outcome in itself. Students admitted via affirmative action are not awarded degrees at the freshman orientation; they must earn their honors or wash out. When we have equality of outcome. There are a lot of progressives out there the author of this comment is one who believe that it is a moral imperative of a wealthy state to ensure that the system attempts to provide equality of opportunity to all. This often means that the mechanisms of the state need to focus on the less fortunate and historically oppressed, in the same sense that to level the table, you boost one side up.
I think this was due to earlier feminists calling themselves equality feminists whilst appealing for positive discrimination. Paglia and others opposed many of these goals. Sad to say it, but equity feminism is practically an anachronism. Susanna Hoff Sommers is the other prominent one in that camp. I suppose Emiliy Yoffe, formerly of Slate and now occasionally at The Atlantic , could be placed amongst them too.
The main strains of though were liberal feminists, marxist feminists, and cultural feminists.
- Search HolyGrounds's books.
- Second wave true Norwegian black metal: an ideologically evil music scene??
- Golf For Enlightenment: The Seven Lessons for the Game of Life?
Now we are on the third or, some say, even 4th wave, and the liberal feminists have been deemed not even feminists by the others. We are all waiting for the fifth wave! Who starts with it? And with what highbrow, intellectual considerations now again?? Andrew Yes, exactly. I will say, though, I thought your comment was well-written, insightful, and at times compelling.
- 1,405 responses to “Why I Walked Out on Tony Robbins”;
- 7 Rare Symptoms of OCD - VICE;
- Full text of "Charles Kimball When Religion Becomes Evil";
- Plus: When Religion Becomes Evil : Five Warning Signs by Charles Kimball (2008, Paperback)!
- Encyclopedia of Evil Claims, Claimants, Counter-claims and Sigils.
- Got Your ACE Score? « ACEs Too High!
- Coleridge, the Bible, and Religion.
It just happened to be wrong. Well, actually, flawed may be the more accurate description — fatally flawed. Do you find it at all odd, that your call to constrain every concept is self-defeating; since, by holding this absolutist position, it follows that one would also, necessarily, take an antagonistic view towards the concept itself, ergo the concept is self-defeating. In other words, either it is the case that your proposition is true , or it is the case that your proposition is not true, i. Thus, to subscribe to this position is to be caught on the horns of a dilemma.
The more intransigent among us, might be inclined to appeal to special pleading , but it is mad work to unburden a confounding argument from the constraints of logic by exempting it from its own reckoning. No thinker of the first rank would put forth an injunction that implies the primacy of an obligation to constrain ever concept as its own warrant. The justification to hold such a belief must be held subject to verification.
And who makes these determinations and on what grounds are they making them? No one asked me. That is, you seem to suggest that even as it pertains to our standards of conduct values , moderation is always — and under all conditions — preferable to extrication. But why? Is it really true that virtues taken to the extreme will always become a vice? And if so, is the inverse also true: vices taken to the extreme will always become a virtue?
This feels a bit too slippery for me. So, once again, who makes that determination? Who says? Sure, what we know about the brain at this stage is quite limited, but we know enough about some of the broad mechanisms to bring cognitive issues into the discussion. The brain is more fundamental than philosophy, so philosophy on its own should be considered inadequate. Brain functioning would seem to be centered on two basic mechanisms; the excitatory and inhibitory.
The inhibitory mechanisms are usually of a higher-level, more abstract nature, while the excitatory mechanisms are more primitive. Normal brain functioning, and therefore normal behaviour, would seem to be the result of some sort of balance between excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms. What concerns me is the apparent clash between what is deemed to be philosophically correct by anyone or any group on one hand, and appropriate balance, on the other.
Our sense of being correct does not dovetail with the necessity of inhibiting our own correctness. Just as importantly, consider that our philosophical beliefs may actually be the result of the interplay of excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms. The net of all forces generates our perceptions, and our perceptions highly influence our beliefs. Therefore an uninhibited belief is not the same as when existing in an inhibitory environment, it is a different belief. What we believe to be true politically and otherwise, is not independent of the opposition to those beliefs. I have more to say on this topic and your criticisms, but will leave it at that for now.
Besides, this is getting way off the topics of the interview. Sorry Claire! I did read some of it several years ago and was reminded of it recently. Just wow. An interview with Camille Paglia? Very cool. Much as I disagree with her at times, she is an absolutely brilliant woman with remarkable insights. Definitely an American treasure. This interview was an unexpected treat. As an aside, thank you for using one of your questions to ask her whether politics and particularly social justice were becoming cults. I was surprised by her response. But very pleased. There is an extended conversation between Paglia and Jordan Peterson, over much of the same topics and more, to be found on youtube.
This interview has made me a fan. I second the call for a part II. I love Camille Paglia! Thanks for interviewing her. She is on the other end of the political divide from me but is always a delight to read. I truly wish there were more academics challenging the insanity on college campuses. My son is a college student now and I was loathe to send him due to the current climate on campus. Who in their right mind wants to invest a fortune in college to radicalize their child?
They end up with no ability to use reason and no real knowledge or understanding of the world. Thanks again for the interview! If your son is a self-starter, you can have him CLEP or DSST-exam out of all those useless General Education Requirements that are basically a radicalized repeat of exactly what he just learned in high school. At the next school break, why not sit him down and show him what classes he can test out of to skip all those now-useless brainwashing humanities?
There are several online example tests. This is a bit left field I know. Is there any way sexual or gender, if you prefer differences can be acknowledged and celebrated in a modern economy? Would this make us happier? I believe you might find it here. It is the condition where market forces properly take a back seat to family, religion and the social order in general. The general population has been seduced by shiny things, perhaps more so than by modern ideologies. Almost like listening to her in person!
So in the Paglia Fan Club I have to say there are no humanities-hating deadheads welcome. Whether through sterilization, abortion, or dumping children off for someone else to raise while theyre at work — western women dont want kids around. And working with young women is a shitshow. They often view their male coworkers as combatants, not peers. They dangle the opportunity of a potential sexual encounter in front of araptura few favored male colleagues who blindly take the bait.
Favored and in rapturous pursuit, these lucky guys begin subverting other male coworkers in this new, inverted hierarchy of workplace dominance. Paglia is wrong. The end result is a fully female work force. Atleast until the singularity. Then the machines will take it all, if Elon Musk is correct. I agree that with a certain class and type of women, what you write is so. You are working in the wrong place. You deserve better. But, as women gain education and wealth, they do seem to choose to have fewer children, though that could be as much about balancing costs and time of raising a child in the modern world as any preference for fewer children.
And once women were given money, many chose not to have husbands too. Women are being tricked into thinking the male life competitive, violent, high pressure is grand, while men are being told to act more feminine sit still, talk it out, show empathy over competitive spirit. I much prefer the work of William Irwin Thompson. By comparison all of the usual academic blather on both sides of the culture wars divide is incredibly boring. And of course his work is completely unacceptable in the academy too. The overwhelming popularity of MeToo would seem to indicate that those damaging stereotypes were and are accurate.
The fact this took a nefarious turn should be chalked up to the same human forces that created all the other extremist ideological movements — the Inquisition, Islamic State, the Bolsheviks, the Red Guards, The Khmer Rouge, etc. None of which was particularly rational, or was rational in its own twisted way. What do you conclude about male rationality from those pretty exclusively male movements? The lens you are looking though and taking for granted was also the product of a pretty exclusively male movement — namely the Enlightenment.
Furthermore, none of these movements seem to be particularly anti or pro, male or female. Individuals who attempted to flee East Germany were shot regardless of their identity. Similarly, can you argue that an exclusively female movement like MeToo suggests that a female dominant world would be kinder and gentler than the status quo? That is precisely my point. Andrew — Your stereotype assessment is not supported at large, for if one examines the women on the proverbial right, a conclusion such as yours is rendered invalid.
Paglia is evidently fresh air compared to her appalling colleagues, and that is a compliment to her courage in such poisoned environment. As the story goes, even a disciple of Jesus denied him once the power structure appeared to change. But her courage is, in this case, the unique characteristic and foremost feature, I think.
And these days maybe even more than it was before! This is exactly what we needed. Sharp analysis that slices through all the cowardly malaise on campus. Our colleagues in the affected departments who saw the looming crisis and hid in their offices, as professor Paglia points out, are in moral and intellectual collapse. More serious than we ever realized, the evidence that proves her point is the scandalous silence on the part of academia to the Evergreen Inquisition. A good part, perhaps the greater part, of the Humanities will have to be rebuilt at some point from scratch. In the meanwhile, the departments that have politely managed to fend off post-modernist theory and cultural studies have to now actively mobilize the standards of rational inquiry and science.
Thank you for this interview! Camille Paglia is one of the few intellectuals on the left for whom I have great respect. Her intellectual honesty is very refreshing. But we all have to blow our own trumpets I guess! Sexual Personae is, I think, the best work of literary criticism since Edmund Wilson was alive and one of the best ever in English. Her more recent book on poetry is fantastic — Break, Burn, Blow — is brilliant criticism on some of the famous poems in Western literature.
Camille Paglia writes beautifully but can be tedious to listen to. Hi John, yes I like her books I have read most of them. But I force myself to listen anyway because what she has to say is always worth it. I have no idea how you could say that. Then like now, it seemed clear that their was a huge craving for intelligent, non-partisan, unflinching rebuttals to the excesses of PC leftism and Paglia was everywhere.
That all being said, I thought Sexual Personnae was an inscrutable mess, although I might have been too young and dumb to grok it in fullness, I loved her essays though…. The reason feminism had its origin in western, northern European societies and is still weak in Sputhern Europe is precisely, imo, that the former had a head start in having less gender segregation than the latter to begin with, i. Men and women mixed freely in social space, whether at peasant fairs, markets, etc. Women had a role in the French salons that produced the Enlightenment, they were integral parts of Court life and intrigues, etc.
That set the stage to demand admittance and equal status in other institutions like higher education and political life later. Yes, we need to work out the rules for men and women working together, but gender segregation is not the solution. Thank you for this response.
This idea that men should be with men and women with women is some great cultural idea just because it was a norm at one time is frightening. Some men prefer the company of women and some the company of other men. And vice versa. I see a lot of successful working women with stay at home dads popping up. Cultural evolution is fluid. And individuals with choices about who and how we live is what we are working towards.
I wonder, Marie, whether one single man or woman can be found to prefer only company from the same sex. It all depends as Camille explains explicitly on the type of subjects, urges, hobbies and emotions that are at play. Not long ago, I listened on a terrace girls among each other complain about their friends who, as soon as they visited their mother with them, left her for some time to go out fishing or playing soccer with old friends.
Yes, that can happen! But why complain about that? Control freakism?? Forced segregation is something governments do. Forced inclusion is too, and both are bad. Segregation is bad, but choosing your associates is great, even if to you it seems they are not mingling at the right level for your tastes. Unlike Western culture, Middle Eastern, Islamic culture is based on the belief women belong exclusively in the private sphere, i.
Christianity from Day One involved active participation by women, not sitting at the back of the church, invisible behind a curtain…. Important comment. This might also be the place to register my strong objection to Paglia casually calling the architecture of the Oresteia sexist. Who exactly is arguing about these matters? No one I come in contact with. But I am not institutionalized as these people are — in the university systems that now constitute our insane asylums. As for example, that faithfulness to one another in a lawful marriage is beneficial to each and to both.
One might conclude, as I have, that higher education in the West has so perverted the minds of youth with hogwash as to make them disdain the plain, natural and ordinary in favor of the abstruse, illusory and utopian.
Why I Walked Out on Tony Robbins
All of it theory and all of it wrong. Pingback: Camille Paglia completely trashes post-modernism, post-structuralism, identity politics and Metoo-stalinism. Paglia is a master of her own field, the intersection of art, literature, gender and culture. Unfortunately, she has gone on to make rather silly comments about subjects she evidently does not understand, such as climate science.
And that is also the case with Jordan Peterson of course. In fact, Quillette is the place to expose such crossfigures and freemasons. I wonder, why not give it a special Faculty name on the Universities. Prophethood thus! Yes, strange, why certain intellectuals always from the right even take that climate change deniel as their pet, why is that?? Or is there more?? The anything goes of "Love is Love" still has not drawn limits, gay promiscuity and HIV infection remains, reckless intercourse persuaded by men and to a lesser extent women, with the escape hatch of abortion remains.
To push back on these is seen as being against legal abortion and homophobic. Sexual assault or harassment seems to be the only sexual vice many are willing to accept. I have no trace of art including painting, sculpture, music, literature, poetry, dance, Theatre, etc. I once told my father that Opera was created by burning cats alive.
He said that people would think ill of me, if I repeated such comments in public. I said that cruelty to animals was wrong. He groaned in shock. I suggested that we agree to disagree. Of course, I do know the isotopes of Hydrogen rather and the oxidation states of Titanium are familiar to me. Linear algebra is a no-brainer. Organic chemistry was trivial when I was a teenager. The cultural aspects of civilization are a mystery to me. The material aspects are quite familiar. Apparently, I am not civilized. Thanks folks. My actual views are predictably on this matter are somewhat complex.
I do believe that culture and religion are part of the basis of human civilization. Yes, my ability to appreciate such things is deeply limited as stated above. Human productivity in some countries is dozens of times higher than it was before Life expectancy has soared.
Mortality notably child mortality has plunged. Some number of years ago, I read a funny book on this subject. The book tries to introduce science to the liberal arts community. I found numerous errors in the book, but I would still highly recommend it. Snow taught in the s, but….. I see this division very clearly among my family and friends. Where did you get those terms? They are new to me. By the way, the terms I have always used are left-brained betas and right-brained alphas.
I think I have seen these terms before and that they correspond to different centers of activity in the human brain. I wonder, for us Dutch, the distinction in alphas and beta,s is as real as stone or water, our education system was in the time that education still meant something : first 3 years general , than the choice between a or b in one schooling type or in alfa or beta, in another one. It really is a sharp division,and Snow who was a scientist, but also a novelist, and married with a novelist even lamented this dvision.
He was flabbergasted that highly educated British of the alpha type did not know even the most essentials of the beta world like Newtons laws , and explained that this was not so in German education systems. By the way, he was on the list of most dangerous British intellectuals of the Nazis, to be arrested as soon as possible, if England would have been invaded. I should say that Americans of the alpha type, are just as ignorant as their British counterparts at least in my experience. He admitted his own ignorance and tried to remedy it with partial success in my view.
In , the UK was being visibly overtaken by both the U. Both countries were more strongly biased towards the sciences than the UK. The UK lost its global economic position as its economy declined in relative terms and retreated towards an ever more rigid defense of its empire. This was in my opinion one of many causes of WWI. The U. Yes, I do get the irony of making such an argument in the letters of Quilette. This whole thing is keeping me busy again Peter, maybe also because, as a teenager, my school choice was alpha, but my father thought it better to do the beta he was thinking on my future and a proper job, of course, unlike me, unresponsible youngster as I was.
Anyhow, nice to have discussed the item again here with you, I think it will keep throwing up dust for another half century, or more! Especially that of the principal players male or female in all of our fascinating dramas, whether real as in politics, or fictional as in art and literature. All of the great classics of world literature are a play upon this dynamic.
All modern novels including romance novels are a play upon this dynamic. All of our songs from high opera to pop songs, especially country and western songs are a play upon this dynamic. All of history is a dramatization on to the world stage of the unresolved childhood Oedipal patterning of the principle figures involved in any and every such incident. Put in another way everyone, without exception is always dramatizing their unconscious emotional-sexual Oedipal script. An emotional-sexual script which is developed and set in place during the first two to three years of their life.
Even the naive essentially childish and even infantile concept of the mommy-daddy creator God-idea is an extension of this unconscious emotional-sexual script. Atheism is essentially an adolescent refusal to accept this childish mommy-daddy God-idea. At some level this refusal is quite justifiable. And all of it, without exception is an expression of the failure to understand, become responsible for, and to transcend this unconscious emotional-sexual patterning or script.
Such understanding and responsibility is of course the necessary key to growing up. Many of my atheist friends all seem to have an alternative religious crutch of new age beliefs, meditation, yoga, Burning Man and an assortment of other pagan beliefs. Some tend more towards very passionate political beliefs as their religion to fill some void. Elements of progressive left are as guilty of this as elements of the religious right in this regard. Paglia has this very prescient statement regarding aligning your beliefs in political religions.
Please, Professor Paglia, get thee on podcasts that celebrate long form replies and respectful dialogues. Your approach, discipline and wit need that exposure to help with the wave of dissent out there. We need you making time in your schedule and preserving your positive pushback for all time to come in the equivalent of the old ParisIan salon. When only one sex had influence over the process, as is typically the case in male-dominated pastoral or horticultural societies, tight hubs of related individuals emerged. Sex equality suggests a scenario where unique human traits, such as cooperation with unrelated individuals, could have emerged in our evolutionary past.
First — love Paglia. As others have said as well, I may disagree with her on some political issues but find her viewpoints quite interesting and well articulated. Second — Denying that male behavior is based upon female behavior is nonsensical. All behavior is reactive based upon a combination of learned historical outcomes coupled with current, often in-flux, situations. Does it make his actions right? Not morally; however, some of the blame falls on the women who taught the lessons that his behavior provided the sought after reward.
The criminal justice system, when actually applied, is the negative reinforcement mechanism. Instead, we glorify Sex in the City and 50 Shades, and then wonder why the genders act the way they do?
Even the Access Hollywood tape is a good example. As I get older, I can count the number of personal heroes at least, personal heroes that I do not personally know on one hand. Camille Paglia is one of them. And Paglia is possibly the best spokeswoman for folks who think like myself. Thank you for this interview. Love her or hate her, agree with her or disagree with her, one is never bored reading Camille Paglia. I appreciate and concur with her observation on nuclear families.
Quillette is getting desperate now trying to revive this ancient relic for when she was marginally topical she was all bark and a groupie for Madonna. Rather than embrace the MeToo Movement and allow it to mature and evolve she is the tiresome critic offering empty attacks and roadblocks. I would wage she ignored Black Women how challenged the Feminist Movement but never condemned it ………. BLM like metoo has gone off the rails. They both are starting to resemble the inquisition where we hang people first and figure out whether they deserved it later…. Or is that considered white devil knowledge?
You know I had an insight about you guys BLM recently.