I almost put this in the current fear potboiler thread but it doesn't quite fit. This is a few edited segments from a lecture by Camille Paglia, the only feminist I have ever admired. She's a smart cookie and frequently very right.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Fearing Men - The Only Smart Feminist Weighs In
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
Great stuff, thanks. Here are some notes I took (and in the video she goes into more than just these things):
They [the current crop of feminists?] see everything as nothing but sexual violence and abortion — this is a hysterical, pathological projection
"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."
At the working class level, men go on playing the same role they always did. (Examples: emergency power crews, emergency sewage repair workers -- in other words the infrastructure jobs: operating cranes, washing & installing high-rise windows, etc)
"The only guys applying and getting into the Ivy League are boys who have been ground down to the bourgeois norm that is palatable to upper-middle class women."
Hells Angels* is resurgent as a worldwide phenomenon. Is this dangerous? No, because when civilization falls the only people who will protect us and hold things together are the Hells Angels. The police won't be able to contain things; it'll be like Mad Max.
"It's not a great time to be a man of the middle class right now. I'm very concerned about morale."
In the old world, women were protected by their husbands, fathers, and brothers; if there was a rape, the rapist would be hunted down and dead within two or three days.
* Apostrophe omitted on purpose — I've read elsewhere that the biker organization does not use an apostrophe in its name.
They [the current crop of feminists?] see everything as nothing but sexual violence and abortion — this is a hysterical, pathological projection
"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."
At the working class level, men go on playing the same role they always did. (Examples: emergency power crews, emergency sewage repair workers -- in other words the infrastructure jobs: operating cranes, washing & installing high-rise windows, etc)
"The only guys applying and getting into the Ivy League are boys who have been ground down to the bourgeois norm that is palatable to upper-middle class women."
Hells Angels* is resurgent as a worldwide phenomenon. Is this dangerous? No, because when civilization falls the only people who will protect us and hold things together are the Hells Angels. The police won't be able to contain things; it'll be like Mad Max.
"It's not a great time to be a man of the middle class right now. I'm very concerned about morale."
In the old world, women were protected by their husbands, fathers, and brothers; if there was a rape, the rapist would be hunted down and dead within two or three days.
* Apostrophe omitted on purpose — I've read elsewhere that the biker organization does not use an apostrophe in its name.
I'm a long-time fan of Ms. Paglia. She's an anthropological historian of art and sex. If you like reading and don't mind a tome, her masterpiece is 1990's Sexual Personae. Great stuff, especially from a feminist lesbian from Swarthmore. I would score her in the top 1/10 of 1% for not only seeing Big Pictures (especially ones that her normal allies refuse to see) but having the ability to articulate it. A courageous woman.
P.S. I've seen Ms. Paglia in many interviews, and one of her most-repeated pieces of wisdom is that woman are going to be very sorry when they end up getting what they have been brainwashed into thinking they want from men. She also regularly points out that the only reason why women have the luxury of sitting around in rap sessions dissecting the world that is supposedly dominated by male oppressors is because the male oppressors invented all the gizmos that have freed up women enough to give them the time to whine about their lot in life.
I have heard her hint that women are going to be very shocked by what happens when Islam is allowed to take over our cultures. She is indeed a courageous woman. It's a shame she can't make the few small adjustments it would take to come over to the light...
Wow! I've never heard of this lady, nor have I heard her speak until watching this tonight--but then I'm not exposed to the feminist agenda on purpose because it is so distasteful. I'm not sure why she calls herself a feminist, or how she got the label from someone else. This lady has a lot of bottom lines figured out. I was glad to hear her press the point that it's the men who must confront the men if something is really going wrong or off the axle if it's ever going to be fixed. Women can't fix it. IF our broken world, homes, marriages, churches, etc. ever have a chance to heal and repair, the men will lead the way.
I'm replying to both of the above two comments.
I probably don't represent the mainstream Biblical Families point of view in this particular regard, but, while I generally agree that it is men who do the fixing and the protecting, I'm of the opinion that we risk oversimplifying things if we think that it's ever an either-or thing as far as male and female roles. Marriage, for example, is a dynamic partnership, and my assessment both personally and professionally is that one of the more dysfunctional styles of partnerships is the type where the man is The Boss and the woman is almost The Chattel. Men are much more powerful when they actually lead (demonstrate true leadership skills) rather than bully by simply expecting that the only reasonable approach is for their women to toe the line no matter what level of leadership is displayed by their men. I believe, in fact, that a woman is a fool if she submits to a man who doesn't demonstrate actual leadership. Just being "in charge" isn't enough. Clyde Pilkington is the one who helped me coalesce my thoughts on this matter with his book, Wife Loving, because it emphasizes the truth that, while Paul spends a couple sentences admonishing women to submit to their husbands, what's often left out is that, immediately afterward, he goes on for several paragraphs about the associated requirements for exactly how the husbands that wives submit to should demonstrate their love for their wives. The greater responsibility is with the husband -- to demonstrate his love for his wife or wives -- and then it becomes much more natural, and reasonable, for the wife to submit to such a man. So, rejoicinghandmaid, I'm to a little extent using your comment as a foil to slightly disagree with you, as a devil's advocate, but overall I heartily concur with your comment about men leading the way. That is our mandate from our Father, and when we fail to lead, we are responsible for everything that falls apart due to our lack of leadership (just ask me if you want me to give personal examples of how I've demonstrated that lack from time to time in my own life).
As for Camille Paglia, I would suggest two things:
1. To come to the light as I'm perhaps mistakenly assuming you see it, ZecAustin, I can promise you Ms. Paglia would have to make more than just a few small adjustments. She is a highly grounded individual, and that's why we love what she's saying on these topics. But she's still a political liberal, she supports almost all Democrat candidates (although not Hillary, because she sees her for what she is), and she has long identified herself (way before it became 'cool' to do so) as a transgendered man who just doesn't feel like doing the whole addadicktomy-operation-and-hormone routine just for the purpose of having an actual penis. She has repeatedly stated that she has never related to the idea that she is a woman and that she has generally always considered herself to be a man, which should be kept in mind when contemplating her comments about men, because she includes herself in that category. It would be HUGE for her to let go of such a belief, which would come down to at least believing that God makes mistakes. Furthermore, if my memory is correct, she's acknowledged that the women she prefers as partners are women who only want to make love with women. So she's a man trapped in the body of a woman who prefers women as sexual partners but only women who also prefer women as sexual partners. Having had a stepdaughter who considered herself an Indian boy trapped in the body of a lesbian girl, I have no problem recognizing that we're talking about something like a seismic shift to transform from that. Impossible, no -- but highly unlikely, which leads to . . .
2. There may not just be one "the light;" maybe there's more than one spiritually-legitimate light to come to. Given my belief in a Sovereign, All-Powerful God, it may just be the case that Camille Paglia is already right there in the light.
To be honest with you, I personally would love for my own family to become plural by adding Camille Paglia as my partner. What I don't know, though, is if I'd be enough of a leader to deserve submission from the likes of Camille. Man or woman, she's a very powerful individual with great skill at articulating truth.
I probably don't represent the mainstream Biblical Families point of view in this particular regard, but, while I generally agree that it is men who do the fixing and the protecting, I'm of the opinion that we risk oversimplifying things if we think that it's ever an either-or thing as far as male and female roles. Marriage, for example, is a dynamic partnership, and my assessment both personally and professionally is that one of the more dysfunctional styles of partnerships is the type where the man is The Boss and the woman is almost The Chattel. Men are much more powerful when they actually lead (demonstrate true leadership skills) rather than bully by simply expecting that the only reasonable approach is for their women to toe the line no matter what level of leadership is displayed by their men. I believe, in fact, that a woman is a fool if she submits to a man who doesn't demonstrate actual leadership. Just being "in charge" isn't enough. Clyde Pilkington is the one who helped me coalesce my thoughts on this matter with his book, Wife Loving, because it emphasizes the truth that, while Paul spends a couple sentences admonishing women to submit to their husbands, what's often left out is that, immediately afterward, he goes on for several paragraphs about the associated requirements for exactly how the husbands that wives submit to should demonstrate their love for their wives. The greater responsibility is with the husband -- to demonstrate his love for his wife or wives -- and then it becomes much more natural, and reasonable, for the wife to submit to such a man. So, rejoicinghandmaid, I'm to a little extent using your comment as a foil to slightly disagree with you, as a devil's advocate, but overall I heartily concur with your comment about men leading the way. That is our mandate from our Father, and when we fail to lead, we are responsible for everything that falls apart due to our lack of leadership (just ask me if you want me to give personal examples of how I've demonstrated that lack from time to time in my own life).
As for Camille Paglia, I would suggest two things:
1. To come to the light as I'm perhaps mistakenly assuming you see it, ZecAustin, I can promise you Ms. Paglia would have to make more than just a few small adjustments. She is a highly grounded individual, and that's why we love what she's saying on these topics. But she's still a political liberal, she supports almost all Democrat candidates (although not Hillary, because she sees her for what she is), and she has long identified herself (way before it became 'cool' to do so) as a transgendered man who just doesn't feel like doing the whole addadicktomy-operation-and-hormone routine just for the purpose of having an actual penis. She has repeatedly stated that she has never related to the idea that she is a woman and that she has generally always considered herself to be a man, which should be kept in mind when contemplating her comments about men, because she includes herself in that category. It would be HUGE for her to let go of such a belief, which would come down to at least believing that God makes mistakes. Furthermore, if my memory is correct, she's acknowledged that the women she prefers as partners are women who only want to make love with women. So she's a man trapped in the body of a woman who prefers women as sexual partners but only women who also prefer women as sexual partners. Having had a stepdaughter who considered herself an Indian boy trapped in the body of a lesbian girl, I have no problem recognizing that we're talking about something like a seismic shift to transform from that. Impossible, no -- but highly unlikely, which leads to . . .
2. There may not just be one "the light;" maybe there's more than one spiritually-legitimate light to come to. Given my belief in a Sovereign, All-Powerful God, it may just be the case that Camille Paglia is already right there in the light.
To be honest with you, I personally would love for my own family to become plural by adding Camille Paglia as my partner. What I don't know, though, is if I'd be enough of a leader to deserve submission from the likes of Camille. Man or woman, she's a very powerful individual with great skill at articulating truth.
I disagree on Camille Keith. I think her mind is so right on a so many things that just a slight shift in a few key areas would cause her to change a lot of other things all by herself. I'm not sure what the actual changes would need to be but I think it would just have to be some generalities that would then lead her to make a bunch of logical leaps to conclusions all on her own. I was aware of some of the lunacies she assigns herself but not all of them you point out. But I don't really think those things are huge obstacles in women and her disinterest in making permanent changes kind of leads me to believe she's not too committed to the idea.
I just think she doesn't like modern women and is looking for something else to identify with if you ask me. At any rate, she's a rare woman and I do enjoy reading her essays.
I just think she doesn't like modern women and is looking for something else to identify with if you ask me. At any rate, she's a rare woman and I do enjoy reading her essays.
And I would prefer to be wrong about my conclusions where this discussion is concerned. I've long said that it might be the perfect vehicle for a miracle to occur to get Bill Maher in a gathering with some of us who have learned from the inside what a destructive force the church can be. I almost wonder if the vehicle for getting him to renounce atheism might be immersing him in the thought of some of us who recognize that the organized establishment denominational church doesn't represent Christ and that the teachings of Christ and Paul revolve around Love.
The same type of thing could be true for Camille Paglia. This I am sure of about her: she'd be far easier to communicate with than would be someone like Bill Maher or Steven Hawking.
The same type of thing could be true for Camille Paglia. This I am sure of about her: she'd be far easier to communicate with than would be someone like Bill Maher or Steven Hawking.
Keith, very artfully presented and I'm sincerely thanking you for taking the time. I'm feeling a bit ashamed that I knew nothing of Camille Paglia and simply took what she said at face value. The further I read the info you presented about her, the more appalled I became. If what you say is true, (and I have no reason to doubt your research) then she is a woman by birth who is rebelling against Creator GOD, and using her soapbox in a university to twist and further confuse the young men and women who sit under her tutelage. No wonder she applaudes the men--she thinks she's one of them
, but then she functions as a lesbian--I think "dike" would be her label. Ugh!! What a mess! She also mentioned she was pro-abortion. Why not--she can have her sex and never have to worry about offspring. The coldness of one's heart for that level of murder is incomprehensible to me.She is a very broken and hurting woman. Her countenance demonstrates no joy. Did you notice the "okay" at the end of almost every statement she made? That is body language for an extremely insecure speaker. It was getting on my last nerve!
I can't for the life of me imagine WHY you would desire Camille as your partner in PM. Guess it's one of those things we as women can't understand what drives men.
I for sure can't figure out how this thread got the title "the only smart feminist" especially since I know who she is thanks to your post.
Please don't try to get Bill Maher's attention; that would be bad, he's not what you think he is.
Same goes for just about any mainstream personality. The truth of PM will only come out as a grassroots movement. Approved media personalities don't have the power you think they do. To the extent the mainstream pushes polygamy it is only because they think it will destroy Christian marriage.
Best not to disabuse them of that idea.
Same goes for just about any mainstream personality. The truth of PM will only come out as a grassroots movement. Approved media personalities don't have the power you think they do. To the extent the mainstream pushes polygamy it is only because they think it will destroy Christian marriage.
Best not to disabuse them of that idea.
I am sometimes guilty of insufficient articulation. I'll attempt to correct that in this and the next post.
Re: Bill Maher: I wasn't suggesting that anyone approach Bill Maher for any purpose related to promoting polygamy. My comment was specifically directed toward the thought that getting him together with a number of believers who, whether polygamy-proponents or not, recognize that what legitimately turns off non-believers and believers alike isn't God, Christ, the Body of Christ or Scripture but the organized-religion Church (reference: Pagan Christianity, by Viola and Barna, among other great books on the subject). I brought up Maher in the context of discussing how difficult I believed it would be to shift Camille Paglia toward more of 'the light', and the motivation behind such a suggestion wasn't to convince him to believe that Biblical polygyny is groovy for the purposes of him becoming a celebrity spokesman for the practice of it. My motivation was just love, the kind of love Christ exhorted us to exhibit toward everyone with whom we associate. In a way, Bill Maher is just a symbol of the far end of the atheism scale, but I truly feel for people like him, because I recognize the suffering created by turning one's back on God -- and I'd love to help him see the light. [In that context, I have seriously considered figuring out how to get past all the Hollywood mail filters to send him a copy of Martin Zender's, Quitting Church without Quitting God, because Mr. Maher's atheistic rants often seem to belie a childhood history with the Roman Catholic Church that mirror Mr. Zender's.]
I'd love for the world to embrace Biblical polygamy, but, even on a forum such as Biblical Families, that's not going to always be my sole focus. My long-held conclusion is that Biblical polygamy is one of a rather broad constellation of Scripture-related issues that occupy overlapping personal and societal territory. Paraphrasing the eloquent statement of one of the men at this month's conference, discovering the legitimacy of polygamy is one of a number of scriptural gateway drugs that start one down a path of discovering one after another Biblical truth that has been purposefully concealed by the mainstream Church.
Keith, very artfully presented and I'm sincerely thanking you for taking the time. I'm feeling a bit ashamed that I knew nothing of Camille Paglia and simply took what she said at face value. The further I read the info you presented about her, the more appalled I became. If what you say is true, (and I have no reason to doubt your research) then she is a woman by birth who is rebelling against Creator GOD, and using her soapbox in a university to twist and further confuse the young men and women who sit under her tutelage. No wonder she applaudes the men--she thinks she's one of them
She is a very broken and hurting woman. Her countenance demonstrates no joy. Did you notice the "okay" at the end of almost every statement she made? That is body language for an extremely insecure speaker. It was getting on my last nerve!
I can't for the life of me imagine WHY you would desire Camille as your partner in PM. Guess it's one of those things we as women can't understand what drives men.
I for sure can't figure out how this thread got the title "the only smart feminist" especially since I know who she is thanks to your post.
OK. Installment Two in the ongoing series of fixing my occasional failures to effectively articulate my thoughts.
First of all, thank you, rejoicinghandmaid, for your gratitude for me taking the time to add some breadth to the discussion about Camille Paglia.
Secondly, you have raised several excellent points of discussion. Please let me address them individually, but please also let me preface all of what I'm about to write by stating that I am not God, that I recognize that my understanding of God is highly fallible, and that I assume that I may be entirely incorrect in any one of my conclusions, because, well, I'm not God.
a. I should start by further explaining my comment about how I would be willing to welcome the addition of Ms. Paglia to my family. My comment was partially (but only partially) flippant, as well as rhetorical. I consider it unlikely that Ms. Paglia will ever find a reason for her life to cross paths with mine, so in one sense my statement is akin to saying I wouldn't mind winning the lottery. Long odds. And I'm neither buying lottery tickets nor considering making any kind of tangible effort to contact Ms Paglia. However, were she to show up at my door (or were I to encounter her at Whole Foods), I wouldn't hesitate to speak with her, and my immediate intention would be to initiate a long-term conversation with her that would extend into the future. In regard to the part of my brain that would consider her as a life partner, my request is that you accept that I would do so only in the context of all the values those of us who attend Biblical Families conferences and populate its website at least tend to hold in common. Chief among those values, for the sake of this particular discussion, are (i) the value of family leadership by men dedicated to covering their families with spiritual instruction, protection, provision and security, and (ii) the value of being or at least purposefully moving toward being equally yoked, which in the case of Camille and I being married would mean that I would consider it my responsibility to enlighten her in regard to God. That 2nd-of-two-commandments-wisdom provided to us in the Gospels I referenced earlier comes into play here: Camille Paglia is a fellow child of our Father, even if she doesn't know it. When I questioned whether I'd be up to the task, it was due to recognition that I may not have what it takes to persuade Ms. Paglia to see me as a purveyor of wisdom. But in addition to honoring the gifts with which God has endowed her, I also truly wish for Ms. Paglia that she would add some supplementary conclusions to the brilliant ones for which she's already known; so, yes, if I were to meet her, and if she were to desire to join me in my family, I would be wide open to marrying her.
b. Perhaps Ms. Paglia is rebelling against God, but that doesn't make her ineligible for the love we're exhorted to demonstrate to everyone with whom we associate. I have very seriously rebelled against God in my own life (2 decades plus as an agnostic); I haven't yet been persuaded that I should refuse to be in relationship with myself, and I'm gravely thankful that my wife didn't deem me unworthy when she met me in the middle off that period of my life. I would suggest that, as Christians who have spent at least some significant time under the wing of mainstream organized-religion dogma, we are all at least a bit too programmed to think it's our job to categorize who should be condemned and what they should be condemned for. No matter how many times Scripture instructs us not to judge each other, we still do it, and the mainstream Church has always been on the sidelines simultaneously egging us on while whacking us for being judgmental. If we consider just this specific condemnation opportunity related to rebelling against God, though, I assert that every one of us is likely to do some rebelling against God from time to time, and the best way to recognize it is to put our consciences on our shoulders and wait for the next time we hear ourselves saying, "Why does X have to be so Y?" As in, "Why don't they fix the potholes?" Or, "Why does it always have to rain on the weekend?" Or, "Why does life have to be so hard?" I suggest that every one of these commonly-heard refrains could be boiled down to the formula, "If I were God, I would do X,Y and Z so much better! Things would really be different!" And isn't that a form of rebelling against God and His Creation?
So, yes, Ms. Paglia is a dyke and doesn't relate to being a woman even though she has all the equipment to prove it. I'm going to suggest something more radical than what I asserted in the previous paragraph: what if at least some of the individuals who identify as being something other than the gender they appear to be are not rebelling against God? If one pushed me to guess, I'd estimate that the majority of people who label themselves as transgender probably are rebelling against God -- and they're probably doing so in a number of other ways in their lives, not just by trying to change their gender. However, I don't believe that accounts for everyone who identifies as transgender. I should add here that, back in the 1980s I was a volunteer counselor at an agency dedicated to serving the alternative gender-and-sexual-orientation population, so none of this is new to me. In that context and in others, I've encountered people I have no doubt are not rebelling against God. In fact, one of the hardest aspects of their lives is finding people willing to discuss their concerns about God without demanding that they just forsake their sense of who they are as individuals. In their lives, they're surrounded mostly by people who either applaud them for being different but don't want to talk about God -- and by people who will talk with them about God but condemn them for failing to embrace the gender role those folks are certain they were assigned. Just that right there makes it easy for me to comprehend why their suicide rate is so much higher than the general population. Oddly enough, even back when I was an agnostic, I found that talking with such people about God is the proper framework. They tend to be thirsty for it, because most of the people supportive of them tend to be antagonistic toward religion. What I've learned from many of them is that they're seeking love and acceptance from our Father. Furthermore, the people I'm talking about (the minority who aren't rebelling) are not in any way experiencing what they're going through as rejecting who God made them to be; conversely, they are seeking to embrace who God made them to be, because it seems obvious to them that God assigned them DNA that put their gender and their emotions at cross purposes. With phrases like, "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body," they're attempting to embrace what they've known to be true for themselves all their lives, and when pushed they quite often assert that they believe God made them exactly the way they are. It's not a matter of a gullible coed being brainwashed by professors and residence-hall student-affairs staff to believe that they've been forced by society to accept standard female roles in life. No -- the people I'm discussing have pretty much always had a consistent experience of being a gender other than the one they seem to have been assigned. They're not rejecting or rebelling against the equipment assigned to them; they just relate much better to the experiences of people who tend to have the opposite assignment.
I believe that God doesn't make mistakes. I believe Him to be Sovereign, All-Powerful, All-Knowing and that everything that happens happens according to His Plan. So I'm unwilling to cavalierly make supposed-mistake exceptions for Down Syndrome or transgenders or homosexuals -- any more than I would conclude that God made a mistake when he created me with a life-long desire to be married to more than one woman. God's ways and purposes are beyond my comprehension, but I assume them to be the mark of perfection. And so, for me, that has to include these non-rebellious folks who believe they have the wrong gender, because the most thoughtful among them, in my experience, have always sought paths that discover ways to embrace their existence as it is. Which brings us back to Camille Paglia -- and I will strongly suggest that the path she has chosen is to embrace the person God created her to be. She hasn't chosen to surgically alter herself; she's chosen to embrace the fact that she can relate to being a man but can't relate to being a woman. Is it unreasonable for me to come to the conclusion that, even though Ms. Paglia has publicly declared herself to be an atheist, she is quite far from resisting who God made her to be?
c. You make a good point about professors twisting the minds of, as Rush Limbaugh refers to them, young skulls full of mush. However, one of my previous incarnations was running dormitories for 6 different universities. I can promise you something: professors are pikers in the mind-manipulation realm compared to the university student affairs professionals (and their student minions, the Resident Assistants) with whom students have exponentially more contact than they ever have with professors. These days, most of those folks are dedicated to eradicating the influence of parents and religion from the brains of their young charges. I'll stop here before this one paragraph becomes 100 times longer than the rest of this lengthy post, but anyone who wants to hear why I've been recommending for the past 30 years that parents refrain from sending their children to college is invited to engage me in a private conversation about it. As far as Camille Paglia is concerned, I trust that just the little speech that inspired this thread is sufficient proof that her students are in less danger of being manipulated and polluted than students experience in the average classroom or residence hall.
d. Abortion. I'm decidedly pro-life. Politically, it's the main caveat I mention when asserting that I'm a libertarian. Even as an agnostic and even when I was in my youth a radical leftist I was opposed to abortion. rejoicinghandmaid, I concur with you that it takes a cold heart to look the other way when it comes to what is a well-organized genocidal slaughter taking place in our midst. I do not, however, find it incomprehensible. It's just part of the Package Deal these days that goes along with everything else that young people and dedicated leftists consider part of the required Cool. George Orwell got it right in 1984 when he labeled the trend "doublespeak". Some wise folks have dubbed abortion the sacrament of the political left in our country, and there's some truth to that. To question its validity puts one at risk of being ostracized by one's fellow leftists, and leftists are even more concerned with popularity than are people on the right. So young leftists learn early to refrain from challenging the validity of the notion that restricting abortion rights is tantamount to enslaving women as forced breeders. The doublespeak comes in when abortion is described as a health issue for women, with no mention of the obviously more-significant 'health' issue it is for the aborted individual. It's cold to consider child murder acceptable, but it's also entirely comprehensible that that is the situation we find ourselves surrounded by, given that adults have, for over a century, been brainwashing the young with such doublespeak.
e. Lastly, I will end on a more glib note: I am particularly fond of ZecAustin, but I also questioned his choice of a moniker for this thread when I first read it -- although for an alternative reason. I get that you're unwilling to label Camille Paglia a "smart" feminist. I, however, believe she's not only smart but that she's not the only smart feminist. The context in which I assert this is that I have a horribly low opinion of feminism. I consider it to be, in general, one of the most destructive forces in our culture, victimizing both men and women -- in fact, destroying more female lives than the supposedly oppressive patriarchy ever could have aspired to destroy. However, despite the stupidness of feminism in general, there do exist adherents who are pushing it in novel and potentially-constructive directions. In the now-on-hiatus Patriarchs' Journal, Clyde Pilkington and Andre Sneidar frequently included pro-polygamy features written by young female feminists. Each example was well thought out, and I'm confident that many of those women are very smart indeed -- so Camille Paglia couldn't possibly be the only smart feminist.
And I, for one, will continue to look forward to the possibility that I'll meet Ms. Paglia, either here on Earth or in Heaven -- and I'll be very glad to do so, in either dimension!
Camille might not be the ONLY smart feminist but she is the only smart feminist I know. And I agree with Keith, the woman's mind is very sexy.
Wow! That took some time to write and a heart that truly cares about the important things. Our Papa DOES love Ms. Paglia. He desires her fellowship, and just as sure as you are reading this, He is pursuing her! So it blesses my heart that you see the need of her soul beyond everything else that might be obvious about this woman. (and I thought I wrote books when I post
) Other than vv76, you just might have the record--not saying anyone is trying for one. Thank you for taking the time to expand and explain.
You are too kind, @rejoicinghandmaid. I can start by saying you're welcome for thanking me, but the greater truth is that your response is intensively gracious. I'm honored that you not only read the whole thing but distilled it into such a generous interpretation of my motivations.Wow! That took some time to write and a heart that truly cares about the important things. Our Papa DOES love Ms. Paglia. He desires her fellowship, and just as sure as you are reading this, He is pursuing her! So it blesses my heart that you see the need of her soul beyond everything else that might be obvious about this woman. (and I thought I wrote books when I post
Ok Keith, I see the heart and spirit of what you're getting at.
I just don't think the main problem with Hollywood personalities is the church is turning them off from God. It's that they're unimaginably evil.
For the record, I'm not casting aspersions on Paglia here.
I just don't think the main problem with Hollywood personalities is the church is turning them off from God. It's that they're unimaginably evil.
For the record, I'm not casting aspersions on Paglia here.