My Views on the American Academic Liberal Feminist Camille Paglia

At first glance, I thought I liked Camille Paglia, because she said she liked masochist men sexually towards or with women, but after watching her video-clips on youtube.com, I think she's an imbecile, who makes very simple-minded statements which I will address here, and as a person, I don't like her at all, because she is very obsequies towards men who interview her, and submissiveness in women repulses me.

What's more, the American people all love and worship Camille Paglia, as they all think that she is a total genius and great, but she is in actual fact a very simple woman and a total imbecile, who never comes out with anything in any way relevant, and neither is she in any way accurate nor constructive, and she has absolute no solutions, to all the very inaccurate things she describes.

On radical matters, Camille Paglia states that she is against the victim cultural view of feminism, which says that women are victim - because in her view, women through the procreation process control sexuality and say or command when men have sex with them - she also states that mothers control men as their sons - that men have created the concept of "the social" to hide from women, but that sexually and emotionally women dominate and control men.

Camille Paglia also has another very simple-minded and wildly inaccurate view, when she repeatedly and consistently states and says, that when some men rape or abuse women physically, it is not rage or anger, but fear of women, and an absence of men's own personal individual identities.

Camille Paglia also has completely inaccurate, very partial, and a very big misconception that the Marquis De Sade was a totalitarian, when he was actually opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, punishment, and oppression against people of different sexual orientations, and that where and when he did seem to justify totalitarianism or sexual oppression, he was talking metaphorically, and then at a different stage in his later life, when he became twisted and cynical due to the extreme punishment used against him by the French psychiatric asylum system.

I'll address all of these other very simple-minded claims of which Camille Paglia makes, in chronological order, now. Firstly, I think she is simply wrong that women are not victimised by both some other men and by some other women, because this doesn't taint all women as being seen or realised as powerful in other ways, and this is all a matter of complex truths and grey areas. Anyone can sometimes, or for a long time, be victimised by anyone else, including some women by some other women or some men by other men.

Camille Paglia just won't address any of these issues at all, nor say anything about the solutions, other than saying that women have sexual and emotional power over men, and I can understand why many other feminists get angry with her or dismiss her, because she is again basically a very simple-minded ignoramus, who's vested interest is just intellectually grovelling to the liberal elites, and to whoever else is powerful in society - be it men or women.

Camille Paglia's views, that men who rape and physically beat and abuse women are not motivated by anger and rage, but fear of women and that they lack a personal identity, is where she misunderstands the actual erotic nature of fear by women towards and with men sexually and erotically - and which is consensual and part of a game - and she defies all intelligent experience, scientific data, and all intelligent common sense, by saying that men who beat and rape women are not motivated by anger and rage.

Men who rape and physically beat and abuse women, ARE motivated by anger and rage, whilst she might have been right if she had said that this stems from powerlessness as well as abusive control and power, but it has absolutely nothing to do with personal or male identify, because personal identify essentially also comes from and is both connected and related, to our social experiences and identity, as we are all social beings, and not just personal ones, as she very ignorantly claims and professes.

Of course, Camille Paglia has absolutely no idea how our social beings are dialectically both separate and connected to our personal beings and identity, and I don't think she's ever researched or understood this in any deep and complex way, because she is again basically a very simple woman.

Men who rape and physically beat women, DO have anger problems - and contrary to Camille Paglia's very simple-minded liberal outdated romanticist myths, most men who rape and physically beat or abuse women, are not in any way, shape, or form, shy or frightened of women - and usually these men are the most charming and emotionally intimate kind of men with women, and which is why they can control their female victims so easily and get away with what they do - so her liberal views about rapists and beaters of women, is just sloganistic nonsense, she is being politically correct to the liberal elite's, and again I think she is very simple-minded, and very, very ignorant.

Her view of women being more powerful, because they supposedly say or demand when and how men have sex with women, is also complete and utter idiocy and nonsense, because any man can have sex with a woman anytime he likes, by seeing a prostitute.

Also this power which women have emotionally and sexually, that she's again very simple-mindedly refers to, is not something which demands, coerces, or forces men sexually, emotionally, or in any other way at all, as it is also a social construct and not due to different gender brains as she states, where the sexual and emotional power that woman have is essentially part of their desire to please men in these ways. It does not control men's sexuality, and neither does any of this control where and when men want to have sex with women, as after all - and contrary to what she very simple-mindedly says again - there are many different types of genders, many different types of male and female brains, and many different types of male and female sexuality.

Neither do mothers control their sons, as this all depends on the psychology of emotions, and how these emotions are felt, overall sensed and experienced, or resisted, and how all of this is both processed, controlled, or not controlled, and how this is all responded to and interpreted by these men, and by other men and women.

Peter H. Donnelly
2010