Camille Paglia in Salon: WTF?

Can someone please explain to me what in hell a respectable, liberal online journal like Salon thinks it's doing by continuing to publish the twisted, misogynist, bizarrely self-obsessed ravings of a freak like Camille Paglia?

Let's back up a bit. Once upon a time Salon had a dual personality. On the one hand, they published excellent political journalism (by such writers as Michelle Goldberg, Joe Conason, and John Gorenfeld), smart book and movie reviews, and the like. On the other hand, they published opinion columns by loathesome reactionary hacks like David Horowitz, Camille Paglia, and Andrew Sullivan (this was when Sully was in high Bush-fellating mode, smearing those of us who opposed the Iraq war as America-hating fifth columnists). Horowitz and Sullivan, are, thankfully, long gone. In their place, Salon has provided a home for the (generally) excellent group blog on women's issues (Broadsheet), as well as the exemplary, indispensable blogger Glenn Greenwald. And for the most part, Salon is now a much better magazine than it used to be.

Yet Camille Paglia remains. And I really wish Joan Walsh would explain to us What. The. Fuck. Is. Up. With. That.

Paglia is a pretentious fraud, an embarrassing narcissist, and a pseudo-feminist, pseudo-liberal concern troll par excellence. She has ever been thus, as this classic 1991 takedown by the late Molly Ivins makes clear. And do be sure to read it  -- it's delightful, hilarious, razor-sharp, and deeply humane. In short, all the things that Camille Paglia's writings most definitely are not.

There are so many things I despise about Paglia's writing. This 61-year old woman's fangurl mash notes to her favorite celebrities are cringe-inducing, but her political punditry is even more wretched.  Her self-described "skepticism" about global warming (unlike virtually every scientist who's studied the issue, she thinks climate change is "natural" and not "man-made") is shamefully ignorant. But it's of a piece with her hackish parroting of other right-wing talking points -- such as her recent obsession with "voter fraud" (which is virtually nonexistent, but which Republicans love to grossly exaggerate, because it gives cover to their efforts to suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities).

As the Molly Ivins piece documents, Paglia has always been a misogynist whose entire career has been devoted to trashing feminism, denigrating women, and flattering men. And recently, her worst, most dishonest, and most hateful writing in this vein has been about Hillary Clinton*. Here are some of the things Paglia has written about Hillary over the past year:

-- She's called Hillary a "bitter, self-pitying feminazi."

-- She's written of Hillary's "contempt" for "men," whom Hillary allegedly "distrusts" and "feels morally superior to."

-- She claims that Hillary has "hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents" and that "Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package."

-- And finally, in her most recent column, she's expressed doubt about "whether Hillary has any core values or even a stable sense of identity," referred to "Hillary's sourly cynical, male-bashing megalomania," and compared her to "one of those manic, seductively vampiric patients in trashy old Hollywood hospital flicks like 'The Snake Pit'."

This stuff is, frankly, unhinged. None of it is sourced -- and how could it be? It all comes out of nowhere but Paglia's own twisted, perfervid imagination. It's the kind of thing you might expect to hear from  knuckle-dragging, frothing-at-the-mouth wingnut Clinton conspiracy freaks, but not from a writer given a prominent platform in a serious magazine like Salon.

Can someone please tell me why Salon continues to publish Paglia's lunatic drivel? If this garbage was written by a man, not only would there be calls for his head, but his head would in fact have rolled a long, long time ago. Paglia's writings on Clinton are far more toxicly misogynist than anything that Chris Matthews, for example, has ever said. In fact, it sounds exactly like the kind of filth that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth all the time, right down to the Rush-coined epithet "feminazi." The only difference is that Paglia has a slightly better vocabulary.

The one explanation I've come up with as to why Salon continues to publish Camille Paglia is that she (probably) brings a lot of traffic. Paglia is beloved by the far right, and for excellent reasons. Her good buddy Matt Drudge always links to her Salon column, and I'm sure that brings a lot of readers.

One thing I absolutely don't believe is that Joan Walsh thinks Paglia is worth publishing on the merits. For one thing, Walsh has generally been a good judge of writers, as the rest of the site shows. And for another, Walsh has written several excellent posts denouncing the shitstorm of misogyny that has been directed at Hillary Clinton in this campaign. Those posts came from the heart. Walsh obviously knows sexism when she sees it, and it clearly distresses her deeply. So I believe that, in publishing Paglia, she has to know what she is doing.

Here's the thing: Paglia's writings are not only deeply offensive for what they literally say, but also for how they are used by the right. Many wingnuts adore Paglia, and understandably so. She is deeply, powerfully useful for them, because she claims to be a liberal, a Democrat, and a feminist. Therefore, whenever she says things that are stridently anti-liberal, poisonously anti-Democratic, and viciously anti-feminist, she gives the right cover. It's not like it's some wingnut saying these things -- it's someone who, because she identifies as a liberal, feminist Democrat, has extra credibility. And she therefore enables and empowers the right's own virulent misogyny and deranged anti-liberalism.

To explain it a little more fully: I remember an example I had in a game theory class, where a leader is deciding to go to war or not. The leader has two advisers, one known to be a hawk and the other known to be a dove. The basic insight was that the leader would tend to listen more seriously to a dove urging war or a hawk urging peace, because the advice each was giving would be against type, and thus had extra credibility. That’s why politicians like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are so deeply damaging to Democrats, because when they say anti-war Democrats are unpatriotic, uninformed people will think there’s something to it. Whereas when Bush and Cheney say such things it’s par for the course.

That Salon continues to provide a home for Paglia is especially maddening because It's not like there's any lack of talented women writing on the internet, women who are far more gifted as writers and intellectuals than an embarrassing hack like Paglia could ever be. In fact, the best writers in the left blogosphere have been disproportionately female. There are a number of brilliant women who could be writing for Salon in Paglia's place, many of whom already have a substantial readership, which they could bring with them. You can find some of them here here here here here here here here here here here here here here here here here here and here. And that long list is by no means exhaustive, either.

I sincerely wish that Walsh and the other editors at Salon would step back, take a look at what they are enabling, and think again about whether continuing to publish Camille Paglia is really such a great idea. In the short term it may drive up traffic among readers who don't give a shit about Salon and would never visit the site otherwise. But over the long-term, it erodes their brand as a liberal journal, and alienates their liberal, feminist-friendly readership.

The continued presence of Camille Paglia in its pages is a slap in the face to Salon's readership. Is there anyone connected with Salon who is proud to publish her? Who feels good about enabling a writer who uses her privileged position to make it harder, and not easier, for women who run for higher office to be judged on their merits, not on their sex? Do the folks at Salon think it's just fine to provide a soapbox for a writer whose entire career has been devoted to bashing feminism and trashing other women?

I'd love to know.

*Disclaimer: I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter. In the primary, I initially supported John Edwards, and after he dropped out, I voted for Barack Obama.

Comments

[Clark]

I totally agree. At work, a couple of my conservative friends cite her as a liberal they like to read (linked from Drudge, of course) for "a liberal perspective." It drives me nuts to have someone who I don't agree with on practically anything supposedly representing my perspective.

[Clark]

Let me add that Paglia's analogous to Maureen Dowd as "the feminist" on the NY Times op-ed page.

[Jesse]

Good example of why Paul Krugman touted Molly Ivins.

[crack]

This is hilarious. I saw the headline in Salon and I didn't read it, but seriously on the 4th I had this email exchange with Salon when I renewed:

Hello Crack,

I have removed Camille Paglia's book from your account. Unfortunately, we do not offer any titles by Molly Ivins, but would be happy to offer you any of the books here:

Hell in a Handbasket, by Tom Tomorrow
Elements of Style, by Wendy Wasserstein
Dreaming in Code, by Scott Rosenberg
Lapdogs, by Eric Boehlert
Crashing the Gate, by Jerome Armstrong & Markos Moulitsas
How Bush Rules, by Sidney Blumenthal
Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon & Bernard E. Trainor
Maybe Baby, edited by Lori Leibovich
Kingdom Coming, by Michelle Goldberg
Brothers, by David Talbot
Since You Asked, Cary Tennis

Please let me know if any of these books interest you.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks for your support!

Sincerely,
Brittany
premiumhelp@salon.com
Reply-To: crack.pipe@mail.ru
>
> Date: Apr 4, 2008
> Subject: Do Not Want!!!!!!
> Name: Crackary Neal
> Email: crack.pipe@mail.ru
> Username: Crack.pipe

>
> **** Problem Description ****
> DO NOT send me anything by Camille Pagila. She is an idiot and a hack. I barely tolerate the fact that I support a website that publishes her, but if you send me her book I will cancel my subscription.
>
> All that ever needs to be known about CP was written by the late great Molly Ivins. If you want to send me one of MI's books I'd probably pay extra.
> **** Problem Description END ****
>

[Scott McLemee]

Ten years ago, Salon ran regular columns by both Paglia and David Horowitz. My theory at the time was that these were paid advertisements.

[Jamey]

Thing is, Paglia knows EXACTLY what she's doing. Having been seated at a table with her at some book publishing to-do in the not too distant past, I learned that she relishes genuinely her role as a provocateur, and simply likes pissing off "old-style" liberals. ("The sixties are over; deal with it," she proudly declared.) So, in addition to being married to the false dichotomy and the sweeping generalization as literary M's O, she's a big, fucking phony, to boot.

[tomemos]

Good post, but do you think it's a good idea to describe Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual man, as "Bush-fellating"? There are less loaded terms available, no?

[Gabe]

After reading Salon almost daily for years, I stopped about a year ago except to read Glenn Greenwald's blog once in a while (sad because I used to read his blog daily before he moved to Salon). Paglia was by far the biggest reason I stopped renewing my premium membership and left. Not sure if they're still publishing Debra J. Dickerson but that column was also a factor in leaving Salon -- seemed to be about pushing buttons and generating outrage (and not interesting discussion). There's plenty of talk radio out there if I wanted that sort of empty junk.

Speaking of which, Randi Rhodes is looking for a job. Maybe Salon can give her a platform for calling women with political views different than hers "fucking whores." That's gotta be good

[ed]

Almost as good as the Ivins smackdown:
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/her-salon-caricatures-eternally-arched.html

[crack]

@tomemos

It's probably more appropriate to use that with a homosexual man. The origin of it being an insult to straight men is that being gay is bad. Since being gay isn't bad using it in reference to a homosexual man it's just questioning his taste in partners and his lack of virtue.

So it probably shouldn't be used at all since at best it deals with stereotypes related to the sexual virtue of women or gays, at worst it equates homosexuality with inferiority in addition to questioning the sexual virtue of the target.

Actually, it's just a sign of the patriarchy's vast reach that Kathy used it at all. Seriously.

[Amanda Marcotte]

I think it's because Paglia had some hand in starting Salon, if I recall correctly. They probably don't want to give her a spot, but are probably obliged to contractually.

[Asinistra]

The signatures on many of these comments make the point, but let me just make it an exclamation point: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A FEMINIST TO LOATHE PAGLIA!

[Joyful Alternative]

Paglia was on Salon and then missing for a year or so. Just as I was ready to pay to read, her grand return was announced.

[NSS]

I have to reject the idea that the power of the phrase "Bush-fellating" has anything to do with homophobia. Fellatio is a servient act, performed entirely for the benefit of the recipient. A woman described as Bush-fellating has been insulted with exactly the same force as Andrew Sullivan was, no more and no less.

[Ben Alpers]

A side point that's nonetheless important:

Don't be so quick to put Michelle Goldberg on the side of the angels. In October 2002, when it was still not too late to stop our disastrous war on Iraq, she wrote a concern-trolling piece attacking the antiwar movement for being too full of dirty fucking hippies:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/index.html

Articles like this by "liberals" like Goldberg played a crucial role in delegitimizing one of the largest antiwar movements in world history.

Goldberg is certainly more worthy of attention than Paglia (who isn't?) but she has blood on her hands.

[anon]

Let's face it, we hate everyone who isn't in lockstep with us. Look at Michele Goldberg who Ben Alpers agrees we need to crucify.

I want a Salon dammit! A salon that is nice and easy and helps catapult the propaganda. The last thing I want is a Salon that makes me think. And this is why I like Broadsheet, and why I think that Salon is no place for either Paglia OR Goldberg.

I think Randi Rhodes would be perfect!!! Except she likes sex so that would get all the Broadsheeters upset....

[sherrold]

NSS:
> Fellatio is a servient act, performed entirely for the benefit of the recipient.

Say what?

[LQP]

Amen...say it again. You've hit the nail on the head, Kathy. Paglia is what keeps me from subscribing to Salon. For whatever reason Joan Walsh insists on publishing that abomination, there can no justification, whether it be traffic or contractual. While Paglia may bring in Drudge traffic, she also at the same time alienates scores of Salon's regular readers who now loathe her. They ought to can Walsh along with Paglia.

[Genore]

Camille Pglia = Ann Coulter with a better education.

[anon]

I'm always stunned to find people are even dumber than I had imagined possible.

Paglia is what keeps me from subscribing to Salon. For whatever reason Joan Walsh insists on publishing that abomination, there can no justification, whether it be traffic or contractual. While Paglia may bring in Drudge traffic, she also at the same time alienates scores of Salon's regular readers who now loathe her.

There must be a billion inbound links to Salon, and yet, LQP finds that she has to read Paglia. Forced to read. Raped to read. Oppressed to read.

Help! Help! She's being repressed!

[emjaybee]

Oh, you made me swoon at the thought of Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy writing for Salon! She is the actual take no prisoners writer that Paglia thinks she is. Twisty could mop the floor with her. Hee. Actually, any of the linked women would, because that's kind of a low bar.

[Ben Alpers]

"Let's face it, we hate everyone who isn't in lockstep with us. Look at Michele Goldberg who Ben Alpers agrees we need to crucify."

anon,

I didn't say we need to crucify Goldberg. I just suggested that we ought to temper our praise for anyone who thought that the most crucial journalistic task in October 2002 was concern-trolling the antiwar movement.

The problem with the Goldberg piece wasn't that it made me (or anyone else for that matter) think. The problem with it was that it helped to shut down dissent in the midst of a rush to war.

Nor is Kathy G. criticizing Paglia for disagreeing with her.

If you want to defend Goldberg--or Paglia-- on the merits, please do so.

But instead you resort to ad hominem attacks based on nothing but presumption. Any criticism of anything, by your measure, is a sign of intolerance and refusal to listen to the other side. Who's trying to shut down debate here?

Okay...that's enough troll feeding for today!

[Aatos]

Camille Paglia's never rated more than a giant pphbppt, in my book. David Horowitz, at least, was sort of an entertaining troll.

[LQP]

Anon, girlfriend--apparently too stupid to think up a name for yourself...whatever--I don't feel forced to read Paglia, but if a cat shits on the front porch which I never use, I'll clean it up. Paglia is a bad, horrible writer, a misogynist masquerading as a feminist, a conservative masquerading as a liberal. She sullies Salon by her presence, so yeah, I read her latest bullshit so I can complain about it intelligently. You've got your panties in a twist because you believe I (and many others) should just turn away from that train wreck instead of speaking out. Sorry, not gonna happen.

[Costa]

Prof Camille Paglia is a brilliant academic and excellent writer whose books and Salon articles are just marvels to read.
I come to Salon only once a month to read her brilliant prose. Nothing else is worth reading anyway.
Get over yourself, Kathy girl. You don't like her, just go somewhere else, good riddance.. No-one here needs to read your absurd rantings, that's for sure.