"Can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism"

By Kathy G.

Camille Paglia's latest column is such a thorough-going trainwreck that I had a hard time deciding what the most mindbogglingly insane sentence in it was. I thought this might be a contender:

As I said in my last column, I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama's efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach.

But then it got even better:

I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football -- or one of the great light-saber duels in "Star Wars."

Better yet!:

One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil).

But OMG, this has gotta be the one that takes first prize:

In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

And btw, Paglia repeats the wingnut legend that during her convention speech, Palin valiantly overcame "multiple technical malfunctions," a claim that has been thoroughly debunked (there were no such malfunctions).

Camille also can't resist beating up on Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton one. mo'. time. (Anyone who can find a Paglia column where she doesn't mention Hillary, Gloria, or Madonna -- or even just two of those three -- wins a free subscription to this blog).

Joan Walsh, your cheeks burn with shame every time you read this excruciatingly embarrassing dreck, and you know it!

Comments

[Melinda]

I aspire to Mary Freakin' Sunshine-hood, so I'll point out what I think are a few positive things about Paglia:

1) Back in the early 1960s and before, the US had a middlebrow culture where people who weren't necessarily all that well-educated and who were leading pretty conventional, conservative suburban lives were listening to jazz, reading authors like Whyte and maybe picking up a copy of "Howl," etc., and while the too-familiar American anti-intellectualism did exist at least there was a mainstream counter to it. Maybe Paglia is a throwback to that. Or maybe not. She may be full of crap (and full of herself, with no parallel implied) but she doesn't reject education and any anti-intellectualism on her part has more to do with execution than with intent.

2) She provides a positive role model for people with mediocre academic careers, showing that if your crappy scholarship isn't getting you anywhere you can still make it big outside academia by throwing faux-smart stinkbombs.

[Annie]

Kathy, it's great to have you back. I missed you, but I'm glad you took time off to take care of yourself.

Thanks for dissecting the Paglia column for us. I tried reading it, but I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

I've never been able to figure out why Salon hired her. It's almost as bad as some presidential candidate hiring an inexperienced but charismatic woman to be his running mate, simply because she would stir things up. Oh wait...

[Ryan Schallon]

Funny that the right wing once decried Hillary for being outspoken and relentless and ambitious, which was more often pejoratively restated as shrill and cutthroat and entitled. Funny that when Sarah Palin displays these same qualities the right offers that she deserves a round of applause for "the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna." You know what's really sexist? Double standards.

[Ryan Schallon]

By the way, welcome back into the fold. Your insight has been sorely missed.

[Batocchio]

Ouch. You said it. Why do they run her? One of the Sadly, No crew has pointed to it as proof that Joan Walsh hates all of us.

And welcome back!

[christen]

I used to somewhat aadmire Paglia when I first read her... when I was like, 13. Now she's just tiresome and trite and out of the loop. Sarah Palin is nothing but a liar, corrupt, small minded small town power mad "mean girl", who can't teach her own daughter responsible birth control. I don't want her anywhere near me, my family, my state or the Presidency.

[Katie]

You know, as a native of the Washington DC area, I'm really starting to resent the fact that I'm not considered a "real American". This happens with EVERY ELECTION. Like in Palin's speech the other night, she said something to the effect of "I'm not going to Washington to represent the media, etc... I'm going to represent Americans"! And everyone hooted and hollered... but, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't most members of the media Americans? So... she IS going to be representing them? Just sayin'. Anyway. Since I'm a latte drinking elitest, I clearly need to relinquish my "real American" badge...

[eric]

I'm glad to read that other people besides me think Paglia is insane and writes "trainwreck" columns.

I'm guessing one reason Salon hired her (and remember Salon used to employ David Freakin' Horowitz!) is that she does generate a lot of page views. Conservatives *love* her, because they often see her as the lone liberal who's "honest" about the behavior of liberals.

One of her standard tropes is to say something like "as a card-carrying lesbian feminist liberal, I think other card-carrying lesbians are absolutely revolting." And then repeat a bunch of right-wing talking points.

Mostly, her criticisms of liberals are not of liberal policies, but how their persona comes off, culturally, to non-liberals. Unfortunately, she often seems to think that's the only thing to be considered. So, she doesn't believe that global warming is caused by man's activity (as near as I can tell), because she dislike Al Gore's "condescending" speaking style. Never mind talking to real scientists to find out what they think. Al Gore has bad style, therefore his issues are wrong too.