Camille Paglia: Hillary’s “blame-men-first” feminism may prove costly in 2016

bubbabgone said:

Here's what I consider evidence of what I said about Obama's affectations.
Others might not agree ... maybe because they haven't been paying attention, or maybe because their personal biases require they say it's trivial, or maybe because other's personal biases caused them to notice them. But they're still there nonetheless.
View attachment 67196300 View attachment 67196301

Well, as for what you called nonsense, you and I might simply say Hillary's a liar ... period.
But I suspect even unreconstructed liars like Hillary had to have had her psyche formed by events/people earlier in life.
Perhaps Paglia was offering what she considers reasons ... she does have quite a diverse background.

Click to expand...

So you don't think that her nonsense about the sniper fire was indeed just a bunch of nonsense?

roughdraft274 said:

So you don't think that her nonsense about the sniper fire was indeed just a bunch of nonsense?

Click to expand...

If I had known about that moment with her father it would still never have occurred to me to relate it to the Bosnian sniper fire lie.
Speaking as a layman, I would attribute the sniper fire lie as just one example of a practice developed over time due to a sense of entitlement springing from unbounded ambition.

bubbabgone said:

If I had known about that moment with her father it would still never have occurred to me to relate it to the Bosnian sniper fire lie.
Speaking as a layman, I would attribute the sniper fire lie as just one example of a practice developed over time due to a sense of entitlement springing from unbounded ambition.

Click to expand...

In the interest of being excruciatingly fair, it's pretty easy to be caught up in a moment and to "embroider." I'm not saying that this is okay, just that I understand how you could get to blowin'-and-goin' and become tangled up in your own B.S.

bubbabgone said:

If I had known about that moment with her father it would still never have occurred to me to relate it to the Bosnian sniper fire lie.
Speaking as a layman, I would attribute the sniper fire lie as just one example of a practice developed over time due to a sense of entitlement springing from unbounded ambition.

Click to expand...

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Together with other recollections of her childhood that I have read about - if they are true - it sounds as if she learned to fabricate stories - tell lies - as a young child as a method of self defense against probable punishment by a very strict father. We do know that she has difficulty following established rules, so what caused that? I don't know...

SmokeAndMirrors said:

There are a bazillions problems with this just in the first paragraph alone.

First of all, simply having a career does not automatically align anyone with anything. Women are people who go about their lives, not living political platforms onto which you can project whatever you want. We do not live our lives for the benefit of other people's soapboxes or masculine insecurity. We are not making a point simply by allowing ourselves to exist in public. We are just existing. It's people like this writer, and you, who are insisting on taking offence to our existence.

{ edit}

Click to expand...

Ah, I really do not know what you're on about here. I read the article and find nothing wrong with the first paragraph, it makes one claim only that throughout two campaigns Hillary has drawn more support from women than men. This is true as far as I know and what the media here says. It then asks "Is this gender lag due to retrograde misogyny, or does Hillary project an uneasiness or ambivalence about men that complicates her appeal to a broader electorate?"


Now how is that one of the "Bazilion" things? It is an observation on the first sentence, "geneder-lag" and asks why?

Is the Clinton campaign getting like Trump, that ANY question is out of bounds?

Sorry, but I have to agree with the article, if Hillary lays claim to the wasteland that is American feminism as a leader, then she has to account for her 1950's style behavior regarding all the affairs BEFORE Monica, and publicly defend her attacks on Lewinski. I get the feeling the US lags this country in the staus of women department as most women here think she's a dinosaur of an age that needs to be forgotten.

As to "living political platforms" I am sorry but you are dead wrong. Anyone running for office is immediately turned into public soup, we note how the liberal media spent millions going through Sarah Palin's private email from when she was governor of Alaska. Based on that and Obama's henchman Harry Reid dragging Romney's taxes onto the floor of the senate, it is sheer hypocrisy to be going on about looking into Clinton's past.

bubbabgone said:

If I had known about that moment with her father it would still never have occurred to me to relate it to the Bosnian sniper fire lie.
Speaking as a layman, I would attribute the sniper fire lie as just one example of a practice developed over time due to a sense of entitlement springing from unbounded ambition.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm fine with your assessment. I'm fine with criticizing Hillary. But to say that her lie stems from an emotional shopping spree with her parents as a child, that's just nonsense. You would recognize it if it wasn't Hillary and your irrational hatred wasn't clouding your judgement.

Fearandloathing said:

Ah, I really do not know what you're on about here. I read the article and find nothing wrong with the first paragraph, it makes one claim only that throughout two campaigns Hillary has drawn more support from women than men. This is true as far as I know and what the media here says. It then asks "Is this gender lag due to retrograde misogyny, or does Hillary project an uneasiness or ambivalence about men that complicates her appeal to a broader electorate?"


Now how is that one of the "Bazilion" things? It is an observation on the first sentence, "geneder-lag" and asks why?

Is the Clinton campaign getting like Trump, that ANY question is out of bounds?

Sorry, but I have to agree with the article, if Hillary lays claim to the wasteland that is American feminism as a leader, then she has to account for her 1950's style behavior regarding all the affairs BEFORE Monica, and publicly defend her attacks on Lewinski. I get the feeling the US lags this country in the staus of women department as most women here think she's a dinosaur of an age that needs to be forgotten.

As to "living political platforms" I am sorry but you are dead wrong. Anyone running for office is immediately turned into public soup, we note how the liberal media spent millions going through Sarah Palin's private email from when she was governor of Alaska. Based on that and Obama's henchman Harry Reid dragging Romney's taxes onto the floor of the senate, it is sheer hypocrisy to be going on about looking into Clinton's past.

Click to expand...

Why did Obama get so much of the black vote? People like to see themselves reflected in a candidate, especially if they're part of an oft-ignored part of the population.

Furthermore, the Democrats have always been substantially more female than male anyway. That should be no surprise.

Hillary hasn't "laid claim" to anything. She is simply a woman who has existed in politics, and it is people who want to make her sex the central issue of the campaign that are making it all about her supposed "claim to feminism."

The says much more about them than it does about Hillary. She has no responsibility to justify her cosmetic decisions or what she decided to do with her last name. That has nothing to do with anything, especially since she's never "laid claim" to feminism anyway. And further, as a woman, I have nothing but understanding for older women who had to decide at what point they just couldn't deal with one more thing people would castigate them over.

The only people who care about this are conservatives who can't get over the fact that she has a vagina.

Yeah, but notice how only women are seen as existing solely as a political statement. Everything from how they do their hair to a relocation decision they made 30 years ago is apparently something they have to "own" politically simply for being a woman. There is literally nothing they can ever do, no matter how mundane or irrelevant, that isn't explicitly because they're a woman. And everything they ever do, which is all explicitly because they're a woman, is something they have to politically justify in the eyes of a sexist public.

That's nonsense, and again, it says more about them than it does about Hillary. You are the one who is conflating here mere existence in the political world as somehow making her the beast of burden of an entire movement in which she has never shown any interest whatsoever, apart from smacking down a few really sexist questions 20 years ago. And again, good for her. But she is not laying claim to anything just by existing. That is your projection.

While I don't disagree that those incidents with Palin and Romney were unnecessary and dirty, if you can't see the difference between that and questioning every hair dye decision someone's ever made, then I can't help you. At least taxes and statements about governorship are tangentially related to policy and governance. Paglia is attacking Clinton's viability as a candidate based on her hair color.

If this article says anything of meaning about feminism, then it does so only in the sense that it makes explicit exactly how much work there still is to be done in America. Hillary is merely the latest pinata at the party.

nota bene said:

In the interest of being excruciatingly fair, it's pretty easy to be caught up in a moment and to "embroider." I'm not saying that this is okay, just that I understand how you could get to blowin'-and-goin' and become tangled up in your own B.S.

Click to expand...

True enough.

roughdraft274 said:

Exactly. I'm fine with your assessment. I'm fine with criticizing Hillary.

But to say that her lie stems from an emotional shopping spree with her parents as a child, that's just nonsense. You would recognize it

Click to expand...

if it wasn't Hillary and your irrational hatred wasn't clouding your judgement.

Click to expand...

Speaking for me and not Camille, didn't I do just that?

polgara said:

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Together with other recollections of her childhood that I have read about - if they are true - it sounds as if she learned to fabricate stories - tell lies - as a young child as a method of self defense against probable punishment by a very strict father. We do know that she has difficulty following established rules, so what caused that? I don't know...

Click to expand...

Very wise, you are.
I suspect that's what Camille was alluding to.
Suggesting such an explanation as Camille did could easily seem like too big a stretch and I'm not surprised it would bring us to such a point on such a thread.

roughdraft274 said:

Do you really think that "surely" it's more likely that when Hillary lied/mispoke about the sniper fire that she was instead having a flashback to a traumatic shopping spree she had as a child with her parents?

Click to expand...

I don't care whether Ms. Paglia's cocktail-party psychoanalysis is true. Why Mrs. Clinton lies is irrelevant, just as it was with her perjuring husband. All that matters is that the Belle of Benghazi is a G--damned practiced liar, just like her fellow Marxist who is now disgracing the White House. Like President Pinocchio, she has told one lie after another throughout her entire political career. She is lying almost any time her lips are moving.

matchlight said:

I don't care whether Ms. Paglia's cocktail-party psychoanalysis is true. Why Mrs. Clinton lies is irrelevant, just as it was with her perjuring husband. All that matters is that the Belle of Benghazi is a G--damned practiced liar, just like her fellow Marxist who is now disgracing the White House. Like President Pinocchio, she has told one lie after another throughout her entire political career. She is lying almost any time her lips are moving.

Click to expand...

Ok? I'm talking about her psychoanalysis. Does that make you angry or something?

bubbabgone said:

Speaking for me and not Camille, didn't I do just that?

Click to expand...

Just do what?

Talk about Paglia's psychoanalytic drivel all you like. Neither her explanation, nor anyone else's, of why Mrs. Clinton is a habitual liar is relevant. What matters is that she is.

One of the most consistent and most strident messages being communicated in America over the last 20 years or so is "MEN SUCK!". The feminists are the ones who started it and are the ones who demand that everyone repeat it.

**** the feminsts.

Paglia is one of the good ones though, and there are a few assorted other ones worth keeping and paying attention to.

matchlight said:

I don't care whether Ms. Paglia's cocktail-party psychoanalysis is true. Why Mrs. Clinton lies is irrelevant, just as it was with her perjuring husband. All that matters is that the Belle of Benghazi is a G--damned practiced liar, just like her fellow Marxist who is now disgracing the White House. Like President Pinocchio, she has told one lie after another throughout her entire political career. She is lying almost any time her lips are moving.

Click to expand...

She lies because she can get away with it, and in this age of victim culture and "MEN SUCK!"about the easiest lie for a woman to tell is that a man or men made her a victim. Pulling out the victim card has been her go to play for a long time, at least since the last days in Arkansas.

roughdraft274 said:

Just do what?

Click to expand...

the part of what you said that I put in the Quote in what I said ...

Hawkeye10 said:

She lies because she can get away with it, and in this age of victim culture and "MEN SUCK!"about the easiest lie for a woman to tell is that a man or men made her a victim. Pulling out the victim card has been her go to play for a long time, at least since the last days in Arkansas.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But when it comes to the presidency, there is a disadvantage to playing the victim. Most Americans want to see their President as strong and in control, not as someone who whines about having been victimized. When a woman tries to get sympathy or special treatment by playing a victim of this or that oppression, she is asking not to be taken seriously as an independent, strong-minded person. Can't have it both ways.

matchlight said:

Agreed. But when it comes to the presidency, there is a disadvantage to playing the victim. Most Americans want to see their President as strong and in control, not as someone who whines about having been victimized. When a woman tries to get sympathy or special treatment by playing a victim of this or that oppression, she is asking not to be taken seriously as an independent, strong-minded person. Can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton played the victim to perfection, and it worked great. Hopefully that would not work as well today, hopefully we have become more cynical about claims of victimhood, but I am not very optimistic. The feminists for the first time in a long time have gotten some significant push back on their latest project, the Campus Rape Hoax, but no where near enough. Victim culture still rules.

Hawkeye10 said:

Bill Clinton played the victim to perfection, and it worked great. Hopefully that would not work as well today, hopefully we have become more cynical about claims of victimhood, but I am not very optimistic. The feminists for the first time in a long time have gotten some significant push back on their latest project, the Campus Rape Hoax, but no where near enough. Victim culture still rules.

Click to expand...

Hillary has nowhere near the skills of her husband.
Her performance as a top tier candidate is one of the worst ever.
Her candidacy is simply a string of panderings to the usual demographic groups ... and she's way too obvious doing it.

bubbabgone said:

Hillary has nowhere near the skills of her husband.
Her performance as a top tier candidate is one of the worst ever.
Her candidacy is simply a string of panderings to the usual demographic groups ... and she's way to obvious doing it.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and all hell is going to break lose in the D party once the people understand the gross incompetence of the leaders. There is no way that the idea of holding a coronation for her should have lasted past the first few conversations on the subject. She has no political talent, and she has a super thin resume.

But what I really want to talk about is victim culture, the feminsts, and the abuse of the citizens at the hands of the state.

Paglia I like though, I have liked her for a long time, like Trump she has the balls to say what she thinks the truth is even when it is not acceptable to do so in polite company. I love people like that, they are the bedrock of democracy, and we have far too few of them. We have far too few people who prefer to deal in reality rather than fantasy as well, which is maybe even a bigger problem than is our crap level of communication in this society.

bubbabgone said:

the part of what you said that I put in the Quote in what I said ...

Click to expand...

You recognized it as nonsense? I don't remember you doing that, and it took a few pages of discussion before you were even capable of saying "hmm I wouldn't have thought that".

It's stupid nonsense. It's not nonsense because she's saying that Hillary is lying. That's all good and well. It's nonsense because she's pretending like she knows the reasoning behind everything and giving the most insane reasons behind her thinking. But when I point that out you start talking about how I'm only saying that because I love Hillary which is laughable.

You were wrong in so many ways through out this thread.

roughdraft274 said:

You recognized it as nonsense? I don't remember you doing that, and it took a few pages of discussion before you were even capable of saying "hmm I wouldn't have thought that".

It's stupid nonsense. It's not nonsense because she's saying that Hillary is lying. That's all good and well. It's nonsense because she's pretending like she knows the reasoning behind everything and giving the most insane reasons behind her thinking. But when I point that out you start talking about how I'm only saying that because I love Hillary which is laughable.

You were wrong in so many ways through out this thread.

Click to expand...

I don't agree.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Why did Obama get so much of the black vote? People like to see themselves reflected in a candidate, especially if they're part of an oft-ignored part of the population.

Furthermore, the Democrats have always been substantially more female than male anyway. That should be no surprise.

Hillary hasn't "laid claim" to anything. She is simply a woman who has existed in politics, and it is people who want to make her sex the central issue of the campaign that are making it all about her supposed "claim to feminism."

The says much more about them than it does about Hillary. She has no responsibility to justify her cosmetic decisions or what she decided to do with her last name. That has nothing to do with anything, especially since she's never "laid claim" to feminism anyway. And further, as a woman, I have nothing but understanding for older women who had to decide at what point they just couldn't deal with one more thing people would castigate them over.

The only people who care about this are conservatives who can't get over the fact that she has a vagina.

Yeah, but notice how only women are seen as existing solely as a political statement. Everything from how they do their hair to a relocation decision they made 30 years ago is apparently something they have to "own" politically simply for being a woman. There is literally nothing they can ever do, no matter how mundane or irrelevant, that isn't explicitly because they're a woman. And everything they ever do, which is all explicitly because they're a woman, is something they have to politically justify in the eyes of a sexist public.

That's nonsense, and again, it says more about them than it does about Hillary. You are the one who is conflating here mere existence in the political world as somehow making her the beast of burden of an entire movement in which she has never shown any interest whatsoever, apart from smacking down a few really sexist questions 20 years ago. And again, good for her. But she is not laying claim to anything just by existing. That is your projection.

While I don't disagree that those incidents with Palin and Romney were unnecessary and dirty, if you can't see the difference between that and questioning every hair dye decision someone's ever made, then I can't help you. At least taxes and statements about governorship are tangentially related to policy and governance. Paglia is attacking Clinton's viability as a candidate based on her hair color.

If this article says anything of meaning about feminism, then it does so only in the sense that it makes explicit exactly how much work there still is to be done in America. Hillary is merely the latest pinata at the party.

Click to expand...

Drank that cool aid did you?


Hillary has been campaigning for nearly 12 years on ONE aspect....she's a woman.,

She has laid claim to the whole ball game, presented herself as THE answer to anything to do with the feminine issues.

Meanwhile as I pointed out, Deer Hillary lied to hide her own husbands sexual escapades, plural, and went of tv, like a good 1940's wifey and defended that bastard. She covered up so he could continue abusing.....she is as guilty of sexual abuse against women as any rapist...

So save your lies on her behalf.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZyE41T56w

Watch closely as she claims Jenifer flowers was just a family friend...and nothing ever went of between them. The Jenifer Flowers whop was Bill's cheap **** for years.

She has not only sold feminist rights down the toilet, she lies and lies and lies

Fearandloathing said:

Drank that cool aid did you?

Hillary has been campaigning for nearly 12 years on ONE aspect....she's a woman.,

She has laid claim to the whole ball game, presented herself as THE answer to anything to do with the feminine issues.

Meanwhile as I pointed out, Deer Hillary lied to hide her own husbands sexual escapades, plural, and went of tv, like a good 1940's wifey and defended that bastard. She covered up so he could continue abusing.....she is as guilty of sexual abuse against women as any rapist...

So save your lies on her behalf.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZyE41T56w

Watch closely as she claims Jenifer flowers was just a family friend...and nothing ever went of between them. The Jenifer Flowers whop was Bill's cheap **** for years.

She has not only sold feminist rights down the toilet, she lies and lies and lies

Click to expand...

Then surely you can come up with some sort of example. Because all I see is your empty conjecture. Not believing an empty claim when reality doesn't support it isn't "kool-aid." It's reality. Hell, her pet issue was health care, not feminism.

Seriously, what the hell are you even talking about with the abusing women bit? People don't get sent to jail for cheating -- it's not a crime. Women are perfectly capable of consenting to sex under whatever circumstances they want, including bad ones. We aren't bobo dolls laying around waiting to get ****ed, but thanks for the insinuation.

Playing the political game is just par for the course for her. Feel free to search my history to find out how little I care about people's sex scandals. It's a stupid gossip culture taking the place of any substantive social political thought. And since she has never laid any kind of claim to being the cross bearer of feminism, this is irrelevant even if it was in any way related to feminism, which it isn't.

Like I said, I wouldn't even consider voting for her. I don't know who you're trying to convince.

But regardless of what I think of her as a politician, shoving an entire life narrative down her throat so you can make a bunch of sexist attacks against her says more about you than her.

By the way, it's Gennifer Flowers.