• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...



Sigh, you have an example in the sixty minutes interview. Let's have a discussion about what she said and how it relates to the truth. Let's start there before you go ape **** defending the trash.

Please see the part where she talks about old Jennifer and she are great friends. Then we'll talk about the rest of the slag in that post.

I have no idea who you will vote for and don't give a money ****. but when you defend that lying whore, we will hold you to account.

Show me where she's such a great feminist. Show me the bills she introduced when she was a senator.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Show me where she's such a great feminist. Show me the bills she introduced when she was a senator.
Click to expand...

Seriously, she has barely even participated in their latest project, the selling of the Campus Rape Hoax.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Sigh, you have an example in the sixty minutes interview. Let's have a discussion about what she said and how it relates to the truth. Let's start there before you go ape **** defending the trash.

Please see the part where she talks about old Jennifer and she are great friends. Then we'll talk about the rest of the slag in that post.

I have no idea who you will vote for and don't give a money ****. but when you defend that lying whore, we will hold you to account.

Show me where she's such a great feminist. Show me the bills she introduced when she was a senator.
Click to expand...

What's it an example of? Politics as usual from a politician as usual? What's that got to do with anything?

I never said she was a feminist at all. Just because she has a vagina doesn't automatically mean she is making some kind of statement. Women are not making a statement simply by not being invisible. Your expectation that they must be is the issue here.

I have nothing to show, because I've made no claims. You are the one claiming all people with vaginas must defend everything they've ever done from dying their hair to picking their residence or else you'll... call them whores, apparently.

Gee, calling women whores. How very gender progressive of you. Clearly this has nothing to do with you expecting women to justify their visibility, lest you call them sexist names.

It's sewage like that I'm defending against, not Hillary herself.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What's it an example of? Politics as usual from a politician as usual? What's that got to do with anything?

I never said she was a feminist at all. Just because she has a vagina doesn't automatically mean she is making some kind of statement. Women are not making a statement simply by refusing to be invisible. I have nothing to show, because I've made no claims. You are the one claiming all people with vaginas must defend everything they've done from hair color to residence or else you'll... call them whores, apparently.

Gee, calling women whores. How very gender progressive of you. Clearly this has nothing to do with you dehumanizing women by turning them into nothing but nonsentient platforms at your whim.

It's sewage like that I'm defending against, not Hillary herself.
Click to expand...



Go back and read that over wordy defense of Hillary...it was a classic. I pay NO attention to who people claim they will vote for, this is the internet.


You decided to defend Hillary, so you get to defend your defense, or not.....as is the case here.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Go back and read that over wordy defense of Hillary...it was a classic. I pay NO attention to who people claim they will vote for, this is the internet.

You decided to defend Hillary, so you get to defend your defense, or not.....as is the case here.
Click to expand...

Most of it had nothing to do with Hillary. Did you read it?

The guy spewing sexist names at women for daring to exist in public is the one with the issue, here.
 
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.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that she was not only involved with a, but the defining Second Wave feminist organization of its era, as well as the woman largely credited with starting the movement (a Communist, incidentally)?

Secondly, if we're going to hold up Gloria Steinem as supposedly being a man-hater, then please explain to me why she married one.
Click to expand...

The same reason a lot of blatantly misogynistic MRAs ultimately wind up dating if they actually find a woman who will have them? :shrug:

Crazy ideology is all well and good. At the end of the day, however, biological imperatives can be hard to overcome.

Any serious-minded reading of her work doesn't support any variation of the notion that she hated men or blamed men for everything.
Click to expand...

Yeaaahh... That's kind of debatable, to say the least.

Gloria Steinem Represents the Worst of Modern Feminism

She has a long history of questionable, hackish, and misandrist stances. She also co-founded Ms Magazine, and allowed this nutbar to be its editor for several years.

RobinMorgan_Man-Hating.jpg


Moving swiftly on, and speaking more generally...

This article is basically trying to paint Hillary as some combination of a do-nothing and an infidel for not getting on with Southern sexism. It's hard to argue she's "done nothing" when she's served in two branches of government. It's not as though Bill cast all the votes for her. Spouses always help their loved ones, if they're any good, and some help much more than Bill has helped Hillary. Hell, there's an argument to be made that we've already had a female president (in fact if not title) in the form of Eleanor Roosevelt.

If Hillary was in fact an infidel to Southern sexism, quite frankly, why the **** should I care? Good for her.

Also, it is not Hillary who is claiming to be the beleaguered woman, but rather this article, which is claiming that literally everything she has ever done in her life was a feminist statement, and then taking this baseless claim and inserting some words into her mouth about it. It is true that Hillary has given some rather curt answers when asked blatantly sexist questions, but again, good for her, and that is hardly any reason for someone to make up an entire narrative about her life based on nothing but empty conjecture, and the belief that a woman existing is a political statement.

And, even if we assume this narrative is true, then all it does is paint a very bleak picture of what today's middle-to-senior aged women had to deal with to defend their identities, and how extreme the pressure really was. It does nothing to endear me to those tut-tut'ing her for trying to lead her own life. It's basically asking her to apologize for living in a sexist society and trying her best to manage that. Why, exactly?

And lastly, I would imagine that virtually anyone who would be considered part of Hillary's voting block would probably feel the same way. It's not as though she's been courting the conservative sexist vote, now is it. Unsurprisingly, she belongs to the party that includes most feminists. So...
Click to expand...

The article is basically criticizing her for being a pathologically unpleasant harpy, who go out of her way to market herself as a feminist, and shows favoritism to women over men.

Now, granted, I don't know how irrefutably true any of that is per se. However, you're wildly misrepresenting what was actually said.

"Southern sexism" doesn't have anything to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Gloria Steinem believes it was necessary to emasculate men, so really she can die in fire for all I care.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Never heard of her, but I found this lmao...

Nobody?s dummy - Salon.com


Holy ****, this lady is straight up crazy. I was wondering how crazy someone would have to be to write such ****, this answers it.
Click to expand...

Soooo... To be clear, you dislike her because, in failing to jump on the bandwagon and pour hatred on Sarah Palin, she fails to buy into the ridiculous Left Wing double-standard which holds that it's somehow okay to make explicitly classist, sexist, and even racist personal attacks on public figures, so long as they happen to be Conservative?

Nice.
 
Gathomas88 said:
How about the fact that she was not only involved with a, but the defining Second Wave feminist organization of its era, as well as the woman largely credited with starting the movement (a Communist, incidentally)?



The same reason a lot of blatantly misogynistic MRAs ultimately wind up dating if they actually find a woman who will have them? :shrug:

Crazy ideology is all well and good. At the end of the day, however, biological imperatives can be hard to overcome.



Yeaaahh... That's kind of debatable, to say the least.

Gloria Steinem Represents the Worst of Modern Feminism

She has a long history of questionable, hackish, and misandrist stances. She also co-founded Ms Magazine, and allowed this nutbar to be its editor for several years.

RobinMorgan_Man-Hating.jpg




The article is basically criticizing her for being a pathologically unpleasant harpy, who go out of her way to market herself as a feminist, and shows favoritism to women over men.

Now, granted, I don't know how irrefutably true any of that is per se. However, you're wildly misrepresenting what was actually said.

"Southern sexism" doesn't have anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Can you provide the source for that Robin Morgan quote. All the sources I have looked at say she said it, but don't say where, or when. That is an indicaiton to me of one of those fake quotes.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Soooo... To be clear, you dislike her because, in failing to jump on the bandwagon and pour hatred on Sarah Palin, she fails to buy into the ridiculous Left Wing double-standard which holds that it's somehow okay to make explicitly classist, sexist, and even racist personal attacks on public figures, so long as they happen to be Conservative?

Nice.
Click to expand...

I personally don't like her because she seems to be driven more by a contrarian impulse than creating a carefully considered view of what is proper feminism and what is not; why one or the other is or is not. Christina Sommers and Heather MacDonald, who occasionally I will completely disagree with, do not strike the same way as Paglia does. With Sommers and MacDonald, you can get a sense for why they are saying what they are saying, even if one completely disagrees with it. With Paglia, one wonders if LSD is in order.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Can you provide the source for that Robin Morgan quote. All the sources I have looked at say she said it, but don't say where, or when. That is an indicaiton to me of one of those fake quotes.
Click to expand...

I imagine you would have to look into the actual transcripts of her various speeches if you wanted hard proof.

Without going that far, however, I have found at least one contemporary article from the 1970s which references her making some rather extreme statements.

we-hate-men1.jpg


I can verify it as being legitimate as well.

Newspapers.com - Ames Daily Tribune from Ames, Iowa · Page 1
 
Gathomas88 said:
I imagine you would have to look into the actual transcripts of her various speeches if you wanted hard proof.

Without going that far, however, I have found at least one contemporary article from the 1970s which references her making some rather extreme statements
Click to expand...

It's interesting that feminists are so attached to the word patriarchy. There was no patriarchy in 1974 and arguable it didn't exist for very long time by then. The more I look into feminism the more I notice that a large part of their message is build on falsehoods, sexism, failed theories, hyperbole and misusing of words.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Soooo... To be clear, you dislike her because, in failing to jump on the bandwagon and pour hatred on Sarah Palin, she fails to buy into the ridiculous Left Wing double-standard which holds that it's somehow okay to make explicitly classist, sexist, and even racist personal attacks on public figures, so long as they happen to be Conservative?

Nice.
Click to expand...

I never faulted her for not bashing Palin. I faulted her for praising obvious faults of Sarah Palin. You're the one that brought up "classist, sexist, and even racist personal attacks". I wasn't advocating any of those things. When you come back down to reality we can have an actual discussion maybes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom