From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Subject: Re: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Keywords: Paglia (again!), rape
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:49:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.033729.13769@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.020401.27962@cheshire.oxy.edu> rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.004401.12229@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>>
>>>Please cite the text in which Paglia suggests "knuckling under" to any
>>>"purported biological determinism." She certainly does not suggest any
>>>such thing in SEX, ART, AND AMERICAN CULTURE.
>>
>>	Okay.  How about the following heap of assertions from SA&AC:
><text deleted>
>>
>
>But not one line of what you quoted suggested "knuckling under" to
>anything.
>
>>	Admittedly, "knuckling under" is not a term Paglia would be happy
>>with.  But it's the "common sense" reading of her position.  
>
>It's an uncommon commonsense reading, then. The last thing Paglia suggests
>is surrender (a common synonym for "knuckling under"). What she suggests
>is just the opposite: she writes:
>
>"Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which
>can strengthen or destroy.
>

	The "knuckling under" I am writing about is precisely what
is suggested in the above selection: that we accept "the truth about
sex" or its "elemental powers", viz., that male sexuality is intertwined
with aggression, that it is the creative anima erecting Civilization,
etc.  Sure, she suggests all sorts of sublimations and struggles against
her sexual essentialism, but her position isn't even tragic, a la Freud.
Rather, we are to embrace the Great Phallic Thrust of Creation, making
sure we don't get in its mighty way.  

>>	Everything I've read by Paglia, especially since her rise to 
>>fame, paints a picture of a crude purveyor of stereotypes, an academically
>>sloppy thinker, and an exceptional self-promoter.
>
>I don't see too many stereotypes in SEXUAL PERSONAE. 

	As I said, especially *since* her rise.  But her summary
dismissals in SP, not to mention her one-dimensional readings of 
contemporary rock, betray her one-track (or should that be eight?)
reductivism.

I wouldn't call her a
>rigorous thinker, but, then, many useful thinkers are loose ones. As for 
>her gift for self-promotion, I'd think this was a pretty good credential
>for someone who critiques popular society and culture--it means she has a
>handle on what she's talking about.
>

	Good points, but what really gets under my skin is Paglia's
unjustified disregard and egotistical disdain for other thinkers: some
whose views partially coincide with her own, others whom she clearly
has not read (carefully, at any rate).  This tendency quickly leads
to a self-perpetuating name-calling -- methinks her popularity among
net.personae is by no means coincidental.

>This is a silly quote. Paglia's not saying that men's fears,
>as manifested in their sexual violence, *justify* rape. So, for Cordes
>to ask whether a mirror-image insecurity would justify anti-male
>violence is to show an almost puerile misreading of Paglia's
>essay. One wonders if it's intentional.
>

	But if Paglia's not in some way justifying rape, then her
remarks are banal.  But that's what I'm saying in my other reply.

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney

"That's where you and I split the dog, my little red friend."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books