From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Subject: Re: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:22:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.041949.5998@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.015721.5557@cheshire.oxy.edu> rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:
>
>>	Since when is moral autonomy "proper indoctrination"?
>
>Since when is Paglia criticizing "moral autonomy"?
>

	Since when did you stop reading my posts?  I don't dance 
for the blind.

>>	Paglia's position disempowers everyone because it diminishes
>>moral responsibility.
>
>This is apparently some kind of joke. Nothing Paglia writes "diminishes
>moral responsibility," since nothing she writes excuses rape.
>

	Welcome back, remedial learners.  If "nothing she writes
excuses rape," then why all the rigaramole about the "cosmic sexual power" 
and "biological programming"?  You seem to claim that Paglia is merely
noting the empirical (i.e., contingent) circumstances of sexism which
encourage date rape and other sexual crimes, not making any claims about
moral autonomy (i.e., freedom).  Fine.  But then her position is congruent
with almost all feminists, including the social constructionists she
vilifies.  This also means all Paglia's speculative anthropology is
ultimately negligible, since "nothing excuses" unethical action.  Yet
what are we then to make of statements about "fundamental, unchanging
truths about sex"?

>>Men can excuse themselves as "programmed" towards
>>"the fun of rape," while women have to properly kowtow to "the elemental
>>powers of sexuality."
>
>Please cite the text in which Paglia says men can excuse themselves of
>anything.
>

	I've cited considerable chunks of text which clearly, 
logically imply two coherent meanings in Paglia.  (Curiously, you 
find this simple interpretation to be me forcing a preconceived
opinion on the text.)  (1)  Paglia's "biological programming" moves
men towards "anarchy and brutishness" and the association of sexuality
and aggression.  This doesn't "excuse" men, but she clearly believes
it's the natural way of things, and strongly admires the general
thrust of male sexuality as the prime mover of western civilization.
Strangely, in the midst of her copious advice to women pay proper
heed and homage to the elemental powers (especially given their own
"miasmic" [_SP_] genitalia), Paglia shrugs off any thought of advising
men to firmly keep their zippers in check.  Rather, the "simple,
swaggering sexuality" of the jock is the Source of All Good Things.
(2) Paglia just wants to warn gals about the "prickly cacti" of 
"Testosterone Flats," which can be safely trimmed and pruned but are
best avoided or very carefully navigated.  If this second option is
the case, why focus on the potential victim as site of crime prevention?
Why not attack the root problem, viz., male behavior?  Paglia appears
to 'excuse' this behavior as biological destiny.  If she doesn't, then
her position does not differ significantly from her nominal opponents.
If she does, she's diminishing responsibility and the possibility of ethics.
Or, as I said before:

>> This is irrational bullshit demeaning human freedom.
>

	To which Mr. Godwin retorted, with all the bite of a whale shark:

>More irony! I do concur, of course, that somebody here is being
>irrational. Trying to impose a pro-rape agenda on Paglia's text is not
>only irrational; it's also futile.

	I'm not imposing anything that isn't latent in the text.  Paglia,
of course, is not explicitly condoning rape, let alone promoting it, and
needless to say she would never admit so publicly.  But her position is
disturbingly congruent with centuries of "blue balls" arguments and other
touching trappings of androcentric oppression.

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney

"After having studied philosophy, I wanted to see what madness was:
 I had been mad enough to study reason; I was reasonable enough to study
 madness."

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books