From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Paglia (again)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 JAN 93 14:28:49 GMT

Michael McDonald wrote:

>On "Later with Bob Costas," Paglia said that once a woman consents to go
>into a man's room in the course of a date, she basically has no business
>accusing him of rape if he forces himself on her.  Given the nature of
>male sexuality, Paglia said, the woman's agreement to enter the man's room
>is tantamount to consenting to sex.

I didn't see the show, and I don't know exactly what she said and in
what context.  From what I've read of her, specifically in _Sex, Art,
and American Culture_ (she does not discuss "date-rape" in _Sexual
Personae_), I would guess she's calling for women to take more
responsibility for themselves, and to be careful not to assume that men
will behave honorably.  As she says, "Honorable men do not murder,
honorable men do not steal, honorable men do not rape."  She's not
excusing men from responsibility for their behavior.

I actually think her views on date-rape are valid separate from any
biological determinist argument.  In terms of women's personal safety,
it hardly matters if men are aggressive because of their hormones, or
because society has convinced them to be so.  The fact is, men rape, and
women are in danger.  The fact is, sexual consent is not always a clear-cut
issue -- "no means no" is a nice theory, but it doesn't work so well in
practice, especially if you're dealing with someone who's bigger and
stronger than you are.  Paglia states over and over, women have to take
responsibility for their own safety and their own sexuality, and that
starts by avoiding stupidity (like getting drunk at a frat party and then
going upstairs, or being alone in a bedroom with a man you don't know very
well).

You have to understand that Paglia is attacking the feminist status
quo here.  Many powerful feminists seem to be intent on tidying up
sex and making it safe and pleasant for all women under all circumstances.
Paglia doesn't think this is possible, and I tend to agree with her.

>While watching the show and reflecting on it later, it wasn't just the
>viewpoint Paglia expressed that I found reprehensible, but the smirking,
>no-room-for-disagreement attitude which attended her articulation of these
>views.

This is the thing I find so interesting about many people who dislike
Paglia: they fixate on her personality and her attitude.  As far as I
can understand it, Michael, you've judged Paglia based on TV interviews,
magazine profiles, and hearsay.  You haven't read either of her books.
You don't seem to have read any magazine articles in which she states
her position.  Now, I've seen Naomi Wolf interviewed on TV, and I've
read some magazine articles that she's written, and I've heard people's
opinions of her theories, and I'm not all that impressed.  HOWEVER, I
will not make my final judgment on her and her theories until I read
_The Beauty Myth_ and see if she makes her case, and I will not make
any judgment of her theories based on her personal deportment.

>I wonder how Mike and Heather will dance around *this* post.  I would have
>more respect for you folks if you weren't so avid to defend, seemingly,
>*everything* Paglia has to say.

I'm *not* avid to defend everything she has to say.  When I read _Sexual
Personae_, I agreed with about 20% of what she had to say.  When I read
_Sex, Art, and American Culture_, the percentage was bumped up to about
40%.  I actually think she has more of value to say in the latter book,
because she addresses herself to real problems such as the decline of
academia and the crisis in feminism, and she suggests solutions rather
than merely bitching.

I would have a lot more respect for *you*, Michael, if you didn't make
judgments on people's character and intellect based on how they appear
on TV.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:24198 rec.music.folk:9008