[DiogoFC]

Camille Paglia was interviewed in Brazil some days ago. A man wouldn't have praised so-called gender roles so much as this: https://youtu.be/KlYR1isM2o8?t=17m43s

[Seth_Rose]

While Camille Paglia is definitely a breath of fresh air compared to modern feminists, I wouldn't call her the 'Manosphere's Godmother'. She is still a feminist-- although one who stands for the early tenets of feminism--and is also a lesbian. Definitely not conducive to Manosphere values.

If there were a Godmother of the Manosphere, which is somewhat oxymoronic in promoting a matriarchal figure in a men's movement, it would have to be a prominent women who advocates for traditional gender roles, being feminine, no false rape bullshit etc. At the end of the day though, I'm suspect of giving too much power to women in men's movements, as eventually they will accumulate more power and start to push their objectives first and foremost.

[Belgrano]

If there´s a woman deserving this title, it´s Esther Vilar.

[Onto]

I would say the Manosphere's God-Mother would be the major figures of the feminist movement throughout the last 100+ years.

If it weren't for feminism, the Manosphere wouldn't have a need to exist.

[Saga]

Though there are certainly nuances and places where I disagree with her, the first 50 or so pages of Paglia's excellent Sexual Personae is a merciless demolition of modern feminism, including that timeless quote: "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." Great stuff. Her writings, along with those of Hoff Sommers (and girlwriteswhat on youtube, now that I think of it), were deeply important for me to break out of blue pill oblivion and I doubt I'm alone in that. Unfortunately, men stuck in the tyranny of conventional feminist thinking instinctively reject manosphere concepts through that fool's refrain "they're meanie sexists who hate women, and I love women so I can't agree with them!", but when men hear many of the same truths (or facts that lead to those truths) from feminist women, that objection falls apart and some oxygen can finally get through. It's ridiculous that that's what it takes for many men to see reason, but it is what it is.

Another gem:

Quote:

We could make an epic catalog of male achievements, from paved roads, indoor plumbing, and washing machine to eyeglasses, antibiotics and disposable diapers. We enjoy safe, fresh milk and meat, and vegetables and tropical fruits heaped in snowbound cities. When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America’s great bridges, I think: men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry. When I see a see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence as would for a church processions.

[ColSpanker]

I've been reading Doc Paglia since she first published SEXUAL PERSONAE in the early 90's. I still can't figure out if that old butch is a fucking genius or just plane insane.

[Icarus]

An excellent 1h43m-long conversation between Camille Paglia and Jordan B. Peterson:

[911]

(10-24-2015 01:06 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  

If there´s a woman deserving this title, it´s Esther Vilar.

Her main works are The Manipulated Men and The Polygamous Sex, here are two PDFs:

https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/20...ed_man.pdf

http://naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vila...ousSex.pdf

A book in the same vein, "The Predatory Female" by Lawrence Shannon:

http://www.revolucionantifeminista.org/w...female.pdf

[John Michael Kane]

Dr. Hellen Smith could be considered a worthy contender for godmother in favor of standing up for the modern downtrodden man:

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/

She writes insightful articles all the time. I suggest you read up on her if you haven't already.

[debeguiled]

(10-07-2017 09:53 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

An excellent 1h43m-long conversation between Camille Paglia and Jordan B. Peterson:

Subject matter was good, but she is a human disaster. Did you notice that in that discussion, she might as well have been alone?

She didn't seem to speak to Peterson as a person at any time whatsoever, and just used anything he said as a jumping off point for a motor mouthed rant.

Honestly, he tried to get a little rapport with her every now and then but then gave up; she was like a wind up disembodied brain.

She showed no curiosity or interest in anything personal he said, about his travails against the SJW legal system of Canada, it was all just grist for the fast lane mill of her mouth.

I found it to be extremely off putting, no matter how much I agreed with the substance of what she said.

At the very end she said, "See! I knew we'd agree on everything!" with a triumphant note in her voice, like she was saying "See, I knew you'd agree with everything I think."

Even that was jarring to hear because it had the slightest personal note to it, and I was thinking, oh, so now you are recognizing that you are talking to another human being.

She might have been threatened by his sudden high status among public intellectuals, I don't know.

Just seemed oddly robotic.

[Different T]

(10-07-2017 05:57 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Subject matter was good, but she is a human disaster. Did you notice that in that discussion, she might as well have been alone?

At least that was to be expected.

Peterson, on the other hand, seems to be on some sort of "ally" search and is trawling for any semi-famous people who agree with him on anything. Admitting that there are differences between the sexes is enough to be promoted by Peterson? That's disappointing.

Notice Paige still denigrates the nuclear family and even blames homos on it, while literally claiming post-modernists are historically illiterate. Were homos in antiquity prior to the nuclear family non-existent?

Notice she still claims something called the "authentic 1960's revolution" and Peterson says nothing.

Notice she claims her fellow revolutionaries of 2nd wave feminism "emancipated" women from the "jail cell" of the family and Peterson says nothing.

IIRC, that was the first video on JP's page that was worthless, other than as a recording of the thoughts of an old feminist who increasingly senses her growing irrelevance.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(10-24-2015 01:06 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  

If there´s a woman deserving this title, it´s Esther Vilar.

Actually, she's a lesbian too.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(10-07-2017 03:57 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Dr. Hellen Smith could be considered a worthy contender for godmother in favor of standing up for the modern downtrodden man:

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/

She writes insightful articles all the time. I suggest you read up on her if you haven't already.

Helen Smith (or actually her husband Instapundit who linked her) is the one who introduced me to a lot of manosphere concepts.

However, she is more of an MRA/MGTOW type. She started having a lot of material in 2007 or so about divorce rape, and about the way men are disrespected and ridiculed in commercials and sitcoms.

She didn't directly lead me to the red pill, but she definitely laid some of the groundwork that made me ready to accept it a few years later.

[Icarus]

(10-08-2017 09:48 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Notice Paige [sic] still denigrates the nuclear family and even blames homos on it

Paglia does indeed denigrate the nuclear family, but she also defends 3 generations living under the same roof. She is not glorifying living alone, is she? What if she's right? The nuclear family is a very recent invention. One of the ills of our age is that the grandparents' wisdom is not being transmitted to the grandchildren, mostly because the grandparents have been shipped to a retirement home.

[Different T]

(10-08-2017 11:09 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

Paglia does indeed denigrate the nuclear family, but she also defends 3 generations living under the same roof. She is not glorifying living alone, is she? What if she's right? The nuclear family is a very recent invention. One of the ills of our age is that the grandparents' wisdom is not being transmitted to the grandchildren, mostly because the grandparents have been shipped to a retirement home.

Do you think that the reason we no longer have three generations under one roof is simply because we "choose" to?

I understand your point, but when you listen to that interview in context, she quite clearly has the "middle class housewives were sequestered prisoners" view of the nuclear family. To use her language, her perspective is thoroughly "bourgeoisie." And then she specifically states her generation "emancipated" these women? Into what? And then she bitches some more about charlatans and the "authentic 1960's revolution."

Additionally, how many of you or your friends don't grow up regularly meeting your grandparents or cousins? Is that really common?

[911]

Paglia is a purple piller, she's got a sharp mind when it comes to breaking down trans culture and other "current year" absurdities, but she's also got some glaring blind spots and other limitations due to her background. She's about as sane as a lesbo-feminist can get. In order to really get to the bottom, she has to step out from her fundamental identity, which would be too big a step for her.

[Icarus]

(10-08-2017 12:11 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Do you think that the reason we no longer have three generations under one roof is simply because we "choose" to?

To some extent, yes.

Most fathers have become such cucks that they are happy to send their daughters to college where they will get fucked by alphas. These weak fathers are the worst pimps in the world, for their daughters are not merely unpaid whores, their price is actually negative! Pay tuition, get your daughter alpha-widowed for life. Such a great deal!

As I have defended many times before on RVF, women should be married by 18-20 years old. There would be no young adult women in colleges. Young men would have to focus on their studies and on their careers. By the time men were 28 and minimally established in their careers, they could marry 18 year old virgins. Quality, rather than quantity.

There is the obvious problem of jobs. One may have to move to find a decent job. That is a serious difficulty.

One eventually concludes that one needs a new religion to create the incentives and penalties necessary for the vision above to materialize. However, for a new religion to arise, the selfish religion of the Baby Boomer generation must be burned to the ground. No mercy! Burn it all.

(10-08-2017 12:11 PM)Different T Wrote:  

I understand your point, but when you listen to that interview in context, she quite clearly has the "middle class housewives were sequestered prisoners" view of the nuclear family.

Paglia defends segregation by gender, which I also do. She puts it in terms of "world of men" and "world of women". I could call it matriarchy for women and patriarchy for all. Men and women are too different. Suppose 3 generations live under the same roof. There's a pyramidal hierarchy:

• The grandfather rules over the fathers and the grandsons. Fathers rule over their sons and nephews.
• The grandmother rules over the mothers and the granddaughters. Mothers rule over their daughters and nieces. Lastly, the grandmother reports to the grandfather.
  

Hence, men are not forced to deal with female insanity. Wifey is PMS-ing and acting insane? Inform grandfather. Grandfather then orders the grandmother to discipline insane wifey. She does so. Problem solved. Men should not be forced to descend into the utter inanity of female emotion.

Paglia attacks with great vigor the nuclear family with only 1 or 2 kids. She is all for large families, however. I agree with her. If you only have one sibling, your socialization will be limited. Socializing with a bunch of siblings is a much richer life.

[Different T]

(10-08-2017 02:10 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

To some extent, yes.

Do you think a 30 year old man living in his low-to-middle income parents house is going to be attractive? Or is this a "change the whole culture so all incentive structures are rearranged and then what I am saying will make sense" sort of deal?

(10-08-2017 02:10 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

One eventually concludes that one needs a new religion to create the incentives and penalties necessary for the vision above to materialize. However, for a new religion to arise, the selfish religion of the Baby Boomer generation must be burned to the ground. No mercy! Burn it all.

Am I interpreting this correctly that you think you're able to simply "create" a new religion? What is a religion, just some bullshit you manipulate other people into believing?

(10-08-2017 02:10 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Paglia defends segregation by gender, which I also do. She puts it in terms of "world of men" and "world of women". I could call it matriarchy for women and patriarchy for all. Men and women are too different.

It seems you heard what you agreed with. The main thing Paglia seemed to be defending was something called an "authentic 1960's revolution" that had something to do with a "universal consciousness," etc. that is so abstract it's unlikely even two "authentic revolutionaries" would have the same conception.

(10-08-2017 02:10 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Suppose 3 generations live under the same roof. There's a pyramidal hierarchy:

• The grandfather rules over the fathers and the grandsons. Fathers rule over their sons and nephews.
• The grandmother rules over the mothers and the granddaughters. Mothers rule over their daughters and nieces. Lastly, the grandmother reports to the grandfather.
  

Hence, men are not forced to deal with female insanity. Wifey is PMS-ing and acting insane? Inform grandfather. Grandfather then orders the grandmother to discipline insane wifey. She does so. Problem solved. Men should not be forced to descend into the utter inanity of female emotion.

Ah, it's all that easy, huh.

(10-08-2017 02:10 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

She is all for large families, however. I agree with her. If you only have one sibling, your socialization will be limited. Socializing with a bunch of siblings is a much richer life.

Again, IIRC, JP was the person that brought that up and she agreed. In fact, she emphasized the role of the elder women having tons of control over social life, not "grandfather" as per your example.

Though it does make a lot of sense for a person claiming "No mercy! Burn it all," to not understand the term "Playing with fire."

[Different T]

(10-08-2017 12:13 PM)911 Wrote:  

In order to really get to the bottom, she has to step out from her fundamental identity, which would be too big a step for her.

LOL. Per the interview, she "identifies" as a gay "transgender" lesbian feminist. So maybe this thread could be re-titled "Camille Paglia is the manosphere's godmother/godfather/gay-uncle/lesbian-aunt/...."

[Icarus]

(10-08-2017 04:08 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Do you think a 30 year old man living in his low-to-middle income parents house is going to be attractive?

Men without resources tend to be genetic dead ends.

[Different T]

(10-08-2017 07:26 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Men without resources tend to be genetic dead ends.

Is a man living in his own home an improper or immoral (or what) display of these resources?

Your writing style had me worried that I missed something regarding Paglia. After about 5 minutes of research this site also perceived her main theme during the Peterson talk to be this "authentic 1960's revolution," not large families:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...icity.html

I also looked up quotes from her because maybe she isn't as shit as perceived:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Some of them do sound good. Of course there's this gem (talking about Foucault whom she was lambasting with Peterson):

Camille Paglia Wrote:

I'm so sick of the brainless overpraise of post-structuralist drivel. Michel's oafishly pretentious and phony to boot. I liked him for defending pedophilia, but his writing style is dense and irrational. And that forced Parisian accent that he no longer has in real life because of all the time he's been spending in San Fran bath-houses — ugh!

Yup, according to Paglia, Post-Modernist Michel Foucault's only redeeming quality is that he's down with kiddy-fuckers!

Here's an alternative perspective to thinking she's an "ally" or concerned with helping men better themselves: She's scared. She's studied history and constantly talks about jihadis and how America is like Rome. She also knows that it is the nice, heterosexual, white males that have actually tolerated homos and all kinds of other things and even have a legal system that protects people like her. Perhaps she knows that she is likely to take a 15 minute cage ride to the bottom of a lake if some groups come to power.

So, hey, if you get pumped up listening to a lesbian tell you how great Western Civ is, by all means. Here's a slogan for you:

Paglia Fanboy Wrote:

Cucking for homos (and coming soon, Pedos) since the Authentic 1960's Revolution: at least it ain't (((the Jews))).

You can have that for free.

[Icarus]

(10-08-2017 08:46 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Yup, according to Paglia, Post-Modernist Michel Foucault's only redeeming quality is that he's down with kiddy-fuckers!

I have read several interviews with Paglia and none mentioned pedophilia. I base my opinions on what I have read.

[Mercenary]

She's not married to a man and has never been pregnant with a baby she gave birth to.
She's not "mother" to anything.
Next !

[John Michael Kane]

(10-08-2017 11:04 AM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(10-07-2017 03:57 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Dr. Hellen Smith could be considered a worthy contender for godmother in favor of standing up for the modern downtrodden man:

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/

She writes insightful articles all the time. I suggest you read up on her if you haven't already.

Helen Smith (or actually her husband Instapundit who linked her) is the one who introduced me to a lot of manosphere concepts.

However, she is more of an MRA/MGTOW type. She started having a lot of material in 2007 or so about divorce rape, and about the way men are disrespected and ridiculed in commercials and sitcoms.

She didn't directly lead me to the red pill, but she definitely laid some of the groundwork that made me ready to accept it a few years later.

She has some good content and is writing as to why many men have "checked out" especially on the lower-end of the economic spectrum. Sometimes I fear she does play a role (however unintentionally I think) of allowing men to feel sorry for themselves instead of taking action. I know a lot of MRA/MGTOW types latch onto her.

Still, most men are meant to get married and have kids, so feeling sorry for yourself and giving MGTOW a pass isn't good for relations between the sexes. That's where I wish she'd take her evidence-based writing and try to be a bit more of an advocate as to how to fix the problems, not just give in to a never-ending stream of bad news.

Nonetheless, I give her credit to have the emotional depth to actually care about men's problems when so few women in power in journalism actually do. I respect and admire her as a human being for speaking about uncomfortable truths facing men these days. Hopefully, she can voice some possible ways out of the mess we're in. That would be a bit more uplifting to read and not encourage male victimhood.

[Icarus]

(10-08-2017 12:13 PM)911 Wrote:  

Paglia is a purple piller

That may very well be the case, but she is a woman and if we want to overthrow the freaks & degenerates who took over the West in the 1960s and have been working towards its collapse since then, we needs all the allies we can get. Excluding people who aren't "pure enough" is not the way to build a large army.