"When I look at male history, I don’t see what most gender studies people see: male oppression and female victimization. What I see is wave after wave of men desperate to create their own identity." -- Camille Paglia [Video length: 14:23] Excerpted quote at the 5:25 mark

ratbacon · 2017-12-21T15:05:37+00:00

Her best line was before the quoted mark.

"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

IbnBinAbu · 2017-12-21T08:04:04+00:00

Women can do most things they usually do already by the age of 15. Attract men, extract resources and protection from men, bear and raise children (relatively decent children), keep social harmony, resolve disputes between family members and do low-qualified work. An average woman can do all of this as soon as she turns 15, or even earlier. So, even if men did nothing, women as young as 15 could keep the society going. True, this society wouldn't move past stone age, but oh well... What this means is that women have a role for themselves which they can fulfill very early, and this role is not small. Men don't have this ready made role, and have to invent something for themselves. This means more risk, more profit, more glory, more inventions, more artistic creations, more deaths, more suicides, more psychopathy, more crimes, whatever....

And this is why it's dumb to talk about "narrow definition of masculinity". Masculinity was never narrow. Femininity was narrow, and still is, even with feminists yelling: "You can be anything you want, sisters!!!" Masculinity was always broad because it had to be. There is no "narrow toxic masculinity". Forget that shit.

orphancrippla · 2017-12-21T14:31:51+00:00

That's because while women have inherent worth just for existing, men's worth has to be demonstrated. The only way for a man to have social standing is for him to prove it through one means or another. So of course men constantly seek ways to be uniquely noticeable or successful, because that's the only way society will value him. This is something that most women (seems she's an exception) are incapable of comprehending, because their value is dependent on their existence. This can be succinctly summed up by something I heard from Karen Straughan: "Women are human beings. Men are humans doings." Women only have to be. Men have to do.

ee4m · 2017-12-21T12:39:43+00:00

She is talking about the destruction of marxism.

History for a large part has been driven by the oppression of men, and men fighting back against the powers that.

When the right started funding and promoting feminism, they changed that to a revisionist history where its a struggle of women against men.

Which turned the population against one another, instead of the population fighting for a better deal against the ruling class.

GoneGayForMRA · 2017-12-21T21:49:39+00:00

There is really only one form of genuine activism a feminist can take to make a difference against her concept of patriarchy. It is accessible to all feminists, at all times, and not especially difficult.

That form of activism is: working full time and supporting a man at home, so he doesn't have to work. This allows him to explore how a man might be a homemaker. Her job will be to concede to his purchasing decisions they way husbands have always done, concede to his demands for expression and happiness the way husbands have always done, and to pay him a salary for the rest of his life if he should ever become dissatisfied and leave her.

As the song goes, "anything you can do I can do better." Frankly, I'm not seeing it.

Themightysavage · 2017-12-21T10:07:43+00:00

This world needs more thinking people like her.

harleypig · 2017-12-21T13:06:21+00:00

"The Hell's Angel's are going to be the ones who protect us [women] when society collapses."

I remember hearing my mom quote Camille Paglia and rolling my eyes. I have since learned that she was right in a lot of ways, and also that she was nowhere near the extreme I thought she was.

Comments