The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute
Subscribe to the blog
December 11, 2013 11:23 am | AEIdeas
A tech manifesto for the GOP field, part II
Low oil prices: Who are the losers?
GOP candidates at a crossroads in Iowa farm country
Press Release: Trendsetting Charter Schools
Will Womenomics work? Auslin on Radio National’s ‘Counterpoint’
Will Iran-Saudi proxy war complicate nuclear deal? Bolton on Fox Business ‘Willis Report’
Responding to Cruz’s Decision to run: Thiessen on Fox News’ ‘The Kelly File’
More options: Share, Mark as favorite
View related content: Society and Culture
Image Credit: Tom Sandler Photography
Dowd noted, for example, that men have played so recklessly with the globe “they nearly broke it.”
Women consistently support the big government, risk free style of government that now dominates politics in the West, which is the root cause of the current economic mess. Dowd distinctly lacks critical thinking skills.
so true and they do it with my body my choice, now someone else pay for my body my choice.
Paglia is an absolute treasure–bold and bright and incisive. Thank you so much for posting this.
I’m sure this same Canadian forum will host a similar debate about the obsolescence of women, featuring four male commentators. Because we know society is all about gender equality these days.
Your statement lacks merit. I don’t know of one man who hates women an inkling as much as feminist women hate men. While there are plenty of men who objectify and use women, even they would never go so far as to agree with the belief that women are or ought to be obsolete. On the contrary, most men (especially married men as well as those who want to marry or pursue any meaningful relationship with a woman) seek to elevate and please women – their girlfriends, their wives, their mothers & their daughters.
He was being sarcastic dumbass…
One wonders whats going on in the minds of Hanna Rosin, or Childless and Husbandless reject Maureen Dowd to make them think women have “taken over”.
Even after 50+ years of feminism giving a massive leg up to women, there’s hardly any woman thats moved civilization forward through any of the avenues. for e.g intellectual avenues 1) great scientific progress.. hardly any female Nobel Prize winners in science, 2) great technological progress.. hardly any female innovators like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs 3) great art.. 4) great standup comedians.. 5) chess grandmaster (judith polgar.. only one in top 100). so on and so forth And feminists die in jealousy.
Camille Paglia was right DECADES ago.. “If civilization was left to women, we would still be living in grass huts”.
if women were so much better than men as these harpies claim they would achieve succeed within the free society we have today, instead of moaning and asking for quotas, they would be business leaders in numbers far greater than they are currently. It’s a free world. You are not oppressed. quit whining and go out and do something productive for the world you claim to care so much more about.
You called them “Harpies?” I think pit vipers is a better description.
I see all these men’s rights and father’s rights groups springing up fighting for real world men’s issues that feminism (of the likes of rosin and dowd) seems interested in capitalizing on. These groups are fighting feminism tooth and nail at the university level.
I say we stop fighting them and start exercising two rights that no Judge, Legislator, government, or feminist can take away from us and that is no marriage and no creation of children.
By not partnering in the creation of children on the grounds the children will cause non-feminist women to rise up against the radicals seeking their demise. Perhaps not partnering in marriage will do the same.
Just doing both, it will collapse the victim industry feminism enjoys and benefits from politically, financially, and socially. No more domestic violence industry without marriage and relationships.
One has to see the numbers of university feminist who rely on male on female violence to write books, get research grants funded, and non-profits flourishing.
No more children will collapse the family court industry and welfare system that relies so much on Title IV-D money U.S. States have become dependent on.
If Rosin and Dowd want to see more equality, let’s make sure 50% of the body bags coming home from war are women. Let’s see a 50% representation of female homelessness and suicide rates – two issues that most women don’t face by having children to rely of federal and state aid after they have disposed of the fathers.
I always get the impression when listening to Maureen Dowd speak in that indolent monotone of hers that she’s under the delusion that she’s smoldering or sexy. Ummm…no. It’s just irritating. But I have always been a fan of Camille Paglia, and I recently devoured Moran’s very entertaining book, so I wish this debate was available on YouTube. But one has to become a paying member to stream or download the audio or video of the Munk Debates. However, if indeed “much of the commentary was tongue-in-cheek”, I wonder why they bothered to bring all these big shots together at all.
Good work lady, it’s good to here the opinion of a smart Intelengent woman. Who remembers the world her grandparents survived thank you Rod Parkinson’s.
I am quite happy that women no longer need men as economic tools. I get to keep my money and there are still plenty of women who like sex.
from the right….I love her mind!
It is a TRAGEDY that Paglia doesn’t engage with the media as she did in the 90s. So I am always grateful when I hear of a debate or lecture she’s given that might be available for viewing or download. I find Caitlin Moran thoughtful AND funny as well, so any footage of her talks or debates are always worth a look. Sadly, the Munk debate discussed here is not free to watch or even listen to. I have Google alerts in place so I can be informed as to when Paglia or Moran might have something new floating around in the ether.
My old Iowa farmhand friend puts it humorously this way, “If women who complained about lazy men had had their way from the beginning, we’ld still be planting corn with sticks!”
Paglia is one of the few people I can agree and disagree with but always want to hear what she has to say.
like listening to the obama sycophants rant about race, hearing dowd rant about sex is irony at best. the only reason both are were they are is because of the outer layer, not their abilities.
I have immense respect for Paglia. She has a brilliant mind and never fails to see things in a way that is overlooked by most.
If men were truly obsolete, no one would need to write an Op-Ed on the New York Times to announce it nor have a heated debate over it. No one behaves that way over typewriters nor rotary phones now, do they?
I’d wager the “Men are obsolete.” line is either self-delusion or merely a bargaining point to manipulate naive men into devaluing themselves; so they don’t feel inclined to demand compensation in kind for any kind of service rendered that is uniquely or most likely a male supplied service.
Take a good look at the average day of any person and how many parts of that day wouldn’t exist without some invention or skill set most likely contributed by a male, e.g. plumbing, heating, communication, computers, television, radio, medicine, transportation, etc… Sure, a quality revisionist historian can point out and overstate female contributions to all aspects of modern society and be telling truth of a sort, but to claim men had no part in the past nor any relevant part in any positive future is complete BS and only the most deluded or stupid of people would deny that.
From the snippets published in the article, Camille Paglia is beginning to sound like a modern day Ayn Rand. Bravo, Camille! We need someone who can articulately defend the morality of free markets, capitalism, and men.
Paglia has often been compared to Rand, and it’s a comparison Paglia hasn’t necessarily eschewed. She has gone on record as admiring Rand as a bold, independent thinker. But she’s also pointed out their many differences, some of which deal with the notion of a social contract and the abuses that unfettered capitalism (tip o’ the hat to Pope Francis) can engender. Paglia contains multitudes, and embraces her own many contradictory opinions. She has more in common with Christopher Hitchens, I think, in that she’s been embraced, and then disinherited, by both the left and the right at different times in her career, and all the while not seeming to care one bit.
As a card carrying member of the right, I recognize that Ms. Paglia’s world view is very different from my own. However I have a great deal of respect for her. I think she is one of the truly independent voices of Liberalism in the US. I can embrace her as a thoughtful critic of our culture, and polticians. While we have much to disagree about, I never read what she writes and think that there is some ulterior motive, or that she is trying to make nice with the current administration, or some publisher, or media outlet. She disappeared from Salon.com for reasons unknown, and I have always imagined that it was because she was unwilling to compromise in some key area.
Paglia has had little to say about her “disappearance” from the stage. She was ubiquitous for the longest time in the 90s. If nothing else she was easily the most “fun” public intellectual we had seen in a long time. Of course she didn’t go away entirely, because she still writes and lectures, and takes part in the odd debate like the one discussed here. The only allusion I have heard her make as to why she slowed down was that she had tried to start a family with her partner, but they ultimately split…and that she had become extremely focused on the culture of Brazil. Fala sério! She evidently fell in love with the country, its music, and its carnival culture. And really, who can blame her.
You’ll never get a beau with that domineering tone.
How about we stop trying to make college anti-male? I would like my college educated daughters with good jobs to be able to marry college educated men with good jobs.
We all want our children to do well, but I would hate to think our universities are only there to crank out good workers and consumers. It seems, however, that this is indeed the trend, and that it’s actually beginning at the elementary school level. I would hope that our schools ultimately stressed independent, creative thinking; adaptability; and an education for the sake of education. So, the issue used to be that higher education wasn’t always pro-women, and now the criticism is that it’s anti-male. I guess I’d have to see the evidence, beyond the arguments here by some on the panel that men are obsolete. I think the whole idea is fraught with many holes and pitfalls. I didn’t attend an elite school, but it wasn’t so long ago, and I saw no anti-male agenda.
Men defend civilization; women preserve civilization. Both tasks are essential!
I kind of (sort of) like Camille Paglia, but the fundamental idea behind this “debate” is asinine in the extreme. I appreciate having Ms. Paglia defend the continued legitimacy of my existence, but don’t think it’s really up for discussion in any event.
The very fact that this debate can even occur in our society is so absolutely nauseating it’s blinding. And Maureen Dowd is considered a reputable commentator.
Most women seem content being activists, or in jobs wielding rhetoric to convince or manipulate others to do things rather than in jobs doing things. Their percentages are higher in fields like teaching, journalism, and law.
No, Professo Paglia. Most feminist do not have a problem with men in general. Most feminist, believe it or not, are married to men. What most of us have, is a problem with the way some men think and choose to act and speak. It is the anti-woman sentiment and the actions that result from that sentiment that is the problem.
If it’s only “. . . the way some men think and choose to act . . .” it would hardly justify any national attention much less an international debate ont he subject. This evinces the false premise of your statement. You say “some men” but in reality such a statement taints the entire male sex with that broad brush. Remember, it’s been said that we live is a “rape culture.” “Some” men? I think not.
Perhaps this is true in your world. But visit a university campus, especially those that offer degrees in Women’s Studies, and Paglia hits the nail on the head. Paglia’s comments should be required as the foundational statement for Women’s Studies programs. At universities, the level of indoctrination that is hostile to men is deplorable. It is further entrenched by hiring practices that refuse to admit women of Paglia’s persuasion onto their faculties at full Professor level, if ever admitted at all.
This is true, feminism in US universities is rife. You have feminist organisations based on campus where men’s rights group equivalents have been banned for being hate groups. The administration of the universities are afraid to do anything about the feminist groups and the sexist and inaccurate messages that they spread for risk of themselves being labelled sexist. Look at the recent systems setup by occidental college an anonymous system where you could report sexual assaults. It was all setup to allow girls to report men but required no evidence from the women that the attack or incident had actually happened. Allowing black marks to be added to guys records without any investigation or evidence. Thats the level of stupidity we are seeing already in colleges and universities.
Rockerbabe, thank you for your comment and ability for me to use your narrative and turn it into a teaching moment for other men perhaps who are on the fence about joining the MRA.
Gentlemen, look at her statement “how some men speak and act” – while not even suggesting some women can do anything wrong. In short, most of you are a problem, all women are innocent flowers.
These women and men just like to hear themselves talk. Whatever.
I really like paglia. She often disagrees with me but when she does she at puts some thought into it. She’s a ray of intellect in a din of liberal knee-jerk yawners who (ironically) believe themselves to be an intellectual crowd.
Whenever I see a column by some brainless liberal cheerleader like Joan Walsh or Melissa Perry I think, “What’s the point in reading it? You already know the outcome will be republican = bad and most likely racist, democrat = infallibly pure. Boooooorrrrring!”
What’s horrifying is that Camille Paglia is viewed as some sort of ‘masculinist’ aberration in feminist thought simply for preferring to argue from historical evidence to reach rational, non-contradictory conclusions, rather than gender dialectics, a priori judgements, and sexual polylogism.
I work with an enlightened woman who happens to be divorced, who encourages her children to spend time with their father, and who recognizes that men and women need to be partners.
We need more women like her.
I want to marry her [Camille]. Yes she might be a little too old for me but I love her mind; they way she makes me feel as a man. A human! As she clearly reminds us; one is not greater than the other!!! Is that so hard of a concept for so-called smart people to comprehend? We all have a role to full fill in this life; world. I was just talking to my lil sister about this the other day. Thanks Ms. Paglia
Has anyone noted that the debate topic itself is insulting, offensive, misandrist, and bigoted?
Would any reputable person ever consider participating in a debate, “Be It Resolved: Blacks Are Inferior”? Of course not!
Comments are closed.
1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
© 2015 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Login or Register to save searches.