|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Popular as Camille Paglia understandably is among the men's movement, I do think it's important to point out that she's gone on record as saying that she believes women are superior to men. And here's a link to the article containing her quote to this effect.
I'm not trying to tear her down. I enjoy reading her interviews and articles a great deal. In fact, here's a link to the Playboy interview referenced in the Salon interview (in which she talks about Naomi Wolf's hair - and a hell of a lot else!). This interview was my introduction to Camille Paglia, and I thought: "Wow!" She forever changed the way I looked at a lot of things.
I just think that she should be taken with a grain of salt on certain matters, though, and not embraced too hastily or blindly by the men's movement simply because she says certain really flattering things about us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YUCK! After reading that first link in Hawth's message, I'm ready to proclaim Paglia a full-blown bigot. I suppose I'd better read the other links before I make up my mind... but that first impression REALLY isn't a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, she's bigoted in a somewhat admiring way, I guess. In a nutshell, Camille's take on males is that we are basically the "challenged" gender, and so most of civilization has resulted from the efforts of certain males who have conjured up feats of greatness to compensate for their gender inadequacies. Unfortunately, that still leaves the majority of men as biologically, artistically and emotionally inferior drones.
Of course, Paglia's detractors among the mainstream feminist movement somehow overlook her blatant chauvanism and instead focus their hostility upon her assertions of female power, which of course they are heavily invested in denying the existence of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
please read paglia’s books, especially “sexual personae,” before rushing to judgment about her … she is a better man than most men i know, and will be recognized eventually as a key figure in the liberation of the male
what paglia is talking about in the “paglia asserts female power” article is merely the accurate portrayal of the superior power of the feminine that obtained between the genders during most of our evolution -- a condition which continues still
“patriarchy,” fatherhood, ego consciousness and indeed masculinity itself are very recent, and rickety, inventions – the root of the species is the feminine -- woman was man’s first god, and the status of the male during our development was one of beast/servant – males are still struggling to break this dependence, especially in psycho-sexual terms
the masculine relates to the feminine out of a deep, unconscious, and very real background of awe, fear and submission – the very elements of elevation one typically reserves for deity – a highly desirable deity, to boot, full of the power that comes from transcendence of estrus and the production of life
this is the feminine power to which paglia is referring, and she is correct – woman has always ruled, and despite appearances, she rules still
paglia does masculinity a great service by exposing the roots and depths of feminine power … thus we are shown how subjugated we always have been, why we invented the organizations and artifacts that we did, and how far we have yet to go
paglia is not the witch, she is our secret sister, our athena-charm
paglia is gretel shoving the witch into the oven
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though African-Americans in the US celebrate Abraham Lincoln, at least to some degree, as their emancipator, he was a known racist even to the point of suggesting that the freed slaves be repatriated to their homeland. Regardless of his racism, the Emancipation Proclaimation remains as the central event to ending slavery in the us. Camille Paglia may or may not, ultimately, regard men as a lower form of life. Nonetheless, the value of the things she has said in support of men and masculinity outweigh this prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank and Remarksman - I agree. I don't hate Paglia by any means. She's a tour de force, and is truly passionate about everything she says, regardless of how others react. You're right - she's a better "man" than most men, even if only because only a woman can truly get away with being a "man" nowadays. And, ultimately, she supports the men's movement, calls the feminazis as she sees 'em, wants to put an end to male bashing and see men having an equal voice in society once again. As Frank said, whatever patronizing attitudes she may have about the male sex with regards to male-female relations, she seems to support equality for males at the political and social levels, at least.
I only felt I should provide those links and the disclaimer because I think it's important to know and keep in mind what someone is truly all about before you embrace them as a spokesperson. I sometimes worry that certain men lap up Paglia's diatribes at the first sign of feminist-bashing and male-praising - without waiting to read the full text of what she's saying. I know I certainly did - back in the days when I was a "budding" masculinist and was pretty starved for Paglia's brand of counter-commentary. And I'll admit - even after reading her "female superiority" quotes, I'm still very aroused and invigorated by her.
If you want to embrace Paglia, and you're okay with her more patronizing attitudes about men, then by all means - embrace her! But again - know what she's all about before you do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawth, please, you make some good points but...
Paglia is not "patronizing." She is "matronizing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rrrright.... In one of her responses Ms Paglia states:
I'm arguing for the Greco-Roman or pagan line, which is very tolerant of homosexuality and even of man-boy love. I've argued controversially for a reduction in the age of consent to 14 - there are some countries in the world that do have that. I'm open to considering even lowering it further.
Well, how much further? And what's so special about 'man-boy' love - presumably we're not talking about the natural love between father and son here. What about 'woman-girl' love or 'man-girl' love or 'woman-boy' love? Don't we have a name for these already? Or is it the case that 'man-boy' love is acceptable because a) the subordinate party isn't female and b) the transgressor is male? No female will be harmed or accused of doing harm. Whatever the case, the idea of 'man-boy' love sounds just a tad dubious - and very much open to abuse. Why the Greco-Roman tolerance of such things is such a reccommendation beats me. The Romans watched human beings being torn to pieces by wild animals and other human beings for fun, and I'm pretty sure that anal sex between men was a crime punishable by death in ancient Greece. Haven't we moved on from all that? Just because people wore robes and spoke a strange language doesn't mean they weren't sick.
The title of this reply comes from an episode of Southpark in which NAMBLA - the North American Man-Boy Love Association - came to town. It was said by Stan or Kyle just after the head of NAMBLA had given this great long rant about being oppressed and only wanting his rights. It seemed appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger, it is a well-known fact among historians that in ancient Greece, anal sex between men was by no means a punishable "crime". In fact, the ancient Greeks considered homosexual love between men to be 'a very pure' form of love.
The condemnation of homosexual love is not a universal phenomenon, and in Western society, it stems from our Judeo-Christian religious background.
And remember, 14 years used to be the age when men and women (girls and boys by todays standards) were allowed to marry in the middle ages. Probably has something to do with life expectancy in those times and the fact that you didn't need a 20+ years' education to be considered fit for adult life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, that's alright then.
So what exactly is 'man-boy love'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so paglia gets carried away with her affectations of classical greece and rome -- at least she understands their cultures before she remarks on them
the celebration of male beauty in all its aspects was perhaps the central feature of hellenism ... this included homosexuality and boys, but it wasn't all quite as sordid as you seem to imagine ... western philosophy and literature, for example, emerged from it, and "masculinity" would not exist, even in its present reduced state, without it
zeig heil, chilluns -- who wants ta cast that first stone? -- step right on up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duh, am I using the wrong words or something? I know they say that America and England are two countries divided by a common language, but surely it can't be that bad. I asked what man-boy love is, exactly, and what marks it out from man-girl love, woman-girl love and woman-boy love. If I was wrong about the anal sex thing then I'm sorry, it's been a good few years since I heard that and I'll see if I can find any references to it on the internet. The fact that something is a 'well-known fact' doesn't impress me much. It's a 'well-known fact' that most child abusers are men and that women earn only 70 cents for every dollar men earn.
The celebration of male beauty isn't something I have a problem with, by the way. The hagiography of homosexuality is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, the English guy's back again. I typed "ancient greece sex" into Google and got about 50,000 hits. On the first page there's a reference to a book called 'Love, Sex and Marriage - a Guide to the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks' by Nikos Vrissimtzis, a sociologist who specialises in ancient Greece. You can check it out at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/news id_428000/428798.stm.
Here are some relevant snippets:
"Forget the ancients being sexually free. 'Love, Sex and Marriage' portrays the classical Greeks as being anything but liberal."
"It takes a very different point of view to the traditional one that is held around certain sexual practises in ancient Greece... Contrary to popular opinion, that world was not a paradise for homosexuals, and paedaracy was held in such contempt that it was very heavily punished."
"Homosexuals were not, as many believed, openly accepted by society. They were marginalised and punished by law...For example, they could not enter the ancient Agora or participate in ranks and rituals involving the state."
"Ancient Greece was not a liberal society... The sexual habits of its people have been misunderstood due to the misinterpretation of the sources and biased Christian morality."
I'll see if I can find anything else that contradicts those pesky 'well-known facts', and I await with baited breath any description of man-boy love which can't be reduced to the phrase "Dude, you want to f*** children!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that:
1) This is one single source that doesn't agree with the general consensus among historians that homosexuality between men was not such a big deal in ancient Greece.
2) Even this book doesn't say that homosexual intercourse between men was a punishable crime, much less punishable by death, as you asserted.
I am not homosexual, but I seriously don't understand the big problem many people seem to have with it. Two consenting adults can do to each other whatever they please. Why would I care? Why punish them - what for?
As for the age of consent, I consider this a separate issue. I don't think lowering the age of consent to 14 is a good idea in our culture and our time, neither for girls nor boys. I just wanted to point out that the choice of such an age is somewhat arbitrary and seems to depend largely on context (social, economic etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How bizarre; I'm replying to my own postings. Then again, it's 10:56AM here and 5:56AM over there, so you're probably still asleep.
I found an interesting reference to the book I mentioned in my previous posting. It's at http://www.q.co.za/news/1999/9908/990826-sexuality .htm The page is headed 'The gayteway to South Africa', with the word 'gay' emphasised by colour, so it seems a safe bet that this is a pro-homosexual site of some kind.
The article on this page - 'Deviance, if you like' by Ben Rogers - dismisses Vrissimtzis's book as "so much tosh", which is not surprising for a gay website. What is interesting and relevant, however, is the following:
"The Greeks did not stigmatise homosexuality as such, but they did stigmatise men who took a passive or 'womanish' sexual role. Free citizens were expected to dominate their partners - subordination was for women or male slaves, prostitutes and foreigners. It was just because Greek youths were on the way to becoming citizens that their lovers were officially discouraged from penetrating them. The Greeks, indeed, treated adult citizens who allowed themselves to be penetrated with severity: they were stripped of their rights as citizens; in some cases they could even be punished with death."
The article cites a book called 'Greek Homosexuality' by Kenneth Dover, which the article claims is honoured by all classical scholars.
OK, so I wasn't entirely right, but I wasn't entirely wrong either. From what I have found out about the ancient Greek version of man-boy love it seems very duboius. The boy wasn't supposed to enjoy it or even get aroused. Hardly smacks of 'purity' and jolly gay fun, does it?
So how about those Romans, eh? Would we have the WWF if it weren't for the Collosseum? Perhaps we're better off not knowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger, I'm not sure you're responding to me here, but anyay...
All I said in my original post was that stigmatization of male homosexuality is not universal (meaning it does not occur in all societies at all times), and the ancient Greeks did not consider it a crime punishable by death.
As for the "pure form of love", if you care to re-read my words above, it explicitely referred to love between men (as in "not boys"). I never referred to or commented about "man-boy" love, which I find exactly as dubious as all other non-parental forms of "love" between adults and children.
So please, when someone posts information, do not consider that endorsing a particular attitude, opinion or viewpoint. And BTW, not sure what you want to say wrt time of day, but I'm from Germany and just one timezone ahead of you :-)
P.S. As for the Romans, AFAIK they did in fact stigmatize homosexuality very much. Their whole mindset seems to have been very different from the greek, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Phil, what you said - and it's still up there, if you care to look - was:
"...it is a well-known fact among historians that in ancient Greece, anal sex between men was by no means a punishable 'crime'..."
The article I found on a gay website, which referred to some of the most authoritative research on the subject, states that anal penetration of a man was punishable, sometimes by death. I didn't even mention homosexuality in my original posting, it was Paglia's words that contained it. My concern was over her casual remark about man-boy love, which sounded like an intellectualised rationalisation of paedophilia to me.
This discussion is now over.
Regards,
Uberganger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not going to be over just because you like to have the last word :-)
You're somewhat misquoting your source - it states that an adult 'citizen' (as opposed to non-citizen, e.g. a slave, or non-adult) who let himself be penetrated could *sometimes* be punished by death. So, your sweeping assertion was wrong.
And neither was my assertion totally correct, it should have been 'anal sex between men was not generally a punishable crime'. Anyway, seems we both learned something new from this exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, seems we both learned something new from this exchange
And isn't that what these exchanges are all about? ;) FWIW, I found Uberganger's and Phil's debate on this topic fascinating. :)
Hey! Do I have the last word? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not quite the last word, Nightmist. I'm curious as to what your final verdict on Camille Paglia is. The thread kind of strayed off that topic a little. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just say I'm still cautious, Hawth. I haven't had a chance to finally read all those articles. Some who have read my posts on this site know that I have a BIG problem with anyone who believes one sex is superior to another. I also dislike people who want to believe that the human sexes should behave like insect sexes, men being "drones" who are only here for reproduction, and are thus disposable when that chore is complete.
Nevertheless, I will get around to read the rest of those articles, and I will make up my mind at that time. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will the gods show no mercy!
Phil, I'd already admitted that my original 'sweeping assertion' was wrong when I presented the quote which said that under some circumstances anal sex was punishable by death. Changing your line from "by no means a punishable crime" to "not generally a punishable crime" shows that you didn't really know what you were talking about to start with. I found my evidence in a few minutes on the net, so it's not as if this stuff is totally obscure. However, it's clear that the ancient Greeks had sexual attitudes that were, in some instances, totally repellant. Notice, for example, that it's the male citizen on the receiving end of the act who gets punished, not the one doing it. The reason for this was that the one doing it was playing his proper part - the dominant part - whereas the one on the receiving end was behaing like an inferior - a slave, a woman, a foreigner, a prostitute. I only used the anal sex/death thing as an example of ancient Greek imperfection. As an alternative, how about the fact that they kept slaves?
As an aside to this, one has to ask what we mean when we talk of 'the ancient Greeks'. Do we actually know what the ordinary citizenry of that time thought, or do we only have the words of a few exceptional individuals? If historians of the future only had the works of a handful modern writers to judge us by, would they have an honest picture of what most of us are like and what we think? Imagine if all they had were Freud, Andrea Dworkin and Jackie Collins. We'd all be f***ed.
This discussion really is now over. If it continues, will somebody please, please, please shoot both Phil and me.
*****************************************
Back to my original question, of which the above fat-kids' fight was a pointless distraction. I wanted to know what was so different about man-boy love that it could perhaps be accepted, whereas the other adult/child combinations, by implication, could not. It's not as if 14 year-old boys are clamouring to have sexual relationships with adult men. Who wants this? Who wants to make this seem acceptable? Is this an intellectualised rationalisation of (homosexual) paedophilia? And how does this relate to the current psychosexual nonsense about boys being a problem that has to be fixed by 'feminising' them? The casualness with which boys especially are treated as convenient objects for sexual attraction, either because women are seen as too impure (ancient Greece) or too pure (some modern feminism) to have a man's dick anywhere near their action, is something I find repellant. I don't care if some of these people made nice vases or some of them brought about positive changes in law, the very idea of man-boy love, and its supporting mesh of pseudointellectual clap-trap, stinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Uberganger, but this really angers me:
Changing your line from "by no means a punishable crime" to "not generally a punishable crime" shows that you didn't really know what you were talking about to start with.
Saying "OK, so I wasn't entirely right, but I wasn't entirely wrong either." above shows that you didn't really know what you were talking about to start with, either. My God!
I'd already admitted that I wasn't entirely right.
If you want this discussion to end, don't provoke its continuation :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Phil, I admitted I wasn't entirely right in posting #15, you didn't admit your error until posting #18. And as I said, this was just something I threw in to point out that ancient Greek society wasn't exactly perfect, it wasn't the thing I actually wanted a discussion about. Stop being such a spanner.
Somebody out there must belong to the NRA. Do what has to be done - only take Phil out first so that at least I'll die knowing my death isn't in vain.
Does anyone have an opinion on the question I actually wanted opinions on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me sum this up: You wrote above that you're sure homosexual anal intercourse was a crime punishable by death in ancient Greece. All I wanted to say was that the ancient Greeks were
relatively tolerant towards homosexuality.
I admit that what I then wrote was not exactly right, since, as you found out, it seems it was pubishable for a citizen to be anally penetrated in certain cases. Sometimes, it seems, by death. I am not an expert on the ancient Greeks, I learnt about their tolerance and sometimes even condoning of homosexual love at school while studying the (ancient) Greek language. So we both learned something we didn't know before.
In your posting above, you're trying to distort the discussion in retrospect, making it seem as if you had been right from the beginning, and have tried several times to shut me up by unilaterally declaring this discussion over. Why?
Because this discussion made it obvious that you knew nothing at all about ancient Greece before you posted, yet made a wild guess you presented as fact, hoping noone would find out?
As for opinion, I already commented on man-boy love. And the fact that the ancient Greeks had some very strange attitudes towards sexuality (and life in general, IMO) of course don't make those attitudes any better. And I never said that it does, implicitely or explicitely, which I'm not sure you really understood.
That said, I'm off to Bali very early tomorrow morning, so you can now consider this discussion really over, as you've wanted for so long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil, I said that anal sex between men was a crime punishable by death in ancient Greece, which it was - under some circumstances. You said it was by no means a punishable crime, which was flat wrong. I didn't make a wild guess at what I said, it was something I read about ten years ago in an article about misconceptions of ancient Greek society. It being such a long time ago since I read the article - as I said - I couldn't remember anything more than the basic idea that anal sex between men was a punishable crime. I was wrong by degree, you were just wrong. It would have been a pretty lucky guess to have been right about anal sex being a punishable crime in a society everyone seems to think was rampantly and universally homosexual!
The reason I have tried to end this 'discussion' is because it wasn't the thing I wanted a discussion about. The real point I was raising has been practically ignored. Your responses on the matter have been trite, and you've ignored all the points I was trying to raise. What a waste of time.
*******************************************
A few weeks ago I came accross an article written by a disaffected journalist who'd tried to raise men's issues but had become increasingly frustrated by the general uselessness of that which calls itself the men's movement. Letters that are never written, petitions that never get signed, demonstrations that never take place. He likened many in the men's movement to Walter Mitty, daydreaming of a revolution that they never do anything to bring about. His response was to say "Stuff you, guys." He decided he'd go with the flow and write all the usual 'man-bashing' crap, laugh at men's uselessness and so on. Perhaps, he said, if things get bad enough men really will start doing something.
I'm starting to know how the guy felt.
I signed up to mensactivism.org because I wanted to say something about the bravery of many men in the WTC atrocity. I did that. I made my original comment on this page - 'Dude, You Want To F*** Children!' - because I felt there was something very suspicious about the idea of man-boy love as something distinct from man-girl love, woman-girl love and woman-boy love, and I wanted some views on that. Instead I ended up having a totally retarded argument with a total f***ing idiot about some incidental remark I made which was wrong only by degree. I haven't had so much as one intelligent word from anyone about the point I raised. If this was the NOW website and someone had raised a point about a 'masculinist' who'd said they'd be tolerant of man-girl love, they'd probably already have started one of their action plans against the guy by now.
If the men's movement can't do any better than this, it doesn't deserve to get anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few weeks ago I came accross an article written by a disaffected journalist who'd tried to raise men's issues but had become increasingly frustrated by the general uselessness of that which calls itself the men's movement. Letters that are never written, petitions that never get signed, demonstrations that never take place. He likened many in the men's movement to Walter Mitty, daydreaming of a revolution that they never do anything to bring about. His response was to say "Stuff you, guys." He decided he'd go with the flow and write all the usual 'man-bashing' crap, laugh at men's uselessness and so on. Perhaps, he said, if things get bad enough men really will start doing something.
Hi, Uber. Mind giving me the name/e-mail address of that journalist? I'd like to inform him about a few things. Honestly, if he's willing to move to the other side just because he's impatient with the men's movement, it doesn't sound as if he's actually very concerned with men's issues after all. He sounds like an attention-starved propagandist rather than a journalist (I am a journalist myself, mind you).
Also, let me point out that, like any revolution, the men's movement is going to take time. There are people like I used to be who are involved in the movement and support it, but who sit cautiously in the background until they are certain they may speak up without destroying themselves. There IS that fear among some in the men's movement, that speaking their minds on these issues will cause them or their families harm in some way.
I can assure you, though, that I no longer have that fear, and I am constantly writing letters and signing petitions. See the Ford Discrimination post for my latest letter to a man-hating bigot.
Again, revolutions take time. American colonists were oppressed by King George for years before the Boston Tea Party. The tea tax was simply the final straw. The riot on the Bastille which started the French revolution was a result of years of heartache and frustration, and then a final straw.
Yes, there are those of us who remain silent, hoping the men's movement will catch on, and waiting until it does. Then there are those of us who are anything but silent: Scott, for one, who has been working hard on his domestic violence project for weeks now, and has drawn a great deal of attention to it. There's Marc Angelucci, an attorney who took a stand against the sexist courtroom "respect" practices of forcing only men to remove their hats in court by borrowing a neighbor's hat and wearing it throughout the court proceedings, much to the consternation of the judge. There's the man who allegedly stole confidential Ford human resources documents in order to expose the company's discrimination against white males. And then there's the man who just wants to remain part of his children's lives, the man who dares to face his ex-spouse in court to fight for his rights, AGAINST the odds, mind you, considering courts favor mothers.
Feel free to say whatever you want about any issue on this site, Uber. You're welcome to opine as much as you want, but don't call someone an "idiot" just for disagreeing with you, and don't take it so personally when they do. I know that's difficult. I sometimes tend to take responses to my posts personally as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
I don't have the e-mail address of that guy, unfortunately; it was just one of those things I found while following links. I thought he was a sellout.
Yes, it takes time, and it takes the moment. Feminism rattled away for a long time before the events of the sixties gave it the springboard it needed. Let's hope we don't have to wait quite that long.
I hope Phil enjoys Bali.
Regards,
Uberganger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did a search for the Walter Mitty thing I mentioned. I couldn't find the original, but I found a copy of it at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7596/i ntmda.html
It was written by a guy called Robert Sides. You can find more of his stuff on www.backlash.com - if the Walter Mitty thing needles, I suggest you also have a look at:
http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1999/5-may9 9/side0599.html
This covers some of the same ground as the first article. I don't like a lot of what Sides says, but I also think he has a point.
There's an e-mail link on the second article.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
