Camille Paglia's online advice for the lostA S K C A M I L L E
and searching souls of millennial America
This is a weird time for me — I'm a Clinton supporter and I also think sexual harassment is a big problem for women in the workplace. So I'm wondering: Should feminists rally to the cause of Paula Jones? Signed, Politically confused Dear confused:
On "The Larry King Show" in May 1994, I was the only leading feminist to support Paula Jones' claim and declare that her charges are far more serious than Anita Hill's against Clarence Thomas. (A transcript is in my book, "Vamps & Tramps.") I was appearing with Eleanor Smeal, that philistine former czarina of NOW, who was on "Crossfire" a few weeks ago, glumly debating the same issue and trying to cover up her former scorn for Paula Jones. It's great that the mainstream press has finally gotten around to giving Paula Jones her due. But it's scandalous that the nudge had to come from American Lawyer, a trade journal. In 1994 David Brinkley grandly proclaimed it inconceivable that any educated man would behave as Paula Jones alleged Clinton did — that is, drop his pants and demand oral sex from a stranger. (I hooted, "Doesn't Brinkley know any gay guys?") All feminists who sincerely support sexual harassment guidelines should indeed defend Paula Jones, since Bill Clinton's alleged behavior broke every rule. She was on the job at the time, and he was her ultimate boss; he illegally used state troopers for a private escapade; and he began his approach by coercively mentioning a friendship with her immediate boss. Feminist leaders would have tarred and feathered any Republican who carried on like this. As a Clinton Democrat, I think that feminism has injured itself by its shameless partisanship — its incestuous overinvolvement with corrupt Democratic party politics. Dear Camille:
Dear Marrying:
The high divorce rate in the U.S. — a direct result of my generation of
women rightly demanding independence and self-actualization — has been
disastrous for children. As a teacher for 26 years, I have seen the results
in my students. My generation had more self-confidence, coming from the
security of our upbringing — which we denounced as stifling and conformist.
All these broken homes today, combined with the transience, impersonality, and
commercialism of American society, have stunted the emotional development of
the young. As a consequence, the arts may suffer (as portended by the quick
decline of grunge rock).
But what can be done about this? As a libertarian, I oppose any attempt by
the government to control private behavior. Marriages ought to be formed or
dissolved according to personal desire or whim. But much more attention
needs to be paid to public education and cultural enrichment in America,
which can partly restore what has been lost in the perhaps irreversible
breakdown of the family. Dear Camille:
Dear Slim:
I'm absolutely delighted with Madeleine Albright's confirmation as Secretary of
State. It brings American women one step closer to winning the White House.
I like Albright's tough, pugnacious style, born of harsh experience in
Eastern Europe. She's not one of these sentimental, yuppie feminists with
their drippy "self-esteem" fetishes.
Albright's broad face and zaftig physique give her moxie in closeups on TV.
But she seemed awfully small next to The Men on the podium at Clinton's
presentation briefing. This is a real problem for future women leaders.
Tall, athletic women like Christine Todd Whitman exude natural authority
because of their size and bearing. The commander-in-chief has to be able to
command the respect of the armed forces.
As for Rosie O'Donnell, I'm so sick of the brainless overpraise of her
shrill show. She's oafishly unfunny and phony to boot. I liked her as a
newcomer stand-up comedian, but her humor's become adolescent and
predictable. And that forced Long Island accent that she no longer has in
real life — ugh!
Media critics servilely accepted O'Donnell's comparison of
herself to Mike Douglas and Merv Griffin. These were wonderful hosts who
created a cordial, relaxed ambience for the guests and audience. They never
intruded with O'Donnell's neurotic, frenetic artificiality.
And don't get me started on O'Donnell's ostentatious parading of her
passion for Tom Cruise — a diversionary strategy, if the tabloids are to be
believed about her real private life. If the latter is true, O'Donnell may
be the biggest pop hypocrite since — well, Lily Tomlin, Jodie Foster and that
self-neutered worrywart, Ellen de Generes. Dear Camille:
Dear Solo:
In the present gay leadership vacuum (you know something's wrong
when a bland, scrub-faced walk-in like Candace Gingrich ends up as a major
gay spokesman), the gay legal organizations have badly mishandled the public
relations end of this campaign.
Historically, marriage was intended for the protection and provision of
women and children. After the industrial revolution, when women could leave
home to get jobs, marriage lost that function.
Because of the sacred meaning of marriage in all major religions, it would
have been better to avoid the hot-button term "marriage" and simply argue for
equality of gay partnerships before the law. Furthermore, too many gay
complaints are without merit, since inheritance of property or hospital
visits and medical decision-making can be settled in advance through wills.
If gay marriages are legalized anywhere in the U.S., Alison and I will
travel there and have such a ceremony. However, it's time that more
intellectually sophisticated groups like the ACLU (to which I belong) take
over the gay marriage campaign.
Napoleon began the process of detaching marriage from religion when
he created civil marriages in France. We Americans should complete that
process by stripping from government every vestige of its implicit
endorsement of Judeo-Christian concepts and forms.
My position is extreme. I see no justification for the government's
banning of polygamy either — a practice of the Hebrew patriarchs found in many
world cultures. The Mormons tried to revive polygamy in the 19th
century, until they were unjustly persecuted by the government.
None of the official gay spokesmen has been able to deal with the
issues of polygamy and incest that conservative opponents of gay marriage
keep raising. As usual, we need less p.c. ideology and more historical
research and searching self-analysis. Puzzled in Pittsburgh? Distraught in Dallas? Seek the advice of our online oracle Camille Paglia by e-mailing your question to: AskCamille@salonmagazine.com |