I’m a scholar of feminist theory. This article was a lot of words to say “I haven’t read enough philosophy or feminist political theory to understand Butler’s writings.” Likewise, the writing regarding Camille Paglia shows an extremely superficial knowledge of her body of work. This essay cannot be considered a good criticism of Butler’s work when it comes across as simply saying Butler is too hard to decipher therefore paglia is invigorating. Yet, pintor finds deep meaning in paglia’s flawed theory. One of pintor’s arguments is that paglia isn’t a climate denier, she is revolting against nihilism. But, when Butler speaks about finding a new language to throw off oppression for all people who identify as a woman (anyone who reads Butler must read Lorde) arguing as Lorde did, that the master’s tools won’t dismantle the master’s house, pintor’s ears and mind are closed. Paglia is only relevant by taking whatever conservative value is popular in order to undo the work of serious feminist theorists like Butler. I’ve read both extensively. If you are a woman, who walks away from Paglia’s life work feeling affirmed, I think your motives in this movement should be deeply questioned. Nietzsche, the Greeks, Derrida, Joyce, Strauss, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Kojève, Blanchot, Artaud, Barthes, Bataille, Husserl, Lévinas, Saussure, Marx, Hegel, and Foucault (just to name a few) are all difficult reads. Yet, pintor singles out Butler as lofty and difficult to read. A woman who can undoubtedly stand with these philosophers shoulder to shoulder. Also, many of the women from history who Paglia uses to defend her terrible theories had extremely complex identities that would fall in line with Butler’s body work. Butler’s theories are not well summarized here, nor Paglia’s, for that matter. Emily Dickinson, for example wasn’t a puritanical hermaphrodite with a sadomasochistic streak as Paglia argues. She was disabled (agoraphobia and suspected epilepsy or POTs and iritis) and she was bisexual. Dickinson’s body of work exists at the nexus of these identities. Instead, Paglia eradicates Dickinson’s identities that inform her work and assigns meaning to solely fit Paglia’s narratives. Paglia may be momentarily satisfying but there is little philosophical, historical, or even scientific evidence for her theories. Paglia believes there is a basis for sexual stereotypes that is biological negating years of scientific research that shows the opposite. Paglia writes "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." Are we supposed to believe that Paglia writing that "male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendance. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on” is somehow invigorating compared to Butler’s work on how society pathologizes and criminalizes important acts of self-definition for women? There’s many other flaws with this essay but lack of substance and knowledge of both writers is the most glaring.
I’m a scholar of feminist theory. This article was a lot of words to say “I haven’t read enough philosophy or feminist political theory to understand Butler’s writings.” Likewise, the writing regarding Camille Paglia shows an extremely superficial knowledge of her body of work. This essay cannot be considered a good criticism of Butler’s work when it comes across as simply saying Butler is too hard to decipher therefore paglia is invigorating. Yet, pintor finds deep meaning in paglia’s flawed theory. One of pintor’s arguments is that paglia isn’t a climate denier, she is revolting against nihilism. But, when Butler speaks about finding a new language to throw off oppression for all people who identify as a woman (anyone who reads Butler must read Lorde) arguing as Lorde did, that the master’s tools won’t dismantle the master’s house, pintor’s ears and mind are closed. Paglia is only relevant by taking whatever conservative value is popular in order to undo the work of serious feminist theorists like Butler. I’ve read both extensively. If you are a woman, who walks away from Paglia’s life work feeling affirmed, I think your motives in this movement should be deeply questioned. Nietzsche, the Greeks, Derrida, Joyce, Strauss, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Kojève, Blanchot, Artaud, Barthes, Bataille, Husserl, Lévinas, Saussure, Marx, Hegel, and Foucault (just to name a few) are all difficult reads. Yet, pintor singles out Butler as lofty and difficult to read. A woman who can undoubtedly stand with these philosophers shoulder to shoulder. Also, many of the women from history who Paglia uses to defend her terrible theories had extremely complex identities that would fall in line with Butler’s body work. Butler’s theories are not well summarized here, nor Paglia’s, for that matter. Emily Dickinson, for example wasn’t a puritanical hermaphrodite with a sadomasochistic streak as Paglia argues. She was disabled (agoraphobia and suspected epilepsy or POTs and iritis) and she was bisexual. Dickinson’s body of work exists at the nexus of these identities. Instead, Paglia eradicates Dickinson’s identities that inform her work and assigns meaning to solely fit Paglia’s narratives. Paglia may be momentarily satisfying but there is little philosophical, historical, or even scientific evidence for her theories. Paglia believes there is a basis for sexual stereotypes that is biological negating years of scientific research that shows the opposite. Paglia writes "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." Are we supposed to believe that Paglia writing that "male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendance. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on” is somehow invigorating compared to Butler’s work on how society pathologizes and criminalizes important acts of self-definition for women? There’s many other flaws with this essay but lack of substance and knowledge of both writers is the most glaring.