Camille Paglia: Sarah Palin Is The Savior Of "Third World Feminism"

Camille Paglia's enormous girl crush on Sarah Palin only intensifies with every gaffe and blunder. In her new Salon column, Paglia covers a lot of the same ground found in her other Palin-loving salvos: mean old liberals despise Sarah because they're big city latte drinking jerks who hate America. "So she doesn't speak the King's English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes," Paglia writes swoonily.

But the provocateur's latest pro-Palin essay takes a weird turn into nonsenseland with this sentence: "Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World." Wait…what?

What a vast oversimplification of the feminism of literally hundreds of countries, each with its own set of cultural values, economics, literature, and religion. How does Sarah Palin, a woman who has barely traveled outside of the United States, who favors "small town," "real" (read: white) America, who is staunchly Christian, help expand feminism into the Third World? Solely by being a pro-life working mom? Of course, Paglia barely explains why Palin is a savior for feminism in developing countries, probably because she's a maverick!

In addition, as Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte pointed out earlier this year, the governments with the greatest percentage of women "including Uganda, India, Pakistan and Costa Rica — have laws mandating that women hold a certain number of seats in some of their lawmaking bodies" Hmm, that sounds dangerously close to the dreaded socialism, and something small-government loving Palin would surely not approve of.

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can take Paglia seriously as a feminist voice when she's so clearly and grossly biased. She hates, hates Hillary Clinton, as she's expressed on several occasions, mocking her looks as well as her personal life. In this essay, Paglia first says, "I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue." But guess what! When her beloved Palin brought up Ayers, Paglia became worried! "My concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign…his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed." Is she serious with this shit?

Paglia decries what she describes as "A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage," Democrats displayed when dealing with Sarah Palin. If she wants to see a shocking level of irrational emotionalism, I suggest she look in the friggin' mirror.

Obama Surfs Through [Salon]
Checking In On Feminism Overseas [LAT]

Earlier: Camille Paglia Fighting Old Personal Battles With New Palin Sword

Contact information for this author is not available.

publish on Facebook

Upload an image | Add an image URL ×

Image URL: ×

Youtube URL: ×

Choose a file to upload:

×

Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Loading comments ...

Earlier discussions | Other discussions | Show all discussions | Show featured discussions only | Expand all threads Collapse all threads
Start a new discussion