Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Gender studies Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Camille Paglia Talk Archive 1

WP:CRIT says this: 'In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet.' This, it now seems to me, is sensible, and so are the remarks by Jimbo Wales, which are quoted there: 'And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.'

On those grounds, I think much of what is in the criticism section of this article is of dubious worth. Specifically, the criticisms of Paglia by Beth Loffreda, Mary Rose Kasraie, Marianne Noble, Sue O'Sullivan, and Kevin Clark could all probably be deleted, and there would be no significant loss. None of them could be properly incorporated into the article, as per Wales's suggestion (Noble's criticism about Paglia's belief in 'biological determinism' is wildly wrong, as I've already pointed out). Most of the other criticisms, including those by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Naomi Wolf, Molly Ivans, and Katha Pollitt, are probably relevant and should stay. They are the kind of thing that could be worked into the main body of the article with enough effort. These six women are or were much more prominent and important than Paglia's other more obscure academic critics. They matter because they are the sort of people Paglia has replied to and commented on; this makes mention of them suitable to a biographical article. That hardly applies to the other critics. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections? Really? Then I'm making the change. The question that has to be asked is whether what is in that criticism section would be mentioned in a normal encyclopedia, and the answer is obviously that most of it wouldn't, since it has no biographical relevance. When a criticism section includes sentences that start with something like, 'Literary critic Mary Rose Kasraie echoed Lofreda's analysis...' then you can see that the material is pointless. How many critics who 'echo' other critics need to be mentioned? I think none. Skoojal (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is preliminary to eliminating the criticism section totally. Everything in it can and should be integrated into other sections of the article. Skoojal (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that material was recently restored by an IP editor. I deleted it again. Whoever did that really should have had the courtesy to discuss the matter here first and address my arguments. Why it's 'important' when one academic critic echoes another academic critic, I don't know. Skoojal (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should mention the fact that Paglia has been willing to consider the suggestion that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. There are two sources for this. One is the Continuum article (containing the accusation about Foucault) that has already been used as a source for this article. The other is a brief comment by Paglia in a Salon column. The Salon column is mentioned by the Perth Group of AIDS dissidents here [1] and is also mentioned on the Virus Myth website here [2]. The column itself is here [3]. Besides the intrinsic interest of this subject, Paglia's comments about this issue are important because they may help readers trying to know what to make of her suggestion that Foucault deliberately spread HIV. Skoojal (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the obvious: the accusation that someone deliberately spread HIV might possibly look less serious if the person making it also is willing to consider that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. Huw Christie pointed this out in the Continuum interview: 'If there's no virus, it's absurd, however.' Skoojal (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the word 'certain' from a sentence about Paglia's hostility to French thinkers. This might seem a minor edit, but it needs a full explanation. I can understand why that 'certain' was placed there - it was presumably to make people aware that Paglia wasn't hostile to all French writers, and to make sure that she didn't sound simply anti-French. But the problem with that, frankly, is that Paglia really is anti-French. She has made clear that she has problems with France as a country. It's true that she has given a few French writers some credit, but this is an exception to her basic stance. I think that, since the mention of Paglia's praise of Gaston Bachelard, and partial praise of Roland Barthes and Gilles Deleuze has been added to the article, there is enough material in that section to make the nuanced character of Paglia's views apparent, so the 'certain' does not need to be there. I removed it mainly because 'certain French writers' is unhelpful and irritatingly vague. 'Modern' isn't very good either, but it's still better than 'certain.' Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of Paglia's praise of Simone de Beauvoir and use of Jean-Paul Sartre (he's quoted in Sexual Personae) needs to added here, and I'll probably do this soon. Skoojal (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was already something about Paglia's view of de Beauvoir in the article, of course, but I have added more. Skoojal (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tell me where Paglia compared feminists to the Unification Church, because this emphatically needs a source. I gather that it's somewhere in Vamps and Tramps, but I can't find it right now. Skoojal (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paglia has refered to "victim-centered" feminists as "moonies or cultists", and someone changed it in the article to the "Unification Church" in an attempt to be more politically correct. She says it in more than one place, but I know it was in this [4] article.--208.58.202.116 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should make clear that Paglia used the term 'Moonies'; otherwise, it misrepresents what she said, and doesn't capture its full scorn. But I need a source before I can make that change, and that link seems to have nothing relevant. Skoojal (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to the Unification Church because it wasn't sourced, but have now re-added it, with a source from Sex, Art, and American Culture. I believe Paglia makes this comparison in Vamps and Tramps too, and it would be good to add that as an additional source. Skoojal (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads, 'Elise Sutton, a dominatrix advocating female domination of males, describes Paglia as a female supremacist and a friend.[20]' The article on Elise Sutton says that this person's identity is dubious, and that 'Elise Sutton' may not be a single person. 'Sutton' may describe Paglia as a friend, but Paglia has never mentioned Sutton as far as I am aware, so this looks dubious. I think it should probably be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for making the article say that Paglia has taken controversial stands such as rejecting the idea that gays are born that way and being skeptical about global warming was to make clear that these are only two of a wide range of issues where Paglia has taken provocative or unconventional positions. The reworded version of this makes it sound as though homosexuality and global warming are the only two cases where Paglia has done this, which they certainly aren't. Skoojal (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be changing this back in the near future if no argument as to why I shouldn't is offered. Skoojal (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal, would you please explicate your removal of 1.) the thesis of Sexual Personae 2.) Your elimination of the academic reaction to Sexual Personae.

The first seems particularly vital because her sexual theory is her single most famous idea and the theory that undergirds all her other work. An equivalent omission would be noting Chomsky's contribution to linguistics without providing a synopsis of that contribution, which would clearly be unacceptable. Thanks a lot! --208.58.202.116 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what you described as the thesis of Sexual Personae because it wasn't clear to me that it was useful. Maybe some version of it would be OK; I will consider this. As for the academic reaction to Sexual Personae, I removed it because it has no relevance to Paglia's biography. She has barely mentioned her academic critics, and there's little reason why she should. Also, it suffered from the 'one more critic' syndrome of people saying the same things. Skoojal (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the description of thesis ('Sexual Personae presents a highly unorthodox psychosexual theory, contending that women dominate the sexual matrix by virtue of their reproductive powers. Nature and women are bound together by qualities of luridness, fluidity, murkiness, and uncanniness, which together form the broad catergory of the chthonian. Men, horrified by female powers they can neither exert nor control, attempt to bring Apollonian order, symmetry, and logic to nature, and their efforts to evade the implacable forces of the Dionysian manifest themselves in art, literature, and Western civilization') was either well expressed or fully accurate. The word 'highly' doesn't need to be there; unorthodox is a strong enough word. Also, the source cited (a self-published article by Kevin Cassell) is dubious. Skoojal (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC

Thanks for getting back to me; your response has been helpful. First, I would reiterate that the thesis of Sexual Personae is what launched her to prominence and which undergirds all her subsequent scholarly work. As of right now, the article doesn't provide even a single sentence describing the content of Sexual Personae.

By all means, edit for accuracy and sylistic improvement (I'm amenable to dropping "highly"), but it is inappropriate for you to remove Paglia's most important intellectual scholarly contribution wholesale from the article.

If the citation is a concern, I would propose that Sexual Personae be cited rather than a intermediary source.

As to the issue of her academic critics, Paglia has of course addressed them at great length and repeatedly throughout her career. In Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders, for example, Paglia specifically criticizes the work of prominent academics including classicist Martha Nussbaum, the Lacanian-driven Diana Trilling, New Historicist Stephen Greenblatt, Marxist Terry Eagleton, anti-foundationalist Stanley Fish, Foucault, Derrida, post-structuralist David Halperin, and many others. She's also famously criticized Judith Butler, praised her mentor Harold Bloom, etc. Furthermore, she has written essay after essay addressing the state of academe, so clearly she cares deeply about what's going on there. And incidentally, even if she ignored her response from academe, which anyway she has not, her refusal to address it would not foreclose its inclusion. See, for example, the inclusion in wikipedia of Martha Nussbaum's critique of Judith Buter to which Judith Butler never responded.

I echo your concern of the "one more critic" concern, and propose that their critiques be condensed so that anyone interested might follow the link directly to the source.

Finally, you have removed John Updike's much-discussed response to Sexual Personae. He is not an academic and his review is substantively different than any other that appears. Both Updike's status as a literary giant and the unique content of his review justifies its inclusion.

Thanks for helping us reach a consensus on these matters, and I shall wait to hear your assent or further thoughts before making alterations so as to avoid further editing conflicts--208.58.202.116 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to having some summary of Sexual Personae - it depends on how it is written and what is used as a source. Sexual Personae itself would certainly be better than the article by Cassell. While Paglia has certainly responded to and criticised many academics, this usually has little to do with their criticisms of her; she has criticised the people you mention for quite other reasons. It did occur to me that John Updike's response to Sexual Personae was the one thing I removed that might usefully go back into the article, but I'm still not entirely sure it should.

The contents of other wikipedia articles are a different issue. Although I am in no hurry to remove it, since I need to work with other editors, I personally don't think that having Nussbaum's criticism of Butler in the Butler article is a good idea. Skoojal (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh says he's a fan of her in this New York Times Magazine article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?pagewanted=9&_r=1&ref=magazine Might this interesting fact be incorporated into the article somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.70.68 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the 5th paragraph in the "Overview" section. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have shifted the mention of Paglia's place in the Prospect's list of the world's top intellectuals several times; more recently it has occured to me to wonder whether it should really be in the article at all. My problem with it is that I don't think it shows anything about anything except for Prospect (and of ocurse Foreign Policy) itself. OK that does it; I've made up my mind that it's going out. There's enough information about Paglia's importance in the article without phoney measures of it of this sort. Skoojal (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think it is irrelevant or 'phoney'. It seems to me to be highly notable. Could you elaborate on why you think that it should be removed? — goethean ॐ 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you think that every intellectual who was rated on that poll should have their place on it mentioned in articles about them, it is arbitrary to include Paglia's place on it here. My view is that polls of this kind are silly, and tell us nothing objective about anyone's importance - as if it really were possible to tell how important an intellectual someone is by conducting a poll! Mentioning the poll in the article treats it more seriously than it deserves to be treated. But as I said, I'm not going to edit war over this. Skoojal (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the poll's methodology; presumably they polled academics and intellectuals and summarized the results. I don't see how this makes it meaningless, phoney, etc. — goethean ॐ 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you think that every intellectual who was rated on that poll should have their place on it mentioned in articles about them, it is arbitrary to include Paglia's place on it here.

That would be fine with me, but more importantly, it is off-topic and irrelevant to the question of whether it should be included in this article. — goethean ॐ 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poll was phoney because it reflects people's subjective opinions and nothing more. Their opinions about how important an intellectual someone is prove nothing about their objective importance. Actually, I think Paglia ranks much higher than number 20, so that silly poll trivializes her. Skoojal (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders how you plan to rank intellectuals in a purely "objective" manner which is a reflection of something other than "people's subjective opinions". Are you going to ask the pope or something? — goethean ॐ 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not plan to rank intellectuals by importance at all. It's a silly, pointless enterprise. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some reconsideration, I have once again removed the mention of that poll from the article. The results of Prospect's more recent poll do not include Paglia, and it is obviously misleading to mention the old poll but not the new one (the rather odd results of which prevent one from taking that poll seriously anyway). Skoojal (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a link to the new one? (I'm not checking up on you, just interested.) — goethean ॐ 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new poll's results are here [5]. I found this through Arts and Letters Daily, which includes a pertinent comment that should prevent any sensible person from taking this poll seriously. Skoojal (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skoojal has again removed the Paglia article from Category:American Roman Catholics with the following statement: I have again removed the Catholic label, because it is a serious piece of misinformation. It remains misinformation regardless of whether Paglia insists on calling herself a Catholic.

If you do not consider Paglia's own published, repeated, explicit claims, both written and spoken, that she is a Catholic to be evidence that she is an adherent to Catholicism, what does constitute evidence for adherence to a particular religion? Are you going to follow her to Sunday Mass? On the Barack Obama page, we consider his own consideration that he is black as sufficient evidence that he is, indeed, black. Adherence to a particular religion seems to be an even more straight-forward case of "I am if I say I am". I the face of this compelling evidence, as well as the fact that three users [6] [7] [8] in addition to myself have expressed agreement with the placement of the category, I think that you should reconsider your opinion. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Paglia has called herself a pagan. She has also made it clear that she is an atheist. In Paglia's private definition of 'Catholic', it may be compatible with being a pagan atheist, but that is not how the Catholic Church sees things. Paglia has the right to her own private definition of 'Catholic', but that does not mean Wikipedia should accept it. Skoojal (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Paglia has also called herself a Catholic, but it is not reasonable to interpret such statements as anything but a way of saying that she has a cultural affiliation with Catholicism. They are not statements about religious belief, which is what the Catholic category refers to. Notice how Paglia says, 'I'm not a practicing Catholic' and calls herself 'a lapsed Catholic.' Both of these statements place her outside Catholicism. I stand by the claim that calling Paglia a Catholic is misinformation. Skoojal (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but that is not how the Catholic Church sees things

Actually, I don't think that the church has weighed in on the matter of Paglia's religion. Paglia, on the other hand, has. You have chosen to reject her words, but four other users on this talk page have accepted them. You should revert yourself. — goethean ॐ 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could stick her with Sinead O'Connor in Category:Catholics not in communion with Rome, except that she hasn't been excommunicated. — goethean ॐ 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that the Roman Catholic Church accepts pagan atheists as Catholics, then this ceases to be a serious discussion. I do not think that Paglia said that being Catholic was her religion, and it wouldn't make it true if she had said that. Again, I suggest asking for a third opinion. The discussions to which you refer are old, and do not prove that there is a current consensus for labelling Paglia a Catholic. Skoojal (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Paglia may be a feminist, but please don't edit the article so that this comes first! Paglia is primarily a literary critic, and that's the really interesting thing about her, not her feminism. I am considering removing the "Feminist criticism" category, because I'm not at all sure that Sexual Personae is an explicitly feminist book. Skoojal (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per my edit summary, I think that author should come before "teacher". Social critic can before that if you want. — goethean ॐ 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, author does come before teacher. Where's the problem? Skoojal (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed feminist before author, because she is a well-known feminist author. forestPIG 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my edit summary, I think Paglia's feminism is less important than her being a literary critic (and I suspect Paglia would agree with that, not that this should be the decisive issue). Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking at this as if it were an order of importance. It just doesn't make sense to keep the two words apart when they can compliment each other. forestPIG 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you write that Paglia is a "feminist author", then you are reducing her writing to feminism, as if nothing that she wrote falls outside "feminism." Please don't do that. It's misleading. Skoojal (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is patently untrue. forestPIG 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Skoojal's point --- Paglia is not merely a feminist author. She is not defined primarily by her feminism, and her main topic is not feminism (it is just as much poetry, art, sex, film, nature) and although her writings are all mediated by feminism, they are also mediated by other factors. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters that much anyway. forestPIG 23:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the section about paglia and feminism, it reads like a laundry list of people's objections to paglia.

what about what paglia has contributed? what about writing on her actual positions, detailed and explained, on the varying issues within feminism and culture? as it is now, it reads like she's contributed nothing valid to feminism, which i wholly disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phospholipid (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Paglia and Feminism section looks that way because I dumped all the criticism of Paglia by feminists that wouldn't fit anywhere else into it. As I said at the time, it wasn't a very satisfactory way of proceeding, but it was still better than the way it was before. If you have some concrete proposals to make to improve the section, then let's hear them. Skoojal (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updike, a preeminent author and literary critic, wrote an essay reviewing Paglia's work; being of a literary constitution, his focus is decidedly literary: he is troubled by her tendency to hammer with declarative assertions rather than write interrogative sentences that elicit flexible tentative insights. He says this more cogently than I and the article doesn't require the paraphrasing I've just offered. As I say, this is an assessment by an extremely prominent author and literary critic that directly addresses Sexual Personae.--208.58.202.116 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I mean, I'm honestly sure you think this is an important assesment of Paglia's work, but I can't see that particular review as having any importance for a discussion of her life. This is an encyclopedia entry, not an essay. Skoojal (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]