I’ve been exposed to Camille Paglia’s work in small doses—and I use the word exposed the same way one might describe exposure to a toxin. I have never read one of her books in full. That said, I have been dragged to more than a few of her events over the years, and my takeaway has never changed.
She doesn’t offer original thought. She offers performance. Instead of advancing ideas that are clearly her own, she builds entire routines out of people who are smarter than she is, declares them wrong by fiat, and then substitutes theatrical certainty for actual analytical rebuttal. Her method is always the same, and it sounds like this:
“This person, who is smarter than I am, is wrong because I say so. Here is why I say so. Now allow me to drone on in anapestic pentameter to lull you into a state of fatigue so you won’t question my glaring lack of originality or intellectual depth. I’ll continue piling on so much pseudo-intellectual bullshit that you will forget the very thing you meant to challenge five minutes ago.”
The meter is not incidental. It is rhythmic. Incantatory. Half anapestic gallop, half ritualized iambic sway. It creates the illusion of structure where none exists. The listener hears music and mistakes it for meaning. By the time the rhythm releases you, the argument is long gone—assuming it ever arrived. This is not scholarship. It is pseudo-intellectual theatre. Her appeal is not driven by ideas. It is driven by audience psychology. She traffics in validation, not insight. Her core audience reliably clusters around two groups.
The first consists of women who have uncritically swallowed the media narrative that she is a trailblazing intellectual and who lean on that narrative as an external validator for their own lack of traction. They are not interested in whether her claims hold up. They are interested in what her symbolic status allows them to feel about themselves. They get to point to faux intellectual drivel and use it to justify their lack of success.
The second consists of effeminate men who resent their fathers, distrust masculine authority, and mistake theatrical rebellion for courage. These are the men who were supposed to grow into capable sons and instead ossified into anxious, self-doubting observers of adulthood. They cloak that failure in irony. They outsource their identity formation to performative intellectual figures. They posture as subversives while living entirely inside the safety rails built by the very structures they pretend to resist.
Both groups are more than willing to hand over their money for her so-called “scholarship,” which functions far more reliably as emotional anesthesia. In that narrow business sense, I do tip my hat to her. She understood her audience perfectly.
She was chosen by the media because she checked two essential boxes at exactly the right cultural moment: female and lesbian. She recognized the opportunity, exploited it with professional competence, and rode that positioning to institutional safety, cultural prestige, and financial success. Strategically, that is skillful. Intellectually, it proves nothing.
Her rhetorical offspring—Anna Khachiyan and Dasha Nekrasova most visibly—run the same playbook. Both rely on stylized cadence, curated vocabulary, and a deliberate affect that mimics literary meter. They speak in that same ritualized iambic lilt and anapestic surge Paglia normalized decades earlier, as if rhythmic delivery itself were proof of thought. Structure becomes the stand-in for substance. Confidence becomes the stand-in for coherence. The listener hears performance and mistakes it for penetration.
Where I depart most violently from this entire ecosystem is on the matter of personal accountability, and this is where the argument usually collapses into convenient abstractions. The distinction between access and outcome is constantly erased. Equal opportunity to enter a system is not the same thing as equal likelihood of dominating its highest tier. Those are structurally different problems, governed by different forces. Pipeline effects versus apex selection are likewise treated as interchangeable when they are not. Early-stage access, mentorship, encouragement, and institutional filtering determine who gets into a competitive track. What happens at the apex is governed almost entirely by extreme performance thresholds, not representational aspiration. Finally, institutional lag versus biological ceiling is where fantasy fully detaches from reality. Cultural barriers can delay inclusion for a time. They cannot abolish underlying physical or cognitive limits that define performance ceilings in apex competitive environments.
Women are not kept out of the NBA by patriarchy, policy, or prohibition, nor should they ever be. They simply do not meet the extreme physical requirements the league demands. The NBA is an apex athletic institution built on size, speed, strength, and violence of motion. Should some woman appear (you know, stride out of the cornfields with God-given talent, standing 7 feet tall with a can’t-miss three-point shot) who can earn a place on the roster, she should get it. Her gender should never be a reason to deny her access and opportunity. Also, it should never be used to guarantee an outcome. I am not there in the NBA because I am old, out of shape, and I lack the ability. I am not shaping young minds in elite academic institutions because I am secretly barricaded by invisible forces. I am not there because I haven't any message to resonate with young minds infected by the college experience.
I do not kneel at the altar of hucksters. Self-respect and critical thinking prevent me from doing so. I live in reality. And for all the mythology Paglia’s worshippers toss around, I have never—not once—received an invitation to the He-Man Woman-Haters Club. Never got an invitation to the annual meeting on embossed stationery. I was never included in any distribution list for the male cabal minutes. I never even got a Christmas card! All I ever saw, while waiting for my alleged marching orders, were competent, qualified women advancing on merit alone—women to admire.
Paglia does not offend me. She does not threaten me. She simply does not interest me. Her work leans on spectacle, not rigor. On cadence, not clarity. On psychological need, not intellectual necessity. She has her audience. I am impressed by how efficiently she monetized them.
What I reject is the demand that admiration must be treated as proof of depth. It is not. She built a career. She navigated media currents with competence. She secured prestige and money. All of that is real. What remains absent is originality of thought that can survive without costume, cadence, or cult.
No comments:
Post a Comment