Feminism: in conversation with Camille Paglia

Internationally renowned American social critic Camille Paglia has been called ‘the anti-feminist feminist’. Describing contemporary feminism as a ‘gross betrayal of the radical principles of 1960s counterculture’, she stands firmly on the side of free speech and against political correctness. Camille Paglia sits down with Institute of Ideas director Claire Fox and a full house, to discuss the past, present and future of feminism and the themes in her forthcoming (and seventh) book, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism. In the riveting discussion which ensues, filmed at the Battle of Ideas, Camille describes her thinking as “street smart Amazon feminism”. Asked about consent classes, she says of those who run them “they are vampires, young people must rebel and say get out of our sex lives.” Feminism as Claire Fox tells us, certainly gets a good intellectual kicking. A must to watch and share.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[Adam-shxx]

She seems genuinely frustrated that her mouth is incapable of speaking at a rate consistent with her thoughts.

[chopin]

Professor Paglia is like an enthusiastic child who pours her heart out to clueless adults at a dinner party. No one expects such things said, or with such passion. America should be grateful for her scholarship. She is a national treasure. I hope she never shuts up, or caves into the prevailing orthodoxy.

[PedanticNo]

Lambaste me if you like, but as a younger guy I was entirely unaware of Camille Paglia's brand of feminism. She's more aligned with a stoic worldview, which appeals to me.

This is an amazing discussion. I'm so glad YouTube's magical algorithm brought me here. Also worried about that, but hey!

[desireesmith]

I have never found something I relate with so much or felt like I understood. I cannot express in words how glad I am that I have found Miss Paglia.

[TheGoodContent]

Imagine a world where thinkers like Camille didn't exist. It would be literally hell on earth. Thanks to the universe for molding her!

[michaeledwards]

CP: 'I am sorry I simply disagree'. Young woman: immediately begins typing into her phone

[mofoshrimp]

Camille Paglia is a true intellectual hero... she is a one-woman slaughterhouse, slicing and dicing sacred Feminist cows left and right, and licking the blood from her fingers with glee.. Viva Paglia! Viva sus cojones!!

[zthechainz]

one of my favourite intellectuals, I could listen to her all day long

[packssure]

Camille once recited the Gettysburg Address in 45 seconds.

[michaelbonade]

Every young woman in the audience looks utterly confused or disgusted because this is the absolute opposite of what they’re being taught

[cesalt]

Really outstanding discussion! As an older woman, this is fresh air to my spirit. Keep talking, both of you!

[DavidComdico]

The sassy woman who asked Camille about "advertising and selling" who ended by saying "I don't want to be alone, " which related to Camille's analysis of the power of older working class women and, finally the meaning of life, was very moving. Whoever that woman is, thank you for your question and brutal honesty. That exchange got to the heart of the matter.

[joda]

I have watched so many speechs, debates, videos, articles etc on the topic of new wave feminism, trans/gender equality etc etc, and i have always still been very confused about it. Camille nailed it for me in one q and a!! I think she is an absolute hero, and a REAL feminist and REAL intellectual! I only hope the college kids take heed from someone who cleary knows what they are talking about! I am now a fan of yours. Nice one Paglia. Much love x

[claudel]

I am a Chinese majored in Computer Science. I think the gender study major in the west should never exist as an academic department, and it is toxic to the entire intellectual atmosphere in the University. Note that I strongly support women rights movement in the past centuries.

In the Universities in mainland China, we have a department called "School of Marxism studies." They apply model social science theory to research on "Marxism with Chinese characteristics". Their publication is also nice looking, in a serious tone, with all the model social science theories, but their entire goal is to prove:

"1. Marxism is right."

"2. Marxism with Chinese characteristics is still Marxism."

"3. China is still a socialist county on the road to communism."

There is tons of Ph.D. and professors in the "School of Marxism studies, " however, I think they are so ashamed of their pseudo-science research that few of them dare to speak to STEM student to say: "Look, I am a scientist as well." Awarding that subject with the Ph.D. title is a shame to the entire academia. Why, because if they want to do real research in Marxism, they should do it in a proper philosophy, politics or economics department. Their research can be challenged, disputed, proved or disproved by peers of a different view. In "School of Marxism studies, " your conclusion is already there, what you need is to prove it with an eloquent essay.

As a rule of thumb, an academic subject should not be established as such that its research (or pseudo-research) is revolving around an orthodoxical ideology. Whether such political ideology is just or unjust is another matter, science and research are entirely about Truth, not ideology.

In scientific research, we need to report our funders so that other scientists can know that if there exists a channel of interest to cause potential bias. Confirmation bias and vested interest are fairly common issues in STEM researchers. However, in each STEM field, different sides can argue and dispute over the publications so that any hypothesis is attacked, examined, and finally prove or disproved over time. To summarize: every researcher has his own belief and his own bias; To arrive at truth, in STEM we ask the opposition forces to attack each other vigorously so, in the end, we found the truth that withstands the challenge.

In physics, you can prove Newton Classic physics is wrong (or flawed). You will have a huge outcry in the circles, you will have both allies and enemy, but your career and physics research goes on. The simple matter is: the entire field of physics (or any STEM subject) do not depend on the orthodoxy of one particular set of theory or ideal. The subject that is founded on one particular set theory or ideal is religion/political ideology.

In women study (or any other other identity politic pseudo-research), the entire founding structure is wrong in the first place. I am not arguing about whether today's women study is good or bad, rational or irrational. I think any Ph.D. in STEM major will realize the fact that the system design of current women studies as an academic research system will cause a massive confirmation bias and industry of vested interest in the field itself.

Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that white males are the disadvantaged social groups?

Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that male are inherently more intelligent (by whatever particular measure) than the female, so that men are better at some jobs?

The above hypothesis is false IMO, but it is an important thinking game. It proves that there is a "right answer" and "wrong answer" of morality in the research, so some hypothesis will never be raised, and some conclusion will never be drawn. Moreover, graduates from women study virtually cannot find any job except being a teacher of women study or an activist. So if their researchers find that women are under institutional discrimination, the entire field benefit from it by collecting more funds and secure more teaching positions or jobs like "chief diversity officers in google"(As a CS student I burst into tears when I first heard of such title :P ).

I am not arguing whether "women are under institutional discrimination" is true or false (I believe the claim is justified in someplace in China), I merely point out that there exist a chain of vested interest here. Most importantly, if someday, someone proves "women are under institutional discrimination" is untrue, if would dis-establish the entire field. Can you imagine the severity of it? The entire field of study will be demolished, that will be equivalent to proving Allah does not exist to Muslim. That is to say, hypotheses or research to disproving an certain argument in “women's study” will be an existential threat to all the Ph.D. in the subject and getting everyone so mad at you because their entire life, entire research, and future career will be fertile.With such a closed loop of positive feedback without negative review, it is therefore never a wonder for me that women study become an echo chamber and radicalized.

Looking back in history, we would know that such moral ideal is a bad idea in reach science theory. Darwin theory which portrays a cold-hearted evolution by natural selection is not a welcoming thought in many religious people and defy the sanctity of the men. Many radical political thoughts (which cause mass murders) in modern time are inspired by Darwin theory. However, academia is not church; we should seek truth (however uncomfortable).

Darwin can be good Christian when he is a man in daily life, but when he begins to work as a scientist, he must distance himself from what he believes or what he would like the world to be. In research, the scientist ceases to be a man; he becomes the embodiment reason itself. After the research, he recovers his morality and ideal. A scientist may then decide to hide the uncomfortable discover, or burn it because it will bring injustice when misused. I think many people outside of STEM emphasis on too much on humanity, too little on the reason. They do not realize the importance of this duality of personality when discovering the truth require our cold-hearted rationalism, and hiding the harmful truth from public require our warm-hearted humanity.

I think every true scholar who is interested in women study, with the dream of obtaining truth, should leave that particular echo chamber. Real researchers on women’s issue should go back to common political science or sociology department where there is not a particular agenda or central ideology. Their theory may be completely right, but it needs to put outside of the echo chamber and face strict scrutiny to as befitting the academic standard. Having a feminist reviewing the paper of another feminist will not produce any real science.

[SP-mfsh]

All the young girls that didn't clap at the end obviously don't want to be free, they want to keep being coddled and protected by laws that rebel against human nature.

[camilleelizabeth]

camille's face at 1:11:01 - she's so bewildered by the ignorance!!! thank you camille, your voice keeps me sane.

[guesswhopeekaboo]

First time I've ever heard Camille speak. She's brilliant.

Also the closing statement from the host was the most perfect thing I've heard in a while.

[azzym]

*I love Camille Paglia.*
*And Janice Fiamengo and Christina Hoff Sommers and Karen Straughn.*
*These women are the best thing to have happened to women in the West*

[Redrosewitch]

Full marks to this crowd for actually listening to Camille and discussing her ideas with her.

[thestilldrifter]

There's a lot of offended looking faces in the audience Lol!!