sort those tags out and is this an actual actress from mean girls

is there an "onn autistic reporter" tag? maybe just a "hypersimplification" tag? or maybe an "i am too high to watch this and comment coherently" tag for my comments

The logic is crazy convoluted throughout. Drone strikes are not part of feminist theory or practice. There are feminists who do not support drone strikes. There are anti-feminists who do.

Also, we all know that LBJ passed landmark civil rights legislation, and that he escalated the vietnam war. i have to look at it again, but she seems to be implying that the war proves that the civil rights legislations was not helpful, or something.

And Beyonce? WTF is up with THAT? A disputed fact in an essay by Beyonce proves that she's not honest? She's a pop star! The odds are maybe one in four that she actually wrote that article, one in two that she read it. And "authoritarian tendencies" in her videos?

But she's way smarter than I thought she was, though maybe a little bit crazier. In another one of her videos, she claims to be on a CIA watch list. I think I'm going to remove all references to MEAN GIRLS from the tags and title.

A guy with a username combining "dairy queen" and "queen latifah" shares trashy opinions with a vlogger, who would have thunk.

Of course this video is insane. How do you make a leap in logic from two people to an entire political movement.

Who said I share her opinions?

i also interpreted your statement as agreeing with her. i was viewing your phrase "pretty much on point" as 'stuff i agree with' instead of you meaning something different like maybe 'not drooling or shrieking'

Okay, this is turning out to be interesting. Her name is Carrie Wedler, and her boyfriend is Adam Kokesh.

I don't know any liberal feminists who consider Hillary a feminist, figurehead or not. But pseudo-liberal hacks might start calling her that, you know, to drum up support for the next election; "feminist figurehead" sounds nicer than "patriarchial neocon".

I actually think this young lady is making a very similar point to homer's, albeit not as coherently.

I really like idealists. But they don't like me, or nearly any one else.

You must understand, Mr Holmes, it's hard for idealists to like someone whose policies on war, national security, and moral paternalism are to the right of Dick Cheney. The only thing even vaguely feminist-y about Ms Clinton is that she is a woman and she is in a position of power; if this were truly enough to justify a feminist/progressive reading of Hillary, then for the last six or seven years both Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin would have been hailed as women's-lib pioneers. Not that this would have mattered, even if it were true, since identity politics are irrelevant to the real question: will a given political candidate be the best person for the job? "Hillary is a woman!" is no different than saying "George Bush is a down-to-earth guy you'd have a beer with!" - it's a deceptive, emotionally manipulative argument meant to sell a candidate on bullshit, crafted by cynical hacks who are probably well aware that what they're saying is yellow-journalism nonsense, yet think the lower classes are stupid, ignorant, and irrational enough to eat it up.

Homer, I've been tested, and my IQ has been measured at well above 75, therefore I understand completely why idealists have a problem with Hillary Clinton, though "to the right of Dick Cheney" seems a trifle hyperbolic.

Not if her vagina secreted pure maple syrup.

she sounds an awful lot like a run of the mill libertarian antifeminist

Well, the rhetoric is a little different, and that makes it all pretty hard to get a handle on. You'll see this young woman described as everything from a liberal to an anarchist. You don't get the fetishistic evocation of "socialism". Lots of talk of nonviolence. Never heard of a gun nut who preaches "Satyagraha" before, which Kokesh is supposed to do. It looks like she may have been an Obama supporter earlier. Of course, at first I thought she was in high school. She's so young, she may not really know what she is, either. Even with the Ghandi references, Kokesh (who may be much older) seems like a more "run of the milll libertarian" than she is.

One thing is certain. Her videos are OFF THE HOOK!

"Dissident feminist", not "antifeminist". The idea that there is only one true feminism, and that everyone who speaks out against the failings of the Church is nothing more than a heretical apostate, is one of the worst attitudes to be found in mainstream academic feminism.

I have to agree with homer.

I'm going to say that I do like her. Haven't read her, but she seems to have been important in opening up feminism to different viewpoints. I have a DVD of Basic Instinct that has her commentary.

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." - Camille Paglia

Also she thinks Madonna is super important.

Ashtar - Paglia recognizes the contributions of both genders, and what is wrong with that? After all, isn't feminism supposed to be about equality? The masculine and the feminine needn't be in conflict, one needn't rule over the other, both are fluid and both are utterly essential to human society. This is not a radical concept. And you know perfectly well that quote is out of context and misleading; there is simply no way that one can accuse Paglia of being anti-woman, at least not without resorting to gross over-simplification and emotionally-charged ad hominem.

Also, her arguments in favor of Madonna were pretty good! I'm not saying I fully agree with her on that one, because Jesus Christ, Madonna, but she does make some compelling points.

Paglia wrote a piece in Time a couple months ago calling for scaling back sex ed programs, banning distribution of birth control to students and quite literally saying that sex ed had become a conspiracy by leftist radicals to indoctrinate children with "unhealthy" permissive views on sexuality.

Having only been familiar with some of her stuff from the 70s and 80s I was pretty surprised and not sure what to think.

That's not ALL she said but that was a big art of it. I don't disagree with the piece completely but there are a lot of things about it that seem really wrong, and she definitely dips into some watered down evo-psych.

http://time.com/23054/camille-paglia-put-the-sex-back-in-sex-e d/

>>"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." - Camille Paglia

But maybe the oceans wouldn't be rising.

I haven't read Sexual Personae. If you can supply a context that changes the meaning of that quote, I'd be interested to hear it. As far as I can tell, she seems to think civilization was built by men overcoming their "cthonic/dionysian" nature, whereas women are primal and emotional and blah blah they need to be controlled by religion and marriage for the good of civilization.

Basically she's a neoconservative, combined with a bunch of freudian bullshit that is, ironically, the exact thing that I dislike most about academic feminists.