@AllisonWonderland Of course she hasn't read it. She can, however, freely talk down on it from her superior perch as a real almost-novelist who WRITES at the end of the day and is a FEMINIST, since a gendered critique of behavior and morality is the ultimate and only standard to which society should be held.
Look, fine. I'm not totally sold on her idea here. You're getting a little bit overheated. I also don't see where saying that aggression is "coded as masculine" says anything other than that they are coded as masculine. So? This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of using a certain phrase that you've picked up from gender studies and fail to expand on or develop into a meaningful argument, especially in the real-world circumstances discussed here. Can you prove in any way that a paradigm shift towards a non-aggressive, asexual dynamic between men and women is possible, let alone desirable?
I see your point, but I still think that your imperative toward being nice rather than being nasty (which is laced throughout your entire answer) is a traditionally feminine virtue. I don't see ever making progress if you can't let go of the idea of yourself as a nice person.
Now your argument that it is men's job to be responsible for yourself is one of the strongest arguments against rape culture victim-blaming. However, I don't see how extending it to verbal sexual advances really advantages women in any way. The idea that we can't handle a verbal exchange reinforces paternalistic coddling of females. Are they physically disadvantaged w/r/t men? Absolutely. But I don't think there is a direct line between street harassers and rapists. I know you didn't even bring up rape, but I feel that's the implication or at least the area you are drawing your argument from. However, if women are not physically threatened, why should they be treated specially? The desire for this asexual utopia is just sort of absurd. There is sexual theory and then there is reality. Break it down as much as you like, people want to have sex and will try to have sex. There will be unwanted sexual advances. It is a reality of the world that you have to deal with and negotiate with.
Also I appreciate your recommendations. Yes I'm familiar with them. I'm not looking to read feminist critique right now. I'm commenting on what women my age are currently repeating to each other online. Not to mention the vitriol with which they deal with criticism of any kind. I'm not so concerned about you being mad at me because I'm coming off as a bitch here, but the reaction to Molly Fisher's piece for n+1 is a good example of something very weird going on here.
She did not at all say that privilege makes one immune to sexism. She's saying that the imperative to silence sexual harassment is based on the bourgeois mentality wherein women are delicate, blushing flowers who must be protected from masculine sexual aggression. She's arguing that instead of increasing the recrimination of the men, the women should toughen up, deal with the sexual exchange. In a way, yelling back at them is exactly what Paglia is arguing, so you guys getting all huffy here is pretty mystifying.
Now I used "boring" and "swill" because I read femblogs a lot, and I see the same uncreative arguments being made over and over again. It may very well be a personal failing in me that, to a certain degree, I value the aesthetics of prose and argument over their content, but that's what I think. I'm sure that the daily wordcount demand has something to do with why there is so much of the same thing repeated over and over. Who could possibly come up with something smart or interesting to say every day? I understand that. That being said, femblogs are remarkably insulated and unproductive. There is exactly one party line and it is repeated over and over. There is nothing dangerous about the ideas proposed. Nothing attractive. And certainly nothing exciting. It's just a bunch of college girls throwing around the terms they learned in their gender studies class and assuming that by inserting a couple words like "capitalism" and "the patriarchy", they will magically be saying something of value.
@TheGenYgirl Not really, that's why I submitted it without comment. But at least she's not boring as hell and didn't repeat the same politically correct swill nonstop.
PLAYBOY: What, about women who are easily offended and too scared or intimidated to speak up?
PAGLIA: Too bad. You must develop the verbal tools to counter offensive language. That s life. Feminism has created a privileged, white middle class of girls who claim they're victims because they want to preserve their bourgeois decorum and passivity.
PLAYBOY: You're expecting girls to stand up for themselves in a culture that discourages them from doing just that?
PAGLIA: That's right. We must examine the degree to which we coddle middle-class girls. There is something sick about it. The girls I see on campuses are often innocuous, with completely homogenized personalities, miserable, anorexic and bulimic. The feminist movement teaches them that it's men's fault, but it isn't. These girls go out into the world as heiresses of all the affluence in the universe. They are the most pampered and most affluent girls on the globe. So stop complaining about men. You're getting all the rewards that come with the nice-girl persona you've chosen. When you get into trouble and you're batting your eyes and someone is offending you and you are too nice to deal with it, that's a choice. Assess your persona. Realize the degree to which your niceness may invoke people to say lewd and pornographic things to you--sometimes to violate your niceness. The more you blush, the more people want to do it. Understand your part of it and learn to parry. Sex talk is a game. The girls in the Sixties loved it. If you don't want some professor to call you honey, tell him.
It's not even the topic that's the problem. The writing is not good. I can handle reading about a shitty person (I read and quite enjoyed American Psycho, although I was in high school at the time...) This was lazy, self-indulgent, thesis-less, and structureless.
I just don't know where the standards are for internet publications. I don't do much writing, but when I have, I've gotten the shit edited out of me. And I think that's good for writers. Just because you have an idea and think it would make a good article, doesn't mean you should go and publish it. Learn to edit your work and throw it out if nothing comes of it.
I know The Hairpin is supposed to be a happy, friendly place where nobody says anything negative, but at what point does that just shelter and cultivate mediocrity?
So does The Hairpin just post half-assed essays written by friends of the editors now?