3 ms·

If you read it in context, following the debate question "are men obsolete", followed by her paragraph where she says feminists have been tearing men down, then

If you read it in context, following the debate question "are men obsolete", followed by her paragraph where she says feminists have been tearing men down, then in context what you quote is not a woman defining herself in terms of a man W=f(M) so much as what is the relationship of the women and the man cothreads? Producer and Consumer? Master / Slaves? I think Paglia is suggesting a co-equal but different Producer / Consumer relationship is better but what we are getting is perhaps closer to Master / Slaves, a relationship that distorts each individual thread.

6d0debc071 13y ago
If Paglia is just saying that we should have a co-equal producer/consumer relationship, in what sense does the man serve as 'a model to be embraced or rejected'? And how would that even be an equal relationship? In more agrarian societies it might make a certain degree of sense. But in a modern world, less so. If you go that route it looks very much like she's defining femininity in terms of the traditional idea that women should stay at home to raise children. (And if you don't, you're a lesbian, apparently.) But if so, the argument she goes on to build around that - men made the world and continue to have a great deal of influence in many areas (ignoring the major contributions of women to many areas of modern life) has to be questioned for relevance. It answers the prompt, to a degree, 'Are men obsolete?' Or at least one interpretation of it. But seems to have little to do with any discussion as to why we might want to be kept women or address many of the horrifying inequalities that arise from being so.
- __pThrow 13y ago
  What she said: Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women. Emphasis added: Definition of model: 1. a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original. "a model of St. Paul's Cathedral" 2. a system or thing used as an example to follow or imitate. I believe she is referring to the first usage of model and emphasizing how she needs a strong men. That is she wants a well defined instance of class men so that instances of men and instances of women can have well defined interoperable and efficient interfaces. Without such well defined interfaces, instances of women are not sure what instances of men respond to or what inputs they accept and not sure what their output is. Reflection is not implemented. You believe she is saying class men is putative parent class of class women which can smash patriarchy by choosing a different protype. I don't believe that is what she is saying.

6d0debc071 13y ago

If Paglia is just saying that we should have a co-equal producer/consumer relationship, in what sense does the man serve as 'a model to be embraced or rejected'? And how would that even be an equal relationship? In more agrarian societies it might make a certain degree of sense. But in a modern world, less so. If you go that route it looks very much like she's defining femininity in terms of the traditional idea that women should stay at home to raise children. (And if you don't, you're a lesbian, apparently.) But if so, the argument she goes on to build around that - men made the world and continue to have a great deal of influence in many areas (ignoring the major contributions of women to many areas of modern life) has to be questioned for relevance. It answers the prompt, to a degree, 'Are men obsolete?' Or at least one interpretation of it. But seems to have little to do with any discussion as to why we might want to be kept women or address many of the horrifying inequalities that arise from being so.

__pThrow 13y ago
What she said: Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women. Emphasis added: Definition of model: 1. a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original. "a model of St. Paul's Cathedral" 2. a system or thing used as an example to follow or imitate. I believe she is referring to the first usage of model and emphasizing how she needs a strong men. That is she wants a well defined instance of class men so that instances of men and instances of women can have well defined interoperable and efficient interfaces. Without such well defined interfaces, instances of women are not sure what instances of men respond to or what inputs they accept and not sure what their output is. Reflection is not implemented. You believe she is saying class men is putative parent class of class women which can smash patriarchy by choosing a different protype. I don't believe that is what she is saying.