HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: Declan Gilsenan

Camille Paglia: Women Are Better Than Men (1995)

401 ratings | 29587 views
MARCH 30, 1995 Professor Paglia participated in a debate, “On the Resolution: Women Are Better Than Men.” She is the author of several books on culture, sexuality, and the arts. Between Professor Paglia’s opening and closing statements, students alternated speaking in the negative and in the positive on the resolution, as well as answering questions from the audience.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (255)
Peter Lundy (5 days ago)
Pretty sure this violates YouTube’s new hate speech guidelines
Mike G (25 days ago)
Paglia spittin' fireeee
Luna L (26 days ago)
"young women being trained not to listen to the evidence of their senses - having ideology injected into their brains" CP
nonnah (28 days ago)
she's a bit frivolous here and tunnel-visioning on specific instances in which "women are better than men". I won't be bullied by top comment into submission. Though, these were different times
Batu Khan (29 days ago)
Camille sure changed her views
Live Love Now (1 month ago)
The red fierce lipstick and great eyebrows!
bea haxby (1 month ago)
feminist tyler durden
Thaxton Waters (1 month ago)
She is ABSOLUTELY AWESOME. *tips hat*
Brianna Bayon (2 months ago)
I am captivated by this woman. Her sharp intellect is everything I aspire to, but something I fear I'll never have. What an enviable mind. A prodigy! Love her.
Adam Seeve (2 months ago)
this woman is amazing. camille paglia is great.
bademoxy (3 months ago)
2:30:20- "men gain more from divorce"? "women lose status as they age to younger fertile women"..... a women's status is from birth her youthful beauty-which she'll eventually lose. a men's status is his resources- usually earned and maintained against loss. so while a husband who leaves his aging wife after he attains success, he is forced by law to pay her ALIMONY, a women leaves her husband when he loses his career job OR she divorces her successful husband for their home in which her new boyfriend will live. therefor i disagree that divorce -in the modern west-is worse for women, as 3/4 of all divorces are initiated by women.
bademoxy (3 months ago)
gawd, the male feminists sound so whiny and snide.
Srijan Agrawal (3 months ago)
"Who feels threatened by hurricane bob?" Hahahaha that's genius
Angantyr (3 months ago)
Woman smaht man dummy
Hot Ice (4 months ago)
2:02:02--It DOESN'T WORK, Camille. Women who prioritize that competitive mentality at a job are NO GOOD at suddenly shifting gears and producing _lady_ thinking and living. Simply put, we only get good at what we practice. Women decided to practice anything BUT femininity, grace, humility, cooperation, altruism, generosity, submission, chastity, and selflessness. The result? Men--myself, included--got tired of waiting for women like you to *finally* stop talking, arguing, jockeying for position and power, competing with us in our own homes, and more. So, we went MGTOW. Enjoy the wall!!
Michael Ross (6 months ago)
This is a humorous tongue-in-cheek debate. She's channeling both Jonathan Swift and Oscar Wilde and having fun with the audience. She's at the top of her game and enjoying the success. This was a time when she pressed everyone's buttons with a smirk and challenged anyone who dared. 20 years ago many, including myself, were intimidated by the intensity of her ideas and personality. Now I see her as prophetic. Her smirk has faded. The brilliant wrinkles on her face are battle scars from a culture war over the control of our minds. At 71 years old she's even more intense and ready to battle if that's possible. She's wants us to use our minds as weapons, read with passion, think and rethink everything, challenge the accepted, and become deeply creative in heart, mind, and action. She wants both men and women to discover their greatest and most fulfilling selves.
Hot Ice (4 months ago)
She clearly fooled you....and easily so.
Jeffrey Rivers (6 months ago)
Men fear women... all 47 years of life I never heard a men ever state I fear women!
Mitch Batten (6 months ago)
I like Camille but looking back on her ego centric ranting, it’s not surprising to see how the gender confusion has managed a foothold today(2018). It is quite evident that even someone of her advanced education is oblivious of the broad masculine/feminine spectrum that exists in both genders. It’s no wonder the new generation is so confused when their predecessors are so ignorant themselves. She made great effort digging a hole for this generation, I hope she has enough energy to back fill it before we see the end of Western civilization. It’s quite evident that the seeds she planted in 1995 have bore fruits (of many kinds) 23 years later with a myriad of social issues.
krileayn (6 months ago)
You can see the hubris in Camille here in her early days. Little did she know the damage feminism would do to Western civilization.
Cassandra D (7 months ago)
I love at 1:07:00ish onwards "the historical collaboration between women and gay men"
Phil Platt (7 months ago)
Oh well, us men are all useless and evil compared to 'Godhead woman" I suppose we should all down tools and cease to do anything being as these superior women can do it all themselves. (wonder how many days they would last without men?
Jaroslav Gottwald (8 days ago)
"But men have every right to claim credit for their vast achievements in conceiving and constructing the entire framework of civilization, from the great irrigation projects of ancient Mesopotamia to today’s global electronic grid. Impugned and silenced by feminism, men stoically go on doing the dirtiest, most dangerous and thankless work in modern society. Feminism must end its sex war, which is stunting the maturation of both girls and boys." Camille Paglia from book Free women, Free men.
Spencer Stevens (8 months ago)
The feminists in the audience are easily tricked by her language, if they really listened to what she was saying they would be outraged.
Harmony Ewing (8 months ago)
Camille is hilarious <3
Keyser Söze (8 months ago)
She talks a lot about women as on a pedestal in society - revered, adored and essential. And I do agree but I wonder if to be on a pedestal is what most women want, or need.
Kermit Frog (9 months ago)
She makes a brilliant point about the private versus the social, and how modern yuppy culture is obsessed with appearances. The perfect example would be the career driven individual who has made money and posted all about it on Facebook, then goes to bed feeling empty inside. Today's culture is all about status, pleasing society at the expense of personal needs. So fucking bourgeois.
Sublunary Messaging (9 months ago)
New Male Supremacy: the Manifesto 1. fuq
Sublunary Messaging (9 months ago)
Why not use your pulpit/vagina to advocate for free subsidized testosterone
KuroShishi (1 year ago)
What the fuck! This woman is on a league of her own!! It's like watching Rodney Mullen on a skateboard or Floyd Mayweather in a boxing ring!!!
chiuansheng (1 year ago)
So interesting watch this after 30 years later.
thegrumpyhypnotist (1 year ago)
29:25 "I wrote a love letter to the android Data, expressing my desire to mate and spawn" .. she is the greatest!
carolcheny (1 year ago)
Camille Paglia is Yale's saving grace.
Navak (1 year ago)
welp. i'm in love with a lesbian.
dive2663225 (1 year ago)
LOL yes grandma your wonderfull lol
dive2663225 (1 year ago)
LOL sick bitch
dive2663225 (1 year ago)
LOL seems the only place shes going...is for her diaper
Her history is full of factual errors to the point of fantasy.
Nik (1 year ago)
Those who are saying she changed her view in last 20 yrs need to watch the entire video. Please don't comment just after reading the title. It's highly misleading!
Simone D'Angelo (1 year ago)
She is one of the biggest opposers of female supremacy now, and of the theories she exposed in that speech in 1995...
ohdwight (2 months ago)
she created a monster praising women for their innate benefits ; but women have taken a wrong turn and now believe they don't need men . Feminists of today are crazy .
Cheryl Lynne (1 year ago)
27:53 adorable!
*FEMINISM IS CANCER !!!* [ drops mic ]
Linked Neurons (8 months ago)
Enough said.
patricia x (1 year ago)
Avik Roy is an idiot...talk about overly simplistic overgeneralizations...He sooooo does not get feminism. But maybe his testosterone is out of whack? And all his sarcasm about Clinton? omg....this is the kind of person who helped give us Trump. Hope he's happy about that and Richard Kim..you're terrific You deserve good, loving, trustworthy women in your life.
Adam Małysz (1 year ago)
I`m in love :3
Clown World (1 year ago)
keggerous (1 year ago)
Personally I actually see men as having the closer connection to nature. We hunt, fish, and enjoy it in our modern world on a greater level than women. Ironically, men defeated nature in a hundred thousand year war, only to find ourselves in a technolo-hell in which women's comfort was set as priority and men's wellbeing mentally was basically forgotten.
Messylin (1 year ago)
But men have historically fought against nature and have created civilisation as a result of it. Women are inherently connected to nature through nature's cycles and their periods, that is their 'divine connection'. Men don't have that, which is why men historically 'dream bigger' and have transcendental aspirations.
W. Gordon (1 year ago)
keggerous very well said.
Mustache 577 (1 year ago)
Women can’t go on without men
Joost (1 year ago)
I have read some of the comments: if you think the same as 23 years before, well...you made no progress. Great vid. Thanks
Lying Press (1 year ago)
She is a FEMNIST B1TCH - Watch the Video: "Camille Paglia: Women Are Better Than Men (1995)" - she said: quote 11:09 - "Women can THINK and feel at the same time" "Man can either think or FEEL" - "I have noticed this for years as a men's disconnection" 12:45 – “Moe evidence for me of the SUPERIORITY OF WOMEN”. 14:05 –”Women’s mysteriousness seems to me the part of the her superiority” 14:53 – “US Weather Service is SEXIST because of naming Hurricanes after women” 15:39 – “The penis how frail how unpredictable”, another proof to me of women’s SUPERIORITY. 17:26 – “Male politics is a very very vicious game (Tell this to Hillary)”. 18:07 – “proves it seems to me the SUPERIORITY OF WOMEN” 19:24 – “Hillary Clinton meeting with Mother Theresa – Is that the proof of the SUPREMACY OF WOMEN?” I submit you madam speaker that two goddesses coming together there. 19:44 – “And we look at the ethic rather grim and bland roster of the candidates of the Republicans keep putting forward for the next presidential election. I have to say that once again, EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF WOMEN 20:10- “We see the greater individuality of women (SJW). Her more Intense personality (SJW). 20:20 – “One of the Parties will provide us with a candidate for the first women president” I think MOST PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY ARE READY FOR IT.
Batosai11489 (1 year ago)
I'm as much of a feminist hater as pretty much everyone in these comments but I really didn't take those points as anti-man. It seemed to me that she was speaking hyperbolicly and using that rhetoric to demonstrate how stupid feminism had become. Part of feminism's core belief structure is that "men oppress women" which of course incorporates the implicit assumption that "men are able to oppress women". Many of her points, based on my listening, were to undermine that assumption. Furthermore, all of her arguments for "the superiority of women" were actually designed to make the audience think, "do I sound that stupid when I say that..." All she did was point out areas where women might be more capable than men.
DerHammerSpricht (1 year ago)
LOL she called Mother Theresa a goddess. The woman was addicted to watching other people suffer. Hell's Angel, as Hitchens called her.
DerHammerSpricht (1 year ago)
Is this a clickbait title? She isusually very pro-men
aluapzurc2 (1 year ago)
Gotta love the laughter and emphatic clapping
jkris205 (1 year ago)
And g-d created hookers,and housewives!!!
Sems (1 year ago)
Some commentators here should just learn how to comprehend simple speech. Back then she was saying exactly the same things as she's saying today. There's no change in viewpoint. Or maybe they should just believe it, selects out the embecils she'd be better off without anyways.
atempuser (1 year ago)
She's considerably more sane these days.  Back when she gave this speech she appears to have been completely loopy.  I guess she's better medicated now.  Also, it was because of the Russians that Hitler was defeated.  The war is the west was a side show to the main event in the east.  Her facts are so wrong in that respect.
Zwiebaqq Kid (1 year ago)
When women needed feminism she gave it to them. Nowadays, when women do not need it anymore, when men need … something, she is one of the view people who are not too obsessed to realize, that one's old goal has already been achieved —even overdone. Yet some people disrespect her for 'switching sides'. I think it is self evident, that every act of balancing anything requires switching sides by definition.
doczg88 (1 year ago)
LOL. Try Survival :))) Then let's see who is better.
American Citizen (1 year ago)
Wow, 1995 seems like ancient history now.
American Citizen (1 year ago)
Pro-pornography. Yeah!
American Citizen (1 year ago)
If women are better then why didn't Hillary win?
crazedoutlook (1 year ago)
OMG, the pretense of how “the guest” is introduced.
Rubizel (1 year ago)
57:16 What a long winded, snarky bitch. I wanted to punch her
Abraham Saenz (1 year ago)
Camile Paglia embodies what Feminism should be. No this is not an attack on man, this is an exaltation of woman a much needed one, that deprive the third wave feminist of self victimization, if you are a man and are offended by this you are a weak one, Woman are powerful for real, that why man should do nothing but love them
Celestial Scripture (1 year ago)
I'm glad I found her later work first. If I would have found this first, I would have written her off as an ostentatious egomaniac in dire need of a good dicking. Time has blessed her with a balanced viewpoint, it would seem.
Bayrex El Pianolero (1 year ago)
this 1:58:0
Mario Hostios (1 year ago)
😅😅😅😅I think she grew up in the last 20yrs
Richard Wilson (1 year ago)
This formality of referring to her in third person as if everyone is talking to the speaker is so forced and unnatural and restricts the freedom to express oneself fluently. How unnecessary and stupid we are to enforce these rules. Dumb bourgeois apes.
roxxyfoxify (8 months ago)
Richard Wilson I agree, it was distracting and obnoxious. The poor students were constantly corrected as if the natural speech was somehow “not up to par” with the upper class jargon of an Ivy League school...
prschuster (1 year ago)
Camille is actually ripping the female superiority complex to shreds while appearing to agree with it on the surface. She is brilliantly validating male cultural and technological accomplishments by praising women's connection with nature. Men are driven by testosterone to accomplish things because of their incomplete nature and disconnection with nature. Men have idolized women -not denigrated them - over the centuries. She is speaking against the feminist paradigm of men oppressing women. In more contemporary terms, gynocentrism  has driven the accomplishments of patriarchy.
Kurtis Brooks (1 month ago)
Meh Jones (6 months ago)
@SmokerStar incisive!
Sara Tansey (1 year ago)
YES thank you; someone gets it.
Anony Mous (1 year ago)
+batuffolini tutti One part I disagree with is the emphasis on physical strength, and that's considering a wide range of dynamics throughout human history. It's the most blatantly obvious difference between the sexes but it's way too simplistic IMO to attribute leadership qualities to physical size and strength. It's more of a social and character quality than a physical one. It's not the huge brute with big muscles that rises to positions of leadership for long and that applies, rather surprisingly, even to the most primitive of cultures. I also don't think technology can offset these differences. I say that because there was actually a certain breed of Amazon feminism that believed that women had to gain the physical prowess of men to achieve power. So they favored athletic women, prizefighters, etc, and saw those women as the true role models who would pave the way towards equality. That's extremely misguided. It'd be like us guys believing that setting new deadlift PRs at the gym would be the most helpful thing in allowing us to become the CEO of a company or the president of the United States. Having big muscles, youthfulness, and fighting skills of a kind that allows one to kick everyone's ass and only having that quality will more likely end up making a person a pawn, the analogical foot soldier, rather than a king or queen. I can't pinpoint the qualities exactly that allow people to rise as leaders, but I think it has very little to do with physical prowess. After all, people mainly look to leaders for protection, and one single guy's big arms, however impressive, hardly provides any protection against foreign invaders, natural disasters, food shortages, etc. For example, being older and wiser often seems advantageous even though older people are generally weaker. If I use a crude example (and it's not exactly right), let's say there's a disaster and a building filled with people comes crashing down and catches on fire, killing half the people while the rest are panicking. This is a situation that desperately calls for a leader. Who do you turn to for protection, or would you take initiative, declare yourself as leader, and try to lead these people and guide them to their safety? Are you a natural born rebel who would ignore any attempts at leadership and just find the exit on your own away from the herd? For those who aren't natural born leaders or rebels, what type of person do you imagine you'd turn to for leadership and protection? Is it a teenage bodybuilder or athlete who is stronger and faster than everyone else? Is it a wise, hardened man who seems the least afraid and seems to most know what he's doing? Is it a woman? I think the answer most of us would come up with of the archetype leader in this scenario somewhat explains (not exactly, again the characteristics that allows people to rise to leadership positions is far more complex) why men generally occupy these positions because even the majority of women would likely choose a male archetype in this scenario to protect and guide them for reasons that are deeply-rooted in biology but go far beyond physical strength. That said, I do believe that "strength" is what sets leaders apart, but it's not so correlated to physical strength. The strength of a leader is far more complex and abstract than big muscles. It's not the teenage boy who is the strongest and fastest who is favored in this scenario. Empathy is also useful which women often point out who believe in a motherly kind of nurturing style of leadership, but emotional detachment, competitiveness, and ruthlessness can also be just as important and the latter three are typically associated more with male archetypes. But who protects whom and who guides whom in these most dire scenarios that most desperately call for a leader? Until we can imagine very plausible scenarios where women are just as likely to protect and guide men in these dire, life-threatening scenarios as the other way around, men will always hold a whopping advantage when it comes to become candidates for leadership as I see it for the most powerful and critical roles that the most number of people entrust with their lives. That's the deeply-rooted instinctive quality built into us that tends to favor men, and not all men in general, but very specific kinds of men, in positions of power. There's a big place for the motherly kind of empathetic leadership in gentler areas and times, but we wouldn't necessarily elect our mothers as generals on the battlefield or favor her over our analogical fathers in a natural disaster to figure out how to guide our family to safety. Now I could imagine a time where this male archetype corrodes in favor of a view that women are equally competent, experienced ("battle-hardened"), wise, emotionally detached, level-headed, fearless, etc. in ways that would make them perceived as equally viable candidates for leadership as the specific types of men who would generally be perceived as having a huge advantage today. But that won't come about from women who lift and learn martial arts, and it won't come from trying to convince everyone that a motherly kind of nurturing and sensitivity makes a better fit for a crisis scenario. It would have to specifically come about from some very bold and tough women showing, first-hand, that they are actually the most capable leaders in that analogical disaster scenario. People look for "strength" in these scenarios, and it's not exactly physical strength and it's certainly not any kind of "feminine strength". A male possessing "feminine strength" would be worse off than a woman who possesses "masculine strength" (I use "masculine" and "feminine" here in a way that's admittedly oversimplified but most people should be able to imagine what I mean). In my case I would have no qualms with letting a female lead me and my family to safety in that analogical disaster scenario if she seemed like the calmest, most collected, experienced, level-headed person in the group, like the analogical Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in Aliens being the most level-headed and knowledgeable person when the marines first encountered the aliens and went into a state of panic. But those women seem extremely rare. Those types of men are extremely rare but those types of women seem almost non-existent (I've yet to ever meet one in real life).
Ayanokoji (1 year ago)
SmokerStar lol this simp comments on every feminist related video. You had bad experience with men? Daddy issues?
ron (1 year ago)
She seems to espouse different views today. A feminist with a conscience seems an oxymoron today , with their unconscionably hateful rhetoric towards men, but perhaps she qualifies as one who sees the damage feminism is doing and has the courage and independence to come to men's defence.
Perpetuant (1 year ago)
Women can't be the origin of all thing. She was so immature. Men is the beginning of all things, we are the initiators and the pin prick of creation and life. It can't happen without us. She is so much smarter, sort of, now she is older. She had also deluded her self in believing she had no motherly instinct.
Polly Anderson (1 year ago)
Brilliant ... After reading some of the comments below I am astounded at the interpretation of her speech as somehow a competition between men and women . She is clearly stating that the " mystery " of what has been called the "sacred feminine" as the creative source behind human behavior. This is obvious . She also clearly says that " if the development of civilization had been left to women we would still be living in grass huts." The observation is not a criticism of women but a statement of the inherent "being" of womanhood ; the knowing , usually subconscious... it is passive in it's acceptance that which is. I read once that Dr. John C. Lilly pondered that this was evident even at the description of chromosome difference; by the balance of the X vs. the Y chromosome ; men constantly "strive " for ( what Jung calls ) "the other " leg ... He was an amusing guy. Nature has this difference mysteriously baked into the cake of human existence and it expresses itself in ALL things; Through the "Anima" (feminine) and " Animus" ( masculine) projection of the ego. Men feel that union with woman will somehow "complete" them ; thus the ritual of marriage; it is only after decades of blood ,sweat, and tears of that vow that both parties come to understand that it was never to be found in the other ; it is and always was about YOU. Joseph Campbell suggests that it is at that point of recognition that a man and a woman enter into the "Sacred marriage" ... a sweet time indeed if you're lucky enough to get there.
marsthelewis (6 months ago)
David Carroll - you mention John Lilly and Joseph Campbell in the same post! we must have very similar tastes and experiences. Greetings!
MrMferg240 (1 year ago)
carpet munching, muff diving, vibrator loving men haters.in 30-35 years isis is going to have a field day in America when white males are no longer around. so get locked and loaded ladies because you are all in for hell on earth when they're done with you.
Dylan Simon (1 year ago)
Anyone who says this video does not represent Pagilia's current view points doesn't understand her points in this video or her arguments today. They are one and the same. Anyone who cannot see it is blind to her work.
Srivatsan Raghavachar (2 months ago)
Helcat yeah, they do.
Helcat (2 months ago)
@Srivatsan Raghavachar DUH. I'm not a leftist moron. It's true that women and men have different brains, though, isn't it?
Srivatsan Raghavachar (2 months ago)
Helcat oh plzz, just because she doesn't identify as a woman or a man, doesn't mean she is one.
Helcat (4 months ago)
@Lying Press The great value, she says all of this from the perspective of a person that identifies as neither man nor woman.
Bebêto B (5 months ago)
Dylan Simon U cute
Brian Juntunen (1 year ago)
Women are better? lol
john miller (1 year ago)
Women are the child bearers and so are responsible for all the wrongs of humanity. They brag about it. lol
Brett Robbins (1 year ago)
Robert's Rules of Order can blow me.
Mary Antonio (1 year ago)
Meh. I disagree with her assessment that men are neurotic and that's why they create stuff. Although it's true that men create stuff, I just don't think that women are without their own version of neuroticism Women can be vain af. They aren't necessarily enlightened or some shit, they're just thinking about clothes and makeup and the tiniest social infraction and gossip. I don't mean to put women down or suggest they are worse than men, just they think about different shit.... but not necessarily higher shit, or more....... somehow more wholesome and in tune with everything, or whatever it is she suggests.
cook the jews lol (1 year ago)
she spends the first minute saying which pronouns to use
blessOTMA (1 year ago)
Amazing to see decorum at a university ! Wow, what a throw back!
DsiakMondala (1 year ago)
10:00 r u a prophet? She even said tilted. the memes have been foretold!
mauherkan (1 year ago)
Is this really 1995, at 2:05:39 I see "CIA Estimates of Soviet Military Spending" coming up...
mauherkan (1 year ago)
I wonder how serious this was taken by those in favor, at least the speakers... Especially that David Solin guy, love him, cracked me up.
water fallz (1 year ago)
This is so disgusting. I have a feeling her shift on many things today is a act of repentance for all the female and male lives shes done irreversible damage to in the past with this female narcissistic message.
water fallz (1 year ago)
You make accusations with no backing what so ever,like a woman.
P Conservatism (1 year ago)
You whine like a woman.
TAG (1 year ago)
It is interesting that the people bringing forth the Pro argument argue for women's superiority, while the Con arguments are never arguing for male superiority but for equal but different. The topic was chosen carelessly and can be dismantled in two mere sentences. The supposition is not specified and therefor nonsensical. Scissors are not better than a knife, but they are better for certain tasks.
BlacksmithTWD (1 year ago)
Generally speaking of course there are things that women tend to be better at than men, just as the reversed. Let's not forget that no matter the differences between men and women, the differences between men compared to other men are greater, just as the differences between women compared to other women are greater than the differences between men and women.
Jessica Rose (1 year ago)
BlacksmithTWD Totally agree with you.
john miller (1 year ago)
Men are always better at war, racism, physical abuse, hatred. We men rock.
PeterFied FM (1 year ago)
*Yeah 1995 was 22 years ago, let me tell you 22yrs later she is all about destroying safe spaces and this anti free will cult. 22 years ago is not what she is like today.*
iuliuspro (1 year ago)
well in 1995 she wanted women equal to men and not advantaged. So she is consistent. She said she is a libertarian more than liberal
e3ovuziotica (1 year ago)
Quite sexist and collectivistic title, lumping individuals to fixed boxes.
Riiichard ! (1 year ago)
She gives me a female Carl Sagan vibe... perhaps not as calm as Sagan, but her appearance and posture most definitely resemble him.
wernher korff (1 year ago)
23:00 , pink floyd, the wall.
Cyberdemon1542 (1 year ago)
Wow, she even supported Hillary. Now she calls her a fraud.
Michael Flynn (1 year ago)
she does now pay out on Clinton. Calls her shrill.
Bandit Banditos (1 year ago)
Just like Trump. They both are criminals, and insane.
john miller (1 year ago)
Occasionally some few wake up. Hillary was worse than a fraud. Criminally worse.
Cyberdemon1542 (1 year ago)
It seems she has made a complete 180 on her views recently.
James Joyce (1 year ago)
Cyberdemon1542 (1 year ago)
I see that is good to know.
James Joyce (1 year ago)
Someone stated that she was on David Bowie's list of favourite authors.  Like Bowie, this is boss level use of persona.  The use of artistic irony seems to be utterly lost on some people here.
James Joyce (1 year ago)
She's DEEPLY DEEPLY DEEPLY schooled in classical rhetoric. Taking her at face value makes as much sense as taking Nietzsche  at face value.
Dylan Simon (1 year ago)
No she hasn't. This speech is pretty much Sexual Personea in short form. She always has said that men are superior in science, and art but women are more rounded, emotional, spiritual and connected to the Earth. And she says the same thing over again today. If you cannot see this you do not understand her work.
sandy smith (1 year ago)
MEN built this world with the help of good women. And heterosexual women ...80% of the female population...liked it that way. This lesbian woman may mean well...but is waaaay wrong. Without good men, no one is going anywhere.
bademoxy (3 months ago)
@TheAntiGynocentrist though i agree with some of your points, i need to point out something you may realize- that 3rd wave feminism has caused an initial division between women and men but MGTOW as a reaction (though logical) directly severes what bonds remain between the sexes. our civilization may not recover from this gender war and its final collapse would be deadlier than Rome's fall.
Barry last (7 months ago)
@prschuster I'm glad you snapped back towards normal. Keep going!
Barry last (7 months ago)
@SmokerStar If your actually a man. You are welcome to be the next (first) too leave! --->👉
Barry last (7 months ago)
@chris price all feminism denigrates men.
Barry last (7 months ago)
@TheAntiGynocentrist is this Perhaps a re-mask of feminist indoctrination to include men (now that we're been put in our place)? ...To save "THE Movement". I think she likes the sounds of her own voice and female intellectual logic. ??
Any Rebel (1 year ago)
My opinion doesn't mean much but I think most women are worse than men, but that the best human beings are going to be women. that rare 1 of 1% of women are the best people
P Conservatism (1 year ago)
"Women run to extremes; they are either better or worse than men."- Jean de la Bruyere
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
she clearly states that she is just another female supremacist and everybody applaud... oh the feminists because she states in no unclear terms women are superior in all respects, obviously and the anti feminists because she wants to remove all barriers and privileges and women are and should not be considered the victims. SERIOUSLY?? the world is full of retarded fucks!
Delysid Tusko (1 year ago)
@Canem Are you serious? You do understand what a role in a debate is? Did you even care to listen until the end of her speech?
john miller (1 year ago)
I have found that women are not better at martial arts.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
NO, it's NOT a debate, it's packaged as a debate. if you notice, the time in this debate IS NOT distributed equally between the speakers, the opposition is given a brief appearance. Therefore this is not a debate, it is an exercise in political propaganda, masqueraded as a debate, but in reality, in spite of the mock voting, it is a pure exercise in political propaganda. This is how the youngsters in Yale and these stupid US universities are brainwashed.
Rose Red (1 year ago)
It's a debate where she is assigned a position to defend.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
what a disgusting talk and all idiots approve?? amazing!
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
I would call that a very fitting self criticism mate, you are right there is nothing to learn from what you wrote because it's total nonsense from someone with a pretense of an education. Unfortunately your mind is unable to follow a logical argument, that we have already established. Throwing around how did you call them?Oh yes ad hominem attacks because you see my ignorant idiot you need to add a noun to ad hominem, on its own it only means at a person. here again you show your complete ignorance and incompetence with terms you pretend to know but you don't. Have a good evening my dear idiot come back when you actually have something proper to say.
TAG (1 year ago)
Maybe I didn't simplify my thoughts enough for you to understand. This is nonsensical. I can't learn from you because you offer no knowledge, you can't learn from me because you are either too emotionally blinded by the red pill rage or simply too retarded, and the other readers can't learn anything from that because it's a shallow discourse.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
it's explained, obviously you cannot follow a logical argument.. go back to what i wrote very slowly. it is perfectly rationally argumented the one that makes a personal attack is you, and I have no problems to respond to it. don't play the innocent victim i responded to others in the same ways I responded to you, you had no points any any point there was was listed, can you not count? I am not expressing any political view am I moron?? thay's why your comment about political correctness is bullshit, your all argumentation is bullshit, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Ad hominem what?? stop pretending to be more educated than you are. all you have been writing is worthless gibberish
TAG (1 year ago)
Where exactly did you see me doing an ad hominem? It was your attitude I was criticising, don't play the Sarkeesian card, in every post you have here you call people names, which I incidently don't, that's just basic work ethics some people have. And by the way, nice lecture you gave there on ad hominems, you might wanna read it yourself, you might get some major insights into your own person. Neither you nor me are groups, so stop addressing me with the "you guys", you don't even know what kind of person I am to conflate me with anyone else out of hand. And I don't care about your political beliefs, you could believe in Xenu as far as I am concerned, political beliefs are not the subject of discussion. I am talking about a specific issue here, which is that I don't understand your problem with her stating that stuff and why this debating club can't do an out-of-the-ordinary debate in their own four halls. All I see you doing here is bitching and moaning about the simple matter that the debate is taking place, never even once touching on the points made in it, thereby advancing us intellectually so little that you are actually setting us intellectually back with your agitated armwavery. How about you come up with a rational and consistent rebuttal to the points made, why she is wrong to state these things, you know, how a debate works.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
i see no real arguments here... you confirm this was not a proper debate and much more a political lecture by Paglia that seemed to have as primary scope the advertising of her book. Second, I am very skeptical of these IQ claims, frankly I am skeptical of them, in the same way as I am skeptical of the alpha male/female paradigm the american society clings on and all these half baked categorizations which for me are a symptoms of a diseased society, just as terrorist fanaticism is symptom of a diseased religion. IQs change with education and preparation, so in effect they only represent a measure of how well different people are prepared for them. Third I do not align with left, right or center, so exactly because I am not stuck in one political view of the world i am free to move along any political incorrect line there is, political correctness does not apply to me at all. Fourth, I am not sure why you guys must always move from the topic to a personal attack, do you really think you can win the arguments by targeting the person? I can tell you, it succeeds ONLY when you have ways to destroy the public face of that person, or cause real physical harm, it will not work here. These attempts show how pathetic, mean and pity you really are, and with this I don't mean you personally, it's a general comment to all people making personal attacks. It also shows your fundamental incapacity to sustain an argument, switching to a personal attack not only means your argument is weak, or you are not very smart, it also means you are willing to go to any excess to win the argument. Now you can hide your attack, on a layer of false morality or claim ignorance on the part of your opponent or as you have, accuse someone of the monster of the day, in this case "political correctness", these are still personal attacks masked as some sort of argument. If you want to accuse someone of something you must prove it first. Can you prove i am using a "politically correct" argument on you? Opposing an argument is supposedly in the spirit of this debate, but according to you, by doing something that is perfectly legitimate in this context i am worse than.. see how it goes?? you are moving from argumentation to personal attack and that tells me you are a moron! get it?? Now, you see i do not need to hide the attack because i have proven my argument to you! Get it how it must work?? so now fuck off, you have demonstrated that from a teacher you are not even at a level of a student
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
this was her real face and now over 20 years later she negated all her ideologies the cow was one of the first to claim female superiority but now also one of the first to realize how wrong that was
N A (6 months ago)
Canem if you had bothered to read her work at all you'd realize that she thinks neither male or female are superior, and that her argument in this video was a concelied argument against G.S. feminism. It's as if you only read the title 😂 she completely torched her feminist enemies so badly it has you fooled as well.
Cheryl Lynne (1 year ago)
Canem Cave Who cares? *Between the two* overall I think cats are superior to dogs. Doesn't mean I don't love dogs. I just prefer cats.
miteruno (1 year ago)
i dont know about that, she sure presents her views in a different manner now, but the main idea is still there, men are better at some things and women in others, ying yang, anima and animus etc.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
why this is not the case is clearly already explained in the thread above. in fact if this is to be taken as you state, then there cannot possibly be hate speech, because anyone making a "hate speech" can just be arguing for the motion in a debate. Besides the fact that the definition of hate speech itself is contrary to freedom of speech. That gives you a measure of how fucked up really the anglo american legal system actually is. if the legal system is fucked up, imagine the people
Jonathan Wilson (1 year ago)
Actually the idea of arguing the opposing view is not uncommon and is used in higher education frequently as a means of nurturing critical analysis skills. There is no better way of understanding your opponents point of view than if your try your hardest to make their argument for them. For instance, if your are against capital punishment you would argue the case for it, this would force you to explore the point of view fully without being able to rely on your own bias and prejudice. Doing this will also have the potential to strengthen your current point of view because in future debates when you argue what you actually think and not the opposite you will be much better equipped.
chris price (1 year ago)
This is disappointing stuff from Paglia. All religion began with the worship of woman??? Buddhism?? No ! But I agree that American women have undervalued femininity; when I arrived in America in 1967 I looked around the university canteen and thought that the girls LOOKED better than English girls, but were no people you (a man) would want to spend time with. They even call each other "guys". American culture seems not to like or want to protect women. Paglia is, it seems to me, very culture blind. What she says does not apply in Italy, France, Thailand, to mention just a few. And to call Buddhism dependent on a lack of testosterone is just ignorant of mens' psychology. e.g. there are very few Buddhist nuns. She is starting to sound like just another man hater and humiliater. I decided many years ago just to walk away from them (MGTOW) and let them get on with it. The middle ages recognised woman's fondness for carping at men and had the ducking stool as an attempt to cure it. We have lost ground since then.
chris price (1 year ago)
MrNick615: Buddhism is "pre-written word". For the first 300 years after 500 BC it was conveyed only by speech by monks who had learned by heart the Buddha's lectures; Pali, its original language, did not have a written form Then there was a a conference to agree an authentic version, which was written in Sanskrit. I do not believe it depends on any previous religion, although some, like perhaps Taoism, might share its attitudes; in fact I know from my own experience that its insights--its descriptions of the human psyche-- can be discovered without any guidance from any scripture (although it is advisable to use its guidance to prevent going astray later). Maybe we are arguing at cross-purposes.
MrNick615 (1 year ago)
chris price Buddhism isn't one of humanity's founding religions, those are all pre written word.. And they seem to center on female, fecundity, Mother Earth, pregnancy, etc.. It's not a big deal really back in early history women were bringer of life so it's natural they would be seen as a creator, a bringer of life.. Buddhism is a late stage human religion.. Respectively.. Or in the perspective of 100000 years...
chris price (1 year ago)
A Boston. To make a statement like "all religion started with the worship of women" is the sort of thing sophomores might do; it makes them sound so knowledgeable, as if they have investigated ALL religions (I doubt that ANYONE has). As logicians have always pointed out, it needs only one counterexample to disprove a general statement. I offer Buddhism as that example. Can you show me how Buddhism started with the worship of women?? If not, please admit you were wrong.
A Boston (1 year ago)
Religion certainly began by worship of woman. It's reflected in all art from antiquity through the stone age. Woman was venerated as a sacred, special talisman. Camille is right.Camille has practically made a career, speaking on the greatness and importance of men...always stating that feminism lacks reverence for men. The only time I see her speak of the importance of women, we should be able to handle it. Don't get stuck in your feelings, unable to be objective, lile those you supposedly oppose.
chris price (1 year ago)
Max Marshall: Thanks for that; I hadn't realised it. That returns some hope to me for Paglia's continued sanity.
NelsonClick (1 year ago)
Wow. I forgot about this broadcast. I saw it when it was first shown. This was before I understood the totality of Paglia's ideas. She was largely just an academic rock star to me then and this was like a concert where I got to hear her play her amazing riffs. She hasn't changed too much since then but I have. This video reminds me what a fierce feminist she was...is.
Stéphane Payrard (1 year ago)
As I grow older my penis will become so « impredictable and frail » but I will always get a mental boner listening to Paglia. 😀
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
don't be a weak weasel, but ok to be a strong asshole? way way way too much emphasis on women, a little bit of modesty is what suit them better. If they can't handle the world then they can get back to the kitchen
Abraham Saenz (1 year ago)
Don't be a weak weasel, she did not degrade man, she was been funny, she wanted about woman outside of the victimization mentality and that's a great thing
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
that person speaks for himself, he does not speak for Paglia, Paglia actually states that she agrees with the resolution
TAG (1 year ago)
+Canem Cave Debate Club. The arguments the guest speakers bring forth in their guest speaker persona don't necessarily line up with their personal beliefs. 1:44:00 From the horses mouth: "Perhaps the gentleman is confused, because he knows me and he knows my opinions and he forgets himself. He forgets that I'm speaking in the affirmative on the resolution." It's about the craft of debating, the different resolutions are just the constraints for the challenge.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
yes now, not then oh really and should i give a shit about your french?? pardon mine cretin?
mark kavanagh (1 year ago)
Would the world please listen to this woman, genius, and shame on the Feminist movement for rejecting her.
Canem Cave (1 year ago)
seriously? she is worse than fuck here, she should be ashamed to have made any of these claims
Batosai11489 (1 year ago)
Everyone in this entire video sounds smarter, more polite, and more respectful than pretty much anything I hear today.
MaRk dAtheist (1 year ago)
Enzo Ferrari I think you have the wrong person. Maybe batosai?
MaRk dAtheist (1 year ago)
Batosai11489 Yea. Politely telling everyone how superior they are, cheered by standing ovations - patting themselves in the back for biological traits they were born with
Three headed monkey (1 year ago)
Did you actually listen to the talk? The title is provocative and the "superior" aspects she talks about are sarcastic and humorous.
TheAntiGynocentrist (1 year ago)
Batosai11489 They sound like polite bigots and this is bigotry. It would be interesting to see a well known male academic go to Yale and lecture on C-Span about men being superior to women. Or a KKK member share their views. What do you think the reaction would be? Do you think the people in the audience would politely ask questions and applaud the speaker? I am all for female supremacist idiots exercising their free speech so we know exactly how stupid they are.
CallitHowISeeIt (1 year ago)
To think the 'totalitarian tip-toe' was creeping along back then and I was so blissfully unaware, while we men were taking it on the chin for every idiot father-figure in every sitcom we had no idea one day we'd look up and find ourselves naked against this disgusting movement, we're fighting back now tho but it won't be done as sneaky and as incrementally
Situation comedies. Yup. This. lol

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.