Julie, I agree that Paglia milks controversy, and I also feel uneasy with some of her provocations.
But I don’t see the dynamics of all her provocateurism in the same way. Not everything she says is aimed at an underdog. For example, in the ’90s she challenged hypocritical and puritanical attitudes attitudes toward sex in a certain kind of feminism. That struck me as positive.
Is she a drama queen? Sure. But she also pokes holes in an illusion of ideological consensus, again especially in academia. The fact that she pisses off both the left and the right is part of that.
And yes, the FT article is asinine on the point you mention (about calling McCloskey “she”). I see the FT article as more narrow and trite than “hateful,” but there is a meanness to it too.
|