Jordan and Camille’s Excellent Adventure

 

I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial. But if a generation of young men (and even some of their fathers and grandfathers) are going to listen to a social media muse on matters of culture, I’d much rather they listen to JP than, say, Susan “Why Can’t We Hate Men,” Danuta Walters, professor of sociology and director of the Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, to wit:

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

Good. Lord.

What Jordan Peterson has over this woman and others of her ilk is a positive message, a constructive agenda, an organized mind, and a road map to individual character building, “standing up straight with your shoulders back, grow[ing] the hell up, accept[ing] some responsibility, and liv[ing] an honorable life.” Nothing wrong with that. More power to him. May he change a million young men’s minds. This week. And another million, next week.

I do get a little concerned about context when I watch one of his five-minute clips on YouTube, most recently the one about how powerless a man is when he’s dealing with a difficult woman; apparently since the only real manly recourse, punching her lights out, is forbidden to him because of his inherently chivalrous nature. I guess I’d like to believe that there are other ways to solve conflicts, and that most of them fall somewhere in between turning one’s back and silently walking away, and a swift right hook. But then again, there are the Susan Danuta Walters’ of the world, so perhaps not.

Anyhoo, after watching that short clip, I wanted to learn more about Peterson’s attitude towards the Monstrous Regiment, so I did a bit of Google searching, and I came across a YouTube video in which he engages Camille Paglia for about an hour and three-quarters of vigorous discussion (she doesn’t do any other kind).

Clearly, these two are on the same wavelength. But so different. The very bright, but very dour man of few words, and the brilliant, explosive, very verbal, very mouthy old broad (I think she’d be OK with that description). It’s an interesting pairing.

For the first thirty minutes or so, Camille gives the most lucid and rational explanation I’ve ever heard of what has gone wrong in American academia from the 1970s onwards. (I was there. I remember.) It’s just masterful. And then it’s on to the patriarchy, an entertaining romp through history, art and culture, why the world evolved the way it did, why things are in the mess they are, and what, if anything can be done to repair the damage–Must women save the world? Must men stand up for themselves? What happens if nothing happens–Is Western Civilization Doomed?

The two of them energize and play off each other, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don’t agree with everything either of them said, and there are a few non-sequiturs and, I think, a few holes in their arguments at one point or another. But it’s a free-form discussion where they play off each others’ ideas, not a formal lecture. And rather than drone on as to what I think is problematic about it, I’d rather, if you’re interested and up for it, you have a listen yourself, and see what you think.

For those of you who may not know much of Camille Paglia, there’s always a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for me in the fact that this particular anti-feminist who speaks so eloquently about, and in defense of, the “patriarchy,” the Western Canon, and the traditional roles of men and women in society (I like her explanation of how those roles evolved better than just about any I’ve ever heard) is a seriously libertarian, pro-choice, lesbian/self-identified transgender classicist who’s been tearing up whatever pea-patch she’s been in, and causing trouble, as long as she’s been alive.

I loved this. I think it’s a hoot. They look as if they’re having a blast. Enjoy.

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 57 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    When I was 18, and in college, my dad bought me a subscription to Playboy.

    On those rare occasions where I actually received the magazine (I lived in a fraternity), my second-favorite part (hey, I was a teenage guy) was Camille Paglia’s column. Yes, I actually read the damn things, and I learned a lot, none of which was that I was evil simply for being born with a Y chromosome.

    I wish actual “liberal” liberals would realize that they have been hijacked by Leftists and Progressives and that the “Big Tent” was the real place for them to debate, discuss, and thrive without becoming Borg.

    One can only hope, right?

    • #1
  2. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    Wow. Camille is very, very passionate here. Again, I’ve always liked her ability to not mince words and speak her mind. She doesn’t dally about in word salad.

    • #2
  3. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    I love how she’s calling out modern Leftists for being “maleducated” because they believe history begins when they started noticing it.

    Again, she’s a Republican who just doesn’t know the Democrats have moved on to shinier, new demographics they can buy with handouts.

    • #3
  4. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    I’m basically live-blogging, but I find it funny that Jordan is talking Camille back down about Foucault, et al.

    She needs to understand that her home has packed up house and moved on without her.

    • #4
  5. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    Live-blogging again:

    I feel that my time reading Camille Paglia nearly three decades ago was worthwhile.

    Back then, it sounded radical, but now she’s a voice of reason.

    What a crazy time we live in.

    • #5
  6. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    She:

     

    So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

    Only white men listen to this. African; Asian, Aboriginal and Native American men don’t bother with this at all. Why is that?

     

    • #6
  7. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    She:

     

    So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

    Only white men listen to this. African; Asian, Aboriginal and Native American men don’t bother with this at all. Why is that?

     

    Because Sadness?

    • #7
  8. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    I got to see Camille speak on my college campus when I was about 20.

    There was a lot of controversy over her, and she did not disappoint. I loved every moment.

    Thanks for posting this again, @she.

     

    • #8
  9. She Member
    She
    @She

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):

    I got to see Camille speak on my college campus when I was about 20.

    There was a lot of controversy over her, and she did not disappoint. I loved every moment.

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    I feel that my time reading Camille Paglia nearly three decades ago was worthwhile.

    Back then, it sounded radical, but now she’s a voice of reason.

    What a crazy time we live in.

    Yes to both of you.  A few decades ago she burst on the scene and was so transgressive and outrageous.  Yet here she is today, clearly defining a worldview and an ethos that has been completely plowed under by what she sees as the hijacking of the “liberating” and “radical,” ideas she championed in her own youth. 

    I love the fact that she checks so many “intersectionality” boxes, and yet the feminists absolutely can’t stand her.  Speaking out in support of Western Civilization is the one thing for which it’s impossible to cash in any of your chips, whether they be on the intellectual, the successful career-woman, the same-sex marriage, the pro-choice, the gender-bending, or any other PC side.  Apparently, saying nice things about our history and culture and our society wipes the slate clean and you have to start from the ground up.

    • #9
  10. She Member
    She
    @She

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    I love how she’s calling out modern Leftists for being “maleducated” because they believe history begins when they started noticing it.

    That jumped out at me, too.  I’ve said for a very long time that we live in a world where an awful lot of people in the last couple of generations believe that the world was formed on the day they were born and that it will end on the day that they die.

    Such self-centered selfishness is, IMHO, the single most damaging aspect of the “gotta have it now” culture that pervades and infects everything we do.

    • #10
  11. She Member
    She
    @She

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    I wish actual “liberal” liberals would realize that they have been hijacked by Leftists and Progressives and that the “Big Tent” was the real place for them to debate, discuss, and thrive without becoming Borg.

    One can only hope, right?

    And I do.  I also hope for the same thing on the other side.  That those who think of ourselves as “conservatives” of any rational stripe are not so foolish as to dismiss voices like Paglia’s because some of her beliefs violate our own basic tenets, and that there is room for her voice in our own “big tent.”  I happen to think we can learn a lot from her.

    Speaking of a big tent, Republicans in Arizona just elected a female combat veteran, who put both her sex and her service front and center in the race (not sure the competition was all that stiff), to contest Jeff Flake’s seat in the fall so I am hopeful there is one.

    #ResistanceIsNotFutile

    • #11
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    Wow. Camille is very, very passionate here. Again, I’ve always liked her ability to not mince words and speak her mind. She doesn’t dally about in word salad.

    Rush has a great story about her.  He attended some kind of dinner party, and the schedulers decided to seat him next to Camille hoping fireworks would erupt.  Rush said TV anchors would walk by every now and then and ask how things were going.  The bottom line was Rush and Camille got along great, and they even smoked after-dinner cigars together.  No fireworks.  Here’s a interview were she mentions it briefly (Rush’s story is behind his firewall):

    https://reidsright.blogspot.com/2013/08/an-interview-with-camille-paglia.html

    She seems to be one of those people you can disagree with in a pleasant manner . . .

    • #12
  13. She Member
    She
    @She

    Stad (View Comment):

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    Wow. Camille is very, very passionate here. Again, I’ve always liked her ability to not mince words and speak her mind. She doesn’t dally about in word salad.

    Rush has a great story about her. He attended some kind of dinner party, and the schedulers decided to seat him next to Camille hoping fireworks would erupt. Rush said TV anchors would walk by every now and then and ask how things were going. The bottom line was Rush and Camille got along great, and they even smoked after-dinner cigars together. No fireworks. Here’s a interview were she mentions it briefly (Rush’s story is behind his firewall):

    https://reidsright.blogspot.com/2013/08/an-interview-with-camille-paglia.html

    She seems to be one of those people you can disagree with in a pleasant manner . . .

    Agree.  Am pretty sure she’s not thin-skinned.  On the other hand, I expect she and Rush agreed about quite a lot.

    • #13
  14. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    She (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    Wow. Camille is very, very passionate here. Again, I’ve always liked her ability to not mince words and speak her mind. She doesn’t dally about in word salad.

    Rush has a great story about her. He attended some kind of dinner party, and the schedulers decided to seat him next to Camille hoping fireworks would erupt. Rush said TV anchors would walk by every now and then and ask how things were going. The bottom line was Rush and Camille got along great, and they even smoked after-dinner cigars together. No fireworks. Here’s a interview were she mentions it briefly (Rush’s story is behind his firewall):

    https://reidsright.blogspot.com/2013/08/an-interview-with-camille-paglia.html

    She seems to be one of those people you can disagree with in a pleasant manner . . .

    Agree. Am pretty sure she’s not thin-skinned. On the other hand, I expect she and Rush agreed about quite a lot.

    That would have been one heckuva table to sit at . . .

    • #14
  15. She Member
    She
    @She

    Stad (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    dnewlander (View Comment):

    Wow. Camille is very, very passionate here. Again, I’ve always liked her ability to not mince words and speak her mind. She doesn’t dally about in word salad.

    Rush has a great story about her. He attended some kind of dinner party, and the schedulers decided to seat him next to Camille hoping fireworks would erupt. Rush said TV anchors would walk by every now and then and ask how things were going. The bottom line was Rush and Camille got along great, and they even smoked after-dinner cigars together. No fireworks. Here’s a interview were she mentions it briefly (Rush’s story is behind his firewall):

    https://reidsright.blogspot.com/2013/08/an-interview-with-camille-paglia.html

    She seems to be one of those people you can disagree with in a pleasant manner . . .

    Agree. Am pretty sure she’s not thin-skinned. On the other hand, I expect she and Rush agreed about quite a lot.

    That would have been one heckuva table to sit at . . .

    Would it ever.  I’d also have loved an occasional seat at the at the bar in the Eagle and Child in St. Giles Street while the Inklings were carousing there in the 1940s.  (This could easily turn into one of those, “If you could have a drink with two or three of the most important/interesting people you can imagine, from any time period in world history, who would they be?” games.)

    • #15
  16. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    She: I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial.

    That’s surprising to me. I think of Jordan Peterson as consciously opposite of glib and superficial. He seems to be grounded in thoughtfulness, precision, and interdisciplinary empiricism in all of his work and appearances. So when he synergizes and explores there is grounding to it. Now, if you were describing me trying to do the same thing then I would readily admit to glib and superficial because I’m dumber and less humble than I should be. I don’t mean to divert, it’s just fascinating to me sometimes how people can have such different takes. Or, perhaps our takes aren’t so very different and it’s also fascinating to me how small differences can seem to loom larger than they really are the closer people are to agreement. 

    Don’t mind me, sorry to spill my stream of consciousness on your thread.

     

    • #16
  17. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Hi. @she!  I enjoyed this, originally – and again – but Camille’s speech rate (New York City?) is like water from a fire-hose: Whew!  Also, her ambiguity about her own self-definition makes her defense of “western civ./patriarchy” a bit wistful/ambivalent; like wishing the cake were still there so she could have it, and eat it, too. :-)  Good stuff!

    • #17
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    She: I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial.

    That’s surprising to me. I think of Jordan Peterson as consciously opposite of glib and superficial. He seems to be grounded in thoughtfulness, precision, and interdisciplinary empiricism in all of his work and appearances. So when he synergizes and explores there is grounding to it. Now, if you were describing me trying to do the same thing then I would readily admit to glib and superficial because I’m dumber and less humble than I should be. I don’t mean to divert, it’s just fascinating to me sometimes how people can have such different takes. Or, perhaps our takes aren’t so very different and it’s also fascinating to me how small differences can seem to loom larger than they really are the closer people are to agreement.

    Don’t mind me, sorry to spill my stream of consciousness on your thread.

    No, that’s fine.  Glad to hear from you.  I think my impression may be formed more by these short clips that are everywhere, and that folks are inclined to introduce into conversations to suit a specific purpose, and often from the standpoint of, “see?  See?  SEE? Jordan Peterson agrees with me, so I must be right!!”  My discomfort with them, and my sense that perhaps some of them are, if not taken out of context, at least not really representative of his body of work, are what made me go in search of more complete information.  I don’t really have time to run every single one of them down, but I found this conversation with Camille Paglia reassuring.

    • #18
  19. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Aren’t many of these  clips on the ‘net from classroom lectures to Dr. Peterson’s students?  If so, context is vital.  I find it highly-improbable that Dr. Peterson believes that acted-out violence is a man’s only recourse in matters of protection.

    • #19
  20. She Member
    She
    @She

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    Aren’t many of these clips on the ‘net from classroom lectures to Dr. Peterson’s students? If so, context is vital. I find it highly-improbable that Dr. Peterson believes that acted-out violence is a man’s only recourse in matters of protection.

    Well, if the definition of “obstreperous woman” were sought out in the dictionary, Camille Paglia’s name would probably be right there at #1 (probably why I like her so much).  Fortunately, at least in the context of this discussion, they are in what some might call “violent agreement.”  I don’t get the sense that Peterson has any sort of issue with debating a strong and intelligent women on equal terms.  And I like that.

    • #20
  21. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):
    I got to see Camille speak on my college campus when I was about 20.

    So, last year, then?

    • #21
  22. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    She: I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial.

    That’s surprising to me. I think of Jordan Peterson as consciously opposite of glib and superficial. 

    On those subjects which he knows well, he is. As you say, his humility is one of his most attractive qualities. But I find his dismissal of Marxism and post-modernism to be, well, glib and superficial. And we need to properly engage with these ideas to properly dispose of them.

    • #22
  23. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    genferei (View Comment):

    So, last year, then?

    Ha! More than half a lifetime ago, I assure you. I graduated in 1992.

    • #23
  24. She Member
    She
    @She

    genferei (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    She: I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial.

    That’s surprising to me. I think of Jordan Peterson as consciously opposite of glib and superficial.

    On those subjects which he knows well, he is. As you say, his humility is one of his most attractive qualities. But I find his dismissal of Marxism and post-modernism to be, well, glib and superficial. And we need to properly engage with these ideas to properly dispose of them.

    And that’s why I appreciate Camille’s POV on the “postmodernist” side.  (Full disclosure, and channeling Richard Nixon:  “I am not a postmodernist.”)  Love her or hate her, it’s hard to dismiss Paglia’s understanding of such things as glib or superficial, once she gets on a roll.   And I love that about her. 

    • #24
  25. She Member
    She
    @She

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    So, last year, then?

    Ha! More than half a lifetime ago, I assure you. I graduated in 1992.

    Crimenutely.  1976.  I was there for the Ayn Rand hero/heroine worship, the beginnings of the Foucault/Dr. Doodledoo/LaCan nonsense, and the decline of the “academy.”  Following direct experience (from 1972-1978),for the next quarter-century, as the wife of an English Department faculty member, I saw my husband, and his commitment to teaching over career credentials/publication sidelined as the lunatics took over.  Don’t get me started, please.  

    • #25
  26. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    She (View Comment):

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    So, last year, then?

    Ha! More than half a lifetime ago, I assure you. I graduated in 1992.

    Crimenutely. 1976. I was there for the Ayn Rand hero/heroine worship, the beginnings of the Foucault/Dr. Doodledoo/LaCan nonsense, and the decline of the “academy.” Following direct experience (from 1972-1978),for the next quarter-century, as the wife of an English Department faculty member, I saw my husband, and his commitment to teaching over career credentials/publication sidelined as the lunatics took over. Don’t get me started, please.

    By all means, get started with a post about it!

    • #26
  27. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    genferei (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    She: I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial.

    That’s surprising to me. I think of Jordan Peterson as consciously opposite of glib and superficial.

    On those subjects which he knows well, he is. As you say, his humility is one of his most attractive qualities. But I find his dismissal of Marxism and post-modernism to be, well, glib and superficial. And we need to properly engage with these ideas to properly dispose of them.

    There were perhaps one or two videos in which I’ve heard him address post modernism in some depth. Most of the time he references it otherwise it just isn’t the topic at hand and his lines are more about staking his position rather than explaining it. I could have sworn, though, that he has addressed in detail

    I can’t do it today, but perhaps a Google search will turn up the videos I think I saw.

    • #27
  28. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    If men and women were truly equivalent by nature, and not just equally deserving of respect, then women wouldn’t need men’s cooperation. What I love about rabid feminism is its complete lack of interest in explaining how an equal sex consistently dominates another for thousands of years across the world. 

    One can argue that women are often superior to men in various ways. But there has never been a matriarchal society in which all forms of leadership can only be fulfilled by women. There have been queens and warrior women, but never top-to-bottom management by women as a rule. The scope of women’s participation in society depends upon the good wills of men. 

    • #28
  29. She Member
    She
    @She

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    If men and women were truly equivalent by nature, and not just equally deserving of respect, then women wouldn’t need men’s cooperation. What I love about rabid feminism is its complete lack of interest in explaining how an equal sex consistently dominates another for thousands of years across the world.

    One can argue that women are often superior to men in various ways. But there has never been a matriarchal society in which all forms of leadership can only be fulfilled by women. There have been queens and warrior women, but never top-to-bottom management by women as a rule. The scope of women’s participation in society depends upon the good wills of men.

    Or, upon the natural order of things.

    • #29
  30. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    She (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    If men and women were truly equivalent by nature, and not just equally deserving of respect, then women wouldn’t need men’s cooperation. What I love about rabid feminism is its complete lack of interest in explaining how an equal sex consistently dominates another for thousands of years across the world.

    One can argue that women are often superior to men in various ways. But there has never been a matriarchal society in which all forms of leadership can only be fulfilled by women. There have been queens and warrior women, but never top-to-bottom management by women as a rule. The scope of women’s participation in society depends upon the good wills of men.

    Or, upon the natural order of things.

    Or both. My intuition is to respect “natural order” type arguments mostly because some things are obvious. However, we are also souled beings (or substitute whichever version you prefer like sentient or something like that), and we can regulate our natural order to our benefit. Seems like good will is necessary even as it is insufficient on its own. That’s what Christianity (and other religions) bring which cannot be derived from materialist thinking alone – good will for the other can hardly be defined as natural and is only rational some of the time. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.