Shutting Their Eyes

Modern society shuts its eyes easily and willingly. We don’t want to see evil, or trouble ahead. And even for those that do, it must always be in measured amounts. They will squint, so that only some of the light comes through, leaving them with an incomplete picture.

Mrs. ktc clued me in to an example of this, found in this article by Camille Paglia- The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil. A few choice excerpts:

Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.

There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against. It is well-established that the visual faculties play a bigger role in male sexuality, which accounts for the greater male interest in pornography. The sexual stalker, who is often an alienated loser consumed with his own failures, is motivated by an atavistic hunting reflex. He is called a predator precisely because he turns his victims into prey.

Misled by the naive optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.

Ms. Paglia is able to notice the animal eyes which glow in the dark. She can see the male predators out there. What she fails to see [or at least, acknowledge], however, are the predators in her midst.

You see, those women whom Ms. Paglia describes as naive are, in their own respect, just as feral as the men that she warns about. As a society we are quick to decry feral men, the male predators lurking in the dark. But we ignore the female predators who walk among us. We are quick to point out the evil in men, but balk at doing the same in women.

Someone like Ms. Paglia sees “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and worries about “messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic.” Her time, and society, would be better served by thinking [and talking] about what messages are intentionally sent with “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and how they are correctly read.

It is no accident that young women dress that way. Naivete has nothing to do with it. Women know, instinctively, the power their bodies have over men, and they use that power to get what they want: male attention and validation. Young women who dress that way are tempting men, they are provoking a sexual response in the deepest recess of the male psyche. Do men want this? For the most part, yes. Men like viewing attractive female flesh as much as attractive females like showing it. But that doesn’t change the nature of what these women are doing- they are tempting men, setting stumbling blocks before them. And even worse, they deny all the while that they are doing any of that. They claim empowerment as their rationale- as obvious a lie as any ever told.

Much is said by a few around these parts about how men push young women for sex in relationships (or push for sex instead of relationships). Yet in the present environment women push for it too (only they will deny it later if confronted). Don’t believe me? Go ask Ballista, he will have a story or two for you. I’m sure that Chad and Martel have similar tales to tell of women who pushed for sex right away. If you have been paying attention to the news lately (especially about female teachers sleeping with their students), you will know that women can be sexual predators too. Yet all together we as a society will ignore or downplay the dark side of female sexuality. We refuse to acknowledge that evil inherent in unrestrained female sexuality.

Message to Camille Paglia:

It isn’t just the modern campus that cannot comprehend evil- it is the whole of society. You see only that evil which you want to see, and nothing more.

Update: In case it wasn’t clear, the main thrust of this post was that we only recognize certain kinds of evil these days. Overt violence being the prime example. But other, subtler evils are not recognized or called out. I wanted to point out that Ms. Paglia was making much the same error that she was accusing college campuses of making.

Update 2: Sir Nemesis has questioned my criticism of Paglia. He argues that just because she hasn’t called out other evils, doesn’t means she doesn’t recognize them. Theoretically this might be true. However, I’m not familiar with her ever having done so. But focusing on what she specifically, has said or believes would be a mistake. This post is about more than just her. I’ve corrected the above post (with some additions and a strike-through), to try and make that more clear. The overall point, once again, was how some evils are recognized and acknowledged, and others aren’t. And there is a pattern to this which should be noticeable to those of us who give it careful thought.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Femininity, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, State of Nature, Temptation, Women

14 responses to “Shutting Their Eyes

  1. Novaseeker

    This runs up against the “women don’t dress that way for men, they dress that way for other women” mantra, which isn’t false, but also leaves some stuff out.

    I think it is true that women are very competitive with each other in terms of appearance and attractiveness, and that they *do* dress in attractive (or even slutty, because for many women today that is what attractive means) ways to impress other women and compete with them. That is true, in my experience.

    However, the key comes down to what “attractive” means. Attractive is a word that implies a viewer who views and finds themselves *attracted”. That is what it means. So, while women do compete with each other in terms of attractiveness, the question is “whom is to be attracted by such attractiveness?”. In the case of most women, it is men. Yes, women assess it of each other in the absence of men being present, that’s true, but they aren’t assessing it in a lesbian attraction kind of way — it’s being assessed in terms of what men find attractive in women.

    So putting that together, they dress in ways that they think are attractive to men (in general) in order to compete with other women on the basis of attractiveness — even if they are not trying to attract a specific man at the time, and even if they are not interested in attracting *any* men on that specific day or at that specific time. This is what is going on when women say “I am not dressing this way for men!!!” — she means not a specific man or even men in general on that day. But … she is dressing to be attractive, and the determinant of what is attractive (for heterosexual women, at least, which, per the CDC, is something like 97% of all women in the US) is what men find attractive in women.

    So what they see is technically true in many cases (not generally the case of girls hanging out in bars in Charlottesville, Virginia at 1am in hooker clothes and hooking up with strange men in said bars … but in other cases), it still overlooks the fact that men’s attraction vectors lurk behind that intrasexual (and intrasexually-assessed) competition around attractiveness when it comes to clothing.

  2. Women are evil as men are evil the only difference being that sexual dimorphism specific to the female ensures that this evil manifests in a unique way that renders it more obscure and more easily recognized as innocence and helplessness.

    Their evil is more often Machiavellian and behind the scenes often using others to do evil for them and to appear innocent while framing another.

  3. Typically Evil is portrayed as a tyrannical strongman oppressing via violence and strength which is typical of the strong who is also evil. But there exists also the evil of the weak which is more insidious and relies more on dissimulation and deception, infiltration and subversion given the lack of strength on their part, this is the type of evil that wants to tear down the strong and the beautiful and drag them down to their level, soft leftists typically exemplify this and use the charges of sexism,inequality,racism,homophobia as well as the interests of women and children to destroy their competition who are better in some aspect than they, they are the ones that make themselves morally superior via victim-hood status deriding criticism,hierarchy and authority as abuse and oppression.

    They seek control not by their strength but by the redefinition of the language and malicious memes that cause chaos as it infects the minds of their enemies and redefines their ideas or eliminate rival ideas. Through the capture of the media and of academia. As such their enemies are overcome and do their bidding without so much of a fight their enemies become their unknowing accomplices to their ideas and their works. Case in point is the conservatives constantly being shifted leftward without realizing it.

  4. @ Novaseeker

    All good points.

    Of course, even if there are no men present, this competition is not a good or healthy thing. It is still sinful, based as it is on envy. But these days evil and sinful are not the same things in the minds of many. Which is what I was going for with this post.

    We see only certain kinds of evil, and ignore the others. Mostly it is only the overt and physical acts of others that general society will recognize and label evil.

  5. I’d say Paglia’s column has a somewhat paranoid tone. The kind of rape-murder she describes has historically taken place in the context of unrestricted warfare, probably the best-known 20th century manifestation of which was the Eastern Front in 1944-45, even there it was relatively rare, and in civilian life it was even rarer. Rapists are, after all, a very small minority of men, provided we use a common sense definition of rape instead of the modern one.

  6. @donalgraeme
    ”We see only certain kinds of evil, and ignore the others. Mostly it is only the overt and physical acts of others that general society will recognize and label evil. ”

    Was that addressed to me or him?

  7. deti

    Just to amplify what Nova said: Women dress the way they do to be attractive to men. But more specifically, it is to attract ATTENTION from men — sexual attention, yes, but other kinds too. Pretty women get not only potential sex partners, but also potential long term mates (the two are not necessarily the same thing). They get attention from men willing to orbit them and “do stuff for them”.

  8. deti

    Paglia is actually pretty good, as feminists go. Being a lesbian or bisexual herself, Paglia understands and has frequently commented on female shortcomings, especially in the current marketplaces. She didn’t get it completely correct on this one, though. Good find, donal.

  9. @ Infowarrior

    That part you quote wasn’t addressed to anyone. It was a general statement that I later included in the OP.

  10. @ Deti

    Yes, she is better than most. Her blindness is based on ignorance and faulty thought processes, not malice or ill intent, like some out there.

  11. I don’t get your criticism of Camille Paglia. She pointed out that modern feminists and liberals shut their eyes to a certain Evil (let’s call it A). You’re pointing out that there is another Evil (let’s call it B) that is ignored, and which Camille Paglia didn’t mention. The fact that Paglia pointed out A but not B doesn’t mean she ignores B or is unaware of it; imo she was simply pointing out A because it’s the low-hanging fruit that will be more readily accepted by readers, and thus be more successful in opening readers’ minds.

  12. @ Sir Nemesis

    Nemesis, I very much doubt that she would ever call out B. That assumes, of course, that she even recognizes it. If she has before, and I’ve missed it, then I apologize. But I don’t recall her calling “B” out before. And the main point of my article is that basically no one calls out “B”- no one labels as evil that which doesn’t fit into a fairly narrow definition (mostly overt violence).

  13. MediaLuddite

    DG is completely correct in his criticism of Paglia for those who wish to do a modicum of research. Paglia has long been known as someone who sees open and in-your-face sexuality as art. She is a champion of it.

    There are many examples, but I will provide one. This is from a commentary by Paglia last year about Miley Cyrus performance at an MTV awards show:

    Most of the media backlash focused on Cyrus’ crass opportunism, which stole the show from Lady Gaga, normally no slouch in the foot-stamping look-at-me department. But the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms. She was clumsy, flat-footed and cringingly unsexy, an effect heightened by her manic grin.

    How could American pop have gotten this bad? Sex has been a crucial component of the entertainment industry since the seductive vamps of silent film and the bawdy big mamas of roadhouse blues. Elvis Presley, James Brown and Mick Jagger brought sizzling heat to rock, soul and funk music, which in turn spawned the controversial raw explicitness of urban hip-hop.

    In one fell swoop, Paglia makes hedonistic sex her positive, essential, and uniting theme behind all popular music.

    There is zero chance that Paglia would ever suggest that young women change their wardrobe. Paglia favors and champions overt sexuality.

    Paglia will fool many and seem to be someone who is worth reading because (a) she is an effective writer and (b) she admires masculinity in men. However, once one scratches the surface, one realizes that Paglia likes to see herself as a man. She is openly lesbian/bisexual after all.

    Essentially, Paglia takes on the voice of a PUA male trapped in a woman’s body. She lectures to women about safety, but she wants their feral and hedonistic natures to control them.

    To Paglia and other PUAs, it is good if their feral natures make women willing concubines. Paglia and her comrades merely ask that women don’t get themselves hurt. After all, that would leave Paglia et al one less female to potentially exploit.

    PS For those that wish to, you can read Paglia’s entire commentary on Miley Cyrus here: http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/27/pops-drop-from-madonna-to-miley/

  14. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/10/08 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s