Camille Paglia’s column in Salon.com today is a happy standard of intelligence and refreshment. Seriously, I’ve got a crush.
This paragraph contains my favorite quote:
It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin’s boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.
I bolded that last sentence. Oh. My. Lanta. That’s been an argument of mine for ages. I thought the whole point of women’s liberation was to allow women to pursue their callings and talents in any way, to not be limited by society’s predetermined path for them. I didn’t realize that being a “good” woman meant you had to follow a specific ideology. I don’t agree, either. Last week Gloria Steinem wrote a column about how Palin doesn’t represent what women want. Steinem didn’t bother to ask me. Or, apparently, the thousands of other women for whom Palin represents a breath of fresh air and similar values.
I am not attracted to Palin simply because she’s a woman. I couldn’t stand Clinton. Why the difference? It’s the values, the morals, the platform. It’s because I agree, basically, with Palin’s positions on the issues. Does it help that she’s scrappy, funny and handy with a hunting rifle? Well, yeah! I LIKE that she isn’t a victim. I LOVE that, in point of fact. She isn’t going to appologize to anyone that she chose to continue a pregnancy in her mid fourties after she found out her child had Down’s. I adore that. Rock on, chickadee, rock on.
Here is another reason I’ve got a girl crush on Paglia, or Camille since she’s now my imaginary friend: her position on abortion. Though I disagree with her, I’m grateful she’s looking and thinking about it clearly and thoughtfully instead of reflexively.
But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.
Thank you, Camille, thank you for stating the obvious. It is, at last, time to have an actual debate about abortion. Now we can get down to brass tacks and discuss what really happens, what is or should be legal and what to do about it. Thank you!
Please go read the entire article. It is worth your time.