Camille Paglia Does Not Approve of Crotch-Flashing Starlets
|
Posted by Andi Zeisler December 8th, 2006 |
Clearly, there’s more important stuff going on in the world, but the pop-culture obsessed among us would be hard-pressed to ignore the recent onslaught of panty-free female celebs — or, more accurately, the onslaught of documentation of said panty-free state. Paparazzi crotch shots of your Lohans, your Hiltons, and the like have been popping up on sites like Gawker and TMZ for several months now, but it’s the recently liberated Britney Spears whose uncovered ladyparts — recently photographed on a few different occasions — have made this a trend.
None of us need to see Britney’s business, it’s true. But I personally can’t get all worked up about this issue, either. I do think that if you know you’re going to be riding in Paris Hilton’s car wearing a short skirt, and you know the whole disembarking-from-an-SUV process involves the possibility that your clothes may do some twisting, or riding up, or whatever, and you know that a swarm of Pentax-clutching paparazzi are going to be crouching with their lenses trained on your bottom half the moment you open said SUV door, and you don’t want the readership of OK! magazine to get’s a gyno’s-eye view — well, you might consider panties. Just, you know, because. But is Britney’s (or Lindsay’s, or Paris’s) failure to consider this — or their consideration and subsequent disregard of it — a matter of feminist honor?
If you’re Camille Paglia, it is. The normally starlet-loving Paglia was contacted recently by US Weekly for her thoughts on the matter, and, well,
she’s pissed. When asked to comment on how celebrity crotch shots are “affecting feminism,” she replied: “These girls are lowering themselves to the level of backstreet floozies. It angers me because I fought a bitter fight to get feminism back on track and be pro-sex at the same time. This is degrading the entire pro-sex wing of feminism.”
First of all: Floozies? Who says that? But more important, it’s so typical of Paglia to make this all about her. I love how she’s so indignant that her fight to get feminism “back on track” — which she presumably feels she accomplished via, among other things, her victim-blaming approach to rape and her numerous assertions that innovation, creativity, and sexual potency are the precious realms of men — has been nullified by a couple of questionably deployed vulvas. And “degrading the entire pro-sex wing of feminism”? It’s not like, in addition to flashing millions, Britney and co. delivered a speech on the limits of sexual self-determination, mocked Toys in Babeland, and stole Paglia’s Hitachi Magic Wand.
Sometimes a crotch is just a crotch, Camille.
December 9th, 2006 19:38
I don’t think that Paris and Britney are getting into these situations by accident. These are calculated publicity stunts. The paparazzi haven’t just started pointing their cameras towards the nether-regions of the stars.
I don’t think this is a feminist issue one way or the other. I think people should be allowed to walk around stark naked if they want, or flash their bits to the media, or shroud themselves from head to toe. Whatever.
Camille Paglia, she of the micro minis, is just a bitter old lady.
December 11th, 2006 01:02
More Skin On Love Boat!
Speaking of barenaked ladies and catblogging: Britney Spear’s Pussy Britney Spears’s uncovered vagina makes my blog look good Camille Paglia Does Not Approve of Crotch-Flashing Starlets I’m sure my Future Ex-wife and I will laugh about all of this s…
December 11th, 2006 06:20
Actually I do think the startlets’ flashing is bad for feminism, but since when were Britney, Paris et al. ever GOOD for feminism?
December 11th, 2006 07:28
I normally would care less but Britney adds a new dimension to the flashing spectrum. At some point the lecherous minded will remember that she is both ’slutty’ girl and ‘mommy’ person and the dichotomy may cause actual thinking to happen. They are ogling not just her naughty bits but her baby-producing bits. Can an insane starlet actually make men think about the whole whore/madonna thing? I doubt it but perhaps…
December 11th, 2006 08:07
I assert that Paglia is hurting feminism by even appearing in that waste-of-perfectly-good-trees anyway.
December 14th, 2006 13:03
This is very sad to read because what Camille Paglia can’t bear to admit is that Madonna is the foreunner of raunch culture and has influenced Paris, Britney and all the other younger girls who Camille deems ‘floozies.”
Do you hate hardcore porn being brought to your 9 year old daughter by the media? Blame Madonna, who had nowhere to go but Skanktown and the media who made it rewardable. Ciccone has very little sheer talent-she is a poor actress and her singing voice-to say nothing of her wretchedly insincere speaking voice-is one of the weakest in the entire industry.
Madonna really made it by being the first media generated supe star; trashy, nasty to her fellow female performer (until she was too haggard and old to get away with it as often) and courting stylists, trainers and designers instead of working on her craft but most importantly the media has always seen her as a scared cow-be trashy, be vulgar and we will keep you famous,on magazine covers (has Beyonce ever had a Vanity fair cover?) loved AND respected they say. Thus her spawn followed suit.
Camille Paglia knows Madonna will never be a true glorious sex symbol, like Monroe, Ekberg or June Wilkinson and that she always cared more about money and appearance than sex but Camille still champions her because Madonna has the Catholic Church oozing out of ever pore and is an example of what the short, thick waisted, smaller breasted average Catholic woman with ‘exploit my dead Mommy angst’ can do. Camille sees and defends herself.
I for one like classy, talented well endowed women like Sophia Loren, Nigella Lawson, Kate Donovan, Super Amanda, and Kelly Brook who have class, mystery and vibrance and who have awesome bodies that they have not destroyed with exercise bulimia. Women like these have other stuff going on-like sex, sensuality and beauty!
Madonna: Camille’s dream and Queen of the Wasted Faces and sweat shop labor HMS track suit lifestyle.
December 18th, 2006 20:28
Everything Paglia says never fails to drive me nuts. Constantly blaming women for failing feminism and all the other evils in the world is in its self anti-feminist, patriarchy is the problem here. Women like Brittany feeling like the only way they can gain attention is through flashing their vaginas is part of the larger issue of the objectification of women. I feel sorry for them, hell there’s nothing women can do right in the public eye except maybe bake cookies. Grrr.
December 20th, 2006 19:39
Who is camille paglia ?
December 21st, 2006 16:47
Admit it, feminism got what it wanted; we are all equality chauvinist pigs now. Have courage womyn and quit pretending that you’re prudes.
December 21st, 2006 16:49
Of course, Eve Ensler is delighted Spears has remembered the monologue.
January 3rd, 2007 22:41
I don’t know much about Ms. Paglia…so I can’t comment on her good or bad intentions etc. But, I think it’s sad that these young ‘celebs’ are so desperate for attention/fame that they are willing to sink that low. I guess when you lack talent you have to find other ways to get noticed.
- Dorez
http://www.jahqoi.com
October 18th, 2007 13:21
Ohhh yeah, the public image of women looks GREAT thanks to them. I wouldn’t say they’re completely ruining it, but they sure aren’t f**king helping, now, are they?
There’s nothing “liberated” or “feminist” about flaunting your lack of self-respect or being a piss poor mother.
January 11th, 2008 17:30
And this why I love Sophia Loren, Raquel Welch, jane Russell, Anita Ekberg and Gina Lollobrigida. I love Tura is correct : madonna showing her kootch in that poorly photographed anti-hourglass figure book , walking around topless with a Uriah Heepish Gaultier and being as vulgar and trashy as she can with a mollycoddling media may have seemed more “high brow” in a pre-internet media than Britney’s haphazard vaginal exposure but Camille Paglia you know that madonna showed Paris, Nicole, Lindsay, Britney all the way!
Throwing in a few generic catholic grudge f%ck moments and connived “pity me dead mommy exploitation songs” doesn’t make it any less tasteless and harmful to women’s entertainment it just let’s her walk away after giving Britney the kiss of death. Shouldn’t she be helping her little mentally troubled “friend” Britney she used so well instead of touring the slums trying to be Angelina with that poor bored looking husband who no longer has a viable film career?
Why do you always call your icons on the wrong shit?
December 10th, 2009 14:50
I thought I would leave my first comment, Thank you and I will want to read more from you.
February 1st, 2010 18:32
Just been reading up on another site about this.