Self-described "dissident feminist" Camille Paglia wrote an op-ed in this past weekend's New York Times. I agree with some of her sentiments; in fact, her succinct assessment of the office environment is right on. But the piece is so misguided and out-of-touch it only makes sense the NYT would run it. 

She's sniffed something out with men's dress, but gets thrown slightly off course. I'd attribute "bulky t-shirts and loose shorts" to middle America's obesity problem; the real issue is grown men dressing like twentysomethings, not preschoolers - fiftysomethings in suits with Converse sneakers, for instance. Has the American masculine mentality (cultivated by pop culture or-if Naomi Wolf is to be believed- terrified men intent on maintaining a patriarchal society) of desiring young(er and er) girls scared men into subscribing to that belief towards themselves?  

Again, she aims in the right direction, but as opposed to Hollywood's "sci-fi androids," she should hit the advent of free and easy access to internet porn as the culprit both of turning women into "fantasy figures without psychological complexity and erotic needs of real women" AND of draining sex of the mystery that makes it so intoxicating. Indeed, it's a serious disservice to young developing minds both male and female to have the available porn on the internet act as sex ed.  Instead of burying their heads in the sand, parents should purchase Anaïs Nin for their teens and censor internet porn.  

Yet what I take issue with is this startlingly racist line masked as being congratulatory: "Contrast that with Latino and African-American taste, which runs toward the healthy silhouette of the bootylicious Beyoncé."

First of all, can we stop using Beyoncé as the poster girl for voluptuousness and body normalcy? I'm stealing from someone, but I overheard recently: "Beyoncé almost has a real girl's body- if that girl worked out like a fiend and had a personal chef." I don't deny that she's healthIER-looking than most of the starlet fawns stumbling around Hollywood, but STOP.  She works out more than all of us combined.  Or is this just the only black female celebrity that a certain demographic knows? 

Furthermore, where's the acknowledgement of how that "taste" has morphed through the years, as well the effect of that change on young black girls?  The women in early rap videos are dramatically different than the video vixens of today, who are just as altered (surgically, digitally, and aerobically) as "American actresses," albeit for an entirely different purpose.  They, too, aspire to be efficient machines; but instead of desexualized ones, overly sexed robots existing solely to arouse men.  

But here's the rub- once again, an upper-class intellectual issues a cursory, patronizing "great job, black folks!" without examining the complex issues that are just as egregious as these other issues, the least of which is not why she's tagged a blonde, light-skinned, highly-aerobicized woman as the blanket object of African-American lust.