COUNTERPUNCH LETTERS : Overreacting to Paglia’s ‘Lesson’

I can’t help but think that in Tammy Bruce’s response (“When It Comes to Harassment, Paglia Cannot Speak for Us,” Nov. 14) to Camille Paglia’s commentary on David Mamet’s film “Oleanna” (“The Real Lesson of ‘Oleanna,’ ” Nov. 6), she is succumbing to the very problem Paglia is trying to identify: oversensitivity and overreaction. Mamet’s work gives us a very clear picture of how anyone can, through careful manipulation of words out of context, denigrate anyone.

As an educator, I have a perspective of the extent to which political correctness has begun to skew the learning process. To Bruce, “Oleanna’s” antagonist is asking for it. In fact, the first half of the film presents her as a befuddled and overwhelmed student trying to stay afloat in a class.

The real issue is: Who has control of the classroom, the educator or the student? The answer lies not in demanding that the world change to conform to the narrow agenda of some feminists but that these feminists recognize when they are truly being subjected to harassment and address the problem.

Bruce has the right to say no, but not to tell anyone else what they must think. That is censorship--the issue Mamet is addressing.

JOHN ROSS CLARK

Long Beach

*

In today’s light, “Oleanna” is clearly reactionary. It takes the least sympathetic, most desperate female character and shows her caught in the horrific height of the political correctness movement.

On the other hand, Bruce’s Counterpunch scares me. Bruce starts by comparing Paglia and Mamet to two famous alleged sexual harassers. Next, they are branded misogynists. Then, Paglia’s a “sellout.” But Bruce has just begun slinging mud. Paglia, Mamet and the Calendar editors are all part of an “agenda to dismiss and degenerate the power women achieve when taking control in their own lives by recognizing and stopping the actual victimization--the harassment itself.”

Well, Ms. Bruce, there is no agenda. We white American men are capable of great evil and stupidity. We have been entrenched in a power structure of our own creation for hundreds of years. We would, and do, take advantage of “our own” as often, if not more often, than we “subjugate” the weak. Evil is evil and white men are no more capable of it than women or others.

Bruce refuses to recognize that it is her words that confirm people’s worst fears of “victim-centered feminism.” Her accusations ascribe motives that most readers of The Times inherently know are not real. Bruce’s mission is honorable, but her methods destroy the message.

DAVID POLAND

Beverly Hills