The 3 Failures of Feminism: Camilla Paglia

[November 3, 2025]  Since the late 1990s, feminist Dr. Camilla Paglia has been one of the leading critics of feminism.  She sees 3 main failures of modern feminism.  This assertion that Paglia is critical of “modern” feminism stems from her outright rejection  of the victim/oppressor narrative that dominates much of America’s feminist movement.

Here are Camilia Paglia’s critique of modern feminism:

1. The aversion toward men and masculine traits.
2. Its victim mentality.
3. Its aversion to acknowledge innate gender differences.

The aversion toward men and masculine traits:  Contemporary feminism has both mischaracterized masculine traits and sought to demonize them.  This especially concerns competitiveness, aggression, and assertiveness.  She points out that competitiveness drives individuals to excel beyond their current capabilities, fostering innovation as people strive to outdo each other and themselves, ultimately pushing societal advancement forward.

Similarly, when aggression is channeled constructively, it can result in the tenacity necessary for overcoming significant challenges and driving critical changes, while assertiveness is essential for effective leadership. This leadership enables individuals to communicate their vision clearly and mobilize others toward a common goal.

Combined, these masculine traits have historically played a crucial role in leadership, innovation, and problem solving; creating strong and vibrant societies.  Portraying masculinity as toxic or inherently oppressive, feminism impoverishes society and will ultimately lead to its decline.

Feminism’s Victim Mentality:  According to Paglia, the modern feminist narrative has become overly preoccupied with the idea that women are victims of the patriarchy.  This obsession diverts the attention of women, instead fixating on grievances and conflicts.  She suggests that this victim mentality encourages a sense of helplessness and passivity.

Psychologically, people who adopt a victim mentality often see themselves as perpetually at the mercy of external forces, perpetually sidelined, wronged, or oppressed by others with detrimental effects.  Paglia’s criticism extends to how feminist victim culture has been institutionalized.  There’s an industry built around maintaining women’s status as victims through various advocacy groups and academic programs which consistently emphasize gender-based disadvantages.

Paglia believes that this approach discourages women from pursuing success through their own efforts and abilities.  Ironically, it disempowers women.  This lets them focus on the social oppression game instead of skill and merit.  It also promotes a divergent us versus them mentality between genders.

Feminism’s aversion to acknowledge innate gender differences:  The biological differences between the genders start with physical characteristics but also involve deeper psychological divergences that influence behaviors, preferences, and capabilities.

She points to evolutionary biology and endocrinology to explain how the millennia of differentiated roles shaped distinct traits in men and women.  For instance, men typically exhibit elevated levels of aggression and competitiveness; traits needed in their traditional roles as hunters and warriors.  Women, on the other hand, are generally more nurturing; a characteristic developed through roles that require caretaking and community building.

Higher testosterone levels in men contribute to physical strength and aggressiveness, but also to behavioral patterns that support their roles in protective and provisionary capacities.  Conversely, women’s higher estrogen levels enhance their empathetic abilities and foster strong interpersonal connections; traits that were indispensable for nurturing and maintaining cohesive social groups.

“Not the fancy contorted jargon of the pseudo Leftists of academia who are frauds.  These people who manage to rise to the top at Berkeley, at Harvard, at Princeton; the idea that these people are radical, they are corporate types who succeeded in that they love the institutional context.  They know how to manipulate the bureaucracy which has totally invaded and usurped academia everywhere.  These people are company players.  They could have done well in any field.  They love to sit on committees, they love bureaucratic regulation, and so on.  There is not one Leftist in American academia [who] raised his or her voice at the obscene growth of tuition costs, which have bankrupted a whole generation of young people. Not one voice to challenge the invasion by the bureaucrats – absolute fascist bureaucrats – they’re cancerous, there so many of them.  It’s a scandal what has happened and they deserve their current servitude that they’re in right now because they never protested.” – Camilia Paglia in an interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson

Camilia Paglia is no friend of academia, that never put a stop to the progression of our current wave of feminism, and in fact, they cheered it on because of their corruption in their complicity as academia became a monster of their own making.

————

Please read my books:

1. “55 Rules for a Good Life,” on Amazon (link here).
2. “Our Longest Year in Iraq,” on Amazon (link here).