Paglia's "Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex"

1.      What separates Gaga from the “tigresses of charismatic sensuality or gamines of buoyant charm - Beyonce, Shakira, Rihanna, Nelly Furtado” other than her personal opinion that their depiction of sexuality is appropriate but Gaga’s is not?

2.      Is the author’s problem more with Gaga or with the generation that admires her?

3.      Is the author genuinely offended that Gaga does not conform to her idea of “sexy?”

I understand finding her music annoying or recycled, and I understand finding her costumes and performances outlandish, tasteless, or even vulgar. What I can’t understand is what seems like Paglia’s deep, personal offence at the way Gaga goes about her own celebrity and sexuality. When she questions “[i]s it the death of sex?” I find it hard to understand if she’s implying that Gaga will inspire a generation of girls to abandon sexuality and sexual charm like that of, say, Madonna or Beyonce and devolve into the sort of sexual dysfunction she claims Gaga is a slave to, or if she’s actually afraid that the cultural standard for “sexy” will shift to a more Gaga-like image, as if sex is freedom and Gaga represents the dystopic totalitarianism of Orwell’s 1984.

“In fact, Gaga isn’t sexy at all - she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation?” I’m not sure what I find more difficult to believe—that the author feels there is one universal standard of “sexy” (“genuine eroticism”), or that she feels like “sexiness” is necessary to become an icon of a generation.

I’m not a personal fan of Gaga—like Paglia, I find her songs “catchy but depthless,” and quite frankly I get the impression of her that she might overstate her own importance. However, I try to give Gaga the same tentative respect I give all people who aren’t making an effort to harm people. I remember watching a TV special on LGBT bullying, and a young boy, maybe 10, who had been ruthlessly and malicious bullied because of his real or perceived homosexual orientation shared his story, then asked the host if he could sing a song that kept him inspired despite it all. He sang, in a heartbreakingly lovely and unrefined young voice, Lady Gaga’s “Born this Way.” That was the song that gave him courage through his difficulty. I remember being reminded at that moment that things can have profoundly different effects on different people. While Gaga’s songs might pass me by as unimportant or even annoying, to him they were a source of hope and strength. It was a reminder, to me, of the importance of respecting people’s differences.

I feel like Paglia may have missed this—she seems to view the “Gaga generation” as so emotionally dead from text messaging and the internet that she may not noticed that, surprise surprise, they are still human and if they find joy in something that, realistically, is not harming other people, then there probably isn’t a good reason to criticize them for liking it. The concept of “live and let live” seems increasingly difficult to an older generation viewing the younger one, with their new strange new fads and the ever-evil influence of the internet making them “fair game” in many eyes for what I believe is undue and ultimately counter-productive criticism.

Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

1.  Even if humans become "pancake people" with wide but shallow information networks, what makes that kind of intelligence "artificial?"
2. Because the internet only networks us to other human beings and directs us to their thoughts and ideas (as opposed to forming ideas of its own), how are ideas and perspectives gained over the web different than those gained in a lecture or from a book?
3. The same way that the invention of the gun has not stopped people from training their bodies for strength in self-defense, isn't it likely that those who value their ability to read slowly and thoughtfully will exercise that ability to maintain it?

In his article Is Google Making Us Stupid? Carr questions the effect of internet technology on the human brain, fearing that it may result in our brains becoming mere data processors instead of deep thinkers. While I think human history reflects the fact that, generally speaking, people use more efficient technology to substitute their own abilities (e.g. the printing press vs. transcribing things by hand), and it's not unreasonable to assume that, with the internet doing so much of the thinking for us, people will rely increasingly on the internet to gather data and make connections, I think a very fundamental part of being human is continuing to strive for increased abilities within oneself, and being self-reliant to a certain degree, if no other reason than just for the personal satisfaction.

For example, a gun is an extremely efficient and effective killing and/or self-defense machine. One could argue that by owning a gun, all forms of hand-to-hand combat become obsolete. However there will always be those, even with guns and other weapons available, who choose to train their own bodies so that they are capable of defending themselves without any external aid. I think that likewise, many deep-thinkers will continue to exercise their brains and maintain their ability to form those rich, deep connections that Carr fears people will lose in this Age of the Internet. I personally spend ridiculous amounts of time on the internet, and have for most of my life since middle school, and yet my ability to read slowly, savor words on paper, and think deeply about the things I've read seems to be unaffected. While I don't consider my personal experience to be representative of internet-users as a whole, I think it speaks to the innate diversity of different people's minds to a certain stimuli.