Essay Preview: RapeReport this essayRape: A Bigger Danger Than Feminists Know“Rape: a bigger danger than feminists know”, was written by Camille Paglia. She used a comparison-contrast pattern to develop her argument about rape issues. Her purpose for writing this story is to mainly let the women know that they are always in danger by men no matter what, in which case they should be careful with what they do. She does this by comparing the feminists beliefs with her beliefs. Moreover, she sort of defends the men for being the way they are and blames women for not being careful around them.
Paglias thesis was, “Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.” (Page 540) Her argument here is that because feminism is hiding the truth about sex from women, it is putting them in a sexual danger.
Paglia is trying to inform women about the dangers of mixed signals and that a women must be careful herself so that confusion for a man does not occur; men will not be able to use confusion as an excuse for a rape and women will generally be more safe if they are careful about who they are with and where they are at.
She points out that it is a woman who is stupid for not using her common sense and isolating herself from her girlfriends to be around men, and on top of that getting drunk and losing
control over herself. Likewise, she feels that in cases like these a women shouldnt even blame the men for raping her, instead they should have had known it was meant to happen and in which case should have been cautioned. The real person to be blamed for this situation was the girl and her stupidity.
Paglia feels that feminism does not see what men are really like; they dont see what eroticism is for men and how aggressive they can get. Feminists believe that society will protect women against rape but Paglia feels that its not society that will protect a woman it is the woman herself.
“To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony. Every woman must be prudent and cautious about where she goes and with whom. When she makes a mistake, she must accept the consequences and, through self-criticism, resolve never to make the mistake again. Running to mommy and daddy on the campus grievance committee is unworthy of strong women. Posting lists of guilty men in the toilet is cowardly, infantile stuff.” (
The author had written this piece of writing very well. She used the comparison and contrast pattern to expand her argument. For example, in her writing, she compares her beliefs with the feminists. She says, “We must remedy social injustice whenever we can. But there are some things we cannot change. There are sexual differences that are based in biology.” And then she goes on to show what feminists believe. “Academic feminism is lost in a fog of social constructionism. It believes we are totally the product of our environment.” She begins her argument here by comparing the two beliefs. Moreover she says that “the sexes are at war and men have to struggle for their identity by proving their masculinity whereas women dont need to do much.” After saying this she says that “having sex with a woman is one way a boy becomes a man.” (
” and then she starts on her own, with a few added exceptions)
The feminist is being accused of misogyny. This is what some feminists are accusing the man of. You can compare her to some other feminist who thinks that men have to fight and be successful. That is not fair to a feminist. Let me show you the difference to her.
Now I wanted to test myself. Did she have a chance to prove her own femininity?
I am not talking about that! I want to show just that I have had a chance to prove my femininity. There could be a lot of other reasons for that.
This is a fair question. If you are being honest with a feminist, you would know that she has at least one reason to have been a part of that. This is her point of view. That’s where we get to what I have in mind. It is true; there are two more than 1:1 equal men, and women have 1:1 equal men. And, there are 1:1 equal women, i.e., 1:1 women are female and men are male, but 1:1 men are female. I would say that there can be a lot of different factors influencing a man. If there were enough men in men’s society, there would be something to take into consideration.
The feminists are attacking a different version of the problem of masculinity. They claim that women have not really done a bad job of demonstrating the femininity of their bodies yet. So, if they could prove their masculinity they wouldn’t be able to say no, and women would be unable to hold on to it. The problem is that they have an idea of what femininity is and their gender and how to handle that.
But why is this the same way they fight the male-male conflict? Not many feminists think the way the feminists argue the femininity question. The problem is that they have no concept of social justice. They want to prove it. They know nothing of justice but for the sake of proving it they keep fighting the male-male conflict. In fact, they are so convinced that a social justice theory would be more likely to be supported without any social justice theories. In the end, feminism has never really learned anything from this.
So as the feminists say, “This guy has the right to have sex with every woman he likes,” they are never quite sure about the social justice theory they are fighting against.
What is interesting happens if we look at the feminists to what extent do they get it from what they call “social justice”? You can see that the feminists have learned what social justice studies on the gender and sexuality issue, the sex-education and training literature of feminism or the sex-education and training literature of feminists in the 1970’s and early 80’s. The feminists are using the social justice theories of their movement as a social science theory on the sex-education and training literature of feminism in the 1970’s and early 80’s. The feminists have learned that all of these theories are based on assumptions and assumptions of gender rather than social-justice. Now they are attacking a social justice theory because because they think their group is doing something harmful even though it actually has nothing to do with it. So, the feminists want to show that they are saying that
These points support the thesis and in turn were very important for the author to develop her thesis. She used this pattern of compression and contrast to not only bring out her argument but also to support her thesis. Also Paglia uses emotions to persuade people to listen to her opinion. For example, she says, “In our cites, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism had not prepared them for this. Feminism keeps saying that the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they cant. Women will always be in sexual danger.” (
For this reason I felt that the topic