Fallacies Discovered in “Rape and the Modern Sex War”
She’s Guilty! Camille Paglia, Author of “Rape and the Modern Sex War” has indeed included arguments and opinions that can be distinguished as fallacies. In the article, Paglia criticizes the philosophy of the feminists who have a “naive and prudish” view of sex leading to the reason why much young women are in danger of rape today. Paglia argues her opinions, but entirely demolishes them by creating three particular fallacies throughout the context of the article. Through straw man, Paglia attacks feminists through the oversimplification of her responses. As easily identifiable, Paglia is guilty of no true Scotsman fallacies through her capricious selection of words as she avoids the …show more content…
“Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman’s protection against rape” (Paglia, 50). Paglia vouched the opposite side of feminism but blatantly contradicts herself by stating “Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it” (Paglia, 50). Paglia contradicts her statement by implying that women have to thoroughly understand the concept of rape before they defend themselves, but in all reality society is to blame for not giving women more of an opportunity to interpret rape. “To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony” (Paglia, 51). The previous statement that acquires women to study the past is also pertained to a society problem, and is not a problem linked to women overall. Many lessons of history throughout generations hide the revealing facts of rape, while portraying that this is not a society problem Paglia states that this aspect of life is “common sense” (Paglia, 50). Paglia blames her own generation, the women of the Sixties, who thought they wanted sexual free will but later faced the consequences. Later, Paglia contradicts herself by stating “…nothing about the sexes has really changed” (Paglia, 51). Previously, Paglia bashed the feminists when they expressed that “…the sexes are the same” (Paglia, 49). “There are …show more content…
Paglia confabulates, “feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract’s. In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been victims of rape” (Paglia, 49). By stating the information above, Paglia creates a dramatic slippery slope by concluding that all women involved in sexual activity have to state a permanent “yes or no.” Before a woman engages in such activity, Paglia believes if women do not give explicit consent then women could conclude to rape and make men faulty for actions that are misunderstood through poor translation of emotions and communication. “Neither militant feminism, which is obsessed with politically correct language, nor academic feminism, which believes that knowledge and experience are “constituted by” language, can understand preverbal or nonverbal communication. Feminism, focusing on sexual politics, cannot see that sex exists in and through the body. “Sexual desire and arousal cannot be fully translated into verbal terms. This is why men and women misunderstand each other” (Paglia, 51). Paglia’s retort against the feminists’ stance regarding miscommunication between men and women vividly demonstrates a slippery
She’s Guilty! Camille Paglia, Author of “Rape and the Modern Sex War” has indeed included arguments and opinions that can be distinguished as fallacies. In the article, Paglia criticizes the philosophy of the feminists who have a “naive and prudish” view of sex leading to the reason why much young women are in danger of rape today. Paglia argues her opinions, but entirely demolishes them by creating three particular fallacies throughout the context of the article. Through straw man, Paglia attacks feminists through the oversimplification of her responses. As easily identifiable, Paglia is guilty of no true Scotsman fallacies through her capricious selection of words as she avoids the …show more content…
“Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman’s protection against rape” (Paglia, 50). Paglia vouched the opposite side of feminism but blatantly contradicts herself by stating “Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it” (Paglia, 50). Paglia contradicts her statement by implying that women have to thoroughly understand the concept of rape before they defend themselves, but in all reality society is to blame for not giving women more of an opportunity to interpret rape. “To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony” (Paglia, 51). The previous statement that acquires women to study the past is also pertained to a society problem, and is not a problem linked to women overall. Many lessons of history throughout generations hide the revealing facts of rape, while portraying that this is not a society problem Paglia states that this aspect of life is “common sense” (Paglia, 50). Paglia blames her own generation, the women of the Sixties, who thought they wanted sexual free will but later faced the consequences. Later, Paglia contradicts herself by stating “…nothing about the sexes has really changed” (Paglia, 51). Previously, Paglia bashed the feminists when they expressed that “…the sexes are the same” (Paglia, 49). “There are …show more content…
Paglia confabulates, “feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract’s. In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been victims of rape” (Paglia, 49). By stating the information above, Paglia creates a dramatic slippery slope by concluding that all women involved in sexual activity have to state a permanent “yes or no.” Before a woman engages in such activity, Paglia believes if women do not give explicit consent then women could conclude to rape and make men faulty for actions that are misunderstood through poor translation of emotions and communication. “Neither militant feminism, which is obsessed with politically correct language, nor academic feminism, which believes that knowledge and experience are “constituted by” language, can understand preverbal or nonverbal communication. Feminism, focusing on sexual politics, cannot see that sex exists in and through the body. “Sexual desire and arousal cannot be fully translated into verbal terms. This is why men and women misunderstand each other” (Paglia, 51). Paglia’s retort against the feminists’ stance regarding miscommunication between men and women vividly demonstrates a slippery