Written by Zaynab Elkolaly, 17, 15 at the time, Michigan
In her blog article, Why We Don’t Need Feminism, Emily Matters attempts to delve into the innately complex topic of modern feminism, which is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” Ms. Matters appears to be under the impression that feminism is completely unnecessary for current issues and that the ideology in itself is“outdated.” After managing to overcome the logical fallacy-induced shock that washed over me upon reading this piece, I decided to firmly reject the argument. With her complete lack of expertise in this field, blatantly inaccurate information, statistics that are completely irrelevant to the subject matter, matter-of-fact tone that equates opinion to fact, and the constant violations of basic laws of common sense and logic, Emily Matters does an impeccable job at weakening and delegitimizing her stance on feminism.
When determining the credibility of an article, credentials of the author are often the first to be subject to analysis. Upon examining the site for information regarding the lifestyle and educational status of Matters, it is realized she has nothing describing herself at all, much less content about her credibility. While some might claim that the fact that she is a female automatically provides her with a plausible platform to speak on this topic, this does not apply to the nature of her article. She incorrectly attempts to use fundamental elements of biology, as well as criminal justice to corroborate her claim. A writer typically cannot be trusted to speak without expertise in the field or cited evidence, both of which Matters lacks entirely. Furthermore, she does not appear to have adequate external writing experience. She has three articles on the site, one of which serves the purpose of addressing the death threats that she received in her anti-feminism article.
The aforementioned website that Matters published her three articles on is called Thought Catalog. This site has professional writers that discuss all aspects of life, such as home decor, midlife crises, traveling, and fashion. Then there is the option of freely submitting a post without any regulation. Anything that an author decides to publish is uploaded to the server immediately. There are no less than three occurrences of spelling and grammatical errors, and unsurprisingly, Emily Matters is not listed as an accredited contributor to the content of this site. In turn, it is safe to assume that this was an unmodified, arbitrary post; therefore, it is immediately rendered less reliable than an article that underwent some form of modification in order to ensure syntax perfection and accurate content.
Likely due to the evident lack of oversight, this article is blatantly abundant with inaccurate information. The first irrefutably incorrect statement can be found in paragraph two, where Matters attempts to explain the prevalence of male-induced rape: “As a general rule, advanced male mammals are demonic and violent creatures” (Matters 2012). When referring to these so-called “advanced male mammals,” she makes no specifications regarding the species homo sapien, meaning that she has just categorized a male human that is capable of rational thought with the primitive behaviors of wild apes. However, this piece of evidence, though uncorroborated, is classified as facts and statistics, but not only is this notion scientifically preposterous, but is also the logical fallacy ad hominem, where it is assumed that one’s actions and reputability are defined by their affiliates. According to Matters, male perpetrators were automatically inclined to rape because of the animalistic tendencies of their monkey counterparts. It can also be argued that this is false cause, because she is stating that rape tendencies in humans are attributed to shared genetic code with primates.
Furthermore, as Emily Matters decides to delve into the world of testosterone and its effect on male behavioral patterns, she makes a statement that does not necessarily contribute positively or negatively to her argument in itself, but one that may be considered laughable, put bluntly. She claims that “the extra testosterone makes men generally more antisocial, violent, and combative than your average women. (That the word “contest” literally means “with testicles” is no coincidence. The etymology emerges from an organic reality: primitive men, not women, engaging in ritual combat.)” (Matters 2012). Unjustly general biological claim aside, her explanation of the word “contest” is completely incorrect. The attempt to portray the etymology of this word as a derivative of testicles fails miserably when the reader realizes that male reproductive organs in fact have no relation to “contest” whatsoever. While “con” is indeed a Middle French word meaning “with,” the subject of the suffix still remains.
Unfortunately for the author, “test” is derived from the Latin word “testis,” which means to bear witness. This unmistakeable inaccuracy strongly suggests that even the most seemingly insignificant segments of her work have to be examined for factual errors, immediately diminishing her credibility as a writer. As such, even if that had somehow been an accurate statement, the etymology of a word from the 1600’s does not testify for the accuracy of its usage. Also, this does not account for the provocation of her claim regarding testosterone, male rape, and its legitimacy pertaining to instinctual behaviors.
Luckily for article critics, Emily Matters does not stop there. She endeavors to incorporate feminism’s view on the initial cause of rape, but this attempt is obstructed when she begs the question. She claims, “Feminism’s focus on misogyny as a source of rape is important, but its vision is limited, for misogyny is simply a side effect of man’s biological disposition towards aggression and violence” (Matters 2012). Once more, in an attempt for facts and statistics, Matters makes a scientific statement without citing a source, and to add insult to injury, uses the straw man logical fallacy in the process. According to Matters, the feminist movement claims that misogyny is the source of rape (2012). Feminism makes no such claims. In reality, while the movement does seek to eliminate misogyny, the stance pertaining to causes of rape is entirely different. There is no defined cause of rape, as motive varies from person to person, and in human beings, motive is not reduced to a neurological concoction of hormones. This is a major component of feminism--the fact that men are intelligent, capable beings who will not be viewed as unstable vessels of aggression and demonism that cannot be held accountable for their own actions. This ideology is a stark contrast from “boys will be boys,” which is the very essence of the denigrating, androgynistic undertone that is prevalent in this article.
The feminist movement seeks to hold the person fully accountable for their crimes, just as women are, where equality is involved. In addition, feminism seeks to remove the the mentality that a woman's appearance determines her sexual consent. Misogyny is likely not the actual cause of rape, but the cause of justification of rape. The author failed to address any of these elements at all, much less in a rational, factual manner. When someone is determining their stance on feminism, being fully informed on its definition and purpose is vital. This is even more imperative when said person is influencing the masses, regardless of how miniscule said masses may be. The apparent lack of understanding of the topic that Emily Matters is writing about is the final straw in the scrutinisation of her persuasion ability and overall credibility in the article, and this is only solidified by the argument that comes next.
A major component of modern feminism is the wage gap, which can essentially be described as one man and one woman working in the exact same position, and having the same hours, experience, qualifications, etc. but the man being paid the higher wage. This is an issue that has been taken to the Supreme Court and is often addressed by President Barack Obama, and Matters attempts to explain it as follows: “Women don’t seem to care about money as much as men do and generally self-select into lower paying careers by their own volition – not because of prejudice” (Matters 2012). Not only does she misconstrue a statement issued by one of two of her total documented sources, but once again, this author displays her poor knowledge of the topic at hand. The argument regarding wage gaps does not involve the comparison of two individuals of different genders that have two separate vocations. As stated prior, it pertains to differences in payment with two individuals of the same position. The entirety of this portion of her argument is based on the fact that testosterone-induced aggression is the reason that males flourish in high-stress environments (which has not been proven), and to worsen matters further, this evidence is supporting a complete misconstruement of the initial argument. Therefore, this argument is also classified as the logical fallacy straw man.
In addition, it seems slightly promising for whatever remainder of the author’s credibility when she mentions a statistic, but this hope plummets when the importance of the statistic is undermined within the next two words. She says, “Women might earn on average 77 cents on a man’s dollar (or whatever the latest trendy statistic is)” (Matters 2012). This is the only relevant statistic in this article that she admits has been accepted as fact, but proceeds to undermine it for no apparent legitimate reason. Then, to attempt to justify this reality, she states, “But men also die significantly younger than women, and this early death seems to be connected with the fact that testosterone, aggression, and stress lead to an early death” (Matters 2012). While the issue that she has yet to support her testosterone-related claims still stands, it is nothing in comparison to the fact that she has attempted to justify the wage gap by stating that men die earlier than women. This unsurprisingly unsubstantiated statement indicates serious logical deficits, because in the work force, a person’s projected life expectancy based on their gender is not typically taken into account when determining wages. This is simply due to the fact that life expectancy does not influence general performance. Since the author is wrongfully rationalizing the wage gap, then the closest logical fallacy that this statement can be categorized as rationalization, as well as false cause, because she is stating that this is the reason that a wage gap exists to begin with.
As for other statistics in this article, there were only 2 that were provided a source for. She conveys one by stating, “Recent stats show 63% of all homicides in the United States involved a male offender with a male victim; only 22.7% had a male offender and female victim” (Matters 20142. This would be a wonderful piece of evidence had Emily Matters’ article speaks about homicide, but her article is indeed only mentions rape. The mention of homicide seeks to incorporate male-on-male violence and its prominence in her argument, but it has already been established that feminism does not view misogyny as a source of rape, thus invalidating the relevance of this statistic to her argument. The fact that one of the two substantiated facts present in the article does nothing to reject her opposition is a final indicator of the strength of Matters’ argument.
Finally, in the concluding paragraph of the article, Matters proposes an alternative to feminism, a system “that is not so much a collective movement, but a way of living which respects and integrates men, women, and every beautiful and complex variation in-between” (Matters 2012). With this statement, it is confirmed that Emily Matters never comprehended the definition of feminism to begin with. The way of life that she desires is the very foundation of feminism. In 1,278 words, she said everything within her capacity to denounce and disprove feminism, and in 27, expressed her desire for it. This fact alone allows for me to reject her article and credibility in a heartbeat, but in order to fairly negate a writer’s arguments and credibility, all elements of the information presented and the methods by which they are presented must be thoroughly examined. Therefore, due to this article’s plethora of logical fallacies, unsubstantiated factual and statistical evidence, deceptively factual tone, blatantly inaccurate information, and the final statement that contradicted everything that the article sought to prove, Emily Matters’ argument has been duly rejected.
Works Cited
Matters, Emily. "Why We Don’t Need Feminism." Thought Catalog. 24 Dec. 2012.
"Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar." Oxford Dictionaries | English.
Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
96% See rubric to be handed back in class.