In an effort to put a halt to the AVFM war on logic & reason (a war that generously targets not just women but men) Rev. Philip has decided to offer sage analysis on some writing by the good Dr. Paul!
Dr. Paul has written a response to the recent resurgence of protest to the use of the word “bossy” as a slur against women in power.
Without further ado I give you choice words by Dr. Paul on the word; “Bossy”.
Let’s examine what Dr. Paul has done here.
He’s asserted that “many” women don’t know the difference between being strong and being rude and overbearing. NO WAIT! He’s asserted that “many, many” women don’t know the difference.
As we all know, “many” is defined as “a large number of” so to repeat the word “many” twice for emphatic effect is almost like Dr. Paul wants to say “most” or “almost all” but is afraid if he does that it will come across as generalizing about pretty much all women (in a not very flattering way) as opposed to his vague reference to “a fair share”.
Both “many, many” and “a fair share” are numerically vague, but in the context of the sentence:
“You see, many, many women in this culture, and more than a fair share of men, don’t know the difference between being strong and being rude and overbearing. And the difference is obvious to everyone except those who are bossy.”
The double emphatic use against women in contrast to the single use with men would be almost guaranteed to suggest to the reader that Dr. Paul is naming the population of women in this culture as having a majority proportion who are emotionally too stunted to get the concepts he’s talking about as opposed to the more moderately named “fair share” of men (as a side note putting “fair share” and “men” together is dog-whistle speech for the AVFM-MRA fanbase).
Dr. Paul has managed to skirt the borders of the Hasty Generalization fallacy by assigning a vague numerical value (many: a word that suggests a significant portion) of the population in question (Western women) and then repeating that vague numerical (many, many) which leaves the reader subconsciously thinking “almost all”.
Mathematically it would look something like this:
If many = 48% then (many x 2) = 98%.
Dr. Paul then gives a fatherly; “stern talking to” to this group of (many, many) emotionally under-developed women.
All of which is supposed to get across the following to the reader.
S.1 Feminists claim that the word “bossy” is used to discriminate against women in positions of power.
P.1 Women who are ignorant of the nature of strength lack strong leadership qualities and therefore are rude and overbearing.
P.2 Being rude and overbearing is referred to as being “bossy”.
P.3 Roughly 98% of women are ignorant of the nature of strength.
C.1 Therefore all women who are referred to as “bossy” are actually “bossy” and there is no discrimination at play.
The entire equation rests on Dr. Paul’s unfounded informal assertion of “many, many women”; a vague number that Dr Paul cannot back up. I invite Dr. Paul to provide evidence to back up his claim (Dr. Paul is also welcome to correct it and communicate the exact percentage of the female population he was suggesting suffer from this condition of ignorance).
Dr. Paul then offers this little Argument From Ignorance fallacy;
I can think of three off the top of head. The first is the famous Annie Oakley (I discuss her efforts to train women to fight in warfare in the following video. Efforts that were dismissed and ignored entirely because she was a woman). Second is Spanish Harlem resident Lucia Garcia, a late 1980s YWCA Woman of the Year award winner who fought to help oppressed women in Nicaragua obtain birth control during the Nicaraguan Revolution (I presented her to the Award committee as a nominee, something I am quite proud of), and third is Maya Angelou (excerpt is from Maya Angelou: A Critical Companion by Mary Jane Lupton page 126).
Look folks. If you want to focus on men’s issues and fight to see that change happens in those areas of society where men are having serious issues? I can respect that and will happily cheer you on.
But if any of you consider yourself critical thinkers, then you should be very wary of falling for this sort of dog-whistle sub-context charged rhetoric that’s designed to stir up an emotional response so the reader will set aside reason and just go;
“FUCK YEAH, THOSE BITCHES!”
Always remember to apply critical thinking so you don’t compromise your logic and reason.
Links from blog as follows:
Follow me on: