ilovequantitativeresearch

[ilovequantitativeresearch]

A Critique on Lauren Martin’s Opinion Article: Why Women Need To Start Asking Men Out…Because Men Have No Balls

                With issues such as gender equality, being built around discussion and narrative, sound analysis and logical consistency must be of paramount value. Unfortunately, in this text, Martin posts unabashed drivel and unfounded opinions on how she thinks the world should work. For whatever reason, it always seems to be in her favor. A large percentage of the article highlights on the fault of the male gender, not once giving them merit or displaying any sense of objectivity.

               The author seems to highlight the problem as something between a man and woman; making constant references to the behaviors of past generations, yet only putting the blame on one stakeholder. In reality, this is has nothing to do with that. This only has to do with horrible, muckraking, sensationalist “journalism”. It is shallow ideologies and thought pieces like these that make it much harder for true feminism and gender equality to gain a foothold in society. This is the very undermining of its true meaning. We delve further into this by dissecting the work in terms of Aristotle’s Appeals, type of claim, logical fallacies, and intertextuality.

The author begins the argument build by displaying the kind of behavior men show.

               “They'll make eye contact with you in the bar, but never come over. They'll get your number, but never call. They'll offer to buy you a drink, but never pay. They'll say a girl is hot, but never hit on her. They'll text you for a week, but never ask you out. They'll do absolutely everything but make a move. I've watched men pine over women, talking about them like future wives, yet after staring at them for two hours, let them walk away. I've watched men chase women down for their phone numbers, yet wait a week to text them, acting like it's something they simply forgot about. I've watched men spend an entire night talking to a girl, yet never get up the nerve to ask for her number”

               Consistently, she repeats the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdium. She blows the situational analysis out of proportion. What’s even more contradicting was the disclaimer she noted before going on the absurdium rampage. “Well — to be fair here — not all men, but a lot of them”. While this could have been a great opener for objectivity, providing credibility to the piece, it had been completely destroyed and off-set by the countless other fallacies which will be tackled further on.

In terms of logical fallacies, the author draws close to a slippery slope.

“(if A)We're dealing with a new breed of men here and it's not the kind we grew up dreaming about. It’s the want-what-I-want-but-don’t-know-how-to-get-it type; it’s the sweet and cuddly mama’s boys who grow up terrified of making the first move; it’s the guys who have so much to say but don’t know how to say it. (then B) Now, the unfortunate paradox for a woman is that she must be the chased and the chaser. She must be the target and the shooter. She must play coy and simultaneously pursue him. (then z!)Anyone notice the problem here? Yet again, women are left to do all the work. We're left playing both sides of the game because they've simply forgotten how to play. “

            Notice how the paragraph concludes the sequence with “left to do all the work”. Yet again, the author draws up the situation out of proportion. The author draws on and on about how the woman now has to be the “hunter” and the “target”. Is there really anything wrong about this? Essentially, feminism and gender equality is founded upon the equal standing between the sexes. With this slippery slope, the author left with it a question up in the air: should women then continue to simply look pretty, provide nothing to the equation and leave themselves as objects for men to select on shelves? This is the exact notion that feminism seeks to eradicate in modern society.

“This leaves women making all the moves. We must tell them what they want if we're to get anywhere close to the goals we had for ourselves. But it will never be as we fully imagined because, in our dreams, men weren't timid or scared little boys; in our dreams, men are the ones with the balls to ask us out.”

            Once again, the author coats on the same dressing: oversimplification. In this piece, men are still perceived to be useless and unproductive, with the only supplementary evidence being nothing but the author’s personal anecdotes. The tone set is final and all-knowing,

“Men aren't these masculine displays of strength and perseverance. They aren't these persistent characters created by Nicholas Sparks and John Green. They aren't going to catch your eye and spend all night convincing you why you should be with them. They aren't Noah Calhouns. They aren't Augustus Waters”

             Martin cites problematic allusions to back the article. References are made to John Green and Nicholas Sparks. These authors are the very creators (and sometimes critics) of the manic pixie dream girl archetype. Most of the women in their novels serve to the character development and fulfilment of the male protagonist however, more often than not, forget their own. The role of the female in their novels is to be the muse and inspiration for men to change and take action in the world, rather than they themselves take action. An example would be Jamie Sullivan in A Walk to Remember and Alaska Young in Looking for Alaska.

“It's said that the male ego is as fragile as a woman's heart and unfortunately for women, men won't take the chance of letting it shatter. While women willingly put themselves out there, men stand back, scared of the tiniest bruise on their overinflated self-image. So yet again, women must be the strong ones. We must put ourselves out there and risk rejection. Because if we don't do it, bars will soon be exactly like those middle school dances: boys on one side, girls on the other.”

               Although the text in its entirety appeals to emotion, pathos is most evident in this paragraph and so is the oversimplification of the situation. However, one must give credit to the author’s consistency- of making a functional, give and take adult relationship sound like a chore, rather than a common decency and standard of social behavior.

“Men, on the other hand, always seem to be waiting for something better. In the age of Facebook and Instagram, there’s this constant filtered delusion that a hotter girl sits just an inbox away”

Another case of Reductio ad absurdium in which the entirety of a gender is being thrown into a singular notion- a notion constructed by the author.

“In a sad, but not all that surprising, report by Nickelodeon UK, men are 11 years behind women in maturity. While women reach maturation by 32, men aren't fully matured until 43. While this study garnered much attention, women everywhere were less than surprised. Didn't we already know this?”

              Nickelodeon is an entertainment company, targeted to children. Clicking on the link, one is greeted by SpongeBob- who is known to live in a pineapple under the sea. This is an example of false appeal to authority. When seeking reputable and credible data on maturity and gender behavioral studies, Nickelodeon should be considered as the least of the options available. Regardless, maturity differences correlating to gender is a well-known fact. However, this only refers to biological maturity. Meaning, men start puberty earlier and also don’t stop growing until much older either.

Furthermore, the real problem of this article is the complete generational bias the author notes to conclude the thought piece.

“To add insult to the few dates you have yet to be asked on, men are also getting married less than ever before. According to a study by Pew Research Center, only 26 percent of Generation-Y is married.

Compared to the 48 percent of our parents at this age, there's no denying that men just don't have their sh*t together.

We’re dating less and thus, marrying less. And the downfall picks up speed with every failed attempt to ask a woman out.”

            Looking at the social aspects of the situation, the conclusion is downright erroneous. While couples are getting married at a later age, they are actually getting married sooner in their lifespans. This is according to the U.S. Census.

              Should we analyze this in the true spirit of feminism, marrying later on is actually a positive indicator for women everywhere.  More women are working, and less are ready to start a family as early. Women are valuing careers more and more, less willing to be stay-at-home moms. A rise in independence, an increase in financial freedom and desire to be more as an individual before becoming a couple means both sides of the aisle are marrying less because they choose to.

               Lauren Martin’s opinion article clearly exemplifies the difference between opinions founded on solid, logical reasoning and opinions founded on shallow, misconstrued concepts- with it inclining more onto the latter. An article teeming with logical fallacies and plain sexism, it serves no higher purpose. It answers no valid questions and problems, and only proves itself to be counterproductive to the discussion and discourse of feminism and gender equality.

Maritin, L. (2014, September 9).  Why Women Need To Start Asking Men                     Out…Because Men Have No Balls [Web log post]. Retrieved February                28, 2017, from http://elitedaily.com/dating/men-pssies-women-need-                 start-asking-men-dates/746965/ 

Vespa, J. (2014, February, 2014) Marrying Older, But Sooner? [Web log post]. Retrieved February 28, 2017,                                                           from http://blogs.census.gov/2014/02/10/marrying-older-but-sooner/

Word count: 1,550