Flaws in Argument

Ehrenreich (2000) makes several fallacies in her argumentative essay, Maid to Order published in Harpers Magazine. Her main argument is that no self-respecting, independent woman would or should submit to doing domestic housework the old-fashioned way (p. 1). The fallacies Ehrenreich commits start with personal incredulity, followed by bandwagon fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy. This paper will discuss each of these three fallacies in turn and how they are flaws in Ehrenreichs article.

The personal incredulity fallacy occurs when someone disbelieves a claim simply because they find it hard to believe. This is often due to a lack of understanding or familiarity with the topic. For example, someone might dismiss the theory of evolution because it seems impossible that complex life forms could have developed from simpler ones. However, personal incredulity is not a valid reason to disbelieve a claim. Just because something is difficult to understand does not mean that it is not true. In order to judge the validity of a claim, it is important to look at the evidence rather than relying on gut instinct. Only by careful examination can one hope to find the truth. But when one relies on personal incredulity to argue, one is relying essentially on personal bias without realizing it. Personal bias prevents one from seeing beyond ones own narrow frame of view. It is human nature to see the world through ones own eyes and filter out information that does not fit with ones preexisting beliefs. This phenomenon, known as confirmation bias, can lead people to search for information that supports their existing views while ignoring evidence to the contrary (Kelley, 2013). In some cases, it can result in a self-reinforcing cycle in which people only exposure ourselves to information that reinforces their biases. This in turn can prevent them from seeing the world as it truly is and make it difficult to find common ground with others. Ehrenreich (2000) reveals this bias to some extent through her personal incredulity every time she implies that housework being womens work is demeaning and degrading. It might be demeaning and degrading in her eyesbut has she never talked to women who actually find housework to be rewarding? Her negative view of housework as womens work colors her entire article on Merry Maids and domestic equality. It is the old playing field of a 3rd wave Feminist, who cannot imagine that some people actually like that there are differences between men and women, that they have different roles in society, and that this is a good thing. Her personal incredulity prevents her...…avoid this fallacy, it is important to always question claims made by authority figures and to evaluate them based on evidence, logic, and reason. Thus, when Ehrenreich (2000) argues that housework was not degrading because it was manual labor, as Friedan thought, but because it was embedded in degrading relationships and inevitably served to reinforce them (p. 2), there is no justification for this statement other than that this is what the cohort of radical, post-Friedan feminists has said on the matter and that is that. All one would have to do to challenge the argument is challenge the premise propping up radical, post-Friedan feminism.

In conclusion, Ehrenreichs article contains flaws in her argument that are based on personal incredulity, bandwagon fallacy, and the appeal to authority fallacy. The ways to correct these flaws in the argument would be to remember (1) that just because someone cannot wrap his or her head around something doesnt mean it isnt valid; (2) just because something is widely believed does not make it automatically truethere may be other factors at play that the person is not aware of; and (3) firstly, even experts can be wrong; and, secondly, even if an authority figure is correct about something, that does not mean their opinion cannot be challenged. As Chaffee (2012) explains, it is important…