The American Marxist Feminism of Barbara Ehrenreich

Flaws in Argument

Ehrenreich (2000) makes several fallacies in her argumentative essay, “Maid to Order” published in Harper’s 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 Ehrenreich’s 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 one’s own narrow frame of view. It is human nature to see the world through one’s own eyes and filter out information that does not fit with one’s 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 women’s work is demeaning and degrading. It might be demeaning and degrading in her eyes—but has she never talked to women who actually find housework to be rewarding? Her negative view of housework as women’s 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 from understanding why some might have no problem with the Merry Maids slogan, “We scrub your floors the old-fashioned way.” But because she personally takes offense to it, she assumes she must have a valid argument to make.

The second flaw in her argument is that she uses the bandwagon fallacy, constantly referring to what “most American feminists” thought, said, or did, in response to the housework debate (is it a way for men to exploit women; answer, according to “most American feminists”—yes) (Ehrenreich, 2000, p. 1). The bandwagon fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that something is true or good simply because it is popular. This kind of thinking often leads to a false sense of security, as people believe that if something is widely accepted, it must be correct. The reality, of course, is that popularity is often based on superficial factors such as hype or peer pressure, rather than on a sound evaluation of the evidence. As a result, people who subscribe to the bandwagon fallacy may find themselves being taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals or groups. In order to avoid being misled, it is important to think for oneself and to examine the evidence critically, rather than simply going along with the crowd. Ehrenreich is probably not going to be accused of going along with the crowd—ever—but she does appeal to a certain niche bandwagon, which is American feminist Marxism to score points in her argument. At least, she thinks she is scoring points. However, simply referring one to what American feminist Marxists think, say, and do, is not proof that one’s argument or premise is valid or logical. Ehrenreich is well-read on American feminist Marxist scholarship, but some readers are never going to give some scholarship a moment’s consideration because they do not accept the basic premises upon which that scholarship’s frame of reference is placed. Ehrenreich undercuts whatever power her argument could have by relying on that type of bandwagon for support—but, really, she has no other choice: her entire viewpoint is predicated upon that bandwagon maintaining the ideals and standards by which all thought and action should be judged.