LETTER: Anderson stuck to his guns

To the editor:

I’d like to applaud Scott Anderson for his courage to stand by his views on women and motherhood in spite of all the backlash he received. This letter isn’t about whether I agree with his views. Rather I would like to suggest that when we read or listen to other people’s views, we need to remember a few things: First, keep those views in their context. Don’t pick out a specific sentence or phrase that you disagree with and use that to attack the whole argument. That’s what we call a “part for the whole” fallacy. While it may not have been perfectly outlined (nothing is), the purpose of Scott’s article as a whole was easy for me to follow. He was saying that too many wives and mothers are not taking their roles seriously. Nowhere did I get the impression that he thinks women are put on this earth to serve their husbands and children, though a couple of words here and there might create that impression if the reader were to focus on those few words for too long. Second, and closely related to the first point, in your response, argue with what the writer actually said, not what you wish they had said, just so you can go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the piece’s entire purpose. That’s called a “straw man fallacy.” If you do this, somehow you’ll manage to ruin the purpose of the person’s entire argument, which can be considered ethically irresponsible. If you believe the institution of marriage is degrading and unfulfilling, make that claim in another article or context. Whether Scott believes that or not is not the issue. He’s simply listing the logical responsibilities a woman has if she does choose to marry and/or have children. That’s fair enough, don’t you think? All jobs require sacrifice, and parenthood is no exception. Finally, don’t make an evaluative statement based on claims that haven’t been proven (I don’t have a name for this fallacy). Even if you disagree with the idea that the woman should stay at home, that doesn’t make such an opinion misogynistic. If you think it does, support your claim, before attacking Scott for being a misogynist. So in essence, let’s take a little more responsibility as audience members, okay? Don’t be quick to take offense, but rather take the person’s words at face value. If you feel something needs to be addressed, do it properly.

Matt Anderson