The “manosphere” seems to be here to stay. For the uninitiated, the term refers to a constellation of online destinations including podcasts, blogs, youtubers, forums, social media platforms, all kinds of websites, and so much more that – generally speaking – promote a twisted version of masculinity that exists in direct opposition to femininity, in opposition to feminism, and often in explicit or implicit support of misogyny, rape culture, and other forms of harm/prejudice towards women.

As I’ve taken a deeper personal dive into the work of promoting healthy masculinity, it’s become increasingly clear to me that the manosphere hangs on by the thinnest of logical threads. Its ideas and beliefs are driven by fear and insecurity, held up by misplaced resentment and anger, fueled by a commitment to maintaining a fixed mindset and refusal to engage in self-reflection, a total lack of personal accountability, and communicated through flawed arguments, weak defenses, and frequent projecting.

In this post, I’m going to focus on that last bit: how illogical, poorly argued, and poorly defended some of the harmful ideas of the manosphere are, particularly in their deployment of logical fallacies. More specifically, I’ll hone in on how fallacies are used to express three frequent claims about women, as well as in defense of these claims when faced with push-back and criticism.

If you’re not familiar with that term, let me share a definition directly from my favorite logical fallacy resource:

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Strong arguments are void of logical fallacies, whilst arguments that are weak tend to use logical fallacies to appear stronger than they are. They’re like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians, the media, and others to fool people

Unfortunately, logical fallacies appear to be increasingly acceptable in human discourse at every level. But the more we allow these logical fallacies to stand in for well-reasoned, thoughtful arguments, the more we give up our individual and collective discernment, as well as our ability to productively push back.

I firmly believe every single person should be at least familiar with logical fallacies, and that our ability to recognize, identify, and push back on them can lead to a significant amount of personal and collective empowerment. Logical fallacies are often distractions, misdirections, and attempts to make us respond emotionally so that we appear to be in the wrong or unreasonable. Don’t fall for that.

As we work through these claims, there are a couple of recurring themes I’d like to draw your attention to. Pay close attention to how many of these protect men from having to reflect on their own actions, or think deeply about how they can personally grow. Take note of who is being blamed for the “problem,” and who is being burdened with the responsibility to fix it. Also, be mindful of when I resort to some logical fallacies myself throughout this piece. I’ll do my best to keep it only as a shorthand to make some points, but feel free to point them out if I slip up!

Illogical Phallus Claim #1:

“Women only want men for money and status.”

This claim might sound something like this:

“A woman doesn’t look at a man and say, ‘I love the way he dresses.’ She looks at a man and says, ‘He’s big, strong, rich, successful, can protect me, can provide for me.’ That’s who she wants.”

“Women want a man who’s in the top 10% income. Period. Average guys are invisible to them.”

Logical Fallacies and Flawed Arguments

Generalization

In these claims, we see a good old fashioned example of generalization. Relying on some anecdotal observations, perhaps inspired by media representations, or more likely, some personal negative experiences, the speaker extrapolates the motives of ALL women.

Which is obviously nonsense. This is not to say that there aren’t women out there who do look at a man and say “He’s big, strong, rich, successful, can protect me, can provide for me.’ Because why not? Women can think and look for whatever the hell they want in a partner. The problem is when ALL women are reduced to holding that perspective, making it sound like all women hold troubling prejudicial views towards men.

Essentialism

The above plays right into another fallacy: essentialism. This happens when a particular trait or characteristic is presented as an inherent and necessary quality of that thing. In this case, that comes through in its portrayal of women as a monolithic group driven only by status-seeking. It’s basically saying that an essential characteristic of being a woman is looking for a big, strong, rich man to have as a partner. Setting up an argument in this way gives the speaker an easy way to dismiss anyone who suggests otherwise. “Then she’s probably a lesbian / is lying to you / is crazy / will leave you as soon as she finds someone who is / etc.” The speaker has already defined the terms of the conversation to his liking – “woman = shallow” – making a genuine and thoughtful conversation especially challenging.

Projecting

So projection is not so much a logical fallacy as it is a defense mechanism that tends to fuel many people’s belief systems. And what I often see in statements like these are men’s projections of their own insecurities.

A man who says “Women want a man who’s in the top 10% income. Period. Average guys are invisible to them,” is a man who likely feels inadequate and/or insecure about his own income and other markers of success that he’s created for himself. It also helps place the blame and burden of responsibility elsewhere. The problem must be that I don’t make enough money, and women don’t like men who don’t make more money. I can’t force my job to give me more money, so I guess I’ll never get a date. And there’s nothing else I can/am willing to change. So I guess I’ll be alone because women are unreasonable.”

As a defense mechanism, the train of thought above works wonders: “as long as I can keep blaming women’s shallowness for material success in a partner, I don’t ever have to take a long hard look at myself or do any internal work because it has nothing to do with who I am or how I move through the world..”

Illogical Phallus Verdict

It is super easy to generalize things. We all do it all the time. I just did in the last sentence! But it becomes a serious issue when we move from using it as a quick way to communicate, to stating it as absolute fact, especially when it boxes in entire complex and diverse groups.

Illogical Phallus Claim #2:

“Women are ruining the family by prioritizing careers over motherhood.”

This claim might be expressed something like this:

“Feminism has resulted in fewer marriages, more divorces, less happy children and women working soulless corporate jobs instead of raising families.”

“Women were happier being mothers and wives. Now they’re miserable wage slaves and it’s destroying the family unit.”

Logical Fallacies and Flawed Arguments:

False Cause

As the name suggests, false cause points to an incorrect, flawed, or at the very least incomplete reason why something else may be happening. In the case of the example claim above, it feels safe to say that “family” as a concept and institution has gone through some serious shifts over the last several decades. Another thing that has gone through serious shifts over the past decades is how many women have gotten the opportunity to pursue education and careers with greater freedom than before. People who mobilize the false cause fallacy conveniently connect these two shifts to attack the increasing opportunities afforded women. It’s the false, nostalgic, and reductive idea that things felt BETTER before “feminism,” so “feminism” must be the reason why things now feel WORSE.

Those who use this fallacy also tend to throw out very generalized but conveniently vague numbers – or ideas of numbers – to back up their claims. There are “fewer” happy marriages, “less” happy children, “more” women stuck in dead-end jobs, “more” women are unhappy. Such statements paint broad strokes over the nuanced reality of day-to-day life and ignore the myriad other contributions to changing dynamics like higher costs of living, lower pay, a poor economy, the job market, wars, technological advancements, cultural and religious traditions, personal and family choices, and much much more.

Slippery Slope

A related fallacy here is the slippery slope fallacy — assuming that one decision or action will result in an inevitable chain of events with a direct path to an undesirable outcome. A lot of anxiety works under the slippery slope fallacy; for example: if I fail tomorrow’s exam, I won’t pass the class, which means my GPA will drop, I won’t get into grad school, and will never get the job I want! The slippery slope fallacy is often used to stoke fear and create an emotional response, especially when framed like “if [generally innocuous thing] happens, then [horrific thing] will happen,” when the reality is usually far more complex and not as pre-determined.

When you mix the slippery slope fallacy with a solid dose of misogyny, suddenly women are at the root of every social problem – real or imaginary. For example, “if more women join the work force, then fewer women will stay home, and since it’s the mother’s job to care for children, more children will be unhappy, which means fathers will be more stressed, which means the entire family unit is at risk, which means our entire social order will collapse — thanks, feminism.”

As we work through these fallacies, I hope you see how they often work together. The slippery slope above relies on some major generalizations and assumptions that remain unquestioned: the assumption that a woman’s place is in the home, that the father does not bear as much responsibility in childcare, that an essential aspect of femininity is the desire to be married and raise children, that an essential aspect of masculinity is to work and not care for children, etc. One thing I’ll say about fallacies is that they are constantly supporting each other.

Illogical Phallus Verdict

Anxiety can hit any of us at any time. It’s important to remember that anxious thinking often stems from an overactive imagination that works overtime in creating all kinds of scenarios of fear in your head. And that’s all these claims about women really are: imaginary, irrational, and meant to point the finger at someone else. Like claim #1, we have yet another example of something men say to avoid reflection or accountability, or develop the communication skills to form meaningful connections with women. If they took the time, they would quickly learn how each individual woman feels about these things, and how varied the feelings can be.

Illogical Phallus Claim #3:

“False accusations have made it dangerous for men to even talk to women.”

People who share this claim often sound like:

“It’s got to the point where men won’t even talk to women at work because they’re absolutely terrified of being accused of something they didn’t do.”

“In the current climate, any man who interacts with a woman risks being falsely accused and destroyed.”

Logical Fallacies and Flawed Reasonings

Appeal to Fear

This one’s pretty simple. A speaker appeals to fear by fabricating or inflating a relatively rare event so that it sounds like a universal or nearly unavoidable danger. This is a classic tactic for many marketing strategies – create a fear, then present your product as the solution to the very fear you just created. In this case, the fear is that a man might “accidentally” commit sexual assault or harassment of some kind and be accused, or just be straight up falsely accused by a woman for doing nothing wrong.

But let’s break this down and offer some perspective. For the following, I’ll be pulling statistics from RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) and NSVRC (National Sexual Violence Resource Center) — both websites I encourage you to visit. According to these resources, approximately 81% of women in the US have experienced some form of sexual harassment or sexual assault, with 1 in 5 experiencing attempted or completed rape during their lifetime. 81%. OF ALL WOMEN. Let that sink in for a minute.

What’s the percentage for false reports, you may be wondering? It’s anywhere from 2-10%. But let’s be absolutely clear: this does NOT mean 2-10% of ALL MEN will be falsely accused at some point in their lifetime.

As the image above makes clear, out of every 1,000 sexual assaults, only about 310 will ever be reported. Out of the 310, 50 will lead to arrests. Out of those 50, 28 will lead to a conviction. Out of the 28, 25 will be incarcerated. But only 2-10% of those 310 REPORTED assaults – about a quarter of all assaults – might be false. This means that false reports make up a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.

For perspective: a woman in the U.S. is statistically far more likely to be sexually assaulted than a man is to be falsely accused by a margin of at least 30 to 1, and likely much more depending on reporting rates. Or, to put it another way: get 10 women in a room, and chances are 8 of them have experienced sexual assault. But to find a man who was falsely accused, you’d need to fill a sports stadium with thousands of men before maybe finding one with that experience. We’re comparing a near-universal condition of womanhood to an extremely rare anomaly.

Yes, false accusations do happen, and they should be taken seriously. But using them to justify fear, paranoia, or blanket mistrust of women is completely irrational, a rhetorical smokescreen that keeps us from dealing with the actual epidemic of gender-based violence.

Illogical Phallus Verdict

This example makes me really angry, because I honestly cannot comprehend the gall of men who pull this out on women. Talk about reaching for the absolute flimsiest excuse for not knowing how to interact with women in a non-sexualized way. One of the easiest things I have ever done in my life is NOT assault or rape women. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of something easier to do than NOT assault or rape women.

And, frankly, if there are men who refuse to talk to women because they’re worried about false accusations, I’d say it might be step in the right direction. While social anxiety certainly plays a role, I also hope that for some men, the fear forces them to take a moment and think about the other person before they speak or act, and hopefully encourage them to grow.

Sadly, like many of the claims and defenses of the manosphere, this claim’s framing creates a distraction from the very real epidemic of sexual violence against women. Once again, instead of encouraging men to focus on, reflect on, and challenge their own actions and dangerous patterns, they are being encouraged to point the finger elsewhere. “If only we could trust that women wouldn’t falsely accuse us of sexual harassment, we might be able to trust them and treat them well.” Bruh, no. Stop harassing, assaulting, and raping women. The responsibility for that change falls squarely on the shoulders of men and all who harass, assault and abuse women.

Part 1 Conclusion

Generalization, false cause, appeals to fear, slippery slope, and many other fallacies are frequently used to push forward problematic and harmful ideas. They allow a speaker to wrap up poorly structured arguments in whatever will capture the attention of the other person and distract them from the central core of their discussion. It hopes to draw out emotional responses, quick assumptions, and other reactions that they can latch on — pretty much anything to protect themselves from having to interrogate their own purported beliefs, self-reflect, thoroughly explain their stance, or admit that maybe they didn’t put as much thought into the matter as they’d hoped.

When men use these fallacies, they’re not just hurting women, but also keeping men stuck, scared, angry, restless, and resistant to healthy personal growth.

Obviously, there are many more claims and ideas within the manosphere, and many more fallacies they mobilize to try and argue for them. But the manosphere doesn’t stop there. When challenged, it doubles down using a different set of rhetorical tricks designed to deflect, demean, and derail. These poor defenses will be the focus of Illogical Phalluses Part 2, coming next week.

Click here for Part 2.