Evaluation of Example 2: Swedish Gender Equality
Passage:
“Kristina Henkel, a gender expert specializing in
equality in schools, disputes the argument that gender pedagogy
and neutrality are being foisted on Swedes. ‘Sweden has
a long tradition of working with equality and this has had
strong support among politicians,’ she says, and adds that
‘the question of gender neutrality, or of everyone having
equal rights despite their gender, has also been driven by
activists at the grassroots level.
But Elise Claeson, a columnist and a former equality expert at
the Swedish Confederation of Professions, disagrees. ‘I have
long participated in debates with gender pedagogues and they act
like an elite,’ she says. “They tend to be well-educated,
live in big cities, and have contacts in the media, and they clearly
despise traditional people — that is, the … heterosexuals
living in nuclear families.’”
Nathalie Rothschild, “In Sweden, a Debate Over Whether Gender Equality
Has Gone Too Far,” Christian Science Monitor, 7 Apr. 2012
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0407/In-Sweden-a-debate-over-whether-gender-equality-has-gone-too-far (accessed 7 Apr. 2012).
Analsyis:
The ad hominem abusive and
circumstantial fallacy occurs since Ms. Claeson drops the
argument about gender equality and accuses persons like Ms.
Henkel of faults in character and circumstances. Although the
argumentum ad verecundiam
(the argument from authority) is used, no fallacy on that account
occurs because the disputants are appropriate authorities in
the field under discussion. The fallacy version of the argumentum
ad verecundiam only occurs when an irrelevant authority is
is cited as evidence for the truth of some claim.
Ms. Henkel states gender neutrality is not being foisted on Swedes.
Ms. Claeson states Ms. Henkel despises traditional people and is elitist.
Hence, Ms. Henkel's claim C is wrong.