The Retort

Faulty Logic Perpetuates Sexist Attitudes

February 19th, 2010 by Jen Gross Of The Retort Staff

It was about three-thirty in the morning a couple of weeks ago and I was zombied out on Facebook. Anyone who has or has had a Facebook account knows what I am talking about.

Reading my friends’ status updates, I saw that Harry was having his thirtieth birthday, Beth just saw some spectacular Bluegrass music at the Railyard, and Chrissy hates math – pretty typical stuff for Facebook.

Then I came to a post that no less than thirty people had responded to. “Wow, this must be good,” I thought.

I’d like to share that post with you:

General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.

Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you have to love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. In a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:

Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, this interview was over.

It should also be noted that Libertarian websites are touting Cosgrove’s remark as absolutely brilliant, and as “the best comeback of all-time.” Before you read further, please take a moment to think about what is wrong with Cosgrove’s analogy.

In my state of foggy 3:30 AM confusion, I knew that the logic and analogy were seriously flawed, and that Cosgrove’s “comeback” belittled and degraded the reporter, not mention the entire female sex.

I’ll begin with the analogy itself. Analogies are a specific type of argument that connects two events or things on relevant points. Cosgrove is comparing TEACHING children to use guns with HAVING a vagina. A gun is a TOOL, made by human beings TO KILL. A vagina is part of the FEMALE ANATOMY, and is NOT “used” to kill. Immediately, we see that Cosgrove’s analogy does not connect on relevant points.

Let’s now look at Cosgrove’s remark in the context of patriarchy. Patriarchy is the systematic, systemic oppression of women by men. We live in a patriarchal world where men exert power and control over women. This is true throughout history and continues today. Cosgrove’s statement, “Well, Ma’am, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?” is so loaded – it is SO socially loaded in the context of a male-dominated society, and we HAVE to look at it in that context.

Think about it this way: Cosgrove derives his social status from the fact that he is male. That, coupled with his general status (let's not forget that means he has been trained to kill), necessarily makes him a threat to the female reporter who most likely has never been trained to shoot anything other than pictures. That fact alone gives Cosgrove power over the female reporter in a very direct, threatening way.

Let it also be noted that the female reporter remains nameless, which in effect dehumanizes her. General Cosgrove, on the other hand, has not only a name, but also a military title. The social relationship between the two is therefore not equal.

Cosgrove’s comment is belittling and degrading to the female reporter, not to mention all women, and was meant to shut her up. First of all he is belittling, trivializing, her concern for equipping young boys with the know-how to handle deadly weapons. It's a valid concern given that we have a huge problem in this country with gun-violence, and that more than 95 percent of violent criminals are male. However, by drawing an analogy to the reporter's anatomy -- to her female reproductive organs and the fact that she could use them for prostitution, Cosgrove avoids addressing her concern. His statement is actually reminding her, reminding all women, of their place in a male-dominated society.

Furthermore, it is the job of reporters to question and challenge those in authority, which is precisely what this woman is doing. She has been accused of being inflammatory and pushing an anti-gun agenda. I think she is challenging patriarchy. Women’s voices are already so marginalized in society – whether in politics, in law, in the media, etcetera. God forbid she use her voice to challenge the notion of putting guns in children’s hands and teaching them to shoot. But, not surprisingly, the male, trained-to-kill military general responds in a way that is threatening to the reporter. That is why she does not respond.

Most of the time, women do not respond to sexual harassment. Why is that? It’s not that sexual harassment does not bother us. On the contrary, it makes women feel extremely uncomfortable. Ultimately, we know that we have no control over the situation. We do not know how the male perpetrator of said harassment will respond to our objections. We live in a world where the threat of male violence is omnipresent.

The bottom line is that Cosgrove belittled the female reporter with a sexist remark, by way of a faulty analogy