Quillette62%

The Patriarchal Mind Virus 92%

By Alex Byrne0%

7/18/2026, 10:38:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Primacy Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 1,163 faulty-reasoning hits from 296 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.5% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,740 of 20,514 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.50% of the article peer group.

Robin Dembroff’s highly anticipated Oxford University Press book, Real Men on Top: How Patriarchy Shapes Our Reality , hit shelves in May with impressive endorsements . 
According to the philosopher Jason Stanley, 
Real Men on Top is a stunning work of philosophy that explains why insights from gender studies are so feared by authoritarian regimes. 
In plain language, Dembroff illuminates gender as the internal logic of our current fascist moment—how it divides us from each other and enriches the wealthy few. 
Other philosophers call the book “brilliant,” “rigorous,” and “profound and necessary.” 
Dembroff’s own website reports that Real Men on Top has been “acclaimed as paradigm shifting.” 
It also mentions that Dembroff—a tenured professor of philosophy at Yale who self-describes as “genderqueer”—was named by Encyclopædia Britannica as “one of twenty ‘shapers of the future’ under [age] 40 in the category of academia and ideas.” 
For a monograph published by Oxford University Press (OUP), the book is astonishingly short. 
It has three chapters (or “parts,” as they are called), which total a little over 27,000 words, about five times the length of this article (and a third of what you’d expect from a typical OUP philosophy monograph). 
Real Men on Top is given more heft by ornamental chapter headings that take up more than half a page, generous first-line indents, large font, and huge bold all-caps section headings. 
Admittedly, many books are far too long, but the topic of patriarchy is the subject of a sprawling interdisciplinary literature, rooted in anthropology, sociology, and evolutionary biology, among other fields. 
One might think that—in OUP’s words—a “revelatory new lens on patriarchy” requires substantial scholarly treatment. 
Let’s see if Dembroff has managed to confound this expectation. 
(Full disclosure: Dembroff and I have had our disagreements .) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 32.1%Alex Byrne: 13.5%Quillette: 5.9%Confirmation Bias32.1%This article: 12.8%Alex Byrne: 13.5%Quillette: 0.6%Anchoring Bias12.8%This article: 12.5%Alex Byrne: 4.2%Quillette: 3.4%Availability Heuristic12.5%This article: 4.7%Alex Byrne: 1.6%Quillette: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Alex Byrne: 15.7%Quillette: 7.4%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.1%Alex Byrne: 3.4%Quillette: 0.6%Status Quo Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Alex Byrne: 3.4%Quillette: 1.4%Optimism Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.4%Alex Byrne: 10.6%Quillette: 9.2%Negativity Bias30.4%This article: 3.4%Alex Byrne: 2.3%Quillette: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 2.9%Quillette: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Alex Byrne: 17.9%Quillette: 2.3%Halo Effect16.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 24.7%Alex Byrne: 8.2%Quillette: 0.7%Primacy Effect24.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 2.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.3%Alex Byrne: 25.5%Quillette: 5.4%Appeal to Authority23.3%This article: 12.2%Alex Byrne: 7.4%Quillette: 2.9%False Dilemma12.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 1.7%Quillette: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.2%Alex Byrne: 13.5%Quillette: 9.1%Hasty Generalization15.2%This article: 10.5%Alex Byrne: 3.5%Quillette: 0.3%Red Herring10.5%This article: 12.5%Alex Byrne: 6.6%Quillette: 0.6%Bandwagon12.5%This article: 9.1%Alex Byrne: 6.0%Quillette: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion9.1%This article: 13.9%Alex Byrne: 4.6%Quillette: 1.5%Begging the Question13.9%This article: 7.8%Alex Byrne: 2.6%Quillette: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 3.4%Alex Byrne: 1.1%Quillette: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.4%This article: 5.1%Alex Byrne: 1.7%Quillette: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 10.1%Alex Byrne: 3.4%Quillette: 0.7%Composition/Division10.1%This article: 5.1%Alex Byrne: 1.7%Quillette: 3.1%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Alex Byrne: 2.9%Quillette: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 2.5%Quillette: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.1%Alex Byrne: 4.3%Quillette: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 43.6%Alex Byrne: 33.8%Quillette: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice43.6%This article: 8.8%Alex Byrne: 7.0%Quillette: 1.6%Indoctrination8.8%This article: 8.8%Alex Byrne: 6.3%Quillette: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Alex Byrne: 0.0%Quillette: 1.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Alex Byrne: 6.3%Quillette: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.9%

296 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech238writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJason Stanley • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageEncyclopædia Britannica • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageOxford University Press (OUP) • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words26% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Oxford University Press (OUP): 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +82.8 ptsWriter: 17.2%Oxford University Press (OUP): 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.7 ptsWriter: 38.7%Oxford University Press (OUP): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Oxford University Press (OUP): 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Oxford University Press (OUP): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.