The Many Fallacies of Antifeminism - Elizabeth Grace Matthew - The Dispatch ⁠33%

By Elizabeth Grace Matthew⁠0%

7/11/2026, 6:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Begging the Question, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 564 faulty-reasoning hits from 305 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠33% (14,840 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.80% of the article peer group.

Elizabeth Grace Matthew 
The Many Fallacies of Antifeminism 
Feminism has its problems. 
But so does its knee-jerk opposite. 
Illustration by Noah Hickey/The Dispatch (Photos via Unsplash). 
= 3 && ageInMonths 3 months old . 
Some information may be outdated.'; 
} else if (ageInMonths >= 6 && ageInMonths 6 months old . 
Some information may be outdated.'; 
} else if (ageInMonths >= 12 && ageInMonths 1 year old . 
Some information may be outdated.'; 
} else if (ageInMonths >= 12) { 
const ageInYears = Math.floor(ageInMonths / 12); 
this.message = `This post is more than ${ageInYears} ${ageInYears === 1 ? 
'year' : 'years'} old . 
Some information may be outdated. 
`; 
this.tooltipOpen = false; 
Turn any article into a podcast. 
Upgrade now to start listening. 
Members can share articles with friends & family to bypass the paywall. 
Why is J.K. 
Rowling, best-selling author of the Harry Potter series, a pariah among mainstream American feminists? 
All she has done is affirm women’s rights, after all—in this case, the right to privacy from males in intimate spaces, whether or not said males identify as female. 
The Rowling saga makes sense only if you recognize that mainstream, liberal feminism is a house made of toothpicks. 
Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes about books, education, and culture, including on Substack. 
{ if (opened) $nextTick(() => $refs.giftRecipientNameInput?.focus()) })" 
class="relative w-full max-w-md md:max-w-lg rounded-xl bg-white shadow-xl max-h-[90vh] overflow-y-auto" 
Gift this article to a friend 
Checking gift availability... 
Unlimited gift links 
gift links remaining this month 
You've used all your gift links this month 
Upgrade to Premium for unlimited gift links 
Click the button below to copy the article link to your clipboard. 
{ if (opened) $nextTick(() => $refs.shareEmailInput?.focus()) })" 
class="relative w-full max-w-md rounded-xl bg-white shadow-xl" 
Share this article via email 
Email sent successfully! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.7%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 5.8%The Dispatch: 4.0%Confirmation Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 9.5%The Dispatch: 4.8%Framing Effect19.0%This article: 8.2%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 2.0%The Dispatch: 0.7%Loss Aversion8.2%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 2.3%The Dispatch: 5.3%Negativity Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 2.4%The Dispatch: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 1.1%The Dispatch: 0.8%In-Group Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 3.9%The Dispatch: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 1.6%The Dispatch: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.2%The Dispatch: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.0%This article: 6.6%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 1.6%The Dispatch: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias6.6%This article: 4.6%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 2.7%The Dispatch: 1.8%Ad Hominem4.6%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 6.8%The Dispatch: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 15.7%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 6.8%The Dispatch: 2.4%False Dilemma15.7%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.3%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 4.9%The Dispatch: 6.1%Hasty Generalization1.3%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.6%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 3.5%The Dispatch: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion4.6%This article: 16.7%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 5.3%The Dispatch: 0.8%Begging the Question16.7%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.1%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 6.4%The Dispatch: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.2%The Dispatch: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 23.6%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 16.0%The Dispatch: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice23.6%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%The Dispatch: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 11.8%The Dispatch: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias15.7%This article: 22.6%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 16.3%The Dispatch: 5.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…22.6%

305 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.0%attributed speech302writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Grace Matthew • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.8 ptsWriter: 23.8%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -22.8 ptsWriter: 22.8%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Elizabeth Grace Matthew: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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