Compact⁠77%

Why the Right Has a Problem With Women ⁠84%

By Ashley Frawley⁠0%

7/7/2026, 4:00:36 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 59.9% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 1,128 faulty-reasoning hits from 277 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,509 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.00% of the article peer group.

In his new memoir Communion, JD Vance expresses regret over his 2021 claim that “childless cat ladies” were effectively “running our country into the ground.” 
Though the vice president now calls these remarks “boneheaded,” similar sentiments continue to resonate on the right. 
Just recently, many right-wingers took to X to complain that Anne Hathaway getting pregnant at forty-three showed the dangers of girlboss feminism, while others alleged that women poisoned by hormonal birth control were bringing society to ruin. 
Go to any conservative conference and women are conspicuous by their absence. 
“It’s like a gay bar in here,” a friend once jokingly whispered to me at one such gathering. 
“Today’s ruling ideology is a feminized one.” 
Standing behind the right’s woman problem is its opposition to a particular type that tends to predominate in contemporary governance: rule-bound, managerial, and anti-family. 
The right is correct that today’s ruling ideology is a feminized one that legitimates itself through appeals to values like “care” and “compassion,” and that women have become more and more the face of our major institutions. 
But there is a difference between women and the forms of corporate, academic, medical, political, and bureaucratic rule that have adopted a feminized expression. 
In recent decades, liberal democratic societies have undergone a shift away from an implicitly and stereotypically masculine ideal of the rational, autonomous subject toward a stereotypically feminine one, one that is health and body conscious, heteronomous, forever seeking rules and authority for the correct conduct of life. 
The new ideal is not stoical, but emotive and expressive. 
It is therapeutic, protective, solicitous of feelings, and intolerant of risk. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.6%Ashley Frawley: 12.6%Compact: 8.0%Confirmation Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.2%Compact: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.2%Ashley Frawley: 4.6%Compact: 3.1%Availability Heuristic24.2%This article: 17.0%Ashley Frawley: 4.4%Compact: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic17.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.4%Compact: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Ashley Frawley: 0.3%Compact: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 22.7%Ashley Frawley: 10.6%Compact: 5.2%Framing Effect22.7%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.2%Compact: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.8%Compact: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.1%Compact: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 1.9%Compact: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 59.9%Ashley Frawley: 14.9%Compact: 7.2%Negativity Bias59.9%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Ashley Frawley: 2.1%Compact: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error8.7%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.5%Compact: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Ashley Frawley: 1.2%Compact: 2.6%In-Group Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 6.5%Compact: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.5%Compact: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Ashley Frawley: 3.0%Compact: 1.3%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 13.4%Ashley Frawley: 2.1%Compact: 0.8%Primacy Effect13.4%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.1%Compact: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 1.8%Compact: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 3.3%Compact: 2.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.4%Ashley Frawley: 5.5%Compact: 3.6%Appeal to Authority13.4%This article: 14.8%Ashley Frawley: 3.2%Compact: 2.8%False Dilemma14.8%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 3.4%Compact: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 40.8%Ashley Frawley: 22.4%Compact: 13.1%Hasty Generalization40.8%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.1%Compact: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 1.7%Compact: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Ashley Frawley: 4.7%Compact: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 15.9%Ashley Frawley: 2.8%Compact: 2.1%Begging the Question15.9%This article: 8.7%Ashley Frawley: 7.2%Compact: 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.7%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.2%Compact: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.3%Compact: 0.9%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 17.0%Ashley Frawley: 2.4%Compact: 1.0%Composition/Division17.0%This article: 19.9%Ashley Frawley: 4.2%Compact: 2.1%Anecdotal19.9%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.0%Ashley Frawley: 3.5%Compact: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.5%Ashley Frawley: 2.4%Compact: 1.9%Unattributed Quote2.5%This article: 15.9%Ashley Frawley: 3.7%Compact: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection15.9%This article: 13.4%Ashley Frawley: 17.3%Compact: 13.0%Biased Writer Voice13.4%This article: 2.9%Ashley Frawley: 2.0%Compact: 2.5%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 2.3%Compact: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Ashley Frawley: 2.0%Compact: 5.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias19.5%This article: 0.0%Ashley Frawley: 0.0%Compact: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

277 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.0%attributed speech252writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

JD Vance

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Politically Right Leaning -21.4 ptsWriter: 21.4%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-17.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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