Petros 1

Samantha Petros
Professor Deadrick
English 102
March 4th, 2016
Hollywoods War on Gender
Gender is an issue that pervades every field of study and line of work. It is especially
prevalent within Hollywood and the film industry. The issue is as Hollywood continues to push
for equality among all genders and tear down the stereotypes surrounding men and women, the
more opposition they face. More and more queer and non-heteronormative characters are
appearing in mainstream film. Opponents are taking notice of this. For example, just two years
ago, Jared Leto appeared as a transgendered main character in Dallas Buyers Club, which he
later went on to win an Oscar for. This is important because as more and more non-gender
stereotypical characters appear in film, the more children are exposed to these ideals; the issue
divides the public between those who support breaking down stereotypes and teaching these
values to their children versus those who believe their children should not be taught outside the
traditional beliefs. The tides in Hollywood are changing, and more and more writers, directors,
and actors are willing to stand up for the people who are constantly the target of attacks from
conservative columnists like Lorelei Bennet.
Lorelei Bennet, author of Hollywoods War on Gender of Politichick argues that the
war on gender is not only a waste of time, but also unimportant. She targets this article towards

Petros 2

older conservatives who identify with the traditional mindset. Lorelei argues that men and
women have been fine in their traditional roles, and that Hollywood should stop campaigning to
change the Ideal American Family. She focuses the basis of her argument around the concept
that everybody should follow their stereotypes, because its worked so far. Her argument is not
constructed professionally because she uses weak examples to support her opinion. She
concludes that since its worked, there is no issue that needs to be campaigned for. Loreleis
argumentation is not effective; this is because she lacks organization, she uses many logical
fallacies, she lacks the ability to properly appeal to ethos through establishment of credibility,
and she lacks the supporting evidence to make either appeal convincing.
Lorelei uses many different logical fallacies within her argument. The most prominent
logical fallacy that she employs is the appeal to nature. She says, It is not prejudiced to have a
distinction between the men and the womens bathrooms; in fact, it is appropriate and normal.
Yes, I said it, normal. Reason being is that men and women are different and this too, is normal.
In order to prove her argument that men and women should follow their traditional gender roles,
she attempts to rationalize her argument by highlighting the natural differences between men
and women. She therefore incorrectly concludes that what is not natural is bad, and should not
be fought for. She feels that the discrimination that affects both genders by stereotyping is just a
natural part of the difference between men and women. The argument is ineffective, because not
only is it fallacious, but there is no evidence beyond Well, science, DNA, hormones, the birds
and the bees all agree that there is a difference between a man and a woman.

Petros 3

The claim in this article is unclear and unorganized, an inability to organize and convey
her argument without confusion negatively affects her claim. She goes on tangents that are only
peripherally relevant to her argument. For example, she spends an entire paragraph describing
the process of veal production. She is essentially arguing that because there are worse horrors in
the world, then fighting stereotypes is foolish and a waste of time. Her argument can be summed
up like this: there are better things to do. This argument is weak because it works under the
assumption that lesser suffering does not matter, simply because there is greater suffering. Her
entire article is essentially a refutation, and it is weak because she does not offer relevant
evidence to support her claims. She argues by saying that some things are natural and that she is
correct and everyone elses argument is sheer stupidity. Just like the Bleeding Hearts
opening paragraph, this is directed toward the liberal party and is an attack on the party rather
than the argument. Therefore it is yet another logical fallacy, this time ad hominem. Her
flawed logic also helps to reduce the effectiveness of her appeal to ethos.
Bennets argument suffers because she is unable to establish credibility effectively. This
is due to her very clear bias. This causes her to fail in presenting a sound appeal to ethos. To
effectively establish herself as a credible source, she would have needed to maintain impartiality,
as well as provide adequate evidence. This would have strengthened the argument tremendously.
However, instead of maintaining impartiality, she begins her piece with, Those poor misguided
Bleeding Hearts. They claim to be the peaceful political party, the make love not war people

Petros 4

the kinder, all-encompassing citizens in our society who are against war and opposition. Bennet
sets the entire tone of the article with this single opening paragraph. Not only does this reveal
that she is a conservative, but it also establishes the mocking tone that she maintains throughout
the article. This is also closely tied with Bennets misguided appeals to logos; she writes that she
is right, because she is right, and her evidence of this is that she is correct. This is about as
fallacious and as close to the definition of nave realism as possible. Nave realism is the
tendency for somebody to believe that their view of the world is objective and correct, and
therefore any dissenters are stupid, illogical, or biased. Bennet is a textbook example of this. Her
article shows clear errors in thinking, gaps in logic and is therefore less credible. Her lack of
credibility and flawed logic reduces the strength of her argument.
Personally, I am interested in the issue, and feel that there are great strides to be made in
tearing down stereotypes. Prior to reading this article, I was supportive of the war on stereotypes
and rigid gender roles. I am biased because I feel that the traditional values mindset of the
conservative party is flawed and unfair to the generations that they attempt to pass their beliefs
onto. Normally, I am a neutral and open-minded reader, however the introduction immediately
alienated me and I became a hostile reader. This article is pandering; it is aimed at the typical
conservative in order to increase support, not change minds. Therefore, I am not the target
reader.
Bennets claim is that the war on gender is a waste of time, and that theres no
discrimination in forcing people to conform to their stereotypes. She attempted to prove this by

Petros 5

arguing that there are more important issues to fight for, arguing that stereotypes are natural and
theres no issue with raising the next generation to accept them as truth, and finally by arguing
that the agenda campaigning for change is stupid. Her argument was not effective, intelligent,
well-reasoned or convincing, and therefore my original position has not changed. I may have a
strong position on the issue, and that may be influencing me. However, Bennets poor
argumentation does not help to convince me. Bennets target readers would find her arguments to
be absolutely convincing and logical. This is because, after reading, they will simply reaffirm
their position in their mind.
Bennet uses many logical fallacies which weaken the argumentation greatly. She also
fails to establish credibility, she fails to maintain impartiality, and therefore her argument is even
weaker. There is virtually nothing effective about this article, because its tone alienates the only
readers who she needs to convince. It could be improved by arguing the point as fact while
maintaining an impartial tone and avoiding easily identifiable logical fallacies.

Petros 6

Works Cited
Bennett, Lorelei Branam. "Hollywood's War on Gender." Politichicks. Politichicks, 13 Apr. 2015.
Web. 28 Feb. 2016. < http://politichicks.com/2015/04/hollywoods-war-on-gender/ >.