Critical Analysis Of Valenti's Argument

Critical Analysis of Editorial: Why are some men so angry? Valenti. J. 2014

Valenti’s main argument is that men express their anger in a much more violent way than women, and that this violence is directed at women because men feel threatened by feminist movements or because it is ingrown in them by misogyny in today’s society or because they feel entitled and possessive of women. Therefore, the solution to this male violence problem is to stop seeing them as women’s issues and focus on men and male behaviour, with their violence and ‘propensity to protect their own’: focus on the causes not just the effects, in order to protect women and let them feel safe.

Valenti’s argument is unclear, and full of emotive outbursts that distract from the

She then examines the reasons men are ‘so violently angry’. This question in and of itself makes assumptions with no previous evidence in the article. Giving a few examples of acts of violence taken by men and writing broad vague statements with no backing up leads to a flawed foundation of her entire argument and is an example of anecdotal fallacy. She tries to answer this random question by looking at a “Harvard researcher” (who she forgets to mention is a researcher on journalism), and references Jackson Katz, whose works focus on helping men as well as women and whose thought processes do not at all follow this article’s. He focuses on how men’s violence affects men, something Valenti fails to mention. She brings up a psychological study from 1993 by a psychologist specialising in women’s anger, and this appeal to authority is out of date and simply since the researcher says it is still relevant does not

The subtitle by itself, ‘from Gamergate to mass shootings to domestic violence and the NFL, the common denominator is male rage’, has inherent issues. Gamergate was an instance where men and women were arguing over issues concerning sexism and progressivism in video game culture. The controversy of Gamergate was over ethics in gaming journalism and sexism and misogyny in gaming culture and here acts as a red herring. Gamergate was a response to women wanting gaming culture to be more inclusive, which led to an uprising online, which included threats from men towards women. Gamergate used this broad sense of “the issues in ethics of gaming journalism” as an umbrella for violence against women. However, Valenti’s traditional vagueness actually leaves holes one useful anecdote in her argument. Domestic violence as well, has no ground. She ignores the fact that 1 in 7 men are victims of severe violence by an intimate partner at least once in their lifetimes, and ignores violence in same-sex relationships, along with other suppressed evidence. Of course domestic violence is a problem, but not fully examining its issues and simply labelling it as males being violently angry towards all women will not lead to a real solution. Her mentioning of these controversial topics seems to be utilised more so she can use them in the topics for hits, rather than to actually examine them as evidence and support her argument and draw relevant information