Partner Response Using "The Wife-Beater"

Not only does Gayle Rosenwald Smith use an extended definition of a wife beater, like Olivia said, in "The Wife-Beater" by defining them as "manly", but she also uses fallacies in the quote:  "One woman stated that it even made guys look "manly".  So "manly" equals "violent"? (529)".  This quote clearly shows that she is defining a wife beater as manly based on an opinion from one woman.  Although she defines them as manly, her tone exhibits the fact that she doesn't agree with the woman who stated that she thought that men looked manly in wife beaters.  Along with being an extended definition of a wife beater, this quote could also be considered fallacy, since she only uses an opinion from one woman.  This type of fallacy is called a Hasty or Sweeping Generalization.  This is a fallacy because Smith is jumping to the conclusion that everyone thinks that wife beaters look manly.  She is jumping to this conclusion by only providing an opinion from one woman, rather than asking other woman what they thought about men wearing wife beaters and how the shirt looked on them.  It is as if she is swaying the audience to agree with her on the fact that she doesn't like the negative connotation to the word "wife beater".  Not only is she jumping to a conclusion in this quote, but she is also using another type of fallacy.  This fallacy is called Personal Attack (Argument Ad Hominem).  This quote can be considered Personal Attack because she is almost attacking the character based on the character's opinion of a wife beater.  She is attacking the character rather than focusing on the important facts of the argument that she is trying to justify with her main focus on the woman's opinion.  Therefore, Smith does not avoid fallacies in her essay while she is trying to define a wife beater.