§   DEFINITION

Straw Man – restating a complex idea into a simpler version of it (that is easier to defeat).
 

Straw man arguments occur when opponents take the original argument of their adversaries and offer a close imitation (or straw man version) of the original argument; they then “knock down” the straw man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit).  This tactic gives the fallacious appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument.  Attacking a similar argument (especially a weaker one) is not the same as attacking the specific argument being discussed.
 

EXAMPLE      

A social reformer might say: “It’s not fair that women, when doing the same work as men (with the same qualifications, experience, education, and background), are paid only $0.76 for every $1.00 that men are paid!  Isn’t it reasonable to expect that one’s should have no impact on her salary?”

A chauvinist replies: “Of course not!  Everyone knows that bosses go easier on women and what they do. Besides, girls are physically smaller and weaker than men, so they need to be protected from the real world.  Women naturally look to men to lead them.”

The chauvinist makes two changes to the valid question posed by the reformer, who suggests that equal work deserves equal pay regardless of the worker’s gender.  The respondent implies that if “girls” weren’t so “weak” they could be treated more like men by their bosses — placing the blame here on the women, not their superiors who are clearly guilty of a scam.

By replacing the term “woman” with “girl,” the chauvinist changes the connotation of the worker (“women” are mature and capable, but “girls” imply giggly, emotional children in pigtails, playing jump rope).  “Girls” becomes the “straw women” here, and they are easier to knock down than professional, experienced “women” who can be equally capable leaders as men in the business world.

This second person characterizes fair bosses as enablers rather than chauvinists, but lacks the proof to defend his argument against the claims of the first speaker.  This second person bases his logic on tradition (another fallacy) and a few red herrings that change the focus away from salary and onto issues of strength and traditional gender roles.