How bad ideas get started: The “Apex Fallacy,” the “Frontman Fallacy,” and the murderer Marc Lepine
Would MRAs still be into the Apex Fallacy if boards of directors looked like this?
So some Men’s Rightsers are up in arms because the powers that be at Wikipedia just deleted a page devoted to a phony “logical fallacy” invented by a friend of Paul Elam. According to the now-deleted Wikipedia page, “the apex fallacy refers to judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs (the apex, such as the 1%) of society, rather than collective success of a group.”
In other words, it’s a convenient way for MRAs to hand-wave away any evidence that men, collectively, have more power than women. Mention that men hold the overwhelming majority of powerful positions in the worlds of politics and business, and, I don’t know, podiatry, and MRAs will shout “apex fallacy” and do a little victory dance. Rich and powerful dudes don’t count, because of poor and powerless dudes!
On the Wikipedia discussion page devoted to the question of deleting the apex fallacy entry, one Wikipedia editor – who voted “strong delete” – noted that
This is men’s rights activist astroturfing. The guy above [in the discussion] isn’t posting examples of its usage because they’re all on websites showcasing brutal misogyny and hateful ignorance, like A Voice for Men.
He’s got a point. When I did a Google search for the term, my top ten results (which may be different than your top ten results, because that’s how Google works) included posts on The Spearhead; The Men’s Rights subreddit; Genderratic (TyphonBlue’s blog); Emma the Emo’s Emo Musings; and a tweet from the little-followed Twitter account of someone calling himself Astrokid MHRA. In other words, five of the ten results were MRA sites, several of them with explicit links to A Voice for Men. (That “MHRA” is a dead giveaway.)
The top result, meanwhile, linked to a post on the blog of the delightful Stonerwithaboner, who doesn’t consider himself an MRA, as far as I know. But he’s still kind of a shit, and he did recently confess to being (as I suspected) the person who was going around posting comments on manosphere sites as David H. F*cktrelle, Male Feminist Extraordinaire ™.
So, in other words , I think it’s fair to say that the term “apex fallacy” has not yet achieved academic or philosophical respectability just yet.
The deleted Wikipedia page attributes the term “apex fallacy” to Helen Smith, a psychologist who is a longtime friend to A Voice for Men, and dates it to an interview Smith gave to the odious Bernard Chapin in 2008.
But the idea seems to be a simple reworking of a bad idea that’s been floating around in Men’s Rights circles for a lot longer than that.
Back in the 1990s, New Zealand Men’s Rights Activist Peter Zohrab came up with what he called the “Frontman Fallacy,” a notion he spread via the alt.mens-rights newsgroup on Usenet and elsewhere; the term has been widely adopted in Men’s Rights circles since then. As Zohrab defined the term,
the Frontman Fallacy is the mistaken belief that people (men, specifically) who are in positions of authority in democratic systems use their power mainly to benefit the categories of people (the category of “men”, in particular) that they belong to themselves.
So, in other words, if you mention that men hold the overwhelming majority of powerful positions in the worlds of politics, business, and podiatry, MRAs will shout out “frontman fallacy” and do a little victory dance. Rich and powerful dudes don’t count, because of poor and powerless dudes!
Like the extremely similar “apex fallacy,” this idea is rather too silly and facile to count as a real fallacy, but it has proven quite popular with MRAs. Looking through the google search results for “frontman fallacy,” I see links to a wide assortment of MRA sites using the term, including AVFM, Genderratic, Stand Your Ground, Backlash.com, Toysoldier, Mensactivism.org, Pro-Male Anti-Feminist Tech, Fathersmanifesto.net, Mensaid.com, and some others. Like “apex fallacy” it hasn’t made much progress outside the Men’s Rights movement.
What’s interesting about this to me is that this is not the only bad idea that Peter Zohrab has ever had.
Indeed, Zohrab had some extremely bad ideas about Marc Lepine, the woman-hating antifeminist who murdered 14 women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989.
While Zohrab, to my knowledge, never explicitly justified Lepine’s killings, he described the massacre in one notorious internet posting as an “Extremist Protest Against Media Censorship.” Of Lepine himself, he wrote
I bet you don’t know he wasn’t a misogynist – because you have been conned by the media (as usual). In fact, he was a Men’s Rights activist (albeit an extremist one), and one of the things he was protesting about was media censorship.
Zohrab went on to say that it was clear from Lepine’s writings – or at least writing alleged to have been written by him — that
he [was] against Feminists — not against women — he clearly states that he is protesting against various issues which are aspects of Feminist sexism.
Indeed, Zohrab seems not only sympathetic towards Lepine’s “cause” but seems to feel that he was being unfairly misrepresented:
The write-ups on Marc Lepine concentrate on character-assassination. They take things out of context, in the same way that fathers are slandered in the divorce/family court, in order to deprive them of custody or access. …
Marc Lepine was not only not sexist, as the media stated – he was actually fighting sexism!
Lots of MRAs love talking about the “frontman fallacy” or the new and improved “apex fallacy.” They don’t seem much interested in talking about Zohrab himself.
Like it or not, MRAs, this man is one of the leading figures in the emergence of the Men’s Rights movement online, and in the intellectual history of the movement, such as it is.
If I were a bit more paranoid, I might wonder if the emergence of the “apex fallacy” was some sort of an attempt as a rebranding, an attempt to push the “frontman fallacy” and its creator, the old, odd duck Peter Zohrab, with his embarrassingly sympathetic feelings toward a mass murderer of women, down that famous memory hole.
P.S. Don’t read the comments to that MensActivism.org posting, unless you want to get really depressed.
Posted on April 29, 2013, in a voice for men, antifeminism, dozens of upvotes, drama kings, entitled babies, frontman fallacy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, playing the victim, reddit, sympathy for murderers, terrorism and tagged antifeminism, marc lepine, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, wikipedia. Bookmark the permalink. 1,090 Comments.
“Geez, women can already vote so thousands of years of systematic oppression are automatically fixed, I don’t know what more these womenfolks want! It’s almost like they want to be regarded as people and not just walking vaginas and stuff”
@Shiraz – I’m not complaining about manboobzers insulting me. I am demonstrating how infantile manboobzers are, by providing them with an opportunity to resort to knee-jerk insults, just because I disagree with them. Which lots of you did.
So when neutral readers come across this thread, they get a real sense of the lack of credibility of manboobzers.
Also, in the vast majority of these murders of men you’re so concerned about, who are the perpetrators?
Uncle Joe: @cloudiah – why on earth would I “read back through the comments”? Absolutely everything any Manboobzer has to say is summed up in the bleat of “Feminists Good! Men Bad!”.
In other words you are just here to have a public wank.
@Lady Stark – sure, your not feminist, riiight. You’re nodding along on a feminist blog surrounded by hard-core feminists and your parrotting feminists catch phrases. If you don’t consider yourself a feminist, you have a shocking lack of self-awareness.
Says the dude who has claimed to not be a part of the MRM.
Any analysis done by any feminist anywhere is automatically suspect, due to obvious selection bias. So, I reject the entire feminist canon, including and especially “Male privelege” as conceived by feminists – it’s bullshit.
Right… this is so logical It’s why one should always reject the explanations of people who study things, and just run with our gut. Expertise is so overrated (and we know the MRM has no selection bias at all, so “The Apex Fallacy”, Misandry, Male Disposability, False Rape, Female Privilege, and all that jazz is TRUE!).
@Shiraz – hahaha. You’re serious?
What? have you had your eyes closed for the last 40 years?
Sorry, but if you haven’t noticed feminists in positions of power (clue: Secretary of State of the USA), feminists orgs funded with taxpayers mopney, feminist inspired laws etc. etc. etc. If all of that has passed you by? Nothing I present you with can possibly enlighten what is clearly your wilful ignorance.
For a dude who lives on a boat in England you are sure obsessed with Feminism in the US. Why don’t you prattle about Maggie, or women in the House of Lords, or as QCs?
Could it be you have been dishonest with us?
As for not being bright? I’m sure it’s clear to any neutral reader who’s smart and who isn’t out of the posters here.
At last you have said something with which I concur.
@gilly – ” then immediately started flinging shit” aaaaand there you go again. Talking with words is not “flinging shit”. You are disqualified from any consideration as holding a meaningful opinion – because you come out with ridiculous stuff like that.
We know all the tricks, we use metaphor, and analogies, and even sarcasm. It must be awful.
Shiraz: Can we see some citations on this? It sounds like you’ve pulled this from your ass.
Thus proving he knows one way to use a colon.
@manboobz- for the record, “MHRA” doesn’t necessarily mean “A Voice for Men”. I’ve seen its increasingly common use at Reddit Men’s Rights as well. The point (even if you disagree) is to emphasize that the “men’s movement” is rallying for basic human rights and not “special rights”, as feminism has been criticized for doing (again, even if you disagree).
Joey, I’m waiting for you to respond to pecunium. Assuming you can understand his post.
@beausescience – “thousands of years of systematic oppression are automatically fixed,”
If you want to “fix” the past – better get to work on a time machine.
Um… Just because people work to reduce IPV, rape and sexual assault, doesn’t mean we don’t care about other things.
I think the problem of overwhelmingly male-on-male violence is men’s to solve. That doesn’t mean I don’t support working on it, just that I think the people most affected by it should lead the way. So Joe, what are you doing to combat male-on-male violence?
“Shiraz: Can we see some citations on this? It sounds like you’ve pulled this from your ass.
Thus proving he knows one way to use a colon.”
*giggle-snort*
As opposed to spending dozens of comments on telling us we’re wrong and misunderstanding what an ad hominem fallacy is, which is obviously a fruitful and rewarding endeavour.
I thought you commented here for the “neutral observers.” Don’t you think they might appreciate some sources? It wouldn’t be very neutral of them to just take what you say at face value.
P.S. In keeping with my personal tradition, I would like to remind you that you are a racist asshole.
1. rape and slut shaming of vulnerable young people
2. habitual downgrading of sex crimes committed against women and transgendered people
3. possession of condoms accepted as evidence of participation in prostitution and used to discount
4. appallingly inadequate sentences given to individuals who are convicted of sex crimes, and for those who enable and excuse rape and incest
5. constant sexual harassment of women guilty of the terrible crime of having an opinion, or a job in a field that has traditionally been almost solely male
6. constant threats of violence and death for the terrible crime of having an opinion, or a job in a field that has traditionally been almost solely male
7. elected officials directing doctors to lie to their patients about critical health care issues
8. employers seeking the power to deny medical treatment to their employees based on their own personal preferences
9. the fact that it is still somehow legal to fire a person for being pregnant
and on, and on, and on, and on…
Oh, yeah. And video games, totally. Evil, evil video games.
P-EMRA, when you’re talking to all of us, you don’t really need to use @manboobz. It’s kind of assumed.
Well I see Joey came back but he’s boring, so I kinda just skimmed.
Joey, tell us why you hate citations again
“Seriously, do any of you have any concept how you look to a neutral reader? ”
Except your idea of a neutral reader is a man who hasn’t yet decided whether he thinks women are people or not. He’s also apparently a moron who doesn’t grasp what “Misogyny. I mock it” means, hence has no notion that this blog isn’t about laying out the tenets of feminism for fuckwits like yourself.
“@Fade – wait, wait. Let me savour this moment. You just compared poltical constructs / intellectual conceits with…. the force of gravity. Bwahahahahhahahaaa!!”
You are aware that things being social constructs does not make them any less real? But if you don’t, please give me all your money. It’s a social construct, yet I don’t think you’re going to be flushing it down the toilet.
I guess I should feel glad I missed joe’s racism. Blech. What did he say?
If I’d never been here before and saw “morning height” I’d be confused rather than sure that it was a penis reference. Once again, Joe – not everyone shares your obsessions.
“Right… this is so logical It’s why one should always reject the explanations of people who study things, and just run with our gut. ”
@Pecunium- Reading comprehension. Go back, read TFJ’s post, and try again.
“You are aware that things being social constructs does not make them any less real? But if you don’t, please give me all your money. It’s a social construct, yet I don’t think you’re going to be flushing it down the toilet.
”
I would gladly accept joeys money, I need to get a computer that works
aww, permatwit, keep accusing us of not reading for comprehension. It’s so cute when kids try to imitate adults.
Mostly he rambled on about how Muslims are a terrible danger to the UK because some Muslims once attacked a gay man. He then got hilariously huffy when people pointed out that this was a pretty racist way to contextualize things, so I make a point of bringing it up. Huffy Joe is much funnier than “pretending to be amused” Joe.
(Obligatory explanation that, yes, I know “Muslim” isn’t a race, but criticisms of Muslims as some kind of “threat” to Western nations, especially in the context of immigration, are inextricably intertwined with racist and othering narratives. Please don’t try to bring this up again, Joe, it just looks sad.)
@Shiraz – No, you’re waiting for me to give a shit about what Pecunium has to say. I know Pecunium of old, so you’ll be waiting a very long time indeed.
Joe’s citations consisted of some videos and links to conspiracy websites, as I recall. They were thoroughly refuted, which is what Joe means when he says they were “ignored.”
Bald, unsupported assertion? Ok then. Is the CDC too misandric for you?
24 times more may be a slight miscalculation, but it’s pretty close. And in any case it means that
Thank you for those baseless assumptions. I already conceded that men, overall, are more prone to non-sexual violence. And nowhere have I said that I don’t care about their lives. I’m just pointing out that women are more likely to be murdered by abusive intimate partners than men are.
@cloudiah
Huh. He does know that people can point out flaws, biases,whatever in citations, right, and putting one up doesn’t mean mo one can disagree? Right?
No, I said I was waiting for you to respond — never asked if you cared.
Marie, I am pretty sure he thinks if he posts a link to something he found convincing, it means he wins the argument.
Joe, what are you doing to reduce or end male-on-male violence?
@cloudiah
Nuts
Joey, does that mean if I post a citation I find convincing I wim the argument? Or does it only aply to you?
I guess the reliable sources don’t back up his facts, and people poke holes in unreliable sources. Hey, Joe, ever considered not arguing if you can’t prove anything?
Or refuse to try to prove.
Oh, and I think it’s absolutely hilarious that Joe sees no inconsistency in saying this:
… after saying this:
To recap: DON’T YOU DARE TRY TO STICK YOUR “LABELS” ON THE FIRST JOE, MAAAAAAN, HE’S NOT A PART OF YOUR SYSTEM, but also don’t you dare suggest that someone isn’t a feminist if Joe says they are.
“I am genuinely curious as to how frothyBrit got from “morning height” to “small penis”. What happened in the strange and excitable labyrinth of his brain to link that initial comment not only to cocks, but to small cocks in particular?”
Perhaps, like Owly, he thinks anyone’s interested in his “morning woody”?
Or, you could attempt to address the negative consequences of shitty paradigms that existed in the past, so that people no longer have to suffer from said negative consequences. What’s cool about this is that it doesn’t even require a time machine!
” Hey, Joe, ever considered not arguing if you can’t prove anything?
Or refuse to try to prove.”
I can see bringing it up when it’s something you can’t put your finger on, and would therefore have a harder time backing it up, but Joey knows what he wants to say, he’s just not accepting actual citations. I mean, if someone’s saying “x standards of patriarchy bug me as a man(since some of it does affect men negatively)” I’ll be fine with it, even venting about it, assuming they aren’t coming into a space women are talking about their issues nd derailing, but if they add ‘therefore men have it worse true facts” I’ll laugh in their face.
I hope that made sense.
Uncle Joe: @Shiraz – another transparent effort to control the frame. I said: feminism has been successful in getting feminists money, power and privelege.
Ah… but when you apply it to all women (and ya do) it’s the Apex Fallacy in Action. Hell, even if you limit it to the category of women who are feminists, it’s an Apex Fallacy. Not all feminists have positions of power and privelege.
Petard, yours; hoist upon.
In fact I’ll go further – just being a one-off murderer or an attempted murderer* is plenty enough for me to disqualify you from consideration as someone with a valid POV about ANYTHING.
Then you are too stupid to deal with as a rational adult.
Bonus points for being so clueless about the local ecology as to think we value Hugo Fucking Schwyzer. I don’t discount him, on everything; he seems to be competent at the teaching of English (at least in that one of my almae matres granted him tenure in that discipline). On the subject of feminism/how to be a decent human being I do discount him. I won’t refuse to read what he has to say, but it is filtered through a fair bit of disdain.
@Aaliyah – Ugh’s “question” transparently contains an assertion. Just like the counter-analogy I provided.
Yeah, the assertion is you were challenged to do it in the past, and didn’t. This is a true assertion.
Morning “height” as in morning “wood”. That’s what that reference conveys to the reader who isn’t part of your little clique.
But Joey, you’ve been hanging out a lot; and as such have seen that it’s a common reference to a differntly loathesome person. I agree that being compared to Mr. Torvus Butthorn is no honor, and most people would find it insulting. Most people would, however, not have so much cock on the brain that height = wood. That you have some obsession with what women think of your penis that you didn’t assume (if you are so ignorant as all that) it wasn’t a continuation of the, “shorter Joe” insult you rushed to assume was being made, is sort of sad.
1. You are incorrect. I used ad hominem correctly.
<a href =http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlYou are wrong. This is no surprise.
“I couldn’t care less about what you think is rude on the internet or not.”
Then why did you go off on several people for, “juvenile name calling”? Help yourself out a little; aim for consistency; if not in life as a whole, at least in one comment thread.
Bye everyone,my mom wants her iPad back;p
Have fun with the trolls, if possible.
If Joe thinks we’re all so infantile, blahblahblah, it says something about him that he keeps coming back here to prove how superior he is. Does he also hang around kindergartens telling the kids they’re not up to his manly manz intellect?
And if he’s not drunk posting, that means he’s this frothy and incoherent sober. Perhaps he should try drunk posting. It might be an improvement.
@Gametime – you’re lying again. I’m not a racist, that’s just more Bullshit Manboobzers Made-Up.
Don’t make up shit and attribute that made-up shit to me – find the post and QUOTE it, in CONTEXT.
Gametime siad:
“(Obligatory explanation that, yes, I know “Muslim” isn’t a race, but criticisms of Muslims as some kind of “threat” to Western nations, especially in the context of immigration, are inextricably intertwined with racist and othering narratives. Please don’t try to bring this up again, Joe, it just looks sad.)”
^Tortuous effort to make anything and everything = racist. FAIL.
I addressed this ridiculous relativism and in-group favouritism last time I was here.
Within Lefty / “Progressive” groups like Manboobzers there are no absolute rights and wrongs, “truth” is determined by group membership.
So, if *I* say that it’s a Very Bad Thing when some Muslims attack / harrass / beat / stab gay men (e.g. in some areas of London), because in GameTime’s mind I’m a White Hetero Man* it is bad and wrong for me to say this and gives GameTime chance to use the magic word “Islamophobia”.
(*FALSE: I’m mixed race).
Whereas Aaliyah can say that she HATES Islam, because she has told Manboobzers she is a Muslim apostate, non-white, transwoman and thus everything she says is right.
No rational person can respect people who think that truth changes depending on who is telling it.
In contrast any rational person would look at the tenants of Islam, such as: advocating the murder of Apostates, athiests, “mockers” and gay people…. and would naturally hold Islam to be a very bad thing, because:
Murdering people is Very Bad Indeed.
That I have to explain this to Manboobzers is an indication of how morally and intellectually bankrupt your position is.
A “phobia” is an IRRATIONAL fear / dislike. There is nothing irrational about a fear / dislike of people who believe that murder is justifiable**, because: whatever. It’s perfectly rational, therefore is not a Phobia.
(** and a significant minority of Muslims do hold to that literal interpretation of their religion, enough that entire nation states are run on these principles, it is NOT a vanishingly small %. And yes, some Muslims are lovely, peaceful people, despite their religion.
And yes, there are plenty of Christians and Atheists and Hindus who thnk murder is justifiable, they are Very Bad and Wrong too!)
@cloudiah – and now you’re lying about my citations.
Jesus Christ. Taking offense at ‘Shorter Joe’, and acting, presumably because somebody once said ‘You shouldn’t post drunk, Joe’, like you’ve been seriously slandered as an alcoholic?
Grow some skin and learn the fucking internet, Joe.
There’s a diff b/tween criticizing out of ignorance, and out of knowledge. Aaliyah knows more about Islam than you do. She criticizes out of knowledge.
Also, howsabout giving me your money? Since it’s a social construct and therefore not real, like gravity.*
*everyone else tell me if my poking the troll is annoying you.
Hey Joe: Most neutral observers could probably read AND comprehend the header of the site, unlike you. We mock misogyny, and you, sir, are a big fat misogynist.
Joe, it’s hard to lie about assdata, which is all your citations are.
Poor baby just needs any attention, doesn’t he?
PEMRA: @Pecunium- Reading comprehension. Go back, read TFJ’s post, and try again.
Dude… get a new routine. Not only is this one wrong, but it’s not clever.
Let me break it down for you. I’ll assume you have some education (wit, well I’ll gamble, but I’m not going to put much on the line), and won’t make it too simplistic.
This is a lesson on contextual referent.
Joe said that he completely discounts the opinon of feminists because… well because he doesn’t trust them to be honest; their bias is so great they won’t tell the truth.
He also ascribes to the belief that “The Apex Fallacy” is a legitimate concept. Why? Because some guys in the MRA came up with it (and it matches his worldview).
So… when people outside the MRM, who have no apparent connection to feminism say that the only places it shows up are MRA related; and that it’s support in the larger world is suspect (at best) and decide it’s not presently supported enough to include in Wikipedia, Joe comes here to declaim this is the result of it being So True It Must Be Suppressed!
Why? Apparently because Feminists don’t agree with it.
Are those dot’s close enough? If not perhaps this will help.
“But mom! Susie is allowed to stay up past 10 and I’m not. That’s not fair!”
This is what Joe sounds like.
Newsflash: Paul Elam is up in arms over a …. ready? …. FALSE ACCUSATION. http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/yeah-but-that-was-then/
Hey Joe, remember when you said you learned it was pointless to post citations here because no one pays attention to them? That’s kind of how I feel about bothering to dig up the old shit you said.
Also, if it was true that we assign value to beliefs purely based on group membership, wouldn’t I be praising you for the things you say because you’re mixed race? Y’know, if we were the sort of ridiculous made-up progressives you imagine us to be? Doesn’t the fact that I know you’re mixed race and still think the things you say are incredibly fucking stupid indicate to you that maybe, just maybe, my opinion of you isn’t based on me imagining you’re white? I mean, it’s not like this is the first time you’ve brought it up.
Uncle Joe: Murdering people is Very Bad Indeed.
Which is why you won’t listen to anything said by a murderer, but you came here to defend a thing used to justify the murders committed by a hero of your movement.
And… I remember those threads; you are doing what you accuse us of doing. So whip out the citations.
And… you are a bigot. You hate women, in general (though there are some you would be willing to fuck), and you think Muslims are, as a class, a threat and a danger.
A “phobia” is an IRRATIONAL fear / dislike. There is nothing irrational about a fear / dislike of people who believe that murder is justifiable**
And yet you aren’t afraid of the MRM. I guess it’s because you don’t think they will target anyone whom you care about.
And yes, there are plenty of Christians and Atheists and Hindus who thnk murder is justifiable, they are Very Bad and Wrong too!
But you don’t have any large scale fear of them. Which is why you are a bigot, and a moron. You are far more likely to be attacked by one of them than you are to be attacked by one of those religiously motivated Muslims you are afraid of.
You are an idiot (doubling down, again, and again, and again: this isn’t the first time) on the errors you have in your understanding of ad hominem.
But hey, I understand why you don’t engage with me, being so thoroughly wrong, on so many levels, means you have to limit your efforts to places you think you have some hope of prevailing.
It’s good to see someone who’s DK effect has limits.
Needs a link to avoiceforninnies.com/2011/extremist-zionist-feminist-conspiracy-covers-up-susie-bedtime-gloats-about-it.htm, but yes .
Welp, I actually went back and read through some of Joey’s previous ARGLE BARGLE and I found him using videos and conspiracy sites. It is possible that there were citations that I missed that went to peer-reviewed journals or other reputable sites, such as .edu or .gov sites. But I am not diving in again to look.
JOE, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO REDUCE OR END MALE-ON-MALE VIOLENCE? WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD ADDRESS IT EFFECTIVELY? WHAT ORGANIZATIONS DOING WORK IN THIS AREA DO YOU SUPPORT?
Despite some of her issues, I would not be at all insulted to be called Secretary Clinton.
So thanks FirstJoke.
I can’t believe I actually have to explain to you that I use the phrase “Islamophobia” because it’s the commonly accepted term, rather than because I literally think you have a medical phobia of Muslims. Like… honestly? Is your understanding of words that deficient? When you accuse Muslims of homophobia, as you love to do, do you believe them to have an actual phobia of homosexuality, or do you understand that the word is used to mean hatred, despite it’s linguistic roots?
Also it is perfectly rational to dislike murderers. It is not necessarily rational to dislike groups to which murderers belong; you’ve already admitted that a minority of Muslims use their religion to justify violence, so why say you dislike Muslims? Why not just speak out against murder? Isn’t this exactly like what you accuse feminists of doing, of hating a group based on the actions of only specific members? Why do you suppose you take the time to fixate on the religion of violent Muslims, but have never once mentioned violent Christians, who are enormously disproportionately responsible for terrorism in at least the United States?
I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “spaceism.”
pecunium, stop talking about Joe’s penis. :D
@pecunium – no I didn’t do any of that. You INFERRED that when I was talking about money, power and privelege that I was only talking about the high-ups. Not true.
From that false inference all your other falsehoods follow.
You also inferred that when I said feminists I meant Women – not so, these two words do not mean the same.
However: Examples of feminist successes that HAVE brought more money, power and privelege to women (than women had before feminism existed) are so numerous and widespread that they certainly apply to MOST feminists and MOST women in the west:
– Voting
– Right to work, especially in high-paid professions such as lawyer, judge, doctor etc.
– Paid maternity leave
– legislation against firing women who are on maternity (we have this here in UK)
– any and all feminist-run organisations that provide paid work for feminists
– special benefits that only apply to women within healthcare and welfare systems, including and particularly assisted housing
– removal of women’s previous marriage obligations, while retaining men’s obligations
– priveleged position / consideration for women in front of divorce courts
– hire quotas favouring women over men, especially in academia / public service
– domination of the education system by feminist academics and women teachers
Just a few examples, running the whole spectrum of society from top to bottom.
Of course, the MAIN focus of the political movement that is Feminism is, and always has been: the women at the top and those women getting more.
e.g. Most programs that happen to provide stuff for lots of ordinary women bring much greater cash & power to the feminists that run those programs.
Just as the top class of “patriarchy” once held secure to its perch by providing crumbs of advantage to the vast numbers of pleb men.
Uncle Joe: Does this sound familiar… You CANNOT learn eanything new, you’ll never do any research of your own along the lines I have indicated, because you already believe you have all the answers. Your mind is CLOSED. And that really is YOUR problem.
It’s a funny definition of “privilege” that identifies women receiving the same rights as men as “privileges.”
@kiki – you must be new here. Accusing me of “drunk posting” happens every single time I post on here. Repeatedly at that.
@Fade – you have absolutely no idea what I know about Islam.
I’d also like to know Joe’s, or any other mra type’s solution to male on male violence. It’s a real problem that currently and historically has (obviously) harmed men, yet mra’s don’t seem to be as concerned about it* as they are about ladies nights and paper abortions and such.
*Of course, they’re quick to point to statistics about males being more likely to be victims of homicide, but they leave out the part where the perpetrators were also males. Why is that?
JOE, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO REDUCE OR END MALE-ON-MALE VIOLENCE? WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD ADDRESS IT EFFECTIVELY? WHAT ORGANIZATIONS DOING WORK IN THIS AREA DO YOU SUPPORT? WHY AREN’T YOU ANSWERING THIS QUESTION? DO YOU JUST WANT TO USE MALE-ON-MALE VIOLENCE AS A STICK TO BEAT FEMINISTS WITH? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE IRONIC.
@Joe
So… feminism making women less disadvantaged by the patriarchy than they used to be is proof of privilege?
methinks you do not know that words mean things.
That’s only because you sound drunk when you post. In any event, it is a joke made at your expense.
Clearly, Joe is not interested in working on ending male-on-male violence. Perhaps he is more interested in tackling the problem of messy foods?
Ah yes, the path to fame and fortune indeed, like all other lucrative non-profit work.
Uncle Joe: @pecunium – no I didn’t do any of that. You INFERRED that when I was talking about money, power and privelege that I was only talking about the high-ups. Not true.
You did it. Now you are lying about what you did. That, or your facility with English is so weak you can’t understand what you are saying (I am, though it’s not to your credit, take you at your word that you aren’t drunk posting… are you stoned instead? Not as likely, stoned doesn’t tend to lead to rage; more a blissed out incoherence, and you appear to be far from blissed out).
However: Examples of feminist successes that HAVE brought more money, power and privelege to women (than women had before feminism existed) are so numerous and widespread that they certainly apply to MOST feminists and MOST women in the west:
Dude… this is disproving the whole premise of, “The Apex Fallacy”.
Seriously, if men in power doesn’t help all men as a class (the argument of the Apex Fallacy) then you can’t make that argument about women.
Which is what what your first comment above was you claiming you hadn’t done. You’re slipping. Better to try to keep the blatant self-contradictions to separate comments, even if you can’t keep it to separate threads.
@GameTime – Bullshit – it’s blatantly obvious that you just assume so strongly that anyone disagreeing with you is a White Man, that you either:
1) assume I am white
2) forget that I’m not in between your popping up to troll
which you always get caught out on. Lolz!
Also, there’s a massive difference between you ACTIVELY LYING about what I have or haven’t said vs. me not bothering to post citations (because it’s a waste of my time, when I know manboobzers don’t read citations that don’t support their POV)
@Pecunium – I stopped reading your patronising post when you started telling me what *I* think and why *I* think it. Your false assumptions are false.
*hahahah*
I love how Joe says that pecuniums telling him what he thinks and that’s wrong, yet he seems to think he possesses the mind-reading powers to know whether we read his citations.
Hey, Joe, you know why you need citations? It’s really hard to make an argument without them.
Joe: maybe you’re accused of drunk posting because the alternative is too fucking sad–that you’re this frothy and incoherent sober.
@Fade – you have absolutely no idea what I know about Islam.
Not true. You have spent a lot of energy, over the course of several threads, telling us what you think of Islam. Some of it has been quoted here.
So Fade has some idea. Does it hurt to be embarrassed with your inability to reason getting shown to the world so often?