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.
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. 😀
@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?