Categories
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

How bad ideas get started: The “Apex Fallacy,” the “Frontman Fallacy,” and the murderer Marc Lepine

Would blabla
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.

1.1K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
gametime218
gametime218
11 years ago

Wow, it’s legitimately incredible that even after it was explained to him that “morning height” is an inside joke referring to an old troll, Joe still thinks it was a boner reference.

Also, Joe’s incredible telepathic abilities are as strong as ever.

pecunium
11 years ago

Uncle Joe:@pecunium – What? haha, I’m not answerable to you, matey. :p

I never said you were, old chap. You are answerable to the court of public opinion. Those “neutral observers” you alluded to, upthread.

If you ain’t got the chops to come up to scratch, that’s ok. They know a forfeit when they see it.

marinerachel
marinerachel
11 years ago

He made the discussion about cock and now he’s telling us someone else did. He’s sure got conviction.

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

Oh shit, pecunium’s a funghi.
Get it? Funghi/Fun Guy?

*chuckle*

katz
11 years ago

It’s probably hopeless to explain that morning glories are a type of flower, so let’s skip straight to the part where someone says “my morning glory is growing right over the fence” or “rip out those invasive morning glories” or “some morning glories are self-seeding.”

Viscaria
Viscaria
11 years ago

On a scale of 1 to 10, Bee was 0 talking about your dick, is what we’re telling you.

pecunium
11 years ago

Shiraz: I am the yeast of Uncle Joe‘s problems.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
11 years ago

Is that like Godwining for misogynists? Every conversation turns into discussing their boners?

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
11 years ago

“rip out those invasive morning glories”

MISANDRY

marinerachel
marinerachel
11 years ago

“rip out those invasive morning glories” <————- FEMINISTS!

katz
11 years ago

Great minds think alike.

marinerachel
marinerachel
11 years ago

Oh god, lol. High five, Bagelsan?

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

“Shiraz: I am the yeast of Uncle Joe‘s problems.”

*giggle fit*

cloudiah
11 years ago

This has been oddly fun. A good troll shellacking before I go on vacation!

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
11 years ago

That is pretty much the sum total of MRA discourse. Notes from their boner.

marinerachel
marinerachel
11 years ago

From their angry boner.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
11 years ago

@Shiraz:
Oh shit, pecunium’s a funghi.
Get it? Funghi/Fun Guy?

*chuckle*

He’s also saprophytic

Sa Prophtytic

Saaa prophetic

Say it slowly.

And a great cook.

That one isn’t a pun.
Just baseless assumption.

@cloudiah:
Have a great vacation.

The First Joe
The First Joe
11 years ago

“Uncle Joe You don’t know my friend’s son either, but you wrote him off (he was convicted of murder; which he committed).”

Yeah, and I stand by that. Murderers = morally bankrupt.
Murdered someone? Ok, well your opinion on right vs. wrong (on any subject) is hereby invalid, as far as I’m concerned.

Maybe you think that makes me a bad guy Pecunium? And you know what? I don’t care.
I’m pretty confident that refusing to take my moral pointers from murderers is a sound position, that is more likely to lead to good outcomes for me and people in general, than the opposite.

So, funnily enough, I find your pathetic attempt to associate me with Stalin – one of the worst mass murderers of all fucking time, to be incredibly fucking offensive. And that you choose to try to do that, while voicing support for an actual murderer?

Your opinion on anything at all? just reached zero value.

@Katz – I lol’d at the morning glory jokes. 😀

gametime218
gametime218
11 years ago

I see Joe has decided to go with the classic “pretend I didn’t reveal a distressing preoccupation with my own penis and hope no one brings the subject up again” strategy – a favourite of boner-obsessed dudes everywhere.

Kittehserf
11 years ago

“Your opinion on anything at all? just reached zero value.”

Yours has been there ever since you started posting, kiddo.

The First Joe
The First Joe
11 years ago

@gametime – more bullshit from you.

I didn’t make up the phrase “morning glory” and it applies to any and all dicks everywhere. It’s so prevalent it was used as an album name by a very famous band…..

Wait, wait….

!hy am I even arguing with you about this? You’re a lying git! Of course what you’re saying is a lie! You’re a liar!

Bwahahahaha!!!

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

Gotta take an intermission. Be back in an hour.

opheliamonarch
11 years ago

Talking about euphemisms, intended or otherwise.
I said something VERY rude the other day and Mr M will NOT let it go.

It was funny though, so I’m gonna tell the whole Internet hee, hee, hee 🙂

For the first time in my life I have an engagement ring (couldn’t afford such things before).
Anyway, I’m trying to take care of it, but never having had something like that before I’m unsure how to get between the stones when cleaning. So I got a toothbrush and thought I’d very gently give it a clean.

As I left the room to go to the bathroom sink, I told my fella,
‘I’m just going to the bathroom to gingerly brush my ring’.
He laughed for 15 minutes straight! 🙂

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

“Bwahahahaha!!!”

Though it looks like someone started Happy Hour early. Later.

gametime218
gametime218
11 years ago

Joe, the phrase that you insisted was a penis joke was “morning height,” not “morning glory.” You may recognize “morning height” as having been used as a euphemism for penises exactly zero times in the history of everything, which is what makes your original assumption that it referred to your penis (???) being small (?????) so baffling, and what makes your continued assertions that it referred to your penis so offputting.

But fair enough: You aren’t obsessed with your own dick, you are obsessed with “any and all dicks everywhere.” I apologize for the mischaracterization.

1 17 18 19 20 21 43