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.
I’m trying to imagine Joe slowly learning the details of a complex moral problem:
Person: “I had sex-”
Joe: “You’re a bad person!”
Person: “-with my husband-”
Joe: “Wait, now you’re a good person.”
Person: “-before we got married.”
Joe: “Uh, bad again.”
Person: “And I got pregnant-”
Joe: “…um…”
Person: “-so I scheduled an abortion-”
Joe: “Bad!”
Person: “-but ended up keeping the pregnancy-”
Joe: “Good?”
Person: “-and gave the baby up for adoption.”
Joe: “…Bad?” *headsplodes*
Silly me, I thought that Joey would seem more interesting after I’d had dinner and a few beers, but sadly no. Luckily, after attempting some half dozen times, he finally managed to flounce off properly.
Joey – “I don’t expect to change any minds and I don’t want to actually engage with anyone here, I just came to rant at people about why everyone is so mean and wrong for not listening to me!”
Pemmie – “I don’t agree with MRAs or anything, but let me tell you, at great length, why you should totally do things their way!”
Ugh. Flip the fucking tape, we’ve heard all this before.
It has everything to do with everything! Kittens are always relevant, especially kittens as cute as those!
I want the darling with the freckle. Okay, I actually want all of them, but I think my current cats would murder me in my sleep!
Say, were they alpha broomsticks?
Not compared to Greebo. Everyone’s a beta to him!
“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.”
Pecunium you owe me coffee (exchangeable for a tour of MoMA, which we have really got to do once shit settles down on my end)
Fibinachi, all my thoughts and hopes for your friend.
And yes, please do get a blog or write a book, or anything that allows me to read more of your writing!
Quoted For Truth!!!!!elebenty!!!1!!!
Hey @Bagelsan. 🙂
So, all this talk of Pratchett got me perusing quotes of ‘Witches Abroad’ and then I was thinking about religion as everyone was discussing it, weird mind thread, but y’know vodka.
I try to be an Engaged Buddhist incidentally, the ‘engaged’ bit allows me to call trolls
wanker. But Pratchetts take on Buddhism is far more appealing.
Also @Bagelsan, was it you who said you didn’t mind hating on hipsters? Can’t find that bit of the thread. 🙂
@pecunium, Aaliyah:
Those were very neat summations of interesting subjects. Thank you.
—
@Opheliamonarch
Yes.
In fact I’m reading Night Watch right this minute.
I can also recommend Kate Griffin, Midnight Angel series 1-4. I got the same vibe from them as I normally do from Pratchett. Funny until it’s sad until it’s heartbreaking until it’s beautiful until it’s funny, again.
@Bagelsan:
Hehe. Applause.
@Systemic repeat:
“No, I’m not actually an MRA. I wouldn’t call myself a feminist either. I think the answer lies in the middle of these two extreme positions”
“So.–”
“Which is why I believe that what I am now going to say is what I really believe.
“Oka–”
“And I am going to talk about these beliefs a lot, chief of which, by the by, happens to be that men are infinitely suffering and women out to get them”
“Wait so–”
“And that Feminism is a movement motivated by the desire to channel resources upward the chain of what I like to call “Misandric Hand Me Ups”
“Look can–”
“And also, actually, thinking about it, I am partial to a lot of MRA points. They have some good ideas, very righteous folk that, perhaps the MRA and the more moderate, non Solanas feminists should join forces?”
“Liste–”
“Anyway, it’s been great talking to you, I’ve gotta dash. Have fun being inferior to men, now, as all women really are! And that’s real!”
“…goodbye”
@Gillyrosebee:
Thank you.
@Morality:
… Tell you what, I’m not going to go there. Against opinions as nuanced as sourced as those above, I have little to add other than meaningless paraphrasing.
It’s not the blockquote monster. I come out on top!
I just realised how totally alpha my vibrator is.
@marinerachel, is it in the shape of a fleur-de-lys or a broom? 🙂
Pratchett is so great. His books are hilarious. 😀
Also @Bagelsan, was it you who said you didn’t mind hating on hipsters? Can’t find that bit of the thread.
I don’t think so…
Now look you lot, that’s two cups of tea in one afternoon. Could y’all put tea trigger warnings up or something?
Hey, Argenti, I still don’t know when/if I’ll be free when I’m in New Haven, but I’ll email you when I know and maybe we can have coffee & cannolis, go to a museum, or whatever.
HAHAHA YOU CAN’T GET ME I’VE ALREADY SPILT THAT CUP
… oh.
Kantian Morality is, at it’s root, Hillel’s Golden Rule (Do not to unto others what you would not have done to yourself). Kant was a Catholic,and (in a different way to Descartes) used Logic (in an almost reified sense, which caused him to engage in horrid causistic reasoning) to derive “Absolute Morality”.
Pure Kantian Ethics are untenable. But taking the Categorical Imperatives as guides one can take the other guidelines of religious sensibilities and use those, in combination, to inform how one deals with other people.
Kitteh, we should all invest in sippy cups for when we read this blog! 🙂
I’m still waiting for a list of names/organizations that are guilty of this:
“I have a problem with feminists who attack men, who seek to silence, or disadvantage men, or who go out of their way to stop men getting help, or organising themselves to help one another.”
Are there networks devoted to stopping men from helping one another? I wasn’t aware.
Snarf warnings are for the weak! If feminists don’t want to rinse out our sinuses or our keyboards, we should just go make sammiches or iron shirts!!
Though, cock carousel sippy cups, with a bendy straw where the carousel pole goes through would be totally awesome!
PeRMALame’s vision of equality seems to be that all opinions and beliefs must be given equal weight. Therefore, if feminists have some good points, then mra’s must have equally good points.
“Civil rights activists have some good points, I suppose, but we should listen to white supremacists, too.”
“LGBTQ activists do have a point or too, but true equality means combining their ideas with the ranting of angry, bigoted homophobes.”
“You know, those people who think it’s wrong to shoot innocent people in the face may have something, I guess, but we shouldn’t be so quick to write off the pro-shooting innocent people in the face crowd, either.”
Bagelsan, that’s an excellent idea.
Dave should sell a range of sippy cups with the mammoth and cock carousel pics on them. He’d have a guaranteed market!
@Fibinachi, just listening to the audio version of ‘Snuff’ Love Vimes. T.P. just gets better and better.
@Bagelsan, so the hipster ref. seems really surreal now, huh?
Oh…just thought….really hoping you’re not a hipster…that would be bad….
@kittehserf, sippy cups and bibs for you 🙂
Aaaaaaaaaaah ninjaed by gillyrosebee!
I’m not at all a hipster, I just don’t have an opinion on them one way or the other. I’m hipster agnostic. :p