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.
“@kittehserf, sippy cups and bibs for you ”
Another marketing possibility for the Dark Lord: bibs with Manboobz logos. Or maybe SNARF WARNINGS ARE FOR THE WEAK © gillyrosebee, 2013
*schmoo*
I’m still thinking on it, though. It’s clear that sippy cups are misandry, but my poor little (somewhat intoxicated) girly brain isn’t quite offering up the specifics of why.
I was hoping at one point to do a poll to determine our collective favorite fake-MRA poster, and then make that into t-shirt — but a sippy cup or a bib would work as well.
These sippy cups kinda look like whore penguins in Spanx:
http://lollaland.com/images/_rotate/2.jpg
It’s hard to find misandrist sippy cups.
Oh, boom:
http://media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com/192x/b1/b6/23/b1b62344be1a1a0b964784186f3a4355.jpg
This sippy cup is awesome!
I, for one, am completely in favor of cock carousel sippy cups. And the mammoth one could have the straw be the trunk.
Cloudiah: Why didn’t you do a poll? Is it just the sheer number of posters?
@Bagelsan…I don’t have anything against hipsters either *they’re evil*.
I mean I’m totally okay with people being hipsters….in fact some of my best friends are hipsters….well no, they’re not…*those neck beards just gross me out* …..it’s just…no….fine with the hipster thing….and neck beards…no..really…fine with it…er…sorry…
I didn’t know Kant was a Catholic. Interesting. I guess it makes sense, though.
I have a very different view of pure Kantian ethics, however. While I follow Kantian morality in practice, I’m not sure if I can see it as untenable or tenable. I do believe that Kantianism, taken as a secular philosophy, is the only normative theory that gets close to establishing an objective moral framework.
Whether he has actually succeeded is something I’m not entirely sure about, but the reason I think that he at the very least has made a good attempt is that his main meta-ethical aim is very cogent. Kant aimed to construct a morality consisting of moral principles that are binding in that defying them would be contrary to reason. This is something that many non-Kantian moral philosophers, in my view, have failed to do cogently.
Utilitarianism is a good example. I still fail to see how one could justify utilitarianism without falling into the is-ought trap. And I’m not very fond of John Stuart Mill’s justification of utilitarianism. I fail to see how the principle of utility is binding on all agents.
I only find it difficult to fully agree with Kant’s moral metaphysics because it relies on the assumption that free will is a thing. Something which I’m not sure is a good move.
Out of curiosity, what about Kant’s justification of Kantianism itself (separated from your religious views) is flawed in your view? By that I specifically mean the mere-means principle, although I can see how criticizing the first formulation of the CI could also be relevant.
Of course, since this is a very messy topic, I hope I’m not pressuring you to respond, but I’m interested in hearing another perspective.
Cloudiah — fuck, that’s right, you’ll be up this way soon. My schedule is a complete disaster, but drop me a line and I’ll see what isn’t full of chaos? (Among other things, my brother’s getting his wisdom teeth out and can’t drive afterwards, and I don’t drive…plus the situation with my grandfather…and I have to reschedule my SSI hearing and keep leaving voicemail because there is apparently never anyone in the SSI office and *head explodes*)
I have more cory eggs btw, hopefully this batch will fare better than the last batch (none of ’em hatched/survived the larvae stage to be noticed). Pecunium I acquired brewers yeast and keep forgetting to ask whether to use the same amount as baking yeast or what the ratio is (GNC carries it btw, which my brother looked up, proving he is useful for something besides breaking his teeth)
Yup. I sure to what to listen to the voices of people who think I’m a “she-male,” “tranny,” etc. If I don’t consider their opinions then it follows that I don’t really care about my own kind!
Also, speaking of what you said, I love to bring up this quote:
Douglas Adams – “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
Well, there is this
http://edgecastcdn.net/800034/www.perpetualkid.com/productimages/lg2/STRW-1001.jpg
Granted, it’s not exactly a mammoth…
Oh and Fibinachi — best of luck to your friend, hope it turns out to be hilarious once ze heals.
@katz, Yeah, it was kind of overwhelming. Maybe what I should do is take nominations, and then the top __ posters can make it into a poll?
@Argenti, I know things are really hectic for you right now, so no worries. My bossy* sister has been overscheduling my time too, but if it works out it works out.
*I say with affection, but she really IS bossy.
Nominations could be good. Or you could maybe narrow it down to one poster by each contributor, or something. I dunno. Shirts would be awesome, but I also like having it be a flat, unjudged showcase. (Going off topic, but sometimes it feels like even in totally casual amateur settings, art just gets judged and rated and ranked too much and not just plain enjoyed.)
Cloudiah — lol, my brother referred to his trip to Cali as “getting dragged to see everything” so I know what you mean 🙂
And for anyone who’s curious — http://manboobz.com/2012/07/22/far-from-ok-cupid/comment-page-5/#comment-179580 — the pronouns ze/zir (etc) “marginalizes you unnecessary”. He got all huffy about how I can have my ze (like I should feel guilty for making him concede that I can pick my own pronouns!) and gave a pseudo-apology later. But yeah, should he ever claim to not be transphobic, there it is.
Oh and Joe? It’s trans* woman, not transwoman. Aaliyah’s a woman who’s trans*, not some extra gender called transwoman (and you and your “no new pronouns!” should’ve known that!). How’s “Joe’s a mixed-race-man” work? No? There you go then.
Also, anyone who complains about ties can shove it, bought myself a lovely silk white one earlier…and need to iron my black dress shirt…
“How’s “Joe’s a mixed-race-man” work?”
He does part of a long-distance race then decides it was really a sprint?
Nighty, night everyone, leave you with this 🙂
(Although, as I said, totally okay with the hipsters. I’m just saying, they should have no human rights and be forced to shave.)
(Yeah, and those fedoras should definitely be illegal) (and vinyl, well not for me, only for them) (and Irony is something they should never be allowed to reference.) (I had a very bad experience with a hipster once.) (Hipsters are totally planning on taking over the world.) (No, really!) (Have you seen the Matrix?) (There’s this pill, it’s a metaphor…) (Really man, swallow the pill!) (We’re doomed!) (It’s Hipstergeddon!) (Nah, not really, hipsters are my friend, I was just being ironic.) (…oh…nooooooooooooo!)
😉
Kitteh — ok, I totally get how you got that from what I said, but seeing how I was trying to illustrate that having characteristics of yourself treated as the core of your being is uncomfortable and demeaning…maybe not joke about it? Otoh, he is a long jump winner with his ability to get from here to there in a single bound.
Ophelia — g’night, the parathesises will appreciate the break 😛
Just to piss Joe off, I made a post about gender-neutral pronouns. 😉
@katz, I also am so fond of ALL of the posters that I didn’t want to rank them. 0_o And also, t-shirts would be cool.
@Argenti, I’ll email you even if it is just to say “My sister won’t allow me any free time, rescue MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe.” 😀
See what happened there? The hipster overlords were watching in their den of hip and totally nuked my video, damn you hipsters…..DAAAAMMMMNNN YOOOUUUU!!!!
*shakes fist heavenward*
cloudiah/Argenti: Give me enough lead time and I can come up for apizza.
Sorry, Argenti, I was thinking more of the way the extra hyphens stuff things up in that sentence. And how Joe would quit halfway through on some excuse. Mea culpa.
Ophelia – “(Yeah, and those fedoras should definitely be illegal)” – Oy, watch it, you, someone not far from here wears fedoras! 😀
Joe made a right mess of arguing (cough) about pronouns in that thread, didn’t he? A massive case of Not Getting It. I mean, how does he go from saying one’s biological sex (even if it were purely the binary he assumes it is) is nobody’s business, to saying there’s no need for a pronoun other than the he/him/his or she/her/hers choices? How does one keep it private when the words automatically label one? It doesn’t make sense even in his short paragraph.
:smh:
Aaliyah: I have a very different view of pure Kantian ethics, however.
How do you resolve the Kantian problems of “intention” (it must be pure, no thought other than “this is right action”, or the thing done is no longer a truly moral action), and his “solution” of the ax murderer problem?
Kant aimed to construct a morality consisting of moral principles that are binding in that defying them would be contrary to reason.
I agree that is what he aimed at. I don’t think (as he explained it) he succeeded. If lying to the ax murderer who wants to kill your mother is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
(don’t worry about my religious views, those are personal; and I can talk about Ethics with a complete divorce of them. If I can defend slavery as the justifiable resolution of two evils, I can do anything [in questions of pure argument. Execution is a different beastie).