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 know the feeling. Got lucky mine figured it out and was cool with it. (which I didn’t expect)
I wish I had thought about that kind of thing back then. 🙂 I just skipped the “amen” and “I believe” and sing the rest. Probably in order not to vex God or something. Odd times.
The manslaughter/murder distinction is a technical question, I don’t think the average lay person would make a distinction.
I read of a case in which someone who’d just bought a whole bunch of drugs was stopped by the police, and then had the bright idea to bolt his whole stash so the cops wouldn’t bust him for possession.
Needless to say, the poor man died. The state is prosecuting the person who they say sold him the drugs on a second-degree murder charge. If he’s convicted, does anybody honestly think people will look at him and say, “There goes that manslaughterer?”
I have now updated my Man Boobz Testimonials post with Fibinachi’s contribution. 😀
Uncle Joe: I made it crystal clear that I have zero regard for murderers, or people who think that murderers are all great and super.
As it seems this needs to be spelled out to you*, – that applies to people who call themselves MRAs too.
Apart from having the same philosophy and view of women.
You said “X is a murderer” and then in a follow up post claim that X was in fact convicted of second degree murder (which as I understand it, is equivalent to manslaughter in the UK, which may include contribution to accidental death through neglect in some way) –
You understand incorrectly. If Google is too difficult for you (we already know you won’t click a citation, not from a “feminist”: we are biased, but the people who praise murderers can invent fallacies; those are just fine. For a dude who claims to be all sorts of morally absolute, you sure got a funny way of showing it).
The lesser offense of manslaughter is found elsewhere.
I will be kind and spare you the complex details of the various types of vehicular manslaughter (which are distinct crimes to vehicular murder).
Now that we have that out of the way (and why didn’t you ask any questions about the other murderers I have known? Or the other killers?) was there actually point in that, mistaken, observation? Oh wait, I see, it was another attempt to paint me as ignorant, or dishonest: Now, that might be excused as petty US parochialism, but I don’t think so, it’s just another example of a dishonest frame.
See, this is where a tiny bit of effort on your part (perhaps stepping outside your petty UK parochialism) would have kept you from hanging your ass in the wind (yet again).
I said murder, because it was murder. It wasn’t premeditated,but he acted in a way which was meant to kill someone. It’s sort of hard to say that firing a gun at a group of people who are running away wasn’t done with malice; and the intent that someone might die.
So yeah, Edward committed murder.
What’s yer point?
Further, when you accuse me of vacuousness,
When did I say you vacuous? You are, but I don’t recall saying it. Mendacious, dishonest, thick as a brick, yeah, I recall saying those. But I don’t recall saying you were vacuous. If I did, well there ya go. If I didn’t, forgive me, I was remiss.
Further weaselling from you re. comparing me to mass-murderer Stalin.
Which is a Godwin in all but name.
Too bad you don’t understand Godwin. Also, you don’t know why I compared you to Stalin. If I thought it apposite I’d compare you to someone else, but you aren’t slick enough to be Goebbels, nor smart enough to be Mao; you lack the peevish petty mindedness of a Ceaucescu, and are with out the bunkered delusions of a Kim Jong Il; that and your chosen name just lends itself.
So it’s good old Joe for you.
Howard: Murder is variable, from state to state. Calif. has no, “third degree.
Second degree is done with malice, and intent, but lack premeditation; or other factors (hate crime, part of another felony, of a known peace officer, with a destructive device, arson, etc.)
@Falconer – it’s telling that the only ways manboobzers can concieve of helping people are:
1 – more laws
2 – charity
3 – “social justice” campaigning activism
i.e.
1 – appeals to authoritarianism,
2- engaging in structures permitted by authority,
3 – appeals for herd approval
There’s more to life than that, thank fuck.
That said, there IS a charity called Mankind that does some good work in the UK, aiming to provide shelter places for men victims of domestic violence (40% of all victims, according to Home Office stats). So there’s one.
And I have zero expectation that women’s / feminist orgs would help men. Why would I expect that?? Feminism: it does not exist to help men. At best it’s neutral to men, at it’s worst it’s actively harmful. Obviously.
Which is why I always LMAO when I hear feminists say that the answer to men’s problems is more fucking feminisim. Fuck off with that horseshit. Who even falls for that? The kind of people who’ve been ripped of by 419 con artists who then send more money when the scammer says there’s a problem with the transfer and they just need $X,000 more??
I know feminists have a low opinion of men in general, but the “you just need more feminism” meme ridiculously underestimates men!
@Bannister – What the hell, apparently you expect me to have a lawyer’s grasp of the confusing intricacies of US laws!!? Fuck off. Pecunium was obviously trying to construct a “gotcha frame” and was crowing about it too. And now you’re trying to dig your mate out of the hole they made.
@Pecunium – tl;dr –
Give it up, you’ve made it clear that you’re an untrustworthy weasel, and I’m not wasting any more time on anything you come out with. You’re done.
I guess Joe thinks there shouldn’t be laws against stealing because it appeals to authoritarianism….
ps, how are we supposed to think you’re not an untrustworthy weasel when you don’t ever bother to cite anything?
Joe, have you MET yourself? This right here is more projection than IMAX.
Shorter Drunky Joe: I can’t compete, so you’re a stuuupid poopie head!
Someone needs a nap.
I don’t know why we waste more than two seconds on Joe and his dishonesty, goalpost shifting, and all-around shitlordery.
@Hellkell
because I feel sick =P but if you want us to ignore him, I can to that.
Nah, Fade. I get chew toys are fun, but this one is old.
Uncle Joe: What the hell, apparently you expect me to have a lawyer’s grasp of the confusing intricacies of US laws!!?
No. What I do expect is that when one is painfully ignorant, one might check before spouting off with insulting language, and condescending blather. You tried to paint me as unclear on what murder was.
You tried to tell me what the law was. You were wrong. I was kind enough to give you a quotation of the relevant code (since you won’t follow citations).
I was kinder to you than you deserve.
You tried to use that to propose I was making a “gotcha” by saying I knew murderers, when I didn’t, and so (I’m not sure how) making you look foolish.
You made a claim (that you don’t respect people who respect murderers). I asked a tangential question, about people who merely know murderers.
You fucked up, and decided that when I said “second degree murder” I was trying to trick you. Your lack of faith in your fellow man is sort of sad. If you were more trustworthy, perhaps you would be more trusting.
But you don’t, actually, disavow the work of those who praise murderers. This whole defense you’ve made of, “The Apex Fallacy” is you taking the word of those who praise murderers. of those who encourage others to commit murder.
You are a liar, or a fool, or both.
Uncle Joe: @Pecunium – tl;dr –
Give it up, you’ve made it clear that you’re an untrustworthy weasel, and I’m not wasting any more time on anything you come out with. You’re done.
If you don’t read my writing (as you’ve said more than once), how do you know it was untrustworthy?
Do you think your (self-declared, and self-maintained) ignorance is going to persuade people?
Do you really think your disdain is going to make me tear my hair and mend my ways, coming to the Uncle Joe School of Misogyny?
Good luck with that.
You are a wanking yobbo, and proud of it.
Typical libertarian* horseshit. Hey, anyone remember whether Joe was the one who kept trying to say that a (now retired) American politician whose name rhymes with/looks like Don Gaul was not a racist, just because he published a bunch of racist newsletters back in the day? Was that Joe, or was it a different asshat libertarian?
*I know there are different varieties of libertarian, but Joe is definitely from the horseshit camp.
Joe is a fan of that politician, yes.
@Gametime: Yeah, ethics of care proponents often have this “fuzzier” idea about morality as well. Now I haven’t read that much of such philosophers, but from what I’ve read, they do tend towards the conservative (like, we don’t have duties towards people in the third world countries since we don’t have any particular relationship with them, and duties only rest on relationships, people who don’t feel emotionally attached to other animals have no duties to other species and so on). That’s my main problem with them.
I say I feel sympathetic towards virtue ethicists who stress the lack of perfect guidelines in morality because Kantianism ends up being a bit fuzzy if you (as I do) admit that Kantian duties may clash.
And I do think there are connections between meta-ethical theories (like constructivism) and normative ethics. Kant’s ethics is simultaneously normative-ethical and meta-ethical, and most neo-Kantians today hold some kind of constructivist view (there are moral principles because we need morality to figure out what to do in various situations, therefore we construct morality). Although moral realists, who think morality is just THERE independently of what we think and something for us to DISCOVER rather than make, can be either deontologists or utilitarians, and there are also utilitarians who favour a more constructivist approach… So it’s not like having a certain normative-ethical approach imply a certain meta-ethical approach or the other way around, but there are connections, and there are theories that sort of straddle normative-ethical and meta-ethical questions simultaneously.
@Howard: Oh, we’re probably all influenced in our philosophical views by less-than-perfectly-rational factors from our lives… I’m probably primed to like philosophers who stress rationality and autonomy and the will determining actions regardless of where our desires point and so on from the fact that I continuously struggle with mental illness and have to exert lots willpower when it comes to just living my everyday life.
Btw, you might want to check out the H P Lovecraft society’s collections of beautifully sung and arranged Christmas carols, where the usual texts have been replaced by hymns to Cthulu.
Wait–Joe’s a non-American fan of Ron Paul? This is a thing?
To the rest of the planet, an apology.
Howard, your gods sound like they’d be right at home in Dunmanifestin!
WHAT ABOUT THE KITTIES
The songs Dvärghundspossen is referencing are, at least some of them, from A Very Scary Solstice:
http://www.cthulhulives.org/solstice/
A good friend gave me a copy for my birthday once.
But i was probably just in her friendzone, or something, and she should totally have… something something instead?
No it doesn’t. So what? It helps men anyway, regardless of the fact that it focuses on women.
@Kittehserf:
I just assume the kittens and cats and felines and pussies and fuzzballs and critters and alley walkers and night crawlers and little ones are assumed, a priori to exist.
They don’t need to be mentioned, they’re 75 % of Manboobz anyway.
@Aaliyah:
That’s one of the funny ones. People will use it as a slam, like there. But yes, you’re right, Feminism does not exist to help men.
Or rather, Feminism was not created to help men, and it does not continue to exist to help men, because one important assumption is that men already require very little help, and that, at worst, they are caught up in problems already identified by feminist theory.
So help is incidental and useful and totally improves everyone life, but no, it does not exist to help men any more than gravity exists to make stones fall down.
… But I guess the trolls will harangue on the point anyway?