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.
Wait.
Of course lobbying agencies exist to serve a need. That’s the point of lobbying? You don’t have a lobby if you don’t have an unaddressed need. What would you be paying people to lobby for, needlessly meta commentary on the political process? Like my new lobby: “Americans For Lobbying”, which is a lobby that lobbies for more lobbying? If the KKK had a lobby (insert link to topical political party here), then I’m sure that’d be because the KKK felt they had the need to lobby for something.
You could disagree with that, but that’s not what we were talking about, nor even part of the discussion, that’s the influx of legimate needs and bigotry and racism and stupidity,
… Which is only tangentially related to this discussion insofar that “Feminism” is the movement that women have needs, too. Is that what we’re debating against now? Didn’t think so.
The absence of a lobbying group on the other hand, what does that mean? No unaddressed needs at all, everything is peachy?
Or that what you are trying to change is difficult to change, and people won’t allow you to do so? You’ll find that many people in Germany, during the Nazi years, actively demonstrated, fought against, and argued against The Final Solution.
You know why they didn’t have a lobby other than The German Fucking Resistance? – because the average result of pointing out that Jewish people shouldn’t be rounded up and killed was to be rounded up and killed.
On the flipside, you’ll find that many people lobby both for and against gay marriage, because they’re expressing their need and opinions, without someone bloody well shooting them for it. Good thing we’ve had a grand history of no one ever trying to shut down feminist discourse or arresing suffragettes oh wait no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Revolutionary_Republican_Women
shit. Damn, it’s almost like near on 300 years of work by those very same feminist lobbying groups have helped legitimatize that very work and point out how vital it is, while, oh, say, efforts to politely debate nazism tended to get violent very quickly, link to the Night of Long Knives here.
Christ, does perspective and history have no place in your mind?
… oh wait, answered myself there, didn’t I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism
( For extra fun! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies )
What part of “Misogyny: I mock it” do you not understand? Go read some Feminism 101 stuff.
::points and laughs::
No, it wasn’t a poor word choice. It was perfectly clear to all but the wilfully obtuse. “Purely” is very commonly used that way, and generally understood.
Sarr: You assume that power somehow transfers itself by virtue of similar genitalia. You’d have to show how this can happen and then show how it does happen in a significant way. I’d be interested in seeing that.
Nope. We observe that those who get power work to keep it to themselves. We see that structural inhibitions to out-groups are maintained to bottleneck their entry to the class which has power.
And we see that this confers to members of the in-group certain social advantages, which are denied to the out-groups. It’s not that complicated. Like Greeks on a college campus, or athletes. Not all athletes will be rich and famous, but looking at high schools and universities, to be an athlete is to get an easier ride, and to obtain social status. If, by chance, your team has someone who is expected to make the big time, you get to ride that person’s coattails a bit.
It’s basic sociology.
That’s a really bad comparison to modern democracy where women’s vote counts as much as men’s vote.
That’s a non-responsive answer to the actual concept. Especially since women’s votes don’t count in the same way men’s votes do, as I will explain.
In a democracy, that “theoretical” power of the majority is real. In what way is the system “built to keep women from exercising it”?
So you don’t understand politics any better than you don’t understand sociology.
When women aren’t allowed into the places where the networking to get actual political power is done, they are disadvantaged in the entry level jobs of political power (many of which aren’t elected, look at Karl Rove). Because of that they don’t get nominated, which means they aren’t candidates, which means women don’t get a fair chance to elect someone who is truly representative of their interests.
So men are elected (because men get to choose who is nominated for office… even if women get to vote on the selections they are offered, they [like blacks in the era of Jim Crow] are afforded, “the vote”). Women get to participate in a process which is controlled and shaped by men. They aren’t full and equal participants.
Women in fact have far more political representation and that’s easily shown in multiple ways.
Go ahead, show me.
Well one way would be that women are the majority.
Wow… Being in the majority is not the same as being possessed of far more political representation (see above) which was your claim.
Non-responsive.
Lobbyism is also an important source of power. It’s observed time and again how democratic governments bow to lobbies even if the polls show a disagreement.
Ok. Show me that women 1: have more lobbyists. 2: That those lobbyists are given the same access as male lobbyists. 3: That those lobbyists are more effective at getting the laws those women want passed.
In the case of gender lobby support, women hands down win.
Prove it.
Men don’t have anything that remotely approaches the power and influence of feminism.
Again, you don’t understand it. Feminsism does more lobbying precisely because they don’t have political power. Men don’t need to lobby, because they already have the control.
You really don’t understand politics.
I am late for work, so I have to stop here. I should be back this evening; if not I’ll be here in the morning.
Oh look, Karin is cissexist as well. I’m shocked.
It’s her Uncle Monty.
“Ok, so I ask you: Do you believe male politicians, because they’re male, are unwilling or unable to represent women as well as female politicians? Yes or no?”
You a DA or something? Well, since pecunium’s also playing lawyer…
Yes.
Now, since this isn’t cross-exam, to explain… (oh and good thing too, because objection, compound question)
Cis men, as in men unable to get pregnant and bear the risks of pregnancy, are indeed unable to adequately represent those who are able to get pregnant. Just look at the bullshit assumptions about birth control and abortion access.
We have a moral objection to paying for The Pill! But don’t you dare touch our Viagra!
I can’t believe people are still arguing that population = power in a world where Apartheid happened.
As for women having more political power: tell that to the millions of American women who can no longer access abortion services, and the millions more who recently found their use of birth control a matter of national debate. Tell that to the female soldiers who had to wait until THE 2010S to get the government to take their rapes seriously. I mean, really.
Sarr: Like I said above, that was a theoretical example of how somebody in a position of power might not actually be exercising it freely. I never claimed that this actually happens a lot or that it’s even meaningful regarding the actual distribution of power.
Oh, so you admit the “example” was bullshit.
Why should we be taking you seriously?
Again, if you claim men have more power, and all you have is that “more politicians are male” then you have a sexist leap of faith. You still have to show how having male genitalia means somebody can’t or won’t represent women’s interests sufficiently. Do you believe men are unable or unwilling to advocate for women because they’re men? Yes or no?
Since I never made that claim (that being male means someone can’t/won’t represent women’s interests), I don’t have to defend it. At this point, should you wish to continue that line of debate, you have to 1: show that I think any such thing, and 2: that the men in power are adequately representing women’s interests.
Do I believe men are unable/unwilling? That’s not relevant. The question isn’t are men uwilling, it’s are men doing. It’s a question about the structure of the present society.
The question is, “are men systematically advantaged in respect to women”. You are arguing they aren’t, so you have to show that’s the case.
It’s really bad form to just call “fallacy” and leave it at that. You have to demonstrate how and why the reasoning was fallacious.
I did. I identified the specific fallacies in the quotation I cited. Since those fallacies were committed it wasn’t incumbent on me to do anything more.
Once more, it was an examle of what might be another way that power is exercised from outside of the supposed position of power. That’s all. I did not draw conclusions from it at all so there’s no way it could be fallacious unless you want to say that it’s impossible for any wive of a politician to exercise power over her spouse or even influence him.
Well… either you didn’t mean what you said (which is what, “I didn’t draw conclusions” means), in which case it’s a specious argument, or you did, in which case you have to show that a significant number (enough to make the case that women are secretly running the gov’t).
But the “prove a negative” is that you posited something which require knowing what every male politician’s wife is, or isn’t doing. It’s not possible to know that, and so it’s a fallacious argument.
What makes you think I’m a dude? And are you seriously claiming that all I’ve said here amounts to nothing other then “no you’re wrong”? Really? Be honest. Better still, demonstrate it.
Done. You’ve not provided a single iota of evidence, rather you’ve made declarations of our “leaps of faith”, spun theories you say you don’t actually believe, and postulated unsupported ideas about how women are secretly represented more than men.
So yes, I don’t think you’ve actually done anything more substantive than child blowing raspberries at someone and yelling, “you’re a doody-head!”.
I don’t think you’re being honest there. If you had other things you’d rather do, you’d be doing them.
Says the person with the borrowed avatar, the “I don’t really believe the arguments I’ve made”, line of reasoning.
I did (and do) have things I’d rather be doing but a sense of duty to factual discourse, and obligation to those whom you might delude were you to remain unrefuted means my overdeveloped sense of obligation is in play.
I don’t. But I do think it’s often used as one. In the comment above I resented taking gender issues and comparing women to the victims of black slavery.
Says the person who wasn’t paying attention, since I (who was the person who mentioned slavery) quite explicitly stated I was referring to slavery in all it’s forms, from antiquity to the present, and used no explicit examples of US chattel slavery.
Is that the case? All political candidates are men and/or misogynistic?
Can you read? Do you just choose to ignore important parts of an argument because you find they invalidate the quippy attempt at gothca you pass off as argumemt. If the candidates are all men and/or misogynistic then it doesn’t make much of a difference.
But, unless you are averrig that the reason there are so many more men in office is that women are running in equal numbers, and not being elected, then in a significant number (i.e. an overwhelming majority, in fact), it is only men nominated for office.
And a significant number of those men have proven to be misogynistic.
So you reckon the presence of a lobby indicates that the group it’s lobbying for, needs it. Does that work for the KKK as well?
Did you study to attain this level of obtuse, or is it a gift.
That a group has a lobby doesn’t mean it’s cause is just, merely that the cause is marginal. Since men, as a class, aren’t marginal, they don’t need to form a lobby to get their needs addressed.
auggzillary: Do you act this stupid in real life too?
I don’t think Sarr is acting.
LOL!
Not thinking of Pell, but anyone reckon this is a sock?
I’m thinking this Karin’s whole spiel sounds remarkably similar to one I watched unfold on one of the FreeThoughtBlogs. An MRA was Just Asking Questions, and an astonishingly patient woman kept responding to him. I think it went on for 3 or 4 days. I don’t remember which blog, although I seem to recall that it started in one and then moved to another. Eerily similar. And definitely JAQing off.
Oh definitely, and not a very good one either.
“Since those fallacies were committed it wasn’t incumbent on me to do anything more.”
Now dear, as my guest host on Spot! That! Fallacy! I was a bit dismayed at your hosting. But despite the lack of flair, you covered the meat of the matter well. *blows a raspberry at him* (I’m certainly in a weird mood tonight huh? Blame the fact that I am very nearly ready to give the Borg my official stamp of doneness)
“…my overdeveloped sense of obligation…”
Is needed in your inbox.
@ Ally S
You have not explained in detail how the apex-fallacy is not a fallacy. It’s a special case of the fallacy of composition. Such a fallacy is easily identified and for you to effectively say it can’t happen requires some very convincing explanation. Certainly more than you’ve offered sofar.
@ claudiah
Don’t twist my words. I said clearly that I don’t believe this to be happening in any way relevant to this discussion. I only said that it CAN happen. Or do you believe women cannot blackmail men?
@sparky
I’m addressing the blog post, not the comments. Question to you too: Do you believe that men, because they’re men are unable or unwilling to address women’s issues as politicians?
@Ally S
You’re confusing women with feminists.
There is nothing wrong with using the 3rd Reich as an analogy in general. Just because it happens often, doesn’t make it less useful.
Hence your explanation that the absence of a lobby implies that it isn’t necessary, is invalid.
@ Davit
So you make the effort to comment but ignore everything I wrote directly to you and instead focus entirely on my profile picture. Your capacity for bigotry clearly matches that of everyone else. What are you so afraid of in my writing that you have to go to the trouble of trying to look for problems with my profile photo to divert attention away from the issues at hand?
@ sparky
I didn’t say anything of the sort. It was a general refutation of the claim that lobby presence implies its necessity and the counterpart. The KKK and the Jews (not the Nazis) were just easy examples that everybody can identify where that claim clearly fails.
Why should I provide evidence for something I never claimed?
I did say women have more political representation than men and gave a long explanation as to why that is the case. Go up a few comments and you’ll find it.
That’s another lie. I gave that as one example, not for how women can weild power but for how a male politician might NOT be weilding the power you ascribe to him.
@emilygoddess
So I take it you’ve read everything I wrote here before coming to say this? Good, then perhaps you have an answer to my question: Do you or do you not believe that men, because they’re men, are unable or unwilling to address women’s interests/issues as politicians?
@auggziliary
I doubt that many people here mind repeating themselves given how often you like to just call the same names or repeat the same straw man arguments over and over again. Clearly you love this sort of thing. Had I said something that you had an easy refutation for, you’d have provided it instead of crying that I shouldn’t say that.
No. I never said “black” was a buzzword – only that somebody used it as such. I thought we were reading everything so as to not make people repeat their explanations?
I wrote:
“Blackmail for example. Did that really never occurr to you as a possibility?”
Now you respond:
It isn’t.
It doesn’t.
Which point does it contradict? Because I wonly wrote that to indicate that somebody in a position of power could POTENTIALLY not actually be weilding it. Again, I’ve said this many times. It’s not a point that I use to support my argument that women have more power than men.
Repeat: I have not and am not and will not use the point about blackmail as an argument to support my claim that women have more political representation than men.
Well then just answer the question: Do you think all the people in power are men or misogynists? It’s a simple yes/no question. If no, then your example was indeed not real so it’s quite valid for me to point that out.
So your contention is that I’m mistaken about her using it as a buzzword – not that it’s racist. Good that we cleared that up.
Which ones? I said many things.
No. See my multiple responses to that straw man above.
Depends on if that social situation is real. If somebody said “ginger people have all the power and are oppressing everybody else”, they’d be ascribing weakness to non-gingers that isn’t real. Some might believe it and hence the idea is being perpetuated. Or do you genuinely believe men have all the power and women have none?
You’ve got that analogy upside down. The more equivalent to “men have all the power” would be to say there’s a powerful Jewish conspiracy controlling everything. It’s false and manufactures adversity where there needen’t be any.
@pecunium
Now all you have to do is find examples of this happening by gender and you might have an argument.
Supposing this were true, it’s still evidently possible for women to enter politics and get elected. Hence, women as a group and being the majority could vote out all male politicians should they wish to do so collectively. Your argument would have merrit if no women were in politics at all.
There’s your sexist leap of faith again. Besides, not getting a “fair” chance does not equate to having no chance at all which is what your argument relies on. As long as there is a chance, being a majority takes care of the rest. Luckily most women aren’t as sexist as you.
No it wasn’t. That is just one of the indicators and not the strongest by any means. I’m sure I said that too but don’t let me spoil your day with the truth.
1: Not really necessary but I think we can safely assume there are more feminists than “masculinists”.
2: They’re given a lot more access given how a number of feminist organizations are publicly funded when I don’t know of any comparable masculinist organization let alone one with public funding or media presence.
3: How many laws have feminists gotten passed vs how many have “masculinists” gotten passed?
You just unwittingly conceded my argument that women have a stronger lobby. You must have forgotten that that argument was based on the fact that lobbying IS political power. And it’s one women have over men.
@Argenti
Finally an honest answer. But I should point out that such sexism can effectively be used to justify any kind of gender discrimination.
What about women who are unable to get pregnant? This must mean you count them as men in politics. What about disabled people? Are they unable to represent those who don’t need a wheelchair? This is all very sexist and dismissive of individuals.
Even if it’s true, all you’ve shown is why potential MOTHERS should have more representation, not women. And even that you haven’t shown. You’ve only asserted that people unable to get pregnant can’t represent those who can adequately. You haven’t demonstrated why and how that comes about.
What law exactly can’t an inertile woman pass that a fertile woman can pass?
@Emilygoddess
Having more political power does not equate to having no issues.
@ pecunium
No. I said clearly that example served a specific purpose which was to demonstrate how somebody in a position of power might not actually be weilding that power. I never claimed the example was to backup my claim that women have more political representation. That doesn’t mean it’s BS, it served its purpose allright, just not the one you are dishonestly trying to ascribe it to.
So you agree that the apex fallacy is valid as a logical fallacy and that men being the majority of politicians does not imply men have better politicla representation. Good. At least one person here thinks otherwise.
But now you have to show what men are doing that they’re doing because they’re men and how it represents women less than men. Good luck with that.
I didn’t. I gave an example of what could potentially be a way to be in a position of power without weilding that power. I didn’t say that that is actually the case or even that it’s likely. Only that it’s possible. To show that only requires showing that it’s possible for a wife to blackmail her spouse. And to show that only requires an example of it happening.
Well even if you’re right, “making declarations of your leaps of faith” does not equate to “no you’re wrong”. So no, it’s far from done.
And you still haven’t answered why you think I’m a dude.
Just an observation about the behaviour of the people here in general. I’m not upset or anything, just pointing out:
Are any of you aware of how much your behavior here is just plain bullying? I presume you don’t think bullying is a good thing (correct me if I’m mistaken there). So why do you so readily engage in it?
Bullying is an abuse of power. In your case here, you know that almost everyone reading/commenting is heavily biased against any kind of dissenting viewpoint especially from an outsider. Knowing this, with an at least ten to one majority behind you, you are aware you can get away with bigotry like dismissing a valid argument as “trolling” or “misogyny” without being challenged by anyone other than me. You also know that such a challenge from the accused always starts from a weaker position than if it had come from a 3rd person.
I am being perfectly civil and always refraining from personal attacks of any kind. Yet I’ve been accused of being a racist, a misogynist, having internalized misogyny, being a troll, knowing nothing about the subject, saying nothing but “you’re wrong” etc. and all of those without the slightest basis in reality. It’s pure dismissal and suppression of criticism.
You know very well that a more neutral commentariat would never let you get away with so much bigotry unchallenged. Yet here you are piling it on while fully aware of that. Hence you abuse power just like bullies do.
Karin, this is a site that mocks misogyny. It is right there, in the title.
In the comments the mocking continues, specially when people like you show up, which is very often.
Your arguments have been addressed (don’t pretend it is any other way). If you don’t like the tone you’re free to leave. Only your ego and whatever twisted opinions of how society works are retaining you here.
I’ll happily apologize for my own tone, in case I insulted you. I write quickly, and don’t as often remember to not be a sassy asshole towards people who cannot infer I don’t mean any harm.
What I will not do is retract my question of perspective and history, and their place in your mind. If you, Karinn Starr, can make the statement that “
Oooh, now Zarin is tone-trolling. *scrabbles frantically for troll bingo card*
Zarin pre-supposes that the bogtry being dismissed was a valid argument.
^ or “bigotry” even. Although bogtry seems strangely appropriate, in the circumstances.
This is long, and I need to run, so not caught up, but…
“What about women who are unable to get pregnant?”
You answered that already with your continued “it was an example”.
Alice — if you see this before I have a chance to use a real computer and add it, please adding JAQing off to that comment policy conversation.
Oh that’s special.
Pecunium — your request for proper burden of proof means we fundamentally disagree. I’m gonna go die of laughter.