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.
Well… it’s not as if we didn’t know Sarr was a liar before the flounce. But when she comes back (again), we’ll have more evidence.
Also, on they “brilliant trap” bit, what does zie expect to gain from announcing that zie’s here in bad faith, more interested in setting up gotchas than an actual discussion?
Not that it wasn’t obvious before the announcement, but still… I don’t see the benefit.
Troll clean up required on thread 2. Well, thread whatever. John Anderson is back JAQing off all over the place.
That was nice, pecunium. Thank you. Delicious use of the word mendacious!
And I smacked Johnny-boy upside the head. (Fibinachi: thanks, I liked that sentence. There were some places I made on the fly edits that weren’t perfect, but the rhyme in that one was tasty).
This has, in fact, been studied. You may be surprised at the outcome (but I bet most of us won’t be).
That’s not how commenting works in a public forum. I’m asking in all seriousness: are you new to the Internet?
You said unable or unwilling. And I have already given examples from my own country. As to whether the men in question are unable or unwilling, I haven’t got cause to speculate, nor do I feel it matters.
Only one? You’ve responded directly to two of us so far. Lying? Selective memory?
As for your allegations of bullying and attempted “gotcha”:
You: You’re bullying me!
Us: No we’re not.
You: See? Bullying!
It’s kind of a weak “gotcha” when you set it up in such a way that the other person can’t win.
No one’s scored the flounce yet. I’ll actually give it a high score of 6/10; it’s not the best I’ve ever seen, but I’m always amused by the “I meant to do that” trolls, and I love that she’s trying to sound like she doesn’t care by saying that she’ll come back in 5 years.
But I’m adding 1 point to the standard -2 deduction for not sticking the flounce because she predicted how long the flounce would be and didn’t adhere to it (we’ve previously deducted an extra point for trolls who specifically say they’ll stick it).
Net score: 3/10
Zie apparently got what zie came for – ‘proof’ that feminists here are misogynists. Now zie can proudly show off to zie’s dudebros that folks here (though not David, who was the real prize, but sadly, he didn’t answer) are self proclaimed man haters!
Epic eye-rolling time.
So, did Karin actually mean anything ze said? I mean, with all the back-tracking and “I didn’t actually say what I actually said,” I’m a little confused.
Oh yeah, and stick that flounce, honey.
I do love the “if you don’t think other people will fairly represent your demographic’s interests, you’re sexist” idea, though. Other things that are probably bigoted, too:
-If you don’t think employers will adhere to fair hiring, pay, and safety practices without regulations
-If you don’t think other people voting for you are an acceptable substitute for voting yourself
-If you don’t think colonial powers looked out for their colonies’ best interests
-If you don’t think slaveholders will treat slaves fairly
Basically it’s bigoted to believe in “rights.”
“I took issue with the previous commenter defining women by pregnancy. They justified claiming that female politicians are would or are more able to represent women with pregancy. And I called them out on it.”
One, that isn’t what I said, I used it as an example, which, given your nonsense about blackmail was either 1) obvious to you or 2) proof that you didn’t mean to use blackmail as a kinda sorta maybe but it could happen!
Also, the covert attempt to claim I’m transphobic because I “defined women by pregnancy” is just fucking special. I’m not cis you twit. I was using a specific issue that has come up in US politics in the very recent past as an example.
“And how are men unable to learn any of this?
At best you’ve only shown how mothers or infertile women need more representation. But that’s not what you’re calling for.”
How are cis men unable to learn about how cis women feel about the issue surrounding pregnancy? Really? Hey, I know, how are white people unable to learn what it’s like to be black? How are sighted people unable to learn what it’s like to be blind? You’re being willfully obtuse, and it’s obvious.
“Notice the goalpost shift? Apparently I’m not comparing the ratio of men to women in politics anymore, but the ratio of CIS men to women.”
No goalpost shift, my example was about pregnancy, the issues there area vastly different for trans* people and seeing how you never said one goddamned word about trans* men, it’s safe to assume you meant cis men. (Also, afaik, there are no trans* men in higher political positions)
“Here’s how I suspect people here would have responded to that if I had made that statement:
“you misogynist asshole saying women are like disabled people”.”
So when pecunium speculates on what you would say, he’s a mindreader trying to keep the titanic from sinking, but when you do it, it’s just fine and dandy? You specifically brought up people in wheelchairs, I gave my answer to your example. Seeing how it isn’t a fucking Godwin, I doubt anyone here would have said jack shit about the analogy. And before you try and claim I’m mindreading, remember that I’ve been here well over a year and you’ve been here less than a week, I know these people a hell of a lot better than you do.
“‘your argument that their are some women in politics, therefore women as a group are in no way oppressed?’
Didn’t say . rinse repeat.”
Then what in the bloody hell is your point for being here?
“That must be how threads get over 700 comments with the same dozen or so people”
No, that would be because we like each other and talk about everything from recipes to pets to personal issues and everything else under the sun.
“No hint of a justification as to why men (not cis, not trans, not whatever, just men) are inherently less able to represent women (not disabled, not pregnant, not whatever, just women).”
By all the gods you are obtuse. Let’s start with how you came in here defending the apex fallacy as defined by the MRM — which is an important note. See, they never, fucking NEVER acknowledge trans* people other than to bash trans* women. We’ve had trans* men here specifically ask what they have to offer them and feet told “nothing”. So no, there’s no goalpost shift in assuming the men in question are cis. Second, your inclusion hopefully mean trans* men are men and trans* women are women. Which means you want me to defend why cis men can’t represent trans* women adequately? Three words: Day of Remembrance. I’m not even fucking going to discuss the violence trans* women face and how much of it is at the hands of cis men.
It’s cute though, trying to claim I’m sexist for saying that I don’t think men can adequately represent women because of the sexism women face. That’s some real shiny “reverse sexism” you’ve got going on there. Let’s play word substation —
“trying to claim I’m
sexistracist for saying that I don’t thinkmenwhite people can adequately representwomenPoC because of thesexism womenracist Poc face”Before you go making any stupid claims as to what my analogy there means, the point of comparison is the general use of the terms sexism and racism. In standard conversational discourse sexism is faced by women and racism is faced by PoC, ergo comparing the terms like that is perfectly valid.
——
“I’d have some difficulty lobbying for the case of the synesthiatic blind group of third generation immigrants”
o.O? Wait, other than the blind part, I could… (well, I guess this depends, my grandmother was born here, but her older brother wasn’t, so is she first or second gen?)
“Only one? You’ve responded directly to two of us so far. Lying? Selective memory?”
I’m fairly sure that was about me, since Karin thought ze could pull a GOTCHA by bringing up infertile women.
“You don’t believe what you say (or worse, if you do believe it won’t stand behind it), have no integrity, and lack the grace to admit when you are wrong.”
This, my dear, is part of why I’m so fond of you. You believe everything you say and are entirely willing to stand behind it, or tactful acknowledge when you’re wrong. Which, btw, you are about mangos. They’re delicious. 🙂
Oh look, pecunium and I are having a novella writing competition. Sorry guys, that got long.
It’s true, you know. Mangos are delicious.
Nope. I’m with pecunium. No mangos. 🙂
Mangos are foul smelling, and vile. Those who claim to like them may fight over my portion of the world’s mangos.
Aw, you mean you won’t just gift them to me? I promise not to bring them to your place.
And “claim to like them”? Mango juice and vodka is delicious.
Eh, I’ll stick to strawberries.
Mmm, mangos and strawberries.
Strawberries and cream.
My bedtime snack tonight was strawberries, pineapple, bananas, and coconut milk. And now I want some more, so I’d better head for bed before I start bingeing.
Yum!
Niters! 🙂
Of course you, “claim to like them”. I have smelled them. I have been unfortunate enough, on occasion to taste them. I have never encountered an edible mango, ergo they are, truly, in edible, and only be defect, or perversion, could anyone say they liked them.
/stops channeling MRA thinking style
Yeah yeah, I’m defective, I know 😛
You can keep your damned truffle honey!
Argenti: You might be perverse.
I’m not a huge fan of mangoes, but I do love a lot of things that have mangoes in them. Most notably mango lassi. That stuff is fabulous. Really, any kind of lassi is great – even the salty kind.