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.
Lol. Awesome smack down Karin. so funny to see these guys twisting around to avoid a simple yes or no question. It’s a great question btw. It really exposes the fundamental sexism in the feminist belief system.
Hi
ACKarin.I agree with me that I ask very intelligent questions. I am also very good looking and a great dancer, just so you know.
So, AC what was so brilliant about Karin’s comments? How did she smack us down? What penetrating arguments did she make? Why did you choose to read the entire thread, and select Karin as being the one worthy of note?
If you didn’t read the entire thread, what made you choose to read Karin; who has no comments on this page?
Why, in other words, should we believe you aren’t Karin?
“Argenti: You might be perverse.”
Might be? I’m insulted!
I mean, I like cooked spinach!
Speaking of bad ideas, look what I found.
http://straightvoices.tumblr.com/
Straight people are better at fighting for rights for queer people because they’re less “emotionally biased”, y’all. Thanks for splaining that.
Wow…that is…wow.
Do you read any of it?!
Eww…
I may steal this though — http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo297/shescreamsinred/tumblr_ks3sanvMKe1qa23yso1_250.gif
@Cassandra, Well you know it’s like how people of color get so emotional about racism, so it’s just better if we leave them out of the discussion.
Wow. Just wow.
I like that gif – just wish it had asexual in there, too. Oh well, it’s still very good for what it does include.
We can make a better gif. And by “we” I mean kittehserf can make a better gif. I have no fucking idea how to make one. XD
Yay, invisible sexual orientation again!
Also, seriously? Dudes, I don’t ever claim that my cis* chick’s voice is less “emotionally biased” than trans* people’s voices. WTF.
What the hell do they want? A freaking cookie for being a straight ally?
*fumes*
I can do it, I think. I’m debating adding kink and/or poly while I’m at it, anything else?
Why not the “we’re friendly to everyone, regardless of kink, number of partners, gender identity, sexual orientation, or anything else you can come up with” label?
“smack down”
I think the term you’re looking for is “elaborate attempt to evade people’s arguments.”
Throw in race, religion, and disability and make it footer text?
Argenti – Sure. Religion (or lack thereof), race, ability, socioeconomic status, etc.
Argenti, it might be a “less is more” situation, where maybe we lose the text/gif and just demonstrate that we’re not asshats.
I dunno, what do other people think? I know this is the opposite of what I just said, but I wanted kittehs to make a funny gif because she’s good at making funny images. XD
Or just put something in the “About” section, for reals, because “HI WE’RE NOT RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC ASSHATS HERE” is always worth communicating.
cloudiah – So just people safe?
OMG, safety for humans on the internet! Alice, you’ve come up with something revolutionary there. We’d better not spread that around. XD (That’s awesome, and it’s so sad that it has to be spelled out…)
Cloudiah — it’s in the comment policy already 🙂
So yeah, I guess you’re right. My little green hosting banner and “theme (c) 2013 Argenti Aertheri” look like stray items now though. The footer is barren.
Oh and I started the naughty words mod list. It seems I suck at being offensive, cuz I have a list of five, two are the obvious n***** and f***** and the rest are my father’s choice words.
>.<
Argenti, finish typing THEN hit post!
Point there was that I'd like people to edit it // make a note in the admin notes // something like that.
Alas, I have no idea how to make that sort of gif! I just got lucky with the site that makes rippling water effects and stuff for still photos.
“People safe UNTIL YOU ANGER THE FURRINATI”
Argenti – Haha.
Since you’re available, here’s a free grammar fix: http://i.imgur.com/XFPibCO.png
I might totally fail at grammar, but that’s just blatant.