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.
Busy indeed!
Well, I’m off home – catch you all later if anyone’s online by then. Otherwise, niters!
Yes, but not all Goods are good enough.
Well, that’s what progress is for: Eventually reaching good enough. Which is why blocking progress in the name of an aimed for perfect solution is the problem…
Anyway, pizza… well, I’d love to say something about it, but really, it’s not like anybody here would disagree pizza is a very good thing, and I certainly won’t, either! So, uh… I like that one pizzeria near my parents’ town which has a pizza with chicken parts and Indian curry sauce. It’s a nice Italo-Indian mix. Yeah. So much for pizza :p
But then he’s have had to acknowledge that many feminists didn’t agree with Sandberg either, and then how would he use her as a club to beat the rest of us with?
I’m just enjoying the schadenfreude of a necrotroll wandering in and mansplaining the intersection of gender and class to a community with so many red-leaning members.
The last time I had oral surgery, I kept my energy up by making chocolate milk shakes with avocado in them. They turned out wonderfully smooth and foamy, and you couldn’t really taste the avocado. I hear the pudding is similarly tasty (and I bet the texture is divine), but I’ve yet to make it.
I could really use a good slice of pizza. I haven’t found anywhere in my neighborhood that makes a decent one. Sweet sauce is one of the main problems, actually. Why do they do that?
I love pizza. Pizza pizza pizza!
Except that served at school. When I was in elementary school, the cafeteria served pizza from Silver Dollar, a pizza place/bar. It was some of the most disgusting I’d ever tasted, and I gave up trying to eat it after a couple of tries.
Well, a few years later, my girl scout troop is having a meeting, and the leader choses to go to Silver Dollar. My sister and I warn our dad, but he’s like, “No, it won’t be that bad. They were probably just skimping on the toppings to make it cheaper.”
No. We went. The pizza tasted like sugared cardboard. The place went out of business a few years later–not soon enough.
On the topic of street food, Portland actually as quite good food carts. The best, though, are at the Beaverton Farmer’s Market on Saturday.
Best food trucks here? Probably a toss-up between Curry Up Now (burritos stuffed with curry and rice, assorted chaat) and Kung Fu Tacos (tacos with bulgogi).
Actually, the best pizza I’ve found in the tri-cities is out of a food stall–Esternos Wood-fired pizza.
Same reason they make hamburger buns so sweet? No idea, but eugh, yuck.
Damn, now I’m remembering the hamburgers I’ve had from fish and chip shops over the years … damn some of them were good.
::stomach gurgles::
I’m not a fan of sweet bread that’s meant to be eaten with savory things in general. A bread that happens to be sweet as a snack, like stollen, sure, but why make a sandwich with something that sweet?
@Kittehs, they certainly do have good pizza in Chicago but Chicago pizza is deep-dish. Absolutely lush but polar opposite to New York pizza.
Have to say that my best ever flight home fom the US was when my friends took me for pizza & beer in Chicago before the flight. I fear flying but this time I staggered on board the plane, promptly zonked out & woke as we approached for landing.
trans commie:
O.o Why do people adopt a diet implicitly designed to exclude anything remotely like pizza, then go into great lengths to create something as close to pizza as they can?
When my mother was young, pizza was something fine and exotic you got from Italian restaurants. Unless you were working-class, like my mom, who went to a lunch cafeteria and ordered a frozen-and-heated pizza imported from some country with more developed food industry. Then she was like, “this pizza thing is so overrated”.
I guess it’s like sushi for my generation, having seen some frozen sushi in a supermarket a few years ago when sushi bars had just become popular here. Reminded me of the “instant sushi” gag in anime film Cowboy Bebop.
Man, now I want some pizza. 🙁 My favorite was this monster Chicago-style deep dish back in Texas called Conan’s. I also loved the place for the atmosphere; it was established in the seventies and it REALLY showed. Big heavy oak tables, tons of Frank Frazetta and Julie Bell prints all over the walls of ripped men in loincloths, and tire treads burned into the linoleum where a drunk driver plowed through the front back in the 90s.
I miss Conan’s. At least I have the T-Shirt! (It has scantily clad women, a giant iguana, and planets all over it. SO SEVENTIES.)
titianblue – deep dish, thin, doesn’t matter if it’s good pizza! 🙂
Wait, Kittehs, was the question about pizza in Chicago asked in earnest? I though you were making a joke, since Chicago is famous for its pizza. That’s what I get for assuming…
…Frozen sushi?
I used to live in Hamilton, Ontario. There was a horrible excuse for pizza there at a place called “Roma Pizza”. It was thick, soggy, and had cold soggy tomato sauce, and nothing else. It was cheap, and also very fucking gross. I could never understand why people seemed to like it so much or why they expected me to be excited when it was ordered. Thankfully, I now live in a city that’s fairly widely known for having excellent pizza and the nightmare of Hamilton’s Roma Pizza exists only in my memories. Chicago deep dish pizza was pretty good. Not as good as one from my city would be if they did deep dish pizza here, but very good anyway.
There was a joint in my neighborhood growing up called Twin Trees that had the rudest pizza on Earth, and yet the place was always packed. Sweet sauce, gross crust, and bad cheese is not a hit with me.
Add pizza to the list of topics that’s apparently great at getting rid of trolls.
Yup, we should use pizza and bras as vampire hunters use garlic and crucifixes.
I’m going to New Haven in May, and I am seriously excited about eating some fantastic pizza.
kittehs, if there’s time while you’re in LA, you should try 800 degrees, which is fantastic pizza that you get to customize and they make it in front of you.
LOL no, I know very little about Chicago and I’m going there in May, so it was a question in earnest. Given how much trouble I have in finding food that isn’t full of hot stuff in the US, I figure I’ve got a reasonable chance of something edible with pizza.
cloudiah – there won’t be time, most likely. I arrive on Sunday, fly to Chicago on Monday, get back to LA on Saturday and fly home Sunday night (I hope you’ll be in town for that brunch we talked about!). This rushed visit really is about Chi-town.
Yes, I thought the frozen sushi would be noteworthy as culinary fail, but then I didn’t know if it was actually a common thing elsewhere. (I’m not that much into sushi or pizza for that matter.)
Pizza… it’s sort of like religion; people tend to stick with the sort they grew up with. I like most pizza (save that NY, as a rule, falls in the second/third rate category. Sauce is too sweet, cheese poorly arranged, and the middle undercooked).
I’m not a fan of sweet bread that’s meant to be eaten with savory things in general. A bread that happens to be sweet as a snack, like stollen, sure, but why make a sandwich with something that sweet?
There is an afghani bread, related to naan, made with rasins and meat (lamb or goat, usually). Yum…
But I’m very fond of a lot of foods which mix sweet and savory.
RE: pecunium
My tastes in pizza actually changed over time. I used to LOATHE Conan’s Pizza as a child, and then I grew up and was like THIS IS GODSAUCE.