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.
Wut? Let’s not go there, Lady Stark.
@Joe
Where, precisely, did anyone here write anything like that? You wouldn’t know if they did, because you didn’t read the thread, you just came in to take a dump on the carpet.
Salon just published an article on MRA Earl Silverman.
The comments again are indicative of the culture.
@Ugh – Ohh, name-calling that insults short people! Nice one, hope you feel real good about yourself there. Hahahahaha. Truly weak.
I think you’ll find that your “argument” is irrevelant to the context within which Apex Fallacy is correctly employed.
Here is the correct context:
Wealthy Middle Class Feminist:
“Oh men have it so easy, they’re so powerful, waaaah, pay attention to me, gimme, gimme more power and privelege, because: feminism.”
Poverty Stricken Working Class Bloke:
“Nothing to do with me.”
@cloudiah – why on earth would I “read back through the comments”? Absolutely everything any Manboobzer has to say is summed up in the bleat of “Feminists Good! Men Bad!”.
Ah, would that be the same Warren Farrell who claimed that Laurie Dann is an example of women’s misandric violence in the same way that Lepine is a misogynistic killer? That guy’s a genius. He’ll make up anything.
Said by no feminist anywhere, ever.*
*The voices in your head do not count.
Wheeee! A meltdown! Let her rip, Joey!
Have you ever heard of intersectionality? Here’s how it’d actually go:
White middle class feminist: White middle class men have it easier than us based on their maleness.
Poverty stricken working class gall: Poverty stricken working class blokes have it easier than us based on their male ness. So do white middle class men based on their (white ness, if gall is not white), class privilege, and maleness.
@Lady Stark – sure, your not feminist, riiight. You’re nodding along on a feminist blog surrounded by hard-core feminists and your parrotting feminists catch phrases. If you don’t consider yourself a feminist, you have a shocking lack of self-awareness.
@gilly – see Lady Stark’s remarks. Also, your ridiculously overwrought analogy is ridiculous. Just like whoever the hell it was talking about “wiping your arse on the napkins”.
Whenever I hear anyone using those kind of stock phrases to describe: someone else talking, that person is instantly disqualified from any consideration of having anything worthwhile to say, because it’s clear that all they want to do is shutdown any opposition through insults.
Joe, It’s just not polite to not read the post and the comments before spewing your typical blather. It’s also very rude to completely misrepresent the content of the comments here as saying “Feminists good! Men bad!”
Are you angry? You seem angry.
@Joe
Haha what? Summarizing your position with “shorter Joe:” is not namecalling.
Also, it wouldn’t take any work to disprove me, and the splc. Just name an MRA who you read regularly who isn’t pro-rapist. I could do the same right now, off the top of my head, for any other movement.
Apparently there are no poverty stricken working class women. Good to know!
@Ugh
Summarizing is misandry.
Joey, remember? We don’t only look at the apex. We analyze its composition to highlight institutionalized privilege. It shows a trend And there are other areas in society in which men across all classes are privileged. The apex fallacy is a straw man when used by MRAs against the notion of male privilege.
But please continue your meltdown. It’s amusing and destroys your credibility.
I instantly disqualify anyone who doesn’t know how to use a colon.
OK, this is kinda clever and hilarious. (If you don’t want to scroll up, he’s responding to Ugh’s “Shorter Joe:” comment.)
So, like … sock? Has anyone said sock yet?
@firsthoe
Did you just say you have no interest in knowing what anyone on this forum thinks, and won’t bother reading it? What the fuck good is that? Do you always butt into the middle of discussions, having no idea of what anybody is putting forward, and tell everyone they are wrong? That’s a really fucking weird way of going about things
@Bee
idk. He’s not familiar to me, though I’m new so I’m sure I don’t have all the trolls memorized.
All I know is he’s really, really boring.
@gilly – Actually that’s pretty much all of feminism – it’s an appeal to the powerful (at the Apex) to give feminists more cash / power / privelege – because: oppression! / patriarchy! / whatever catch phrase of the day. And it’s worked pretty well. Feminists in the West have accrued oodles of power basically through endless complaining and demanding.
@Fade – Fail. You’re clearly not part of the poverty stricken working class because if you were you’d know that men in that class have way shittier outcomes / prospects / assistance than women in that class.
Does Joe only drunk post?
Hey everyone, here’s more evidence that women are privileged: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf
Hetero women are 24 times more likely to be raped than hetero men. Misandry! Female privilege!
@Joe
Citation needed. In what way to working class men have it worse off than women?
Joe’s here! This thread totally needed drunken incoherence.
Tom Dane should come over to this thread so he and Joe could arglebargle at one another.
Oodles of power? WHATEVER SHALL I DO WITH MY OODLES OF POWER, POODLES?
@Bee, yes, *that* Warren Farrell. I even wasted an afternoon of my life reading one of his excrable books. See, unlike firsthoe here, I like to know exactly what I’m arguing against.