Categories
a voice for men antifeminism dozens of upvotes drama kings entitled babies frontman fallacy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA playing the victim reddit sympathy for murderers terrorism

How bad ideas get started: The “Apex Fallacy,” the “Frontman Fallacy,” and the murderer Marc Lepine

Would blabla
Would MRAs still be into the Apex Fallacy if boards of directors looked like this?

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.

1.1K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fade
11 years ago

@Hellkell

Did you see my comment where I grouped together all of Tom’s nasty bigotry? I feel like I’m only going to respond to him with his own quotes until he owns up to it.

Aaliyah
11 years ago

Joe’s here!

That instantly reminded me of Arfenhouse.

I’m ashamed to say that I found that hilarious when I was 9.

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

“Feminists in the West have accrued oodles of power basically through endless complaining and demanding.”

Such as…what?

@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.

Can we see some citations on this? It sounds like you’ve pulled this from your ass.

Fade
11 years ago

I will admit, even though I know what “hoe” is a reference to, it makes me flinch everytime I read it b/c of what it sounds like.

Quackers
Quackers
11 years ago

I’ve noticed MRAs partaking in apex fallacy stuff themselves when I read their crap…namely that women throughout history were lazy and sat at home doing nothing while all the.menz worked in mines and ditches. Poor women who did as much labour did not and continue to exist in their world.

Thanks for doing this post David. Awile ago I looked up the apex fallacy to see if it was an actual thing, I got the same results a bunch of MRA sites…what a surprise.

I sn’t it also funny how when you mention Lepine MRAs will screech he’s not an MRA yet this longtime MRA Zohrab does?

cloudiah
11 years ago

An oodle is in fact the correct unit of measurement for power.

The First Joe
The First Joe
11 years ago

@Aaliyah – Any analysis done by any feminist anywhere is automatically suspect, due to obvious selection bias. So, I reject the entire feminist canon, including and especially “Male privelege” as conceived by feminists – it’s bullshit.

@Ugh – Hey Ugh, do you still fuck dogs? Do you Ugh? Or have you stopped fucking dogs now?

^This is the exact equivalent of the frame you are soooo desperately trying to push me into, and astonishingly! – I’m not going to engage you within this bullshit frame. Why are you surprised by this? No-one with even an iota of sense would step into such a blatant frame-up.

Quackers
Quackers
11 years ago

*continue to NOT exist in their world

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Keep fucking that chicken, Joe.

Fade: I didn’t see that. Was it in the other thread?

Fade
11 years ago

Joe, come on, man give me some citations here!

Ugh didn’t mention dogs in zir posts if I remember correctly, so under no possible circumstances could that be imagined as a summary

archaeoholmes
archaeoholmes
11 years ago

Fade, re:hoe, fair enough.

cloudiah
11 years ago

That’s right, folks, he doesn’t need to counter your facts because since you’re a feminist any facts you cite are clearly feminist facts! It’s the classic ad feminazi fallacy.

Quackers
Quackers
11 years ago

Men: occupy the top, bottom and middle of society

Women: occupy the middle and bottom of society

MRAs: MATRIARCHY!!!!!1

cloudiah
11 years ago

Keep fucking that chicken, Joe.

Now he’s going to say you’re accusing him of bestiality, hellkell. 😀

Fade
11 years ago

See, if the patriarchy existed, there would be no poor or middle class men at all. And that’s real.

archaeoholmes
archaeoholmes
11 years ago

A feminazi stole my ice cream

gillyrosebee
gillyrosebee
11 years ago

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.

Hahaha! Said the guy who came in without reading any of the previous comments on the thread and then immediately started flinging shit and telling people who was an was not going to be allowed to speak.

And, if that weren’t hilarious enough, oodles?!? Seriously?!?! Oodles!?!?!?!

Now your insistence on being the sole arbiter of all that which is serious and worthy of discussion has been given, shall we say, a whole new framing…

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

I guess Joe would prefer us to use an MRA critique of feminism. No bias there. Nope, no way, no how, no SIR.

cloudiah
11 years ago

Men: occupy the top, bottom and middle of society

Women: occupy the middle and bottom of society

MRAs: MATRIARCHY!!!!!1

That’s a really good summary! Except that part where you leave out that all of those women actually control the men at the top using their POODLES OF POWER.

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

Errr, I think he’s reached his booze threshold point.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

cloudiah: yeah, Joe’s not too bright.

The First Joe
The First Joe
11 years ago

@Fade & Shiraz – just give away all your money and get yourself a shitty minimum wage job and go and live in some craphole sink estate / housing project. Then you’ll be able to observe first hand.

@Shiraz – hahaha. You’re serious?
What? have you had your eyes closed for the last 40 years?
Sorry, but if you haven’t noticed feminists in positions of power (clue: Secretary of State of the USA), feminists orgs funded with taxpayers mopney, feminist inspired laws etc. etc. etc. If all of that has passed you by? Nothing I present you with can possibly enlighten what is clearly your wilful ignorance.

Fade
11 years ago

@Joe

That’s not how a citation works.

1 6 7 8 9 10 43