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
hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Joe: why do you care? You’re not an American.

But, for shit and giggles, what feminist laws? VAWA? Because nope. And Secretary of State is a dude now.

Aaliyah
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.

Nope! I’m not talking about whether they are reliable analyses – although I believe they are, that’s irrelevant to my point. What I’m actually saying is that the apex fallacy, as used by MRA dipshits, is a straw man because feminists don’t only focus on how privileged the men at top rungs of society are.

What you have just said makes it almost impossible for me to take you to respect anything you say now. Your intellectual dishonesty and immaturity are off the fucking charts. You have the most stupid reason ever for rejecting feminist analyses. Good job. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

Quackers
Quackers
11 years ago

@cloudiah

Yeah its amusing how MRAs say feminists make up conspiracies yet all the men in power are controlled by shadow women with their vagina powers or something….we cant see them but they exist dammit!!!

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Shorter Joe: WAKE UP SHEEPLE, I’M RIGHT! WHY WON’T YOU AGREE WITH ME, DAMMIT? WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH *passes out*

gillyrosebee
gillyrosebee
11 years ago

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.

Anything written by anyone anywhere is automatically suspect when it doesn’t reflect my beliefs, opinions, or experience of the world because it isn’t based on my beliefs, opinions, or experience of the world. So I will 1. throw a tantrum 2. insult people 3. ??? 4. profit?

cloudiah
11 years ago

Don’t forget MUSL1MS ARE COMING!!! THE C1A IS READING OUR BLOG COMMENTS!!!

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

yet all the men in power are controlled by shadow women with their vagina powers or something

Is that what that tingling is? I was about to call the doctor, but now that I know I’m just controlling world governments ith my vag, I’ll sit back and enjoy it.

The First Joe
The First Joe
11 years ago

@hellkell & shiraz – yeah, keep up those comforting lies. I have never posted on here after a drink, and I’m not doing so now. This was a lie made up by a manboobzer long ago, and propagated as another easy insult to be trundled out.

As for not being bright? I’m sure it’s clear to any neutral reader who’s smart and who isn’t out of the posters here.
Clue: the people desperately resorting to insults aren’t the clever ones.

@gilly – ” then immediately started flinging shit” aaaaand there you go again. Talking with words is not “flinging shit”. You are disqualified from any consideration as holding a meaningful opinion – because you come out with ridiculous stuff like that.

” and telling people who was an was not going to be allowed to speak.” Oh you can speak, but no-one with any sense will take you seriously, because: see above.

Bee
Bee
11 years ago

Wait a minute .. when you say “Shorter Joe,” are you referring to his morning height?

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

“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.”

Had a shitty minimum wage job before. Are you living in a “craphole sink estate/housing project”?

“@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.”

Yes, I’m serious…citations needed. The last 40 years… what exactly about the last 40 years is suppose to be so obviously anti-man? Yep, there are more women in power these days, and that’s how it should be. You’re implying no women should be in power at all. Feminist orgs funded by taxpayers — you’re talking about Planned Parenthood, I suppose. That’s not a feminist organization, it provides health services for women — what, that’s sexists? Pfffft, you are a silly, aren’t you? You’re sentence structure is appalling, by the way.

“Nothing I present you with can possibly enlighten what is clearly your willful ignorance.”
Whew! I dare someone to diagram that sentence.

You presented total bullshit.

archaeoholmes
archaeoholmes
11 years ago

Joe, change of subject. The post is also about mark lepine. Do your views on him reflect those of your fellow mras?

The First Joe
The First Joe
11 years ago

@Fade – it’s what you should do. It’ll be an enlightening experience for you.

Aaliyah
11 years ago

I have never posted on here after a drink, and I’m not doing so now.

Telling.

Chie Satonaka
Chie Satonaka
11 years ago

Oodles

Fade
11 years ago

Clue: the people desperately resorting to insults aren’t the clever ones.

What about the people telling us to give away all our money rather than providing us with a citation? Are they clever?

Are you living in a “craphole sink estate/housing project”?

I never lived in a “craphole sink estate/housing project” or w/e joe was referring to, but when my mom lost her job and we had to move into a really cheap apartment complex in a high crime rate zone, I remember everyone giving us “don’t go on walks outside the complex because *cough*you’ll get raped*cough*”. So yeah, I don’t know if the area was as bad as some of the people made is sound like, but people definitely wouldn’t have been telling that to a man. So I am not seeing men being privileged above women here.

Fade
11 years ago

@Joe

“@Fade – it’s what you should do. It’ll be an enlightening experience for you.”

And providing even a shred of evidence would be an enlightening experience for you.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Joe: the reason you’re insulted every time you shit on the rug here should be obvious, if you’re so fucking smart.

Why ya here? Upset that your hero Lepine is being besmirched?

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Bee: I don’t think Joe has a morning height. I just used it as a distillation of his endless fucking whining.

gillyrosebee
gillyrosebee
11 years ago

Oh, noes! I’ve been disqualified from consideration, y’all! How will I ever live? Some tedious random MRA troll on the internet has decided that I do not have meaningful opinions! Woe! WOE!!!

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

I’m so sorry, gillyrosebee! *passes Kleenex*

I really think that our trolls are just a bunch of masochists too broke to hire dommes.

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

Actually, claiming that no women holds low paying jobs or live in poverty is insulting, and makes me wonder if Joe ever goes outside.

Pro-Equality MRA
Pro-Equality MRA
11 years ago

@Ugh- The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. Can you cite an MRA writer who approves of rape?

Fade
11 years ago
Aaliyah
11 years ago

The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. Can you cite an MRA writer who approves of rape?

Ugh asked a question – ze didn’t make an assertion. And so the onus is not on hir.

As for your question – LOL

1 7 8 9 10 11 43