a woman is always to blame antifeminism apex fallacy citation needed crackpottery entitled babies evil women evo psych fairy tales frontman fallacy grandiosity imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA NAWALT oppressed white men reactionary bullshit straw feminists straw futrelle the spearhead

Happy Women-Who-Really-Run-the-Country Day

The secret cabal that rules the United States
The secret cabal that rules the United States

While the rest of America wastes its time celebrating “President’s Day,” we here at Man Boobz celebrate those who truly run this great nation of ours: Evil, selfish women.

Wait, you were thinking, I thought it was men who mostly ran the world? No. It just looks that way. Oh, sure, all the presidents have been men. The overwhelming majority of elected officials are men. The rich people who seem to have the most influence over politicians tend to be men — it’s the Koch brothers, not the Koch sisters.

But to judge who has power in this world by looking at those who have power in this world is a giant mistake, according to our eminently logical friends in the Men’s Rights movement. That’s the APEX FALLACY.

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.”

a voice for men antifeminism facepalm FemRAs frontman fallacy MRA oppressed men transphobia TyphonBlue whaaaaa? YouTube

FeMRA TyphonBlue: What if the men who seem to run the world … AREN’T REALLY MEN?

How women rule the world.
Women ruling the world?

When confronted with the simple fact that men hold the overwhelming majority of positions of power in the world – in government, business, culture, and pretty much everything else – MRAs like to pretend that the actual gender of those in power makes no difference because, well, the men in power are probably a bunch of manginas doing the dirty work of the women who really run the world. Or something like that.

Indeed, some MRAs have even managed to convince themselves that the very basic historical and sociological fact that men in power, by and large, tend to represent men’s interests more than women’s interests is some sort of locical fallacy – something that they’ve labeled  “The Frontman Fallacy.”

Now A Voice for Men contributor and YouTube videoblogger TyphonBlue has done these guys one better in terms of sheer antifeminist loopiness. In the comments on one of the Warren Farrell protest videos I recently wrote about, she argues that men in power don’t really push male interests because … they probably don’t even think of themselves as men.

Here she is, writing under her other nom-de-net Genderratic:


I don’t even know what to say to this. I mean, WHAT?!

PROTIP: You’re not going to convince anyone you’re a great ally of trans* people if you refer to them as “it.”

a voice for men antifeminism crackpottery evil women FemRAs frontman fallacy grandiosity johntheother masculinity matriarchy misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy oppressed men patriarchy penises sex

A Voice for Men: Christianity is all about hating on dudes

Tools of the matriarchal feminazarchy?

If you want even more proof that the denizens of A Voice for Men live in Imaginary Backwards Land, let me draw your attention to a recent posting from FeMRA TyphonBlue and JohnTheOther. The post’s bland title, Men, and patriarchy in the church, belies the loopiness of this particular bit of theological argument, the aim of which is to prove that Christianity is and always has been about hating dudes.

Oh, sure, TB and JTO note, it might look like Christianity in its various forms has been a tad dude-centric. I mean, it’s based on the teachings of a dude. And there’s that whole “God the Father” thing. Oh, and Christian religious institutions have been almost always headed up by dudes. There has yet to be a Popette.

But apparently to assume that the people running something actually run that something is to indulge in what MRAs like to call “the frontman fallacy,” by which they mean that even though it looks like men run most things in the world it’s really the sneaky ladies who call the shots, somehow. TB/JTO, citing the aforementioned faux “fallacy,” ask:

Because Christianity has a male priesthood, is headed by a man and uses masculine language to refer to the God and humanity’s savior, does it necessarily follow that Christianity is male favoring?

Bravely, the two decide not to go with the correct answer here, which is of course “yes.” Instead, they say no. And why is this? Because Jesus didn’t go around boning the ladies.

Seriously. That’s their main argument:

[Christ] had no sexual life. This absence leaves no spiritual connection between the masculine body and the divine.

The Christ is sexless; presumptively masculine, but never actually engaging in any activity unique to his masculine body. …

The implicit stricture of making the female body the vessel of Holy Spirit while offering no corresponding connection between the divine and the male body creates a spiritual caste system with women on top and men on the bottom.

Also: Joseph didn’t bone Mary, at least not before she gave birth to Jesus.

The birth of Christ is without sin because, quite simply, it did not involve a penis. The entire mythology around the birth of Christ implicitly indicts male sexuality as the vector of original sin from generation to generation.

Uh, I sort of thought that the notion of Original Sin had something or other to do with Eve and an apple in the Garden of Eden. But apparently not:

Forget Eve. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Serpent. If all human women, tomorrow, conceived and gestated and gave birth without ever coming into contact with a penis, our race would be purged of original sin.

Pretty impressive theological revisionism from a couple of blabby video bloggers who apparently don’t know how to spell “canon.” (ProTip: “Cannon” refers to one of those tubey metal things you shoot “cannonballs” from.)

The two conclude:

Our culture’s war against masculine identity, male sexuality and fatherhood is an old one. That war arguably began as we adopted a faith which marginalizes the role of men in procreation, idolizing a story that removes them completely from the process. The exemplar of male virtue in this theology is a man who had no natural sexual expression, although his character is designated as male. And his primary purpose was to be flogged, literally tortured for the “crimes” of others, and then bound and nailed through his limbs, still alive to an erected cruciform scaffold, to die from shock and exposure on a hilltop. And we somehow manage to claim that this religion elevates men over women?

Well, yeah.

Rather than supremacy, Christianity provides to men the role of asexual stewards of women’s benefit, and sacrificial penitent, preaching the gospel of a female-deifying, male-demonizing faith. It is true that women have not historically been allowed to front this farce, but mostly because that would make the message too obvious.









While some kinds of Christianity get rather worked up about the evils of premarital sex and/or birth control, I’m pretty sure married and/or procreative sex is a-ok with all Christians this side of the mother in the movie Carrie.  Even — well, especially — if it involves dudes. (I’m pretty sure the church fathers were never big proponents of lesbianism.)

And if women really run the show, despite men “fronting” the church, could you perhaps spell out just who these all-powerful women are? Like, some names perhaps? Who’s the lady puppeteer behind the pope?

They of course don’t offer any real-world evidence for this secret supposed matriarchy. Instead, they ramp up for a sarcastic ending:

But we continue to ignore all of this, and we entertain the farce that our religious institutions constitute a male-elevating, female oppressing patriarchy.

Yeah, tell us another one.

No point in telling you guys anything any more. Clearly you can twist any and all facts about the world to fit your increasingly weird and baroque fictions about men always being the most oppressed, past, present and future.

A Voice for Men is slowly but surely disappearing up its own ass.