“….Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group. This fallacy has a particularly damning effect on the feminist construct of patriarchy.
Women have looked up, and seen that the top of society is made up of men that hold power. They then attribute that characteristic to all men. The line of thinking goes, all CEO’s are men (mostly true), therefore all men are CEO’s (not even close). Feminists fail to look at the men at the bottom of the pyramid.”
Well, when one sees members of a certain group at the top of a pyramid, they may assume that that is a complete picture of power. However, they are not looking at the bottom of the pyramid. They are not looking at the males over-represented in the death professions. They are not looking at the males who have a higher success rate in suicide. They aren’t looking at the statistics that say that women tend to live longer than men.
At this point, you may be thinking, well, what about the glass ceiling? Is the fact that the Untied States hasn’t had a woman President proof of this? Perhaps. There can be many factors why women tend not to be in the highest rungs on a hierarchy. One may be sexism. Oh, and that’s really complex to determine too. Is that sexism from a group of guys in power trying to keep women out or does it come from other women? Remember now–women are the largest voting block in the U.S. Any discussion that includes the glass ceiling, also needs to include the glass cellar. To do otherwise is to have an incomplete if not dishonest discussion.
13 thoughts on “What is the Apex Fallacy…..”
I think you’re off on this one.
I doubt feminists or anyone for that matter attributes a sweeping attribute to certain ppl based on others.Meaning,I doubt feminists group all men into 1 category as the example of CEO’s you gave.IDK,maybe I misread this article.
while there may be many feminists whose views are more nuanced or whom believe in the construct of kyriarchy, there are many online who have such beliefs….
anyways, problems occur when one makes sweeping generalizations about any large group of people….
…and on that note, the article I quoted from “Absurd Experience” is somewhat problematic-it doesn’t make a distinction of saying something like “feminists who believe in the construct of patriarchy” or “some feminists who see men all as one group…”
The case for white privilege is better than the case for male privilege. It is mainly men that are incarcerated, reduced to begging and homelessness etc.
As white people have white children and Black people have Black children, resources can be passed down. But men have daughters, too, and women have sons, too, so the resources gained by sexism are far harder to pass down the generations.
Logical fallacies are one; only valid in formal logic and two; not automatically the reasoning behind your opponent’s thirty years of peer-reviewed gender studies literature just because you think that it’s a plausible mechanism for explaining their views.
Harvard’s Project Implicit will provide you with some hard data about the existence of implicit and unconscious sexist biases in those socialised in western society. Come back when you’ve got something more than a vague aspersion that doesn’t apply to actual argument, let alone to science.
interesting site, I took a test on “faces”-didn’t get the “hard data” you were talking about though…
Warning; you are taking the side of a hypothetical (read: imaginary) argument and attributing a lot of accomplishment to it’s proponent purely on the assumption they would be a feminist, if they existed.
Given the broad and often contradictory spectrum of feminism this is probably not a wise idea.
Oh, and try not to throw around variations of “educate yourself”, when what you really mean is “come back when you agree with me.”
Men in power crap on both genders, women in power only crap on men, therefore, albeit crappy, men make better and more even handed leaders.