Talk:Apex fallacy

	This Logic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Comment

Huh? These are poor examples of apex fallacy. I'm not a fan of MRA, but they would not say anything remotely like, "That's the apex fallacy, I can find 43 poor guys, too! Therefore, women have just as much power as men!"

Yeah, I know that was supposed to be parody, but parody needs to have some truth. Otherwise, it's just propaganda.

I'm interested in this topic because this is one of the very few things that MRAs got right. What they actually are saying is that while men overwhelmingly occupy the very top echelon of power and wealth, the worst off in society are also men - the abandoned homeless, soldiers sent to die in pointless wars, sewer cleaners, etc. Men make up both the very top and bottom. That was the point of Apex Fallacy, at least as it was presented to me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.177.73.158 / talk / contribs}

This article was written as a response to the version of the Apex fallacy presented at Wikipedia. But it should also respond to your point, and I'm not quite sure how. Ideas? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 06:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jesus H tapdancing Christ what happened here? I came to revise my formal logic and giggle at a couple of snarky examples, and somebody seems to have ctrlV'd their facebook tiff with the local chapter of RoK. Serious de-rail. Next time just edit in pictures of spiderman. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Blame MRAs for their egregious abuse of logic, then. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Check your stopped clock, friend. Powerful groups of men do not necessitate the average man being more powerful than the average woman. Separate the logic from the content, and they are (for once) justified to point out the fallacy. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Powerful groups of men do not necessitate the average man being more powerful than the average woman." If that was the logic employed to point out that the average woman has it worse than the average man, they would be a stopped clock. But it isn't, so they're not. Glad to clear that up for you. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@81: Modified the page, it might make more sense to you. Aye? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks FCP - had previously only come across the idea separate from its sexist context. Little intro to that near the start helps the article flow towards its conclusion rather than crash into it ^_^ 81.145.153.190 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Really unclear summary

The summary is just a mess, and needs a rewrite. Even with the syllogisms under the example section, it's not perfectly clear. Besides, I thought the Apex fallacy was about endlessly comparing what's actually going on to some impossibly perfect fantasy version of that same thing, i.e. always leaving lots of room for concern trolling the current try at whatever's being attempted? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Better? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

The article claims males are more privileged than females yet offers nothing to support this beyond the author's opinion - not very "rational" ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.56.222.82 / talk}

Urban Dictionary reference is not helping the neutrality of this article

Also it is interesting to note that it cannot be deleted, without intervention of an administrator, eventhough a comment is added. Even Wikipedia does not require this...

The citation should be deleted, because it uses insults (only mysognists use the apex fallacy as argument) and subjective opinion, stating them as facts.

Urban Dictionary clearly has no place in a *rational* article. ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.219.179.64 / talk}

Surprised

Hi, I am surprised to see such weak rationalisation on Rational Wiki. Feminists often use the very argument about men being the majority of CEOs. The apex fallacy is not used to disprove feminism, the apex fallacy is used to disproves one of the arguments used by feminists. Even the "Stoner with a Boner" example uses the term correctly and does not argue it disproves the whole notion of feminism. 109.183.219.157 (talk)

Removed "Unfortunately, this position is a strawman against feminism."

The argument is not an argument against feminism itself, so it can not be a straw-man position against feminism itself. An argument against feminism would be something like "feminism is based on this sole apex argument, which is a fallacy, therefore feminism is wrong". But feminism is not based solely on the apex argument, and nobody is saying it is. Some feminists use the apex argument and the apex argument is a fallacy. It is not a statement about feminism. Londondare (talk)

That depends on the intent of the person arguing. Sure if the argument was presented in a vacuum you’d be correct, but when utilized by MRA’s as the article directly references it definitely is a strawman fallacy. It’s intended as an argument to debunk feminist notions of patriarchy, but it misrepresents what patriarchy is actually argued to be. Why would anyone realistically make this sort of argument? What would it be a response to? People don’t typically make arguments against non-existent positions or beliefs. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC).

I think the paragraph was too ambiguous and can be read in several ways, and that it's better to improve the writing in such cases. I reworded the first sentence to the less ambiguous "However, the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy is a strawman against feminism." --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That works. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Only Sort of Dumb where do you see the article directly referencing MRA's debunking notions of patriarchy? I see only a reference to feminism using the argument in a fallacious way: "The manosphere argues that part of feminism falls for the apex fallacy." Please don't let you support of feminism claud your judgement. Londondare (talk)

Hi ApooftGnegiol, where do you see anyone arguing that "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy"? No such argument is present in the quoted text. I understand your zeal to protect feminism, but im this case it is really unnecessary. Londondare (talk)

@ApooftGnegiol and OnlySortaDumb This guy responded. Also he's saying you have blinders. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and he's full of shit. The cited blog post uses "women" and "feminists" interchangeably. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The cited blogpost has only 300 words, did you read it? It does not make a single claim about Feminism itself. Please stop damaging the credibility of Feminism by making stupid arguments supposedly to its defence. Feminism will hold without strawman arguments. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare Given the quality of your arguments, I hardly think I need to worry about that. Your concern has been noted though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I read the blog. It was laughably both ignorant and pretentious. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Only Sort of Dumb, Plutocow, talk to me. What are you trying to achieve? My intention is to make this argument more rational. Apex is not an argument against Feminism. By pretending that it is, you are wakening Feminism. What is your intention in this dispute? Londondare (talk)

@Londondare You aren’t making it “more rational” by doing this because you are removing relevant context to when the example is presented. You already have at least three users tell you that your edit is inappropriate, so stop. I much prefer the example removed all together because presented on it’s own with the mention manosphere misusage it’s just odd. With the explanation to how that example in particular is utilized as a strawman against feminism it provides relevant context to our readers. If no such context existed it would be another innocuous abltiarily structured example (to which why not replace men with women for the example if that was the intention? It wouldn’t make a difference) but that’s not why the example is included in the first place, so knock it off. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb "you are removing relevant context" - it is not a relevant context if it is a lie. "With the explanation to how that example in particular is utilized as a strawman against feminism" - this is simply not true. The quoted blog never makes such claim. Yes, that would be a Fallacy fallacy, but neither the example nor wider MRA protagonists are making such argument. Londondare (talk)

I'm having difficulty understanding the argument being made. It is clear that the blogger in question accuses feminists in general of making the apex fallacy. Our article in fact makes a somewhat weaker claim that the manosphere claims that "that part of feminism" falls for this fallacy. Londondare also says "Some feminists use the apex argument and the apex argument is a fallacy."

So everyone is in agreement that apex argument is sometimes used and that anyone using it is guilty of a fallacy. So what, exactly is the argument about?

(My personal feeling though is that it's perhaps a slightly confusing example - with claims about claims and "all" or "some" issues.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It depends on how you interpret “some” if you use it to mean at least one then any “some” statement provided it describes something possible has a high probability of being true. If I said for example “some politicians have eaten their own shit” the likelihood of just one politician throughout the course of history having done so is just probable enough to make that statement true. Regardless it isn’t a useful statement to include in say an article about politicians because arguably misleading. So if you say that some feminist made this argument it may be vacuously true, but it doesn’t really represent any serious academic argument in the canon of feminist literature, and when MRA’s try to claim that this is the argument that feminists use to argue for the existence of patriarchy as a general claim, it’s false — and yes would classify as a strawman. The strawman argument MRA’s have constructed does fit in the structure of an apex fallacy, but presenting as an example without context seems like a weak endorsement of it being a good example . If people already know the context to which that example is commonly used then that’s going to distract them from the example, so I think we have a duty to acknowledge that it’s use against feminists is in fact a strawman. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb Re "some": Feminism is range of movements and ideologies, not just your favourite group of serious academics. But even then, the apex fallacy is very common across feminism, even in the canon of feminist literature. Likewise, you have no problem claiming "some" MRA doing this or that. Again, the quoted example is making a claim that the whole Feminist ideology is invalid because they are making this one argumentation fallacy. Londondare (talk)

I agree it's a strawman against the general movement. And I don't think that anyone here is arguing it's not. So I still don't understand the debate.

While we are on fallacies, I would say that that if anyone uses the criticism of a section of a movement to criticize an entire movement they they are themselves committing the hasty generalization fallacy.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M "I agree it's a strawman against the general movement" - it would be a strawman against the general movement, if someone would make it. But nobody is making it! Nobody is saying that feminism is invalid because they are making this one fallacious argument. The quoted blog is not saying any such thing.

"if anyone uses the criticis of a section of a movement to criticize an entire movement" - yes, and the other side of this coin is No True Scotsman. The Apex fallacy is actually ubiquitous in the feminist movement, we see it over and over. Feminism will be stronger if they stop using it. Londondare (talk)

Ah! So your argument is that the feminist movement, in general is, in fact, guilty of the Apex fallacy! And that the manosphere is presumably correct in making this criticism?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M Feminism is range of movements and ideologies - there is not a single definition or representation of feminism. But yes, the argument that "most CEO’s are men" is ubiquitous in feminism, often used as a proof for the existence of patriarchy. If you want to argue that this argument is not often used by feminists, you are welcome do so, but please acknowledge that it is a very different argument from what we are arguing about now, specifically that "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy is a strawman against feminism" (no one is saying that). Londondare (talk)

@Londondare Who’s “we” in this context? I literally never seen this argument made in any of the feminist literature I read, I never met a feminist who made this argument, and it never came up in my gender studies classes I have taken. If you believe this argument is what characterizes the concept of patriarchy then that is a strawman fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb You never did? I can fill this page with references to feminists making that argument if that is what this is about. But I do not believe this fallacious argument characterises the concept of patriarchy. Nobody does. Because it is only one of many arguments in a wide movement. But importantly, the quoted blog is not making that argument. So when you write "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy is a strawman against feminism", then it is you who is making a strawman argument, because again, nobody is saying that feminism can be reduced to this one fallacy. Londondare (talk)

@OnlySortaDumb Given his source, I'd say the Manosphere. Sounds mainly like an MRA so far, and not the kind that actually gives a damn about the suffering of men. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Making ad-hominem argument about my person is a statement about you, not about me. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare That wasn't an ad hom dumbass. Look up the actual criteria for an ad hom, and while you're at it look up what a tone argument is. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Yes that is exactly what ad-hominem is - an attack against the proponent instead of his argument. You are attacking me instead of my arguments. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare Ok, you're just objectively either an idiot or a troll. An ad homenim argument is specifically "[argument] because [insult]." I didn't commit an ad hom, I speculated at the demographic you happened to fall into, based on your behavior and arguments. The fact that you're too thin skinned to realize this is why I called you a dumbass. At no point did I commit an ad hom fallacy, since at most I was just rude and blunt with you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." You are not just vulgar, you are uneducated. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare Lol. No. Read up on the exception. Also, tone fallacy. Being vulgar does not make me incorrect. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and actually substantiate your claims that classifying you as "Given his source, I'd say the Manosphere. Sounds mainly like an MRA so far, and not the kind that actually gives a damn about the suffering of men." is an insult or attack. Else I'll just drop the pleasantries and start calling you a dishonest coward. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie "The manosphere overlaps with the far-right and alt-right communities.[7] It has also been associated with online harassment and has been implicated in radicalizing men into misogynist beliefs and the glorification of violence against women.[8] Some sources have associated manosphere-based radicalization with mass shootings motivated by misogyny." We both know the reason why you associated me with far-right, misogyny and glorification of violence against women. By pretending this is not an insult or attack you only further confirm your intellectual dishonesty. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare I categorized you as likely part of a particular subset of a particular subculture based on your rhetoric. I did not accuse you of being far-right more broadly. I am not accusing you of being far-right more broadly, at least at present. To accuse me of anything more with such flimsy reasoning is asinine and borders on farce. Whether you want to believe the truth or not is your problem, not mine. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Arguing logical fallacies is not manosphere rhetoric, even if said fallacy is part of a feminist argument. If you pulled you head out of your arse you would understand that logic is beyond ideology, even if it is your favourite ideology.Londondare (talk)

@Londondare There you go with the frivolous accusations again. Did you know that throwing around accusations like Pez is a sign of insecurity? You have repeatedly asserted that this is part of a feminist argument, and I think it's time I stopped playing nice with you. Start citing academic sources your claims or fuck off. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually now that I have read everything all over again I think that Londondare is making three claims. 1.That the Apex fallacy is common in the whole feminist movement. 2. Notwhitstanding this, the Manosphere does not claim that the Apex Fallacy is common in the Feminist movement. 3. That the link showing an individual in the Manosphere making this exact claim is - for some reason - not evidence of someone in the Manosphere making such a claim. Which leaves me about as confused as I was before.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M 1. Yes, I am making this argument. The Apex fallacy is quite common in the feminist movement. If you think this is not true we can discuss it. 2. No, I am not making any such argument. 3. no, I am not claiming anything like that. 4. What I am claiming is that the sentence "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy is a strawman against feminism" is itself a strawman argument because no one is making such argument. Note that "X is common in movement F" and "movement F can be reduced to or depends on X" are very very different propositions. For example, "belief in angels is common in Christianity" and "Christianity can be reduced to or depends on the belief in angels" are two very different statements. Likewise, "the Apex argument is common in feminism" and "feminism can be reduced or depends on the Apex argument" are very different statements. Londondare (talk)

@Bob M You're likely less confused than he is, if it makes you feel any better. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll think I'll just give it up. I was trying to understand what exactly was being claimed before commenting. But I think life is too short.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bob M I agree. If you can not distinguish between "argument X is common in movement F" and "movement F can be reduced to or depends on argument X" then you should give it up. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare I'm sure that we both agree that talking to people who can't construct a logical argument is a waste of time. So goodbye and good luck with this.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Londondare taking the evidence “most CEO’s are men” as evidence for patriarchy as being an example of the apex fallacy is the strawman argument. Patriarchy is meant to denote a society that is politically and economically dominated by men, if men are overwhelming represented in positions of economic and political power — that is exactly what the “hypothesis” of patriarchy predicts. Falsified only by if women or other gender minorities had equal representation or outnumbered men in such positions. The inference from that is not “all men are powerful” or even “the average man is powerful”. That’s not what that line of evidence is supporting, and those conclusions are not what patriarchy is. That’s precisely the misrepresentation I am talking about. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb Look, here is an example (15 seconds of googling) of feminists saying that ALL MEN have privilege because "women are fewer than 5% of Fortune 500 CEOS" https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/160-examples-of-male-privilege/. This is of course a formal fallacy. If I make a statement that these feminists are falling for the apex fallacy, would you reply that "feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy"? Even though my statement is saying nothing of that kind? Londondare (talk)

Technically the article doesn’t argue that, it says that is an example of male privilege, which isn’t technically the same proposition as “all men have privilege because of x” those are not logically interchangeable propositions. Regardless though if privilege is merely the socioeconomic advantages afforded to a demographic, how would men being overrepresented in the ruling class NOT afford general advantages to men as a whole? Does that mean that every single man shares equally in these advantages, not at all. That isn’t whats being argued. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb "how would men being overrepresented in the ruling class NOT afford general advantages to men as a whole?" According to this logic people of color as a whole have criminal tendencies because they are overrepresented in prison population? Anyway, that is not the point. The argument is that NOBODY is claiming that "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy is a strawman against feminism". It does not matter if you believe that men as a whole are privileged, nobody is claiming that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on men being CEOs. The apex argument is not claiming that, the quoted blog is not claiming that. Londondare (talk)

I don’t think you understand what “privilege” is or how the propositions relating to privilege works. You are basically comparing true claims about a population like “men have higher muscle mass on average” or “men are more likely to get promotions in their careers” or even “you are less likely to get sexually assaulted in your lifetime as a man” , to a universal false claim about individuals like “all PoC have inherent criminal tendencies”. That is completely disanalogous . There is actually no evidence for the latter claim, but plenty of evidence for the former claims about men. Claims of privilege are not claims to any inherent essential characteristics. You are making a fallacy of division with how you are interpreting claims about demographical privilege. The “logic” you are reading into the argument isn’t actually there, you are failing to apply the basic principle of charity in this circumstances. I can’t fathom why someone would think claims of socioeconomic advantages afforded to a demographic are akin to claims of generalizable negative dispositions people claim on a marginalized group. This makes things incredibly awkward if we now start to talk of white privilege.

Also don’t think I didn’t notice the goalpost change from claiming that feminists state “all men are powerful” to “all men possess privilege”. Though in this instance you seem to conflating “all men have privilege” with “male privilege exists” . Confusing a existential statement for a universal one. You don’t seem to understand the distinction between being afforded advantages on the basis of the demographics you are a part of, and inherent dispositions that every individual of a group inherently possess — and how those different types of claims are not identical or how they require different lines of evidence to support. It’s a great example of a faulty analogy fallacy - Only Sort of Dumb (talk).

@OnlySortaDumb I will repeat myself: we can talk about privilege or anything else you want but that is a different discussion. Note the pattern here - I argue that nobody is reducing feminism to one argument, you reply with a segue arguing something else. I reply, again stressing that nobody is claiming that feminism can be reduced or depends on the apex argument, you again reply arguing completely different topic. Over and over. Are you doing it on purpose? I will try one more time, please try to stay on topic, pretty please!

1. This wiki page says: "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy is a strawman"

2. That sentence is a strawman itself because nobody is claiming that feminism can be reduced to or depends on the apex fallacy. Londondare (talk)

You literally are though. Like, it'd be one thing if you thought that, but you're too stupid to understand your own argument. Oh, and per my previous post start citing feminist academic sources. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the blog's case is that because there are downsides to masculine social norms, therefore patriarchy doesn't exist. This stupid and completely ignorant of feminist theory, which not only acknowledges this as true, but has an entire term for it. The blog also assumes (for some reason) that patriarchy is some kind of conspiracy. It is not. It is a set of self perpetuating social norms. The blog is not only ignorant and wrong, it is almost comically so. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This entire thread is on whether a fictitious feminist stance is correct or not. This is stupid and a complete waste of time. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Londondare bruh, you claimed this was an example of the fallacy, that it's literally the case that feminists sometimes make this argument. You literally can't even provide a real example, and when this is pointed out you claim it's "off topic", what? Dude you can't even pretend to charitable. In order to have a rational discussion about the topic you have to approach the topic interpreting it as rationally as possible, you are doing the exact opposite. The whole purpose that philosophers insist upon applying the principle of charity is to prevent strawman arguments -- you are actively demonstrating this point. This isn't a serious feminist argument, so even if it isn't applied to "feminism as a whole" it doesn't change the fact that it's a strawman argument. When MRA's use the argument to discredit feminism (which is the motivation behind this article, not necessarily claiming that blog in question suggests this) it's a intentional misrepresentation of feminism; hence, it's a strawman fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb

1. "This isn't a serious feminist argument". If it is not a serious feminist argument then we should update this wiki to say that the Apex fallacy addresses something that is not a serious feminist argument, right? Why don't we do that? Instead of saying that someoneWho? claims, that "the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy".

2. "so even if it isn't applied to "feminism as a whole" it doesn't change the fact that it's a strawman argument". I don't understand this proposition. Could you rephrase it?

3. "When MRA's use the argument to discredit feminism". There is a difference between using an argument with intention to discredit feminism, and actually claiming that feminism depends on and can be reduced to this argument. I have not seen an example of the later. The quoted blog certainly does not claim that.

4. "it's a intentional misrepresentation of feminism". What is misrepresentation of feminism? Claiming that feminists fall for the apex fallacy? Or claiming that feminism depends on and can be reduced to the apex fallacy? Those are two very different claims. And I will repeat it agin, no one is making the claim that feminism depends on and can be reduced to the apex fallacy. Londondare (talk)

Explain to me the difference between discrediting an ideology by claiming a inherent relation to a fallacy, and undermining an ideology by stating it’s reducible to said fallacy. Sure a technical literal distinction could be made, but it’s splitting hairs, and ends up being a prime example of a distinction without a difference. The purpose of the claim ultimately ends up being the same. This comes off as pointless concern trolling via LogicBro posturing - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb It is very simple, feminism is much, much more than just the the CEO argument. The idea of feminism does not becomes discredited by making one fallacious argument - because feminism does not depend on and can not be reduced to the apex fallacy. Nobody other than rationalwiki.org is claiming that.

Look, feminism is a set of movements and ideologies. Some feminists will inevitably make weak or fallacious arguments. When someone points out a bad argument, it does not mean he insists that feminism depends on and can be reduced to that bad argument. Only rationalwiki.org claims such nonsense. Londondare (talk)

@Londondare Cite feminist theory. Now. Anything else will be reverted by me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and the blog literally is arguing what the article says it's arguing. I know because it literally says so in the opening quote. Seriously, we weren't born yesterday. The blog is there, where we can read it. We can look at it and read it. I can quote it if need be. Again, this entire discourse is fucking stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)