Time for some more new, useful expressions. Let’s go:
Pervarikeet: This is a person who prevaricates – who wiggles and squrims and worms around to avoid telling or acknowledging the truth.
The pervarikeet has a lot of tools at his disposal. There is simple denial when presented with the facts – arguments from disbelief or quibbling with the reliability of the study or simply claiming that it says something other than it says – and when that fails there is whataboutery to deflect attention from an inconvenient truth, and then when even that fails, there is rationalization hamstering like this.
Some examples familiar to all:
Homophobia isn’t misandry because it’s really misogyny because it’s really about hatred of the feminine. (Uh no, on two counts. Something can be both misandrist and misogynist and also homophobia is about hatred of the non-masculine, not the feminine. Masculine and feminine are not in some kind of binary opposition; “mannish” lesbians are not convincingly masculine, for instance.)
Yeah, men are treated like peripheral parents and denied the right to raise their children, but that’s really misogyny because it’s based on seeing women as the natural nurturers, and that limits them.
So okay, men are incarcerated at disproportionate rates, but that’s because they commit crimes at disproportionate rates.
And the perennial (or perineal?) favorite:
How DARE you compare circumcision to FGM!!!!!!??????? (Yeah, let’s ignore the fact that the structures being compared are homologous but not analogous in innervation, the fact that no form of FGM “removes the entire clitoris” or that any of those distortions actually matter in what is quite simply and issue of individual autonomy.)
Please feel free to offer more examples.
Gillarding: This is accusing someone of misogyny in response to an attack that has nothing whatever to do with gender. Typically it is an appeal to female privilege.
The expression comes from this Reddit thread about an article detailing a 23-year-old MP’s accusation that some very slighting remarks about her from a much more senior member were misogynistic. He called her useless and went into detail. Anyway, this was an interesting piece of the discussion:
[–]qoppaphi 10 points11 points12 points 14 hours ago
“He hates me. I am a woman. Therefore he hates women.”
Does this fallacy have a name? I feel like it should. Something like:
X is of class Y. X has property Z. Therefore all Y have property Z.
(Where in this case Z is Mr. Dagenais’ hatred.)
[–]GrimB0LD 8 points9 points10 points 14 hours ago
Yes, it’s called the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.
[–]ThePigmanAgain 6 points7 points8 points 11 hours ago
I say we christen this fallacy “The Gillard”!
“Whoa, dude, you’ve just been Gillarded!”
“Duck, here comes a Gillard!”
Gynerast: This one is a little tongue in cheek. It refers to someone who has an erotic interest or who takes erotic pleasure in women, the way a pederast does with children. Its only value is its shoe-on-the-other-foot effect in getting people who find gay sex icky to see how their sexual preferences can be demonized too.
In fact this take it is not so hypothetical; in ancient Greece especially sex with your wife was a duty but actually wanting it was vaguely weak and shameful. The same attitude was part of the samurai culture. Generation after generation of basically homosexual men can attest that you don’t have to have any real interest in women sexually to father loads of children with them. Come to think of it, this attitude isn’t a relic of the distant past. On the issue of same-sex marriage and marriage being about love, Rick Santorum opined that that was nonsense, that love had nothing to do with it, that marriage was fundamentally about rearing children. How gay is that? (And I still wonder about him.)
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016