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.)
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
I always loved the one about “homphobia is really misogyny”. As a gay man, I cannot recall single case in which I was faced with being attacked based on my orientation (whether physically or verbally) in which it was “all about hating women”. It’s sort of the ultimate in feminist narcissism: If a gay man is bashed, it’s STILL all about the wimmin.
And as for Gillarding…simply wonderful I shall remember THAT one. Much easier to remember than the fallacy of the undistributed middle. LOL
Thanks for the new words. I needed the laugh today. 🙂
‘Gillarding”! Love it.
Still seeing frequent complaints about the “misogyny” Gillard was subjected to. Gillard created her own circumstance when she knifed her predecessor. She experienced the routine fate of the political knife wielder – the death of a thousand cuts. Her “misogyny rant” from twelve months ago followed the “criticism of a woman is misogyny” approach. While various feminists were jumping for joy it didn’t actually do any favours for women with political aspirations.
Is there a word for a heterosexual man (woman) who is digusted be female (male) sexuality? Some pickup artists and some feminist women seem to fit this description.
I just saw this today, thought I would link it here:
Personally speaking, I would radically-edit the “military” entry: the concept that one country should be instructing another what it should be doing, is not just “patriarchy” but fascistic and imperialist.
The original of that list at Jezebel was entitled “If I Admit That Hating Men is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning it Into a Self-fulfilling Prophecy?”, which can be paraphrased as “I’ll stop hating you when you stop deserving it”. And the delightful “Big Red” at the University of Toronto helpfully translated the list into English as “shut the fuck up”. I don’t think it need detain us.
That list is wonderful! You can just go down the list and check off where he/sh/it basically says NOW is not feminists, various feminist scholars are not feminists, on down the list.
Clearly whoever compiled it pretty ignorant of feminism’s published track record.
I really like the part at the end that talked about Greek and samurai customs and then finished with a nod to Rick Santorum.
And here is something else, not sure what to make of it. Comments?
Title — The Unbearable Invisibility of White Masculinity: Innocence In the Age of White Male Mass Shootings
There was a similar piece about a year ago by Hugo Schwyzer (http://bit.ly/18u68b4). I feel that both the Gawker and Schwyzer ones don’t talk about mental health issues with the right framing.
Maybe that’s somehow related to the ‘pervarikeet’ word.
Selective reading could be a factor, but their argument seemed to hinge on the assertion that the media treated the shooter as a victim rather than a monster, and I just don’t remember it that way. Where I did see his ‘normality’ dwelled upon it was always in a baffled ‘a monster walked among us and we never knew’ kind of way.
And again, it could be selective reading, but the ‘nobody ever mentions that it’s (nearly) always white men’ point rang hollow to me. I saw it mentioned a lot. Toxic masculinity seemed to be a particularly popular that time around as a point of blame (along side autism and single mothers).
“gynerast” – love that one. its like heaping shame on something normal. just because.
gingko…as in biloba?
U live in Seattle? Just curious. Not stalking or anything. I live in Tacoma. Nice to meet you.
oops. I see its ‘ginkgo’, not ‘gingko’. my bad.
“And again, it could be selective reading, but the ‘nobody ever mentions that it’s (nearly) always white men’ point rang hollow to me. I saw it mentioned a lot. Toxic masculinity seemed to be a particularly popular that time around as a point of blame (along side autism and single mothers)”
This is what it’s abot, demonizing males. Whena mother annihilates her kids, there si always a rush to excuse her on some kind of psychiatric grounds. When a high school goes off, his psychiatric problems are just another accusation.
Hey schmiggen! Welcome!
“gingko…as in biloba?”
Yes indeed. http://www.genderratic.com/p/1379/1379/
“U live in Seattle? Just curious. Not stalking or anything. I live in Tacoma. Nice to meet you.”
“Just curious. Not stalking or anything.”
That is so Northwest! That’s what we in the cryptographic community call a self-authenticating message.
Tacoma! No shit. I live on the Hilltop. Where are you?
““gynerast” – love that one. its like heaping shame on something normal. just because.”
I intend to use it against all these rape culture and male gaze tropes, and also against white knights who think they are champioing women over all their rivals.
I’ll be damned. I’m in the Eastside. I’ve been in Tacoma for 20 years, but I’ve come and gone and come and gone throughout that time, mostly due to overseas travel.
Did you retire from the Army? I did note that you’re a vet; I am too, but I only did three years in the Navy.
Hilltop has definitely turned around. I love T-Town!
Schmiggen, yeah, Army. Three years in the Navy makes you a vet too.
The Eastside is cool. In a former life I taught high school in Tacoma and Lincoln was one of my favorite memories. That neighborhood is looking better and better all the time.
You come and go…Merchant Marine?
In terms of article like that (and there have been many) I’m always astounded at how absolutely narrow people can get with their causal chains. A writer is preoccupied with race and privilege and the politics surrounding such topics, so they end up constructing their end before they explore the means.
I’m no expert, but I remember reading recently (I think it was also on gawker a few days ago) an expose on a kid who was arrested for threats just hours before Newtown occurred. There was an honest expert in the area of profiling (FBI, I think it was) who talked about the fact that there really is no consistent “profile of a school shooter” compared to other serious and similar crimes (such as long-term, methodical serial killers and the like).
I’m always wondering (and again, I’m no expert) as someone who has done a lot of work in inner-city minority ghettos and with at-risk populations that “White” is corollary and “Generally Affluent” is causal. From a layman’s psychology perspective, many of these teenage, white-kid shooters come from communities where violence is so very rare and unusual. There’s a certain fetishistic element where safe, suburban communities can breed huge bursts of violence because of the distinct lack of violence and hardship in everyday life.
Compare that with inner-city schools and communities where violence is a daily, if not entirely encompassing, aspect of life. Disadvantaged kids in disadvantaged areas have outlets for violence if they so seek them out in the form of crime, gangs, etc.. I mean that when violence and hardship is part of the larger fabric of one’s community, I think you’re less likely to see that sort of “burst” that comes in the form of school shootings. The same sort of “psychological profile” in different people finds different ways to vent in different places and contexts.
In many of these middle-class, white communities there’s just nothing for such an outlet. Maybe they’d pick fights with classmates, but that doesn’t last long as a coping mechanism because then they’d be “found out” when a pattern emerges quickly. So instead of being near to violence and hardship as a basic facet of life, they live lives where, at least from the outside, the very idea of violence is something almost mythical. Pleasantville and all that. Community and social norms make them “act normal” until that one, big huge burst of violence.
I dunno. I just can’t fathom that the race axis plays much of an actual part considering that the class aspects provide for both an explanation of the race axis and make a lot more sense (at least to me).
Crow: There’s a certain fetishistic element where safe, suburban communities can breed huge bursts of violence because of the distinct lack of violence and hardship in everyday life.
Crow, you should check out the work of JG Ballard, if you already haven’t… especially his novels Cocaine Nights, Super Cannes, Kingdom Come and Running Wild. This is one of his recurrent themes. (Ballard is/was my favorite author, may his soul rest in peace.) He believed that for the overprotected and affluent, “violent tourism” would become popular… Margaret Atwood also touched on this in her novel Year of the Flood and its predecessor Oryx and Crake which incidentally, describes how I believe the world (as we know it) will end.
PS — Lefty fellas, if you ain’t regularly reading Will Shetterly, you are missing out.
Some of yall might find this fascinating too, about the word “intersectionality”–which we were discussing on an earlier thread:
Will Shetterly is absolutely brilliant. Thanks for pointing me in that direction!
[…] David Palmer sums up in another comment: […]
But the mere act of moing isn’t what makes a lawn look good.
Similarly, avoiid using solutions that are resourcefu and.
Each option has its advantages and disadvantages of
tuis cleaning task, you will be looking for cleaning services
that they offer to you. The air duct cleaning is cleaning services ny 57503 of priority.
Yes, I am in the merchant marine.