Thursday, 18 October 2012

THE PUNCH ON MiSOGYNY ETC





As editor of the Macquarie Dictionary, I picture myself as the woman with the mop and broom and bucket cleaning the language off the floor after the party is over. And in this case it was quite a party.
Could this take some of the heat out of the issue? Probably not… Cartoon: Bill LeakCould this take some of the heat out of the issue? Probably not… Cartoon: Bill Leak
But what it left on the floor was misogyny – with a new meaning. The established meaning of misogyny is ‘hatred of women” but this is a rarefied term that goes back to the 1600s in English that acquired the status of a psychological term in the late 1800s when its counterpart misandry was coined. Both terms refer to pathological hatreds.
Since the 1980s misogyny has come to be used as a synonym for sexism – a synonym with bite but nevertheless with the meaning of ‘entrenched prejudice against women’ rather than ‘pathological hatred of women’.
It seems to be used for an underlying frame of mind or an attitude of which sexism is the outward form, displayed in language, discriminating policies, workplace injustices, etc.
The recent debate brought this to the attention of the Macquarie Dictionary editors. The extended meaning was not created in that debate, just made highly visible by it. We felt the need to keep the record of the language up to date, and to adjust the entry at misogyny to cover its current use.
There is some history to this in the U.S. Hilary Clinton complained of misogyny directed towards her in her campaign against Barack Obama. A debate similar to the one we have had in Australia followed that remark and came to the same conclusion, that misogyny had developed a second meaning.
I guess that this is another instance of Australian English following American English - in the context of feminist debate that seems highly likely.
The Oxford English Dictionary online adjusted its definition of the word in 2002 by adding ‘dislike of or prejudice against women’ to the existing definition ‘hatred of women’. I have chosen in the Macquarie Dictionary to give two separate meanings for the word. It seems awkward to toss in hatred and prejudice as definitional bedfellows. They don’t mean the same thing.
It is not the case that Julia Gillard stretched the word to take in this new meaning as a personal flight of fancy. The word misogyny had acquired this second meaning in the 1980s and had been used generally in this way.
Of course I cannot say what was in Ms Gillard’s mind - definition 1 or definition 2 - but I think that it is extremely likely that she was using the word with the meaning that it currently has in feminist discourse.
Nor is the case that Macquarie Dictionary has experienced any pressure to add the second definition. There have been suggestions that politicians may have been contacting us to push a point of view but in reality the dictionary follows the action, it does not instigate or become a party to the action.
There is a belief that as editor I can do whatever I like with the dictionary but that is not true. I am constrained by the evidence for the use of a word which must be there to justify inclusion.
As we live our dictionary lives we are alerted to new words and new meanings in a whole variety of sources. It doesn’t matter what the starting point is. Once a word is up for consideration we need to assess whether there is evidence for the use of this word in the language community.
It can’t be one person’s word or a mistake or a private invention or an attempt to twist a meaning for devious reasons. There was plenty of evidence for the use of misogyny in the sense of ‘prejudice’ as opposed to ‘pathological hatred’ and so, on the basis of that evidence, we added the second definition. The first definition remains so it is not that we have scrapped that meaning, just that we have added a second meaning.
I seem to have unwittingly invited everyone to the afterparty at the dictionary – the hubbub of voices arguing for and against the new definition is tremendous. None of this debate is relevant to the dictionary which attempts, by using hard evidence, to remain an impartial record of the English language as it lives and breathes in the Australian English language community.
Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

43 comments

SHOW OLDEST | NEWEST FIRST


    • Barge says:


      05:38am | 18/10/12
      So - a couple of people misuse a word and that causes the definition to be changed.  Hardly what I would call a scientific process.


    • Tedd says:


      07:38am | 18/10/12
      There’s no science involved, just philosophy.
      The ‘hatred’ definition was too narrow.


    • Aitch B says:


      05:48am | 18/10/12
      One wonders whether the word ‘misandry’ has had a similar overhaul by the Oxford and is under consideration by the Macquarie.
      Have the emanations from Roxon, Plibersek, etc. planted any seeds?


    • nihonin says:


      05:53am | 18/10/12
      ‘But what it left on the floor was misogyny – with a new meaning.’  Along with misandry as well.
      Since the 1980s misandry has come to be used as a synonym for sexism – a synonym with bite but nevertheless with the meaning of ‘entrenched prejudice against men’ rather than ‘pathological hatred of men’.
      I’d like to misandry updated as well, so as the ‘misogynists ’ won’t be up in arms.  Surely if one is updated, the other must be.


    • HT says:


      06:11am | 18/10/12
      Macquarie Dictionary new meaning misogyny double plus good


    • Don says:


      06:16am | 18/10/12
      Has the definition of vomit changed since last week, as I kind of vomitted a bit in my mouth a little after I read this.


    • Tedd says:


      07:43am | 18/10/12
      Perhaps we just need certain qualifications for you, Don, like ‘fear-vomit’ or ‘vomit-instead-of-poo-oneself?


    • Modern Primitive says:


      06:18am | 18/10/12
      When are you going to redefine hypocrite?


    • dovif says:


      07:29am | 18/10/12
      ala Homer SImpson in the Simpsons
      It is have the picture of Julia on it
      Alternatively, we can start a new phrase doing a Julia
      definition, lying and faking misorgyny


    • dovif says:


      07:29am | 18/10/12
      ala Homer SImpson in the Simpsons
      It will have the picture of Julia on it
      Alternatively, we can start a new phrase doing a Julia
      definition, lying and faking misorgyny


    • Joan says:


      06:25am | 18/10/12
      Misogyny is not a mainstream word, used in day to day conversation. Majority people would not know how to spell it and did not know its meaning until Gillard defined it her way in parliament
      More general use of words in daily conversation, by millions of Australian today, words people know exactly what they mean   as they discuss politics eg .
      backstab and knifing: defined as - the sudden,swift unforseen   removal of an elected peoples primeminister/leader by political opponent of same political persuasion.
      liar : politician who uses manipulative language to excuse and justify breaking of promises made during election or term for personal power sake.
      Millions of Australians know eactly what they mean - perhaps time to adjust Macquarie dictionary to reflect .


    • Bazza says:


      06:34am | 18/10/12
      Since when has one person and a handful of employees had the right to change the meaning of a word WITHOUT a meaningful procedure and public discussion. The ‘progressives’ of today thrive on having a “process and system” for everything they do or want done, but not this lot at Macquarie. It is only the word of Butler and her colleagues that says the meaning of this particular word has been changing over 20 years.
      What should always be remembered by everyone who wishes to ‘change and alter’ without public discussion, is that Governments and employees get replaced. They are employed at the behest of a the voting public and in the case of employees by bosses and it is for that reason it is their DUTY to open up public discussion. Particularly under such contentious conditions.


    • C. Oden says:


      06:37am | 18/10/12
      Moderated and approved comments only, huh? Sounds like someone is afraid to have their ridiculous views called out in public. I don’t know why I expected any better from Butler or The Punch.


    • Hill Billy says:


      06:44am | 18/10/12
      ‘We felt the need to keep the record of the language up to date, and to adjust the entry at misogyny to cover its current use.’
      Extraordinary. It’s only been used this way to demonize Abbot.


    • Tubesteak says:


      06:51am | 18/10/12
      Misogyny is a word used by feminists as a shaming device to silence criticism of their “ra ra sistahood” victimhood narrative. Anyone that didn’t conform to their dogma was labelled a misogynist and part of the imaginary illuminati-patriarchy.
      The fact that you’ve changed the definition is shameful
      Will you be changing the definition of misandry accordingly?


    • Ian1 says:


      06:51am | 18/10/12
      As a highly educated lawyer, political leader and Prime Minister, the use of the term “misogyny” in Parliament must be linked to it’s actual definition.  Regardless of how the term has been misapplied throughout feminist literature (apparently as entrenched prejudice, not pathological hatred), the PM must be held accountable for the term as it is defined.
      Attempts to reduce the severity of her accusations, whilst well intentioned and supportive of her as a leading feminist advocate, by redefining the word, cannot act retrospectively to save her from the public backlash now confronting her.
      To accuse Abbott of hatred of women is absurd.  Perhaps the PM should publicly acknowledge she misused the term and seek forgiveness for her blunder.  That would do more to mop the floor than what would demonstrate an abuse of power, on her behalf, which will alter the meaning of what she has stated.  The generations of school students who will study that speech during their institutional politically correct indoctrination deserve the truth, not a rewrite of history.
      A reasonable person of her peerage knows exactly what the term implies.


    • Jenny says:


      06:55am | 18/10/12
      “but I think that it is extremely likely that she was using the word with the meaning that it currently has in feminist discourse” and that is what you need to believe to support her coldly calculated campaign of the sexual slandering of Abbott that had been running for a few weeks in preparation for the day she had to launch her defences of Slipper and his vile text messages (which she knew about in May), thus preserving her power base. More fool those women that supported her smoke screen, especially given the fact she has referred to married women as prostitutes and has a history other women’s married men.


    • Tim says:


      06:55am | 18/10/12
      No it hasn’t been used is any other way than the original meaning, and the expansion of the meaning now is wrong.
      The misuse you’re talking about has mostly been by feminists trying to assign certain derogatory characteristics to their opponents so as to win arguments.
      Their usage of the word was most definitely to mean hatred of women, its just that they were invariably wrong.
      Hey I know, due to people taking back the word “slut” during slutwalk last year, can you change the meaning to a smart, confident woman who enjoys life?
      What you’re doing is allowing stupidity and ignorance to rule our language and its meanings. It’s not something new but I still think its wrong.


    • Rolls Canardly says:


      06:59am | 18/10/12
      Incredible (look that up… unless of course that means something different, now)!

      I look forward to Macquarie now bastardising the lexicon further by adding new pronunciations to words such as hyperbole (now acceptably spouted as, hyper-bowl). And of course now the word dictionary, should in future be described by the definition: 2. Reactionary reference volume that changes the meaning of words to whatever the ALP wants them to mean.

      Never… Will I knowingly use this dictionary again.


    • Chris says:


      07:01am | 18/10/12
      Fair enough- just odd that you choose to do this now.
      Also I am not too sure about your cleaning lady analogy but nice entrenchment of a feminist stereotype.
      In line with ‘keeping up with the times’ perhaps a better one would have been-
      ‘A Health Services worker with their Union dues mopping up a big legal bill!’


    • Claire says:


      07:10am | 18/10/12
      Please don’t insult our intelligence. Gillard and her disgraceful cohorts knew exactly what the definition meant and as shown my extremist feminists, have shown a total willingness to misuse the word in order to shut down anyone that disagrees with them, does not give them what they demand or chooses to hold them to account for their actions. This is even more apparent by the fact that she used this pathetic speech to protect slipper, hence her power base.
      I wonder what the feminists around the world would think if they knew Gillard had deliberately wrote this speech to play on their perceived discrimination in order to slander the person holding her to account for her parties continual failures and to protect a person that has actually committed the actions she claims to deplore.


    • Mahhrat says:


      07:13am | 18/10/12
      The word is defined by the people who use it.  Let’s look at who says who is a mysoginist, and there you’ll have your definition.
      It is used wrongly, though sometimes for the right reasons.  In my experience, “Mysoginist” is used to shut down debate.  When it’s used, it’s used as an insult, as something people do not want to be.  While that’s fine, it makes the people using it look foolish.  You don’t shout down the other side of the debate - that isn’t debating.


    • nihonin says:


      07:32am | 18/10/12
      In hindsight (does it still mean what I believe it to mean) I’m sure people will judge the ‘speech’ for what it was.


    • I hate pies says:


      07:14am | 18/10/12
      What are your politics and what are you ideologies Sue? Seems to me your changing the definition to suit someones politics. The only people who have decided misogyny doesn’t mean a woman hater are academics that want to use misinterpretation to push their ideology, and now the Labor party to push their politics. The rest of the world knows the meaning of the word as being a woman hater.
      So, you’re either doing if for an ideological reason or a political reason, or both. Which is it?
      By the way, are you going to change the meaning of the word misandry so that any woman who uses sexism can be labelled a misandrist too?
      The timing of this change is far too suss for my liking.


    • dovif says:


      07:17am | 18/10/12
      There are 2 other terms thgat fits in with Julia’s speech
      Selective, which has the definition of “Of or characterized by selection; discriminating”
      fake which has the definition “Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent” or “One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham”
      I think everyone would agree that what Slipper said or what the speaker at the union function attended by Julia said was much more sexist then anything Tony Abbott had said. But Julia seem to have fake or selective sexism
      Julia gave Peter her full support on being speaker, and thinks Wayne and Tanya Pilbesek (who regularly sees sexism) sitting through a sexist and misorgynistic speech and saying nothing was the right thing to do.
      Julia seem to see selective and fake sexism only and not the real thing. We always knew there was a real and fake Julia, she told us as much, it is very had to figure out when the real Julia speaks or when the fake Julia speaks


    • acotrel says:


      07:19am | 18/10/12
      ‘Both terms refer to pathological hatreds.’
      Has this stuff got something to do with sociopaths such as bullys ?


    • dovif says:


      07:34am | 18/10/12
      “pathological hatreds.’, “Sociopaths and “Bully” seems to be perfect terms to discrib Acotrel
      BTW are you still voting the Greens next year, when a paid up member of the ALP is going to vote for the Greens, we know how bad the ALP is.
      Or were you lying, being fake, like your leader


    • Fred says:


      07:20am | 18/10/12
      The word did not gain a new meaning in the 1980’s, it is more the case it was used to oppress anyone that stood in the way of some feminist apes. The abuse of this word, like racist etc has only breed contempt for the people using it, because Australians on the whole dislike bullies and thugs. The woman’s cause which is essentially won can serve itself better without using such vulgarities.


    • Tedd says:


      07:35am | 18/10/12
      ” .. feminist apes”, Fred ??
      Sounds like “entrenched prejudice against [some] women”, hatred even.
      The word has only been ‘abused’ b/c of its, ‘til now, narrow definition.
      The broadening is apt given the more nuanced discussion society now generally has about these things.


    • acotrel says:


      07:22am | 18/10/12
      I wonder if misogynists can claim treatment for bruises to the backside on Medicare ?


    • SK_ says:


      07:23am | 18/10/12
      Great, so now all the women who have been screaming “misogyny” without knowing what it really meant can have their ignorance validated!
      I feel like another few collective IQ points has been sucked from
      this country :-(


    • Tedd says:


      07:24am | 18/10/12
      Good move - ‘hatred of women’ has been too rigid and too narrow a definition of misogyny.
      Now, how about an alternative word or definition to the equally narrow homophobia’?


    • DocBud says:


      07:25am | 18/10/12
      “Of course I cannot say what was in Ms Gillard’s mind - definition 1 or definition 2 - but I think that it is extremely likely that she was using the word with the meaning that it currently has in feminist discourse.”
      I think it is most likely that she used it as a form of abuse as part of a deliberate ALP strategy to demonise the leader of the opposition. Since you concede that you haven’t been doing your job properly as the new meaning has been around since the 1980s and you had the hard evidence of the OED adjusting its definition 10 years ago, a change in the Macquarie Dictionary’s definition would not appear to have been urgent unless the editors were keen to come to the assistance of the PM.


    • hand2mouth says:


      07:25am | 18/10/12
      “It is not the case that Julia Gillard stretched the word to take in this new meaning as a personal flight of fancy. The word misogyny had acquired this second meaning in the 1980s and had been used generally in this way.”
      If this is the case why was misogyny not expanded to include both interpretations before this.
      Note that in the preceeding paragraph to the one quoted above the OED had expanded the definition (though slightly differently) in 2002 . Does the author not follow (and be infomed by) peer publications?


    • Bill says:


      07:26am | 18/10/12
      Misogyny:  Criticism of a person’s character or performance in a elected position should they female.
      “Game on” : fare criticism   of a male conservative leader, innuendo, smear and outright fabrication acceptable,


    • Gregg says:


      07:26am | 18/10/12
      It is somewhat interesting Sue in politicians and english definitions can go hand in hand, like both just keep getting murkier and murkier.
      ” It can’t be one person’s word or a mistake or a private invention or an attempt to twist a meaning for devious reasons. There was plenty of evidence for the use of misogyny in the sense of ‘prejudice’ as opposed to ‘pathological hatred’ and so, on the basis of that evidence, we added the second definition. The first definition remains so it is not that we have scrapped that meaning, just that we have added a second meaning. “
      What in effect you are saying is that enough people start misusing a word, not that I would have thought misogyny was in too many peoples vocabulary use anyway, dictionary editors will introduce a new meaning for the misuse, it being no wonder some people attempting to learn english will often be left in a state of bewilderment with murky words.
      And then look at where we are heading with politicians and I suppose we had better start tracing facts there too, like could we have got any straighter people than Gough or Malcom even if the latter did lose his pants and then along came Bob Hawke’s drinking and womanising, Paul Keating and whatever, John Howard pretty straight and likewise we could say of Kevin other than being very apologetic to the Mrs for being in a nightclub and then he is possibly as guilty as any of fair shake of a sausage mincing up our use of words.
      But hey, the latest crop have certainly learnt all about murk, even before entering parliament it would seem and leopards don’t lose their spots I’m told and there has been plenty of devious actions since by the PM.
      Maybe we need to have the dictionary add to the meaning of lie and if Tony Abbott gets to sleep in the Lodge, well, we’ll have to just for the opposition redefine No and Unfit, maybe even what an adolescent demonstration of what angst should be.
      But alls well for we do in deed live in a very murky world these days and it’ll hardly get any clearer any time soon I suspect.
      We might even not be about to see through considerable radioactive laced dust.


    • Nick says:


      07:28am | 18/10/12
      Its not political..says Sue.. but the timing for this change in definition says it all.
      Couldn’t wait could you?


    • iansand says:


      07:29am | 18/10/12
      The Macquarie Dictionary has a green cover.  Tell me that that is not significant.


    • Rosie says:


      07:30am | 18/10/12
      Who uses a dictionary these days when it is much quicker to use the internet. It left a bitter taste in my mouth after listening to the famous speech and then Macquarie Dictionary changing the meaning of misogyny. I checked the Dictionary I owned and thank God it was an Oxford English Dictionary. Never in my life time shall I buy a Macquarie Dictionary even if it meant buying Australianna.
      Hope you get good advertising by using the PM’s personal attack use of the word misogyny on her male opponent.


    • Rolls Canardly says:


      07:32am | 18/10/12
      Sue should consider changing the title of HER reference to political terms, to “Newspeak”. More fitting, I reckon.
      I can only imagine what Goerge Orwell would make of this disgraceful development.


    • WEENY says:


      07:39am | 18/10/12
      I think everyone needs to read or re-read George Orwell - Animal Farm because that is what we are becoming.


    • ChrisW says:


      07:42am | 18/10/12
      Totally wacky!  I seriously doubt that the specious reasoning outlined above would pass muster even with the Academie Francaise, perhaps the world’s foremost pontificators on language.  Perhaps there really is such a thing as female logic after all.
      Could I also suggest that misogynist be defined as the male form of feminist - or conversely if that suits better?


    • Emmy says:


      07:45am | 18/10/12
      Ms Butler got one thing ‘spot on’, ‘dead right’ in her article. It was her opening sentence when she said “I picture my self as a woman with a mop, a broom and a bucket” yes maam, a charwoman

No comments:

Post a Comment