The Macquarie Dictionary Of Newspeak

Misogyny means hating women as women. Someone who hates a particular woman or group of women as a result of their actions, political positions or some other reason is not necessarily a misogynist. The many facets of a person’s identity are not relevant to a misogynist: they hate women on an ontological level, purely on the basis of the qualities of their gender.

Misogyny is a pathology. It is visceral. It is not the same as paternalism (believing that women, among others, are not suitable for positions of responsibility), sexism (prejudice against women) or chauvinism (being a biased supporter of your own side ie. men). Misogyny is far stronger and its consequences are abnormal social interaction, often associated with violence.

Thus, the Macquarie Dictionary changing its definition of misogyny to include “an entrenched prejudice against women” is absurd. Entrenched prejudice is sexism, which does not require hatred.

Most people love their own children and are fond of children in general, but treat them with prejudice. We don’t allow them to drive, vote, drink alcohol, obtain credit or a host of other freedoms reserved for adults, because we believe they are incapable of handling the responsibility. Men did not hate women in the entrenched prejudice of 1950’s or Victorian era sexism; they simply believed women were not capable of a range of tasks and responsibilities reserved for men.

To suggest these types of “entrenched prejudice” derive from misogyny is absurd: they derive from feelings of paternalistic superiority.

Both sexism and misogyny are serious matters, however I suggest that instances of genuine misogyny are more serious than instances of sexism. Although sexism and misogyny are correlated, they usually have different psychological and social origins. Thus, we should use different words to talk about them and not confuse the two concepts.

People often misuse words. Sometimes that misuse can perpetuate itself and even become common. That does not make the usage correct. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard some ignoramus say “in agreeance”. Will the Macquarie Dictionary now include “agreeance” as an English word?

It is not sufficient for a significant proportion of the population to misuse a word for its meaning to actually change. These people have not deliberately used the word in an alternative context. Their variant usage is unintentional and is just plain wrong.

For a word to actually change its meaning, it must be persistently and deliberately used in such an alternative way. One possibility is via slang. For example, “sick” can now mean “good”.

Moreover, deliberately misusing a word for a political purpose does not count. To conflate misogyny and chauvinism or sexism in order to reduce your opponent’s standing in the eyes of female voters does not magically alter the meaning of the word misogyny. The speaker is simply being dishonest.

Of course, words do change their meanings over time. The word “egregious” used to mean remarkable or distinguished in the sense of great importance. Now it means remarkable or distinguished in the sense of outstandingly bad or wicked.

For example, Princess Mary, mother of George V’s wife Queen Mary, was widely reported to be rather large. In fact, she had the nickname “Fat Mary”. In its former usage, one might have said that Princess Mary had an egregious vagina, in the sense that it was both large and quite important. Nowadays, using those two concepts in a sentence would be more along the lines of: “You sir, are an egregious cunt!”

The purpose of a dictionary is not merely to reflect currently reported usage. It is to defend against malapropism by instructing the ignorant on what the words actually do mean. In particular, a dictionary should be an accurate record of a language. Its editors have a responsibility to distinguish genuine cultural changes in the usage of words from ignorant or deliberate misuse for political purposes.

The attempt by left wing feminists to paint anyone expressing sexist or chauvinist sentiments as misogynist appears to be a calculated campaign. Is its real purpose to make people believe that anyone thinking women are less able than men at certain tasks or that women should behave differently to men in social settings does so because they actually hate women and therefore have a behavioural disorder, the result being to equate sexism with mental problems?

I suggest that is their true purpose. These are typical tactics of the left: social engineering via the appropriation and control of language. Deliberately alter the meaning of a word reserved for a psychological disorder so that it will now be used to describe anyone accused of behaving in a patronising or exclusionary manner towards women. Now any criticism of a woman can be met with accusations of misogyny, therefore we can exclude the criticiser from debate on the grounds of lunacy.

Want to stifle legitimate debate over one of your ideologically derived positions? Just label your opponent a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever category of thought criminal you decide.

“Women are statistically underrepresented in senior management. That proves discrimination. We must legislate to overturn this entrenched male privilege.”

“Of course they are underrepresented. They probably always will be. Most women in management take time out to have children. That puts their career back because their male peers increase their job specific knowledge and professional contacts more during that period. It's hard enough for men to climb the management ladder.”

“Well, that just shows that the whole system is rigged by the sexist patriarchy of which you are a part. Misogynist!”

A dictionary especially should not involve itself in politics and social engineering, which is what I suspect is the root of the Macquarie Dictionary’s attempt to alter the meaning of “misogyny”.

To quote editor Sue Butler:

“Misogyny was strict hatred of women and it probably does need a second definition to cover entrenched prejudices of women, as opposed to an out and out fundamental horror at women. We need to add a second definition, which is slightly stronger than sexist but heading in that direction towards entrenched prejudice rather than a visceral hatred.”

Why would a person with an apparently strong grasp of language say that we need to add a second definition, which conflates strongly sexist attitudes (which do not require hatred) with the pathology of a visceral, ontological hatred of women ... unless perhaps they are a fellow traveller, happy to play a part in the social engineering campaign.

As a custodian of linguistic record, the alternative course of action for the Macquarie Dictionary would have been to correct Julia Gillard et al’s misuse of the word, then point out the true meanings of all the words being bandied about.

We could have an evidence based discussion of sexism and genuine gender differences and roles. Perhaps we could even do it in such a way that men would be interested in participating.

For all the plaudits surrounding Julia Gillard’s “defining” speech, it was largely a rallying diatribe to the sisterhood. Do women actually think any men were won over? Because if you don’t care what men thought of the speech, or whether they even listened to it at all, all the sexism and “misogyny” you’re complaining about won’t go away.

If Julia Gillard and other feminists want men to actually listen, they’ll need a less shrill approach. Because if Julia gave that speech to a group of men, one would be blowing a vuvuzuela and another would have their hand cupped to their ear, saying: “What’s that? No, sorry … can’t hear a word you’re saying, love.”