Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Gillard's misogyny speech prompts Macquarie Dictionary redefinition

In her relentless campaign to smear Abbott at all costs, Julia Gillard used a very strong word to describe him. She said he was a misogynist, a hater of women. But when it became clear even to her fellow bottom feeders in Labor that this was a tad OTT they had to do some serious spinning.

Take Bill Shorten on Q and A. It was hilarious to see him bend over backwards so as not to lose his treasured insult:

BILL SHORTEN: No. Let's go through and what I understand to be the meanings of misogyny and sexism. There's been a lot of really valuable contributions from a range of people. I take the definition of misogyny - the old definition is do you hate women. I don't think Tony Abbott hates women. But do I think in the vernacular that misogyny has moved to the following definition, yes I do and the following definition is - there are some people who say things to women which are frankly inadvertent. That doesn't make them right but they're capable of being corrected. You say to this bloke or this person, “That's just not right,” and they change. Misogyny, to me, is a - in the language which I understand it to have been used most recently is a view that there are some people who have a prejudice about women in certain occupations and they have an unexamined view in their own head about the status of women and the equality of women to do a whole range of things.

The thing he now describes as misogyny is much closer to sexism. But misogyny is a more powerful word and not just because of its well known definition. There's also something about the very sound of it that has more emotional impact. It's an ugly word, used to describe an ugly attitude. And it's this ugliness that Shorten and Gillard and their partners in slime are so attracted to. By repeatedly associating it with Abbott it makes him repellant in the minds of many voters. That's why they so desperately want to keep using it.

In what is a truly bizarre and alarming development, the editors of Macquarie Dictionary have abetted this sleazy campaign by making Shorten's absurd redefinition official. You just can't make this stuff up.

In a helpful post, Andrew Bolt suggests some other words that the tome needs to include.

Still, we shouldn't be surprised. The Left are forever doing this. Because they're such nasty bullies, they just can't stop themselves from taking powerfully emotive words that describe repellant acts and attitudes and expanding their definitons so they can then inflict them on anyone they choose.

Take "rape", for example. Everyone knew what that meant. But then in the nineties it spawned a sub-category, "date rape", which was something much closer to seduction after an initial refusal.

"Racism" is another one. In days of yore it meant treating people as inferiors on account of their race. Now it is used just as often to describe treating them as equals.

Even the concept of race itself has becoming murkier, meaning that those who wish to silence others with the accusation "racist" can do so much more easily. (Case in point: the Andrew Bolt trial.)

Race has also become conflated with religion -- well, one religion at least. Now, if you criticize Islam, the Left can slime you as a "racist".

Then there's the word "homophobe". In the past, it meant someone who feared and hated gay people. Now it's anyone who disagrees with the idea of gay marriage, among other things.

I could go on. But I think you get the drift.


  1. While "Bread Line Bill" [or Wee Billy if you prefer] is redefining our language perhaps the ALP and the bludgers in the Yabbie's gummint could be defined as Australophobes [haters of Australia] by the little blokes mates at Macquarrie Dictionary because it is the only way to explain what appears to be a deep hatred of what most of us want and are about in having a prosperous united society. The sooner they are confined to the wastes of Never-ever-again Land the better.

    1. It won't be that long now. The election approaches apace. And it might just be "Never-ever-again Land" for Labor, too. I don't think they have even the slightest clue just how much people despise them. This could be the knockout blow for the party unless they really learn from the defeat that is sure to come.

  2. The left traditionally likes to control the language to direct debate and discussion along the lines they choose to push.
    Gay marriage sounds bad, so we are played the marriage equality card,
    (there that sounds better),
    illegal economic migration vs. asylum seekers,
    the ABC News website is the happy hunting ground for these "special" naming conventions.
    The more subtle the better the effect.

    Have I missed any of your favorites?

    1. There's termination to describe abortion, as well as affirmative action to describe what is actually racial or gender discrimination.

    2. Hi Matt and thanks,

      Termination for abortion, yes both pretty dark words.
      What about the clanger I heard on the Drum panel TV rehash show the other night post PM's hate speech,

      ..."Tony's going to steal my "Reproductive Rights" as a woman and I'm scared..." = ABC's soft bloodless code phrase for "Abortions". Nice side-step guys and gals.

      We need to claim back the "Reproductive Responsibilities" ideal for some neat debate ideas, just for a "tiny bit" of balance of course.

      Matt, drop by and share your thoughts with me.

      In the wake of the recent rape and murder in Victoria I have got to cover rape prevention and deconstruct the "Slut-walk" myth. Walking about like "girls on the game" is clearly not part of any answer. I would have thought this would have been obvious. Apparently not.

      It's a crazy, crazy world out there!

  3. Okay then, I'll point out the obvious...

    Sexism applies to both genders, misogyny refers to prejudice and hate against women, with misandry being the male equivalent. That's the difference. The word misogyny is more specific than sexism, and more appropriate in this context. At any rate, both words hold prejudice and discrimination at their core, sexism and misogyny are not mutually exclusive. But of course, it's easier to argue over semantics than focus on real issues...

    How can you possibly defend Abbott saying that, "What if men are, by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or issue command?" - In what way is this not pure, straight up misogyny? Or is that not quite hateful enough in your opinion? It must be nice being the Arbiter of Everything Everywhere.

    All of these words still mean the same thing they always did. Your issue with the term date rape makes you sound like a rapist. Try telling a date rape survivor they were merely "seduced after an initial refusal" and see how well it goes down. Statistically, fewer women are raped by strangers - the vast majority of rapes are perpetrated by men who (wait for it) are DATING the woman they assault. Hence the term date rape.

    The term homophobia defines a range of negative attitudes towards homosexuality, not just fear and hate. In any case, when you actively discriminate against people for an innate quality they cannot change, that is hateful. How can you tell someone they don't deserve the same rights as you without sounding heartless and cruel? Seriously, I would love to know how you justify this in your head. It's like banning left-handed marriage or interracial marriage. I would also like to point out that civil unions are not the same thing - we all know how well 'separate but equal' worked in the past. Either everyone has marriage or everyone has civil unions, it's that simple.

    It's okay though; marriage equality is inevitable anyway. It's just a matter of time. It might be awkward for you, being on the wrong side of history and all that. Have fun telling your grandchildren why you voted against gay people's rights at every opportunity you had.

    And you know, as part of the most privileged group in society - middle aged heterosexual white men - people like you rarely understand until something impacts your life directly, like having a gay son or daughter. I wish you luck.

    1. Surely white/brown homosexual middle aged men are the most privileged group in society. Double income, no kids sounds like a pretty privileged wicket on the disposable income stakes.

    2. Wow Alex - that's not a chip on your shoulder its a bloody great log. In order -

      1. Semantics are sometimes important - ever signed a contract or looked at a legal document? Semantics are pretty important and the redefining of words at the whim of the left to suit themselves is not the natural evolving of language but the prostitution of logic in communication.

      2. What if men are more adapted to leadership? Take a good look at history and leadership has generally been by men. Right or wrong, sensitive or otherwise, the question asked by Tony Abbott was a legitimate one and has nothing to do with misogyny if you take your blinkers off.

      3. "Makes you sound like a rapist". What a disgusting thing to say. Rape, "date" or otherwise is a disgusting offence and to tag someone as a rapist for something such as the Bunyip wrote is pretty typical of the illogical left. It is also the province of the left in politics who said an oppposition pollie looked like a rapist.

      4. You are doing a "Bread Line Bill" in redefining Homophobia and a gay couple with a committed relationship have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple or a heterosexual couple in a committed de-facto relationship and the only thing simple about your argument is you.

      5. Marriage equality means what exactly? Are you redefining the word marriage and its cultural meaning across religions and races? Bothered to ask around outside a narrow group? And how does one get to be on the wrong side of history by the way? Everyone is part of history eventually and just tell me where the poll was on gay people's rights? "At every opportunity" - lots of these polls were there?

      6. I have a gay son in a committed relationship and I asked him to read your little diatribe before I put fingers to keyboard. He doesn't want something called "marriage" and thinks the push for "marriage" as it is accepted in this society is just a dodgy "cause celebre" of the wacky fringe of the gay part of our community. His opinion of your little rant was expressed in terms of his long and distinguished military service and pretty cutting - he hasn't got a great deal of tolerance for your views.

      Grow up Alex and get the log removed from your shoulder - it will be much more comfortable. And feel free to call me whatever you want. I am sure I'll have heard worse over my lifetime.

    3. Oops. Not Bunyip but Matt - otherwise the message is the same.

    4. Alex, there is just so much idiotic cant in that reply I don't know where to begin. But I will say that you have confirmed my point about how politically correct lefties such as yourself use word games to slime their opponents. Saying I "sound like a rapist" merely because I think the word rape has lost its original meaning is a textbook example of this vicious tactic.

    5. Resorting to ad hominem attacks doesn't make for a very convincing argument. Maybe next time you could try using logic or critical thinking instead. In order:

      1. Julia wasn't entering into a legal contract when she made her speech. Duh. You're just being a pedant. The meaning of what she said doesn't change because you disagree with the definition of one of the words she used.

      2. Hahahahaha. Please. If you believe this is a legitimate question, you are just as ignorant as Abbott. By your logic, we could claim that slavery and segregation should be okay because "that's the way it was if we look back through history." You have confused the concepts of correlation and causation - men having greater power throughout history does not make them inherently better leaders. If anything it speaks to the misogyny and sexism endemic throughout most of human history. And by the way, "If you take your blinkers off" is not actually a real reason for why Abbott is not a misogynist. Try again.

      3. I didn't call him a rapist. I said that redefining date rape as "seduction after an initial refusal" is something a rapist would say, because it is. If you agree with his absurd definition then you sound like a creep too.

      4. Definitions for homophobia include: antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion as well as irrational fear and hatred.

      Separate but equal is not, in fact, equal. If, according to you, homosexuals already have equal rights as married heterosexuals (which is not true), what difference does it make to you if they are permitted to marry? What's so special about that word that only heterosexuals are entitled to use it? It's not a religious term, it describes a legal contract.

      5. I'm not redefining the word marriage - I believe it was John Howard who took that upon himself. Previous definitions of marriage forbade interracial unions, do you really think that as society evolves these concepts are immune to change? Think again. And in answer to your question, one gets on the wrong side of history by being an ignorant bigot. This would be anyone who believed it was okay to deny people civil rights based on their race, religion, sex or, yes, their sexuality. Stop playing dumb.

      6. Congratulations, your son is a self-hating homosexual. If he thinks having the same rights that heterosexuals take for granted is a "dodgy cause celebre" then I have nothing but pity for someone so obviously conflicted. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating. Also, interesting that you mention his military service and how little tolerance he has for my opinion, without ever actually offering even just one reason for WHY he holds this opinion. Could it be that there ISN'T a good reason to betray your own community?

      Grow up David and get that plank removed from your eye - you'll be able to see clearer that way.

      P.s. Rolly Christian - when was the last time you got beaten up for being a straight white man? You seem to think brown gay men have it easier in life than you do. And I'd also love to know why you think two men can't have children? Did the gay gene make them sterile or something? Does adoption no longer exist? Enlighten me.

    6. Alex, you really are life imitating satire. I don't have time to reply to all your silly assertions now.

      But please don't try to weasel out of your claim that I "sound like a rapist". That's a nasty thing to say, and close to claiming that I am a rapist. No two ways about that.

      You've also insinuated that another commenter is a creep and, it seems, me as well. You've also slimed his son a self-hating homosexual.

      And you have the gall to condemn him for resorting to ad hominem attacks. Hilarious!

      Ad hominem attacks are what the Left does more than anyone else. And using them against Abbott is pretty much their whole political strategy. Maybe you should apply for a gig with the ALP? They seem to have a very high turnover of employees ...

    7. No Matt, claiming that date rape is akin to, in your own words, "seduction after an initial refusal" is nasty. And just plain wrong. No two ways about that.

      I'm not trying to weasel out of anything, in fact, I'll say it again: what you said was offensive not just to me but everyone. Seduction is implicitly consensual and therefore NOT RAPE. How can you not understand that your interpretation of the term date rape is clearing a victim-blaming mentality? Saying that they were merely 'seduced' is the kind of reasoning a rapist would use to justify their own actions, if you can't see that I don't know what else to say to you.

      How would you feel if YOU were date raped (extremely unlikely, but possible) and you were told that "you were just seduced after an initial refusal." You'd accept that, would you? What if it happened to your daughter? You'd say that to her too?

      I urge you to ask any woman on the street if she agrees with your new definition of date rape. Or any man for that matter. Have some sensitivity towards a topic that is extremely painful for many people. Once again, I am NOT calling you a rapist. But I still think you sound like one. The horse is dead, please stop beating it now.

    8. Actually Alex, you raise an interesting point, which I meant to address when I read your first comment but didn't have time to initially.

      My description was clumsily worded. I should have said the definition could have included something closer to seduction after an initial refusal.

      That is, I wasn't implying that a woman can't be raped (ie forced to have sex against her will) simply because she's on a date with a guy or knows him already, or is even in a relationship with him. Obviously that's possible, and happens often. (Also, I didn't say it WAS seduction after initial refusal. I said it was "much closer to" that. Please re-read.)

      You've clearly taken an extreme interpretation of my words and then used it to puff yourself up as some kind of great avenger on behalf of all women, saying that I was blaming the victim. I wasn't doing that. I was just pointing out something that's demonstrably true.

      There have been many cases, particularly the US, in which seduction after an initial refusal was called date rape, or even rape. Hell, even clearly consensual sex has been called rape -- retrospectively.

      This has been due in major part to the poisonous influence of such extreme victim feminists as Catherine Mackinonn, who is on record as saying "it's rape if a woman feels violated". Now, if it gets down to how a woman feels, rather than what actually happened, then any sexual encounter could be characterized as rape.

      That was what I was alluding to: the widening of the goalposts, so to speak.

      Many of your points in this thread have been extreme and almost hysterical. For example, the idea that what I said would be offensive to all women is ludicrous. I've spoken to many women on this subject. Quite a few agreed with me, and some have gone much further than I have with this interpretation. Actually, some of them expressed views that I would call blaming the victim (accurately this time).

      You're just using the lazy, cheap rhetorical tricks so beloved of the Left: Focusing on one element of a person's statement, twisting the meaning to suit your purposes, then insinuating that he is morally deficient in the extreme, a "bad person". Then when you are called out in it, you don't have the spine to admit to it. That's dishonest, hateful and cowardly.

  4. Actually just dropping a link to a stupid blog post is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

  5. Actually, just claiming something is 'stupid' without bothering to even read it or analyse its content is the lowest difficulty setting. You win.

  6. Anonymous, I did read it and it was a stupid piece. That's why I said so.