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.