Skip to comments.Dictionary follows Aussie PM in defining misogyny
Posted on 10/17/2012 12:04:33 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Australia's prime minister did not define "misogyny" wrong in a blistering attack on a male rival the dictionary did.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard's fiery speech last week in which she branded conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott a misogynist for a string of allegedly sexist comments he had made in recent years has been lauded by feminists around the world. But Gillard's critics have accused her of hyperbole, pointing to dictionary definitions of misogyny as hatred of women.
Sue Butler, the editor of the Macquarie Dictionary, which is regarded as the definitive authority on Australian meanings of words, said Wednesday that the political furor revealed to her fellow editors that their dictionary's definition was decades out of date. The dictionary would broaden its definition from a hatred of women to include entrenched prejudice against women, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted2.ap.org ...
We have words to cover “entrenched prejudice against women.” Don’t discount the dictionary’s timeliness; just flip to another page. Try “chauvinism.”
Man, feminists are getting lazy.
Misogyny bad, misandry good.
Funny how the global liberal media omits that latter word. How misanthropic of them.
2. Rumours the the dictionary was changed to reflect the meaning Big Sister intended are untrue, She used the nornal usage, the dictionary was out of date.
2. The dictionary has always defined "misogyny" to simply mean inferred bias against women.
"Exaggerated or bellicose patriotism" How is that relevant?
Looks like a slight error; the phrase “male chauvinism” might be what was meant.
“Exagerrated or bellicose patriotism”
That is the primary definition, but I can’t imagine any current dictionary omitting zealous partisanship for some particular group to which you belong, especially your sex.
“Male chauvanism” is what was meant. I grant that chauvanism is not limited to gender. Although I don’t think many would confuse her for meaning excesive patriotism if she called him merely a chauvanist. It would be like wondering what empire Mitt Romney was in favor of after Castro called him an imperialist. It’s understood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.