Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Oct 18, 2012


Bernard Keane this morning noted that as far as conspiracy theories go, this example is rather lame. The story goes that the chardonnay swilling lefties at Macquarie Dictionary partook in a spot of linguistic engineering by changing the definition of misogyny, just to indemnify the Prime Minister against calls of hyperbole.

What’s behind this is a gross misunderstanding of firstly, what dictionaries actually do, and secondly, the actual reasons behind the dictionary’s decision. For a discussion of those points, see here. Another interesting point about this case is that if you look at Macquarie’s editor, Sue Butler’s actual comment and its gradual morphing into the story that it is today, you can literally see political spin happening at the smallest level.

Here’s what Sue Butler said:

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.

This would ordinarily be a good enough reason to update a dictionary definition, to bring it up to speed with the last 30 years of common Australian usage, but sometimes a word among tens of thousands just gets lost in amongst the ones needing to be brought up-to-date.

The important thing to remember is this: ‘Misogyny’ has been used to mean ‘prejudice against women’ for decades. The Oxford, and other dictionaries, have had this as a part of the definition for quite some time. Macquarie is merely catching up to usage. Gillard’s usage was just a catalyst, not the cause.

The headlines, perhaps justifiably, read like this:

Gillard’s speech prompts misogyny definition rethink

Or, perhaps less justifiably, like this:

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech forces Macquarie Dictionary to update its definition

From there, it only takes an opinion writer to skim-read the headlines before they get the impression that Macquarie has bent over backwards to change the meaning of a word and therefore, retrospectively justify the Prime Minister’s use of language, thus protecting her against the heinous charge of exaggeration.

Enter Andrew Bolt:

Macquarie to publish dictionary of Gillard English 
Macquarie Dictionary’s editors change the meaning of a word to suit Julia Gillard.
If Gillard’s misuse of language inspires Macquarie to redefine words, here’s a few more changes it should make:

  • Intercept – to now mean to act as a taxi. Alternative meaning: to welcome.
  • Promise – now to mean what you say you’ll do until it suits you to do the opposite.

The last of these has over 200 comments, largely critical of Macquarie, labelling it a political tool of the Labor Party or that it has become manipulated by the left. In amongst it all, several commenters publicise email addresses for the dictionary and call for others to voice their disapproval of this entirely justified and frankly, rather late update.

I’m not writing this to defend Gillard necessarily, nor Abbott, by any means. I’m writing this to defend lexicography from charges that it is a political enterprise. Of course words and their meanings can be used for political expedience, as George Orwell famously pointed out, but lexicographers are not politicians; they’re closer to scientists. They sift through historic and contemporary sources observing words in their natural environment, looking for anything out of the ordinary, and when necessary, refining or updating definitions.

Language changes. Sometimes at a glacial pace and sometimes exceedingly fast. The job of the lexicographer is made all the more difficult when there are people in this world who cling to the familiarity of the meaning of words and quixotically resist change. The wrath of these people, seen in letters pages and the Column 8s of the world, is unfairly lumped onto the lexicographers who are just trying to do their job in methodically and meticulously cataloguing the variation and gradual changes in language.

I will say however, that Sue Butler could have potentially phrased (or timed) her response better to avoid the charge that Macquarie is bending the semantic knee to the whims of the Prime Minister, as it were.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

55 thoughts on “Misogyny – a conspiracy theory

  1. Aidan Wilson

    Further, in the interview I read, Sue Butler went on to describe misogyny as the underlying viewpoint that often resulted in visible sexist behaviour or language. That certainly fits.

    Yeah, I agree. Misogyny, as entrenched, either individual or systematic prejudice, is the cause of sexism, which is just the surface realisation. A law can be sexist, say, but the culture that allows for that law to come into effect is misogynist.

    Another way of thinking about it is the amount of volition behind it. Misogyny is quite deliberate and premeditated, whereas sexism need not be; it can be mindless.

    On another point, I read the other day that sexism has also changed its meaning in the last couple of hundred years. It used to mean ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ as we currently use it. As the OED descibes it:

    the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex

    See for instance, this example from 1906 (taken from the OED):

    Abstract rights are inherent in the soul or internal consciousness, and are independent of sexism, excepting that it tones and governs the individual in his or her recognition or apprehension of these inherent rights.
    R. S. Clymer, True Spiritualism p. 91

    ‘Abstract rights are independent of sexism’, in other words, one’s rights are not dependent on whether someone is one sex or the other. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that ‘sexism’ took on the ‘prejudice’ aspect to its meaning.

  2. Laura

    misogyny, that should say. I’m typing w a brace on my right hand!

  3. Laura

    Further, in the interview I read, Sue Butler went on to describe misogny as the underlying viewpoint that often resulted in visible sexist behaviour or language. That certainly fits.

  4. Laura

    Seems to me the real question is why the Macquarie Dictionary is so ‘behind’ the already expanded definitions in other dictionaries in other English-speaking countries. To those of us who feel a certain degree of misogyny, per the updated definition, runs in Australian culture–differently, perhaps to the UK, US or Canada–this lag in recognizing the usage raises an eyebrow. At least.

  5. geomac62

    wizz aka Alf
    As usual your contribution to the topic under discussion is zero and your comment fatuous . 3 million look at a speech by a female politician not a cute kitten playing the piano . Its probably beyond your ken to understand the difference but a speech isn,t the usual fare for viewers looking for the cute or unusual out there vid . There are a couple of vids you could watch that may be of interest . Its Abbott extolling a carbon tax as the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions in an interview , Sky I believe . As Molly used to say ,do yourself a favour , look it up .

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/18/misogyny-a-conspiracy-theory/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.