Prev
Next

Well, if we’re gonna start redefining words…

Joe Hildebrand

by Joe Hildebrand

20 Oct 05:55am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Alan Jones, Dictionary, Peter Slipper, Politics, Semantics, Weekend Punch

78 comments

I was delighted to learn this week that you can make up a new definition for a word and all of a sudden the dictionary will change it for you.

What your handbag says about you…Cartoon: Mark Knight

It was of course the Workplace Minister Bill Shorten who explained on the ABC show Q&A that “misogyny” didn’t mean what the dictionary said it did but in fact what the Prime Minister said it did and so a couple of days later the chastened editors of Macquarie Dictionary said they would change the definition accordingly.

This was a tremendously liberating development and so I now have for the dictionary some other words that urgently need redefining.

Innocent adjective A descriptive term applying to people who have used performance enhancing drugs or had sex with prostitutes or have used performance enhancing drugs in order to have sex with prostitutes but still want to keep their jobs and/or Tour de France titles.

Slipper noun An object designed to give comfort and wiggle room that gets unceremoniously kicked off at the end of the night.

Lie verb To say something that is totally true at the time and then do something that is a way better idea but you just hadn’t thought of it back then except when someone else thought of it and you said it was shit.

Trip noun A metaphysical journey through space and time brought about by a mind-altering state that results in irrational and deluded decision-making, such as giving an Order of Australia to an individual whose sole purpose is to beat us at cricket.

Robust adjective A descriptor pertaining to a high-minded contest of ideas in which each party holds strong moral values that cannot be compromised on and therefore by which the most ethically sound and thoughtfully constructed argument inevitably prevails. E.g. “Ditch the Witch.”

Battlers collective noun 1. People who are poor. 2. People who used to be poor. 3. People who are rich but trying to be richer. 4. People who listen to Alan Jones. 5. People who complain about Alan Jones. 6. People who complain about people who complain about Alan Jones.

Categorically adverb A term implied in the denial of an activity which one has enthusiastically partaken in. E.g. “I categorically deny that I have ever used prostitutes/ever taken performance enhancing drugs/ever supported WorkChoices.”

Victory noun A result which is guaranteed to ensure the destruction of the person who achieves it. E.g. “Getting the carbon tax through parliament was a great victory.”

Regional framework adjective/noun A completely chaotic and lawless environment in which piracy flourishes, some people drown and the others are locked up indefinitely. E.g. “We have to work within the regional framework.”

Wife noun A weapon similar to a firearm that can be discharged in close combat with one’s enemies. E.g. “Don’t make me pull out my wife” or “I can’t believe he deployed the wife.”

Security abstract noun A concept or idealised state characterised by meaningless violence and uncertainty perpetuated by a body whose powers are defined to render them unable to act upon anything. As in Security Guard or Security Council.

Apologise verb To make a statement in response to an earlier action which has caused offence or injury, whereby one repeats the offensive action several more times. See also: Jones, Alan

Policy noun 1. A political instrument by which governmental programs are enacted to provide benefit to the community. E.g. “It is my policy that the Leader of the Opposition has a big nose.” 2. A comprehensive and costed strategy to provide financial relief for specified segments of society. E.g. “It is my policy to give billions of dollars to rich women who have babies.” 3. A sophisticated and multi-layered international accord to facilitate geo-political harmony in the Asia-Pacific basin. E.g. “Turn back the boats.”

Joe noun An unusually handsome columnist and media commentator whose musings never fail to inform and entertain the public.

[Ah, Joe. We love you. -Ed.]

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

78 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • GK says:

      06:52am | 20/10/12

      A dictionary is meant to tell you what a word means not what some would like it to mean. Just like the ALP who would like us to believe in what their perception of the world is not the reality.

      Reply

    • Phil S says:

      09:30am | 20/10/12

      No, dictionaries are there to tell us the definitions of words as they are used. Language changes, words change meaning. Dictionaries are updated accordingly.

      In fact I believe it was stated by people who work for the dictionary that the meaning of misogyny was being updated because its usage has changed in the last 30 years and the definition is out of date.

      People claiming otherwise are just attempting to use the redefinition of a word (which is a normal process) as a platform for a partisan attack. It disturbs me that at least 90% of the content on The Punch degrades into partisan attacks.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:01am | 20/10/12

      Phil S
      Problem is that only some people adhere to certain definitions, whereas the majority prefer to stick with the proper definition. Only feminists describe “misogyny” as “anything we disagree with because it doesn’t advance the cause of women as we have defined the cause of women”. The rest of us knew it was “hatred of women”.

      The definition of a word does change but only because the majority of society accepts and uses it in the new manner.

    • Ben says:

      12:28pm | 20/10/12

      @PhilS

      >In fact I believe it was stated by people who work for the dictionary that the meaning of misogyny was being updated because its usage has changed in the last 30 years and the definition is out of date.

      Of course. The timing of the amendment was completely coincidental. A Deirdre Chambers moment, one might posit.

      >People claiming otherwise are just attempting to use the redefinition of a word (which is a normal process) as a platform for a partisan attack.

      Ah yes, all reasonable people will agree with me, only unreasonable people will disagree with me. Gotta love those logical fallacies.

    • Esteban says:

      12:59pm | 20/10/12

      Phil S. In my opinion common usage amongst a small minority of the population (extreme feminists movements) plus its misuse on a couple of occasions (Clinton and Gillard) does not pass the common usage test.

      Most people don’t have a problem with the dictionary redefining words that have passed the common usage test.

      The timing of this particular revision has left the editor of the dictionary very open to accusations of being politically motivated.

      It might in reality be a strange coincidence that now is the perfect time to publish the revision however reality counts for nothing if the perception is a politically motivated female editor revising the meaning to assist the PM.

      Perception nearly always beats reality. I am surprised the editor of the dictionary wasn’t aware of that . Or perhaps she is and thought it was her time for her 15 minutes of fame!!

    • kml says:

      06:53am | 20/10/12

      Brilliant. A good laugh for a Saturday morning.

      Reply

    • Luc Belrose says:

      12:00pm | 20/10/12

      Macquarie should have stuck to misogyny (hatred for women). Anyway the whole undergraduate style debate that was going on last week in Parliament was a smokescreen forcefully put up by the PM to hide the paucity of policy achievements that would benefit the electorate at a time when the Swan budget is going into rough territory.

    • Samuel Johnson says:

      06:56am | 20/10/12

      It’s Awful of you to think definitions never change over time.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      01:30pm | 20/10/12

      I’m full of awe at your analysis.

    • Matchofbris says:

      06:59am | 20/10/12

      Hahaha, love it.

      Reply

    • B. says:

      07:03am | 20/10/12

      Unusually handsome man: 

      You forgot to redfine the word “marriage”, changing its long understood meaning as the ceremonial and lawful declaration of a heterosexual union between a man and a woman.

      Reply

    • QE2 says:

      07:05am | 20/10/12

      Come On Julie Bishop

      Reply

    • KimL says:

      07:07am | 20/10/12

      Meanings of words change all the time..for example..when I was young ..gay meant happy..well it still means happy but it also is used for homosexuals now.

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      07:17am | 20/10/12

      Happy homosexuals…....perhaps

    • Emmy says:

      07:44am | 20/10/12

      The meaning did not change, the homosexuals just hijacked the word in a bid to overcome the depressive state they found themselves in and the so called intelligentsia obliged them. Give yourself a title that means happy and you automatically become happy, or thats what they hoped would happen. Not sure it worked for many of them.

    • P. Walker says:

      08:13am | 20/10/12

      Dead right KimL but can you name any more?  This is a bit obvious since it was hijacked by the then “camp” crowd.

      When you say words change over time there is usually a transition when no one is noticing. After all the word fabulous had connotations to a pair of nuts hanging in a scrotum!  Think next time someone says that word to you.

      We don’t usually change a word because some idiot doesn’t know the meaning of it.  Such hyper bowl!

      Perhaps the word misogyny should be changed to Gillard, to remind us of this fool of a person.

    • Jane Goodluck says:

      10:33am | 20/10/12

      “We don’t usually change a word because some idiot doesn’t know the meaning of it.”

      Honing in on this, I was devasted to find it was quite easy to decimate the claim, as there are so many examples mitigating against it.

      And before you say “Here, here”, the first three have become pretty well entrenched in common use - the last two, maybe less so.

    • BHF says:

      01:02pm | 20/10/12

      Very funny Jane. Joe Hildebrand is being awfully disingenuous when he pretends that dictionaries decide on the meaning of a word. As you so cleverly illustrate it’s possible to watch as a word mutates over a generation of misuse, until voila, it has an entirely new meaning. For some time now misogyny has not only been used to mean hatred of women. It can mean that. But its more common meaning is the one the PM gave to it and all of the combined (and confected) outrage of the Coalition and the ragtag of others who’ve joined the chorus ain’t gonna change a thing.

    • Mike says:

      04:41pm | 20/10/12

      How about gay marriage ?  Most people I know who are married are pretty miserable in their own, so be careful what you wish for, you might just ALL feel miserable once you get married. smile

    • marley says:

      07:14am | 20/10/12

      Politics:  noun 1.” the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power”

      2.  activities associated with improving your preferred party’s standing in the polls by name-calling, quoting out of context, dirt-digging, misrepresenting one’s opponents’ policies, misrepresenting one’s own policies, operating focus groups 24/7 and astroturfing.  The noun “politics” is unrelated to the noun “policies” and has only a peripheral relationship to the near-obsolete noun “governance.”

      Reply

    • ghangadarin says:

      09:56am | 20/10/12

      Hang on though Marley didn’t you once make a fool of yourself by arguing that the term ‘persecution’ had not changed in the refugee convention and that therefore its meaning remained the same as it always was? The kind of mistake a first year law student would be wise enough to avoid? Too stubborn to admit error? Better redefine the debate. Better move forward.

    • marley says:

      11:30am | 20/10/12

      @ghangadarin - not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t recall ever arguing the definition of “persecution.”

      I have talked about the UN Convention definition of a “refugee,” the wording of which hasn’t changed since the Convention was written.  And since high court judges seem to be relying on that wording in their rulings, perhaps first year law students ought to as well.

    • Kipling says:

      01:59pm | 20/10/12

      I like these meanings they fit the broad use of the words.

      Of course I also think there is a third meaning

      3. being on board a gravy train for life regardless of competence, honesty, integrity or capacity to provide any value or worth to Australia either socially, morally or economically

    • maria says:

      02:58pm | 20/10/12

      Politics:  noun 1.” the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between “THE LEGAL MOBS “having power”to tax the working family.
      Tax = legal extortion.
      Convention = CON INVENTION or legal mobs meeting.
      Mafiacracy=21th democracy.
      “persecution.” to be happy under a mafiacracy.

    • Reader says:

      07:20am | 20/10/12

      This whole thing is Orwellian:

      1. Select a word with extremely negative connotations to describe your opponent. Suggested example: A word which implies that he hates an entire gender.

      2. Use word against opponent, even when not true.

      3. Change definition of word so it describes opponent’s alleged behaviour.

      Congratulations! Word now retains highly negative connotations of original definition, while technically covering opponent’s less outrageous behaviour.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      07:29am | 20/10/12

      Can someone please tell me when the Hildebrand English Dictionary goes on sale?

      I’ll buy it at a high price.

      Reply

    • OldBill says:

      07:31am | 20/10/12

      Dictionaries have always reflected changes in usage. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need to keep putting out new editions. Try comparing a current dictionary to one produced a few decades ago. However, the word ‘ignorant’ has retained the same meaning for some time and happens to be exemplified by the author of the current piece.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      01:34pm | 20/10/12

      Well, there are a lot of comments on this article so far that exemplify the meaning of the word “humourless” as well.

    • Jane Goodluck says:

      07:38am | 20/10/12

      I suppose we should see it as amusing that a professional journalist claims not to know what a dictionary - any good dictionary -  does.

      It reflects usage and sense. In the nature of things, never quite the most current usages and senses,  but at least recent common meanings - definitions if you must.

      Language, usage and sense change. Continually. Any good dictionary does too and will tell you so.

      [Above summarised loosely from the Compact OED 2nd Edn 1993]

      Claiming dictionary definitions as black/white, fixed forever entities is simply nonsense - a trap lurking for the unwary, and a temptation for the unscrupulous.

      But as a professional journo, you knew that anyway.  Still, you got your Sat column filled, with a good old dollop of sneer and smear at the expense of all and sundry inluding the Macquarie people.

      And pretty well bound to provoke a response of some sort. Any sort.

      Clap, clap, clap.

      Reply

    • CD says:

      10:13am | 20/10/12

      Another sense of humour missing,  seriously do you people look to be offended or are you just p8&&ed; off that someone writes a funny piece?

      Change your final words to
      Sneer, sneer, sneer.

    • Jane Goodluck says:

      12:36pm | 20/10/12

      So CD just skimmed the JH piece, rather than bothering to actually read it.

      Then makes that an excuse for a nice little Sat’dy am tanty.

      Well, didddums.

    • Rolls Canardly says:

      02:19pm | 20/10/12

      Janey (has moved to The Punch).
       
      Satire doesn’t sit well with the ALP cheerleader set, that I can understand. But, oh how hilarious it would be should the joke be one the dastardly Tones Abbott.
      “The Macquarie people” (whom as it turns out, with the exception of one bloke in his mid eighties, happen to be female), have sent a pretty remarkable invite out for reaction to what any sensible person could only ever call as a spot of misguided feminist politicking.
       
      A cursory observation of the political events immediately prior to this announced change is the only evidence needed to draw that conclusion.

    • Latika says:

      07:45am | 20/10/12

      Love it Joe but my apologies for bringing up these well documented words.

      “There will be no carbon tax under the Govt I lead”

      Etched on our foreheads
      Words that never should have been said
      Regrettably in harm’s way it can never be taken back

      Spoken words can be the cause of one’s downfall and it doesn’t matter how much you twist these words to suit your agenda it is never forgotten by those these words were said to. Regrettably so, you will be accused of dishonesty if the promise is not kept even if you try and say; “its only words and words is all I have to take your hearts away come elections.”

      Reply

    • sunny says:

      11:03am | 20/10/12

      “Context” is another good example of a word with a flexible definition.

      e.g. the following statement

      “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon.”

      When only the first section of this statement is quoted, it is not in context, but is nevertheless used by the quoter as the main basis of his political success. He has twisted a selected half of a complete sentence into his own context, despite the broader context being that the quotee had been trying for years and would have kept trying until she succeeded to put a price on carbon, as this was always her policy, and evidenced by the second half of the statement that is always conveniently omitted.

    • TimB says:

      11:38am | 20/10/12

      Yes Sunny, context does make things clear.

      So how about you start by putting an election eve statement in the context of an entire election campaign where it was repeatedly promised we wouldn’t get any form of carbon pricing without a comunity consensus first?

    • Achmed says:

      12:20pm | 20/10/12

      @Latika - then we have the new definition of the what is a tax brought to us by Abbott and his sycophant supporters.

      And a new definition for hypocracy.  ABBOTT - “if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more, why not ask electricity consumers to pay more”  Then he called the carbon price a “tax” and condemns it….
      His standard against introducing maternity leave soon took a trun when he saw political mileage…going for “never under any Govt I lead” to proposing a new 2% tax increase to fund a maternity program…

    • Wayne says:

      12:22pm | 20/10/12

      Perhaps we don’t have a GST which is a rate of 10% on purchases of goods and services. So if we say we have set a rate on purchases means we don’t have a GST? To say there will be no carbon tax means there will be no tax and we have one. Can’t get any more black and white than that.

    • Jane Goodluck says:

      12:40pm | 20/10/12

      I made much the same point, briefly.

      The Punch censored my post.

      Doesn’t alter the fact that the PM’s actual words were:
      “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon.”

      Said that, and did that. Her words.

    • Rolls Canardly says:

      12:53pm | 20/10/12

      Great post, Sunny. Can you provide a link to the extra bit, because I can’t seem to find any evidence anywhere of her adding those words to this…
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCwoj35d3M
       
      And speaking of conveniently omitting things, I think it’s a bit convenient that you seem to have omitted the other promise that Gillard broke about her intentions on taxing carbon dioxide, concerning the citizens assembly. You can read all about it here…
       
      http://bit.ly/dvzBTQ
       
      You were saying about ommission, and context?

    • Rolls Canardly says:

      12:54pm | 20/10/12

      Great post, Sunny. Can you provide a link to the extra bit, because I can’t seem to find any evidence anywhere of her adding those words to this…
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCwoj35d3M
       
      And speaking of conveniently omitting things, I think it’s a bit convenient that you seem to have omitted the other promise that Gillard broke about her intentions on taxing carbon dioxide, concerning the citizens assembly. You can read all about it here…
       
      http://bit.ly/dvzBTQ
       
      You were saying about omission, and context?

    • I hate pies says:

      01:32pm | 20/10/12

      Haha, so the carbon tax isn’t a tax now? I thought this had been discussed at length; even the government have admitted it’s a tax. But, for those that want to argue that the sky isn’t blue, here’s the definition of tax:
      “A tax or duty is a compulsory charge imposed on an individual or legal entity by a government or equivalent.”
      The difference between a tax and a price is a tax is levied by government. Therefore, the carbon TAX is a tax, carbon is priced under an ETS.
      Now, if someone can explain to me how the carbon “price” isn’t a tax, I’m all ears.

    • sunny says:

      02:33pm | 20/10/12

      TimB - we could have a discussion about community consensus and changed circumstances again, but my opinion hasn’t changed so can we walk down memory lane instead..

      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/punch-on-open-thread-31-08-2012/

      (PS took half an hour to find that thread- the search field is fairly useless for comments)

    • David M says:

      07:47am | 20/10/12

      Just love the cartoon and note that only one of those sheilas has done anything for the greater good of Australia!

      Reply

    • Mik says:

      07:52am | 20/10/12

      Rudded - stabbed in the back
      Rudstered - undermined
      Hypocrisy - accepted way of behaving
      Hyper bowl - very excited bowl
      misogyny - the incorrect spelling of msogyny

      Reply

    • petery says:

      08:06am | 20/10/12

      one of my mother’s favorite musicals popular in the 1920s was The Student Prince. a film version of it made in the 1950s has Mario Lanza in a prologue to a hearty drinking song leading a chorus of male students singing the opening lines ” Come boys, let’s all be gay boys..”

      I defy anyone to sing that line now without becoming even more cheerful in thinking about it’s implications.

      Reply

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:06am | 20/10/12

      Hi Joe,

      I totally love the list of words that you have come up with and what they may mean to us.  Done with lots intelligence, sense of humor and imagination, which happens to be really great.  My personal favorites were descriptions of “battlers” and “policy”  simply because they did make me laugh and think.  You do bring a whole new meaning to the term “little Aussie battlers”  and “government policies in general on migration, unemployment, mining tax, asylum seekers” among many other things.

      Does this all mean if we put up a strong fight for something like most battlers do, we will end up with the right policies and the right results?  Because deep down and inside we all happen to be a bit like the Aussie battlers at heart, right?  You did skip some other words such as misogynist and misogyny this time around?  There also has to be an expression of some kind to remind our politicians that it is time to change the topic and be done with personal attacks on each other, once an for all.

      Somehow I still would like our politicians to come up with some new verbs and nouns to describe their action strategies and policies concerning Australia and Australian voters directly.  It would really make a nice change to the current climate of Parliament House which is actually becoming like a Warner Bros film studio, with very high entertainment quality but certainly lacking substance!  Kind regards to your editors.

      Reply

    • Curmudgeon says:

      08:09am | 20/10/12

      Why redefine words when there is so much fun to be had in inventing new ones. How’s this for starters:

      Plibersektion: n.  the action of cutting into or dissecting a living body with a sharp tongue

      Reply

    • Mayday says:

      01:26pm | 20/10/12

      Swanning: v. to give the impression of being capable when clearly out of ones depth.

    • Achmed says:

      08:13am | 20/10/12

      Backflip;  Call climate change crap then agree it isn’t crap based on opinion polls or Change mind and party policy based on popularist politics as in “if you are going to put a price on carbon then the simplest way is with tax”, then when the other Party introduce a “tax” campaign against it.  There will be no maternity leave in any govt I lead, then propose a tax increase to fund maternity leave program.

      Reply

    • Esteban says:

      01:25pm | 20/10/12

      I am not going to defend the tax increase to pay for maternity leave because I think it is bad policy. bad for business and bad for the nation.

      But there is some honour in announcing a bad policy prior to an election and letting the electorate decide.

      There is no honour in specifically ruling out a policy just prior to an election then bringing it in without a mandate.

      The rest of the crap you have written is politics. Keating wanted a GST but Hawke wouldn’t let him because it would be electoraly damaging.

      When Hewson went to the election with a GST policy it was Keating who destroyed him despite believing in is heart it was the best policy for the nation.

      Do you hear coalition supporters bleating on about the hypocricy. No mate it is the dirty game of politics over national interest.

      Also I think you have yet to grasp the role of the opposition in our parliament. I truyly hope you get the wisdom one day. (I will give you a hint to go on with - it is something to do with the actual word opposition)

    • Achmed says:

      02:56pm | 20/10/12

      It is not the role of the Opposition to oppose the Govt.

      If that is their role then even if good legislation is proposed for the betterment of all Aussies, then based on your comment they must oppose it.  No matter how beneficial to Australia.

      This idea that the opposition is there to oppose Govt is aew and promoted by Liberals to justify Abbott negativity.  Purely hypocritcal and it does nothing to refect positively on the Liberal Party..just makes people look even more pathetic.  Find as many immature reasons as they can to make NO NO NO good opposition policy.

      I can only think you went to school during the Howard years of neglect because your cognitive skills are sadly lacking

    • Ben says:

      04:39pm | 20/10/12

      @Achmed

      >This idea that the opposition is there to oppose Govt is aew [new?]and promoted by Liberals to justify Abbott negativity. 

      Absolutely, Achmed. Tell me, what do you make of the following piece that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, 26 September 1986 (Simon Kent)?

      “The Westminster system is based on the premise that a successful Opposition must oppose the Government at every turn…”

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m sure Tony Abbott hadn’t even entered Parliament in 1986. Hello?

    • Dee Dee says:

      08:14am | 20/10/12

      Unusually handsome? Cute

      Reply

    • Damian says:

      08:59am | 20/10/12

      Well that brightened up my morning.

      Is “battler” a synonym for “working families”, “forgotten families”, and/or “aspirationals”?  Or do they mean “reasonably well-off and certainly better-off than they think they are people whose votes we would like to purchase”?

      Reply

    • Damian says:

      09:16am | 20/10/12

      Now we’re going to have to change some movies:

      “That’s not a wife, this is a wife”

      “he brought a gun to a wife fight”

      “So what do you need?  Besides a miracle?
      Wives, lots of wives”

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      09:26am | 20/10/12

      Australians are on to this word redefining..The left wants to hijack everything and anything it can to suit their social engineering agenda.
      How quick was misogyny redefined when No Labor minister could actually say that Abbott was a woman hater.
      Next of course we will have the redefinition of marriage which is currently,
      “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, ”
      Who gives these select few people the authority and power to redefine words just because we have an idiot PM who can’t speak or understand the language properly ?

      Reply

    • Null and Void says:

      11:46am | 20/10/12

      The PM is not the first one to use the word misogyny to describe someone with a long standing prejudice against women. The word evolved years ago and the dictionary nerds just caught up.

      The dictionary definition of sadism could do with a tweak too because I’d love to say most of you have sadistic political opinions but I doubt all of you have any sexual gratification with it. Instead I’ll just call you all tossers and to get a life and shut up about your political views and enjoy a funny article when you read one. Because those words all mean what they’re supposed to mean.

    • Rolls Canardly says:

      02:30pm | 20/10/12

      N & V
       
      evolved, according to old mate; Continually attributing an offensive term to someone with malicious intent to make an unwarranted slur the character of the recipient… “evolved”, eh?
       
      You lot make me laugh.

    • Petery says:

      10:18am | 20/10/12

      some people here are so boring. everything they write has to turn into an attack on Gillard or Abbot. What boring lives they must lead.
      @nick.
      are you in fact using the word idiot correctly by referring to Gillatd as such?  A Person of sub normal intelligence cannot put a sentence together, and at least Juila Gillard is capable of that. Like most politicians she could not put together a coherent lie if she was an idiot. I would argue that technically no politician could not possibly be both be a liar or an idiot in the literal sense.

      If you want to define what a real idiot is, just read most of the unsubstantiated political rants of some of the contributors here. just by looking in the mirror, they can tell you they can recognize a complete idiot when they see one.

      Reply

    • Joel says:

      02:08pm | 20/10/12

      Poor example.  The article was just feminist driven propaganda justifying the ridiculous decision to change the meaning of a word to support the PM.  For you to suggest it is merely just ‘coincidence’ this change was made (seemingly without due and proper process)  is frankly insulting to any person with the ability to read something and know when they are being swindled.  You are obviously a fervent supporter of Gillard and the ALP which is fine.  Good for you.  This is shown in your apparent need to reply to everybodies post because they dont agree with you and criticise your beloved PM.  Remember quantity is rarely quality.
      Some of us who are a bit more open minded and subjective though like to draw opinions and conclusions by observing peoples actions and words and then make an informed, unbiased judgement.  You choose to believe the hype, I dont.  What a wonderful thing democracy is!

    • Rosie says:

      10:41am | 20/10/12

      Breath of fresh Joe! If we could all lighten up how much easier life would be.

      - Aussie misogynist:

      In Australia male Opposition Leaders looking at their watches just before female PMs finish their attack on them.

      - Indian misogynist:

      In India Aussie female PMs dismisses Indian male PMs when they look at their watches before Aussie female PMs begin their sucking up speeches.

      Hypocrite - meaning please!

      Reply

    • Justin says:

      02:05pm | 20/10/12

      Hypocrite? Easy. Here you go, Rosie.

      “Rosie says: 04:07pm | 03/03/12

      Aust must first realize that they can’t just go about putting sanctions etc and not recognising that Fiji is under military rule and its people are now comfortable with it. This is something people like myself have come to realize.”

      Rosie says: 01:21pm | 19/10/12

      Oh goody, now the UN can stop the boats and tell China and India to get out of Fiji and stop aiding and encouraging the Bainimarama Regime to remain a dictatorship.”

    • C says:

      10:54am | 20/10/12

      Okay some of this is extremely funny but it does not mean that the Prime Minister used the word in the manner claimed. She knew exactly what the word meant and exactly what she was saying. This is why, please note, she has not repeated the statements outside parliament.
      Some words do change meaning over time. Language is a living, changing thing but the “added” or “expanded” definition of this word is nothing more than pure politicking - something lexicographers are supposed to avoid.
      It is one reason why I have concerns about the accuracy of the Macquarie Dictionary!

      Reply

    • M. Mouse says:

      11:04am | 20/10/12

      Miogyny comes from Greek, as does the word democracy, which has of course already been redifined to mean “Whatever it takes”. Direct translations, not open to interpretation, until people so poorly educated got to running the country and misused them..

      What other “newspeak” nonsense are we going to have to put up with before people wake up? This country gets more Orwellian every day…or haven’t people read 1984 either?

      Reply

    • M. Mouse says:

      12:28pm | 20/10/12

      Oops that should be spelt “Misogyny!”

    • Cat says:

      12:51pm | 20/10/12

      It’s all right Mouse. You are forgiven.
      Cat

    • MattyC says:

      11:53am | 20/10/12

      Another couple joe. Good laugh by the way

      Rusted on: a person who’s political persuasion doesnt match mine

      Smear: a political tactic that is used to disseminate information of dubious origins to discredit my side of politics.

      Accountability: a political tactic that is used to disseminate information of dubious origins to discredit my political opponents.

      As a: a phrase often used to replace, “I have never”. Eg: as a labor/liberal voter

      Reply

    • dobbo says:

      12:08pm | 20/10/12

      It’s the real world Joe…we gotta like it or lump it. I know many people who still grip over the highjacking of that delightful word “gay”. Is that going to change things? Probably not.  Anyway, methinks the real reason for your dissatisfaction lies elsewhere.

      Could it really be your main gripe (and many LNP supporters) is that the change in meaning of “misogyny”  (which would have eventually been accepted and implemented)  has had the process hastened by its very public airing by a significant figure ie the PM and in doing so has taken away a key plank of the argument used by those trying to discredit her very public demolition of one, Mr Abbott.

      Reply

    • Liberties with Truth says:

      12:16pm | 20/10/12

      I think you will find that the Oxford Dictionary had already changed the meaning & Macquarie was only just catching up to that.  Words change over time all always, particularly when it comes to common usage and connotation.  In fact, there was an article only last week (can’t remember where now) where that was explained.  An opinion from a columnist is fine, but you are actually a Journalist, so at least at the after poking fun at the change, you should have put in the note that it is not the only dictionary to change it AND that change had been done prior to the PM’s speech.

      Reply

    • Esteban says:

      01:40pm | 20/10/12

      I went onto the online Oxford dictionary where it was defined as “hatred of women”

      Do you have a different source of evidence that supports Oxford having already changed it?

      It is important because macquarie changing it first or following others is relevant to this issue.

    • Joel says:

      02:19pm | 20/10/12

      Really?  Before the PM’s speech?  Even if you prove this (which I challenge you to do) it does’nt change the fact that most thinking, objective people will question the timing of the Macquarie Dictionary coming public and making a big deal of it.  One would think that the job description of editor does not entail using the media to justify their decision in support of the PM.  Unless of course she is an ALP member.  If she does this for every word they change I’ll eat my words.

    • thistle says:

      12:35pm | 20/10/12

      A good cartoon.
      Reminds us how truly difficult it is to be a powerful woman.
      What an Affirmative Action Struggle it was for most of them.

      Change the meaning of a word?
      No problem -  they do it during smoko.

      Reply

    • David V. says:

      01:18pm | 20/10/12

      Multiculturalism: basically being an apologist for crime, laziness, domestic abuse, etc that has creeped into our society since the 1970s. And selling out ordinary people who never wanted it.

      Not to mention the cover-up of academic failures of certain groups in the UK, requiring the loweing of education standards.

      Reply

    • Joe201 says:

      01:42pm | 20/10/12

      Not a bad list, but you left off…

      Surplus: When a Government desires to achieve a positive cash position after expenditure but doesn’t necessarily achieve it.

      Reply

    • Louise says:

      02:29pm | 20/10/12

      brainwashing (noun) persuasive statement such as “Language changes all the time…”

      common usage (noun) what feminists say

      hard evidence   (noun) something that seems to support your position

      impartial (adj.) if you say so

      joe (adj.) (second meaning du jour) very funny

      feminist (noun/adj.) someone who calls Tony Abbott a misogynist

      macquarie (noun/adj.)  1. synonym for “Claytons” 2. ahead of the crowd 3. following the herd 4.  impartial

      misogynist (noun/adj)  what the Macquarie dictionary says

      persuasive (adj.) 1. not 2. Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.

      Reply

    • Mike says:

      04:21pm | 20/10/12

      Gillardised (verb) to believe one’s own untruths - see lies.
      Usage - OJ Simpson Gillardised the jury with his claims of innocence.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter