Post by pim on Oct 19, 2012 12:10:31 GMT 11
Being a word nerd by personal inclination, by education and by work history, I've always been interested in lexicography which is the craft of compiling a dictionary. In Australia historically we've always tended to prefer British dictionaries over American and that made good sense because Australian English, or AusE for short, has more historical links with BrE than with AmE. So the Oxford English Dictionary, or OED, has always been preferred in this country over Webster.
It was in the early 1980s that the first dictionary of Australian English was published. This was under the aegis of Macquarie University so it was called, and remains to this day, The Macquarie Dictionary. It was hailed as a great achievement and it was a recognition that AusE had "arrived" as a distinct national variety of Global English and not as some sort of inferior subset of BrE. As they said at the time "Bewdy bottler!"
To be honest I don't like the Macquarie much as a dictionary. Over all my years as an English teacher I found flaws and things to criticise, and preferred the Australian OED. I still hold that view. Chambers isa dictionary of BrE which I have always admired and respected and Collins is up there with the OED. There is no shortage of good alternatives to Macquarie. Macquarie has also published an Australian Englih style guide but in my view Cambridge University Press has put together a style guide of Australian English which leaves Macquarie for dead, and of course the ultimate guide for correct English usage has always been, and remains, Fowler's Modern English Usage.
So what is a dictionary? If you read/listen to the media lately you could be forgiven for believing that a dictionary is some sort of arbiter on what constitutes "correctness". If the dictionary says a word is used in this way and with that meaning, then it must be so. This view ascribes a prescriptive role to a dictionary - and it totally misunderstands the role played by lexicographers in compiling a dictionary. In fact a dictionary is a snapshot of a language at a given moment in time so rather than prescribing "correctness", a dictionary merely describes the way people use a language at a certain moment.
This brings us to the current kerfuffle over Macquarie broadening its meaning of misogyny. Personally I disagree with Macquarie but that's just my own point of view. I think misogyny is a much stronger word than sexism but before the Abbott-luvvies on the board think I've come over to their dark side I also think Gillard used misogyny correctly in its traditional sense when she called Tony Abbott a misogynist.
For Tony Abbott to trot out his wife and daughters to respond to accusations of sexism, and to plead that his chief of staff is a woman, is like a racist saying that some of his best friends are black. It only underscores Abbott's visceral sexism. But for Tony Abbott to dismiss abortion as "the easy way out" is not just offensive. I have family members who have had abortions and I'm very aware of the personal anguish they experienced. It is not a soft option and for a man to describee abortion as a soft option is not a statement made by somebody friendly to or sympathetic with an issue that a woman faces in a way no man ever could. To call this "sexism" doesn't cut it in my view. I think he crossed the line into misogyny when he made that statement.
Similarly when Abbott stood under signs calling Gillard a man's "bitch" and a "witch". I don't believe his denials and his claims that he didn't see the signs. His "precious Julia" speech to Partliament the next day about them, plus the leaked speech he'd made to the Liberal Party room about Gillard's unmarried status, shows a use of gross and heavily gendered language that really was/is about hate. No word, in my view, is more redolent of misogyny than "witch". The historical memory is still strong of how deadly for women the accusation of witchcraft could be and Tony Abbott willingly associated himself with it.
So if sexism is about gender prejudice, misogyny is definitely about gender hatred. I disagree with Macquarie diluting the meaning of the word and I believe Gillard had Abbott to rights in calling him a misogynist. That man has a problem with women and Labor should proclaim it loud and clear.
It was in the early 1980s that the first dictionary of Australian English was published. This was under the aegis of Macquarie University so it was called, and remains to this day, The Macquarie Dictionary. It was hailed as a great achievement and it was a recognition that AusE had "arrived" as a distinct national variety of Global English and not as some sort of inferior subset of BrE. As they said at the time "Bewdy bottler!"
To be honest I don't like the Macquarie much as a dictionary. Over all my years as an English teacher I found flaws and things to criticise, and preferred the Australian OED. I still hold that view. Chambers isa dictionary of BrE which I have always admired and respected and Collins is up there with the OED. There is no shortage of good alternatives to Macquarie. Macquarie has also published an Australian Englih style guide but in my view Cambridge University Press has put together a style guide of Australian English which leaves Macquarie for dead, and of course the ultimate guide for correct English usage has always been, and remains, Fowler's Modern English Usage.
So what is a dictionary? If you read/listen to the media lately you could be forgiven for believing that a dictionary is some sort of arbiter on what constitutes "correctness". If the dictionary says a word is used in this way and with that meaning, then it must be so. This view ascribes a prescriptive role to a dictionary - and it totally misunderstands the role played by lexicographers in compiling a dictionary. In fact a dictionary is a snapshot of a language at a given moment in time so rather than prescribing "correctness", a dictionary merely describes the way people use a language at a certain moment.
This brings us to the current kerfuffle over Macquarie broadening its meaning of misogyny. Personally I disagree with Macquarie but that's just my own point of view. I think misogyny is a much stronger word than sexism but before the Abbott-luvvies on the board think I've come over to their dark side I also think Gillard used misogyny correctly in its traditional sense when she called Tony Abbott a misogynist.
For Tony Abbott to trot out his wife and daughters to respond to accusations of sexism, and to plead that his chief of staff is a woman, is like a racist saying that some of his best friends are black. It only underscores Abbott's visceral sexism. But for Tony Abbott to dismiss abortion as "the easy way out" is not just offensive. I have family members who have had abortions and I'm very aware of the personal anguish they experienced. It is not a soft option and for a man to describee abortion as a soft option is not a statement made by somebody friendly to or sympathetic with an issue that a woman faces in a way no man ever could. To call this "sexism" doesn't cut it in my view. I think he crossed the line into misogyny when he made that statement.
Similarly when Abbott stood under signs calling Gillard a man's "bitch" and a "witch". I don't believe his denials and his claims that he didn't see the signs. His "precious Julia" speech to Partliament the next day about them, plus the leaked speech he'd made to the Liberal Party room about Gillard's unmarried status, shows a use of gross and heavily gendered language that really was/is about hate. No word, in my view, is more redolent of misogyny than "witch". The historical memory is still strong of how deadly for women the accusation of witchcraft could be and Tony Abbott willingly associated himself with it.
So if sexism is about gender prejudice, misogyny is definitely about gender hatred. I disagree with Macquarie diluting the meaning of the word and I believe Gillard had Abbott to rights in calling him a misogynist. That man has a problem with women and Labor should proclaim it loud and clear.
.
Glad they didn't find anything of danger. I've known several people who had cataract lazer surgery and they say it was the best thing they ever did for their eyes.