Change by Redefinition
I was reminded of this last week overhearing a conversation between two women walking along the footpath, “Have you noticed how people are changing the meaning of words?”
Ok, some of us have been aware of this mischief for years if not decades in the legal games of the country.
I see we are back to it again with,
Growing up, this was a word in the dictionary that I’d never heard of. It had never occurred to me once during my formative years that someone might have a “hatred of women” which was the simple definition.
I’ll leave you to engage your favorite search engines to see how that has expanded in various directions during the epoch of gender politics.
That’s not to say that there weren’t some rather vicious female personalities that it was better to simply avoid, whatever the source of their venom – it was regarded as a personality issue rather than a hatred of men. I don’t recall anyone I knew having a hatred for females in general.
This redefinition of misogyny underpins the feminist ideology of no women shall attack another women. They all need to stick together especially when the pack goes hunting a man.
The principle of course defies logic in that the credibility of one’s occupation and opinions can be tested if you are a man but not if you are a woman.
Women criticising other women is now regarded as unacceptable misogyny rather than peer review or professional opinion or critique of any form.
Of course at present our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern is rightly or wrongly on the receiving end of a solid amount of covid-criticism around the current covid predicament.
It’s noticeable extended to racism as well. This was very visible this week when comment on policing was sought from former MP Paula Bennett, rather than any of a number of current and relevant members of Opposition parties.
You’ve got it. Let the criticism come from a Maori women and see what happens.
This affects our media standards and the quality of the content when female writers produce substandard copy which is primarily attack politics rather than reliable news.
Then we can only attack the women who wrongly attacked another woman because stamping out this misogyny is far more important than social debate.
It’s a madness, lunacy, an insanity that now has women yelling at each other rather than abusing men for daring to have an opinion hence nothing gets resolved because the relevant issues remain undisclosed.
The number of women who have been significantly and adversely impacted by covid find themselves unrepresented much like many men in the past when politicians have conveniently avoided social responsibilities.
The idea that Ardern might own some pedestal of privilege beyond criticism isn’t going down too well, and the same for Potu Williams.
Covid may yet have a silver lining for men’s issues and a general broadening of horizons about this political culture that has been allowed to cause us so much disharmony.
Maybe Labour identify Louisa Wall as a man.
Is that why the collective we doesn’t apply to her?
It’s not only giving definition to things, but creating consequences for them.
At some point the word didn’t exist, neither the consequences.
Slowly, it created a dictionary meaning.
Now it exists, a person can be measured.
The smallest infraction, and the label can be applied.
I have found myself, covered in labels.
What’s interesting, is it’s women vs women.
The author even calls the other women, misogynists.
The title implies somehow, that the women are manipulated.
So in effect there is two sides, of the argument.
Women work like men, and raise children.
Or women don’t work, and raise children.
The women who don’t work, are called misogynistic.
Yet if your selling an easy life, the misogynist women win.
Feminists sell slaving away life, as necessary to survive.
How the hell did society cope, just 70 years ago.
When misogynistic society, was normal.
And incidentally, only one income was needed to support a family.
Now two incomes, can’t even get the deposit for a house.
Economists love feminism, as it creates growth.
It slowly, increases the numbers working.
Increasing purchasing power, so prices can rise.
But even the policy, of forcing women into work.
From a society, where they didn’t need to work.
Has its limits, as they run out of women to convert.
Which is interesting, as maternity leave is therefore misogynistic.
Yet feminists, think the bigoted policy is great for women.
And at no point does the article, talk of the role for men.
To feminists, men just need to continue being slaves to work.
With no childcare responsibility, or need to change culture.
The women obligated, to work and parent.
Feminists think they win, with expectations of twice as much from women.
While the misogynistic women, sell a more realistic life.