Words worth?

[merseymouth]

Morning all, A simple question from an old, stuck in the past duffer. Why some people in these changing times insist that the meaning of words have changed so say get on with the new meaning! Yet they also hang on to the original singular meaning of a given word, hypocrisy or what?
I say this because the slating Dominic Raab has been given over the word "Misogyny".
An old duffer like me knows very well the original meaning of it, but when DR made a reply that attempted to include a greater degree of latitude. He has been confronted with people saying it can only ever apply to "Women"!
But as we are constantly bombarded with pressure on the meaning of a words that has been specific for eons? "WOMAN/WOMEN"?
One is now faced with words being extremely movable in meaning, with serious abuse being generated when people try to continue using the original word/meaning combination. The entire transgender agenda is dedicated to making chalk mean cheese, with many issues ensuing!
I write this a person who believes that we need to have a clearly recognizable vocabulary, with clarity at all times, but in these ultra changeable times it is ruddy difficult to actually converse without heat being generated.
I don't like the blame game being employed, particularly when it comes to such serious issues as the attacks being carried out on individuals, albeit misogynistic, homophobic, racist, in fact all such attacks without attaching labels.
But with the sexualization of so much in society one must always be accountable for our own standards & actions - I am equally offended by ridiculous dress in public, which must include beachwear style clothing in non beach areas, bikinis/extreme wear to leave nothing to imagination when out in public, but most strongly I must include the persons who think a "Mankini" is appropriate clothing for public exposure!
I'm sure to be called a prude, but society is not a safe place when people fail to understand that every action can have very repercussions, very much along the lines of some people believing they have the right to take anything they want, even if if means the oppression or worse for others, Sara Everard didn't push those boundaries, but someone who who was guided by a warped moral compass decided he could act as he wish without recourse, very sick, but the exploitation of female images for commercial/pornographic purposes has certainly changed the ground rules.
With words being misused/abused what guidance is available to get us to a point in society that all may feel free and safe? Pax MM

[Mick F]

I heard on the radio recently, that someone was "guilty of misogyny".
Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.

[Mike Sales]

I heard on the radio recently, that someone was "guilty of misogyny".
Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.

"Guilty" is often used of actions which are not a crime.

justly chargeable with a particular fault or error.
"she was guilty of a serious error of judgement"
conscious of, affected by, or revealing a feeling of guilt.
"he felt guilty about the way he had treated her"

[Mick F]

No, it was talking about a murder.
The announcer said, guilty of misogyny - not murder.

[Mike Sales]

No, it was talking about a murder.
The announcer said, guilty of misogyny - not murder.

I am afraid I do not follow your argument.
What is it you object to?
As I pointed out "guilty" of a non-criminal fault is quite normal usage.

[Mick F]

Sorry, I may not have made my point clear.

Not sure about they were discussing Sarah Everard's murder or not, but it was the murder of a woman.

The criminal was guilty of murder, but the announcer said he was guilty of misogyny ......... as if he was making murder and misogyny words as similes.

[Mike Sales]

Sorry, I may not have made my point clear.

Not sure about they were discussing Sarah Everard's murder or not, but it was the murder of a woman.

The criminal was guilty of murder, but the announcer said he was guilty of misogyny ......... as if he was making murder and misogyny words as similes.

I see.
If the person broadcasting made the implication that the killer was guilty of misogyny, but not of murder, this was indeed a serious mistake.
I rather understood that you were objecting to calling somebody guilty of an action which is not criminal.

I heard on the radio recently, that someone was "guilty of misogyny".
Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.

One at least of us is guilty of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

[Stevek76]

Why some people in these changing times insist that the meaning of words have changed so say get on with the new meaning! Yet they also hang on to the original singular meaning of a given word, hypocrisy or what?

Words change through a messy process of societal consensus. As part of that process, those trying to pioneer new uses or cling on to old ones are liable to get a bit of stick, particularly if that usage is seen as daft, unhelpful or superfluous. In this case, given that a perfectly suitable word, misandry, already exists for what he was trying to extend to misogyny to cover and other words exist that are applicable to both (sexism) I don't think Raab is going to have much luck.

There are also areas of communication that are more appropriate ground for change than others, legal matters probably isn't one of those.

[merseymouth]

Gentlemen, Please mind your language, and specifically the use of "Flexible Words", it may get us into trouble! .
Misogyny is an attitude of mind, but for a more equitable and safer society we must try to avoid inflammatory language & attitudes. Not that such has appeared yet in this thread.
Sadly I believe that the media in general leaps into absurd pillorying over words and attitudes merely me very narrow, disruptive agendas.
I don't wish to offend or humiliate anyone, nor to control. All are equal in my eyes until they present evidence to the contrary.
But I do wish that this process could avoid re-cycling our accepted language to present something beyond the dictionary meaning, the title "Hate Crime" is correct and acceptable, as it is universally accepted wording for inappropriate behaviour or attitude. Keep going all. MM
* Hi Stevek76, did you learn to read using Webster's Dictionary, rather than "Janet & John"? Nice word misandry, encompassing, apt. MM

[Audax67]

It's not just that words have acquired extra meanings, it's that some people think they have the right to make others bend to their will on pain of being accused of causing offence. Witness the little tosser I read of the other day who announced to its teacher that in future it wished to be referred to as he/she: one can imagine the brickbats flying should Teetcher put a foot wrong when writing to its parents. (You'll notice that I have obliged it with a more succinct non-binary pronoun.)

It's this idea of entitlement that gets up my nose: the thought that one individual's whim can, or must, make the rest of us dance. It's pernicious scrotum content on a level with Orwell's Thought Police. There are times when, in Stephen Fry's words, the best response would be "So ----ing what?"

[mattheus]

People twist the meanings of long-accepted words to support their agenda.

"accident" is a common one discussed on The Cycling Internet. Everyone knows what it means ... well, they THINK they do! If you publicly call something "an accident", you better have your flame-proof coat on.

[DaveReading]

I heard on the radio recently, that someone was "guilty of misogyny".
Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.

I agree with you - whoever it was, they were guilty of sloppy logic.

[Oldjohnw]

Misogyny is not a new word, nor is it being given a new meaning. In the recent very public case - and in many others - misogyny, which though not a crime in itself (although you can be guilty of it) has lead to some of the most awful crimes. What has brought them so much to our notice is that these crimes were committed by serving police officers, often in the course of their duty. And then the police authorities have glossed over them.

So we are seeing a move from misogyny to institutionalised misogyny, where it is deemed ok to treat women badly. The Justice Secretary was pilloried because he made a complete fool of himself by his idiotic use of a word which has a very specific meaning, and further, by his deflecting the impact of the current tragedy by saying women shouldn’t do it either.

How people can defend that is beyond me.

[Mike Sales]

I heard on the radio recently, that someone was "guilty of misogyny".
Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.

I agree with you - whoever it was, they were guilty of sloppy logic.

Would you be kind enough to point out how this sloppy logic worked.
As I keep on pointing out, you can be guilty of acts which are not crimes.
For instance, Johnson is frrequently guilty of lying, but not in a way which is deemed criminal.

[Stevek76]

People are having a go at him as it's just another sign that Raab, like most of the cabinet, is rather dim, and elevated into a job well beyond his competence.

This is hardly the first time he has demonstrated this.