Originally Posted by DartagnanRed
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
No, this is incorrect. I can't believe I am referring to a dictionary, but this is the easiest way to demonstrate why this is not necessarily true. There are 6 different meanings here alone, and dictionaries don't capture the context of someone saying something. Hysteria CAN BE a pseudo-scientific diagnostic term popularised by the comprehensively discredited writings of one Sigmund Freud. Freud applied the term only to females. It also CAN BE a deeply sexist term. It can also be:
of, relating to, or characterized by hysteria
irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.
causing unrestrained laughter; very funny:
Oh, that joke is hysterical!
I note that the above definitions do not specifically capture your definition, which is absolutely legitimate, depending on the context in which it is used.
See Coxie, this is my point entirely, you are applying your own interpretation to Steve's Price use of the word. You may well have decided that because Steve Price is part of the mainstream white talkback media, that he mean to denigrate Van Badham for being a woman. But, you have no proof of this, indeed Price specifically said that he would have used the same term if Van Badham was a man and he was referring to specifically definition number 2, which he may have been incorrect on. You (and most of the media) have decided that was he said was sexist, even if he had no intention (consciously or unconsciously) of being sexist. Either you believe Price actually did intend to be sexist, or you have completely divorced language from intent. Unless you have proof or good reason to believe Price was being sexist, the best you can do is tell him he probably should have avoided using a loaded word just for reasons of courtesy, in the same way that white people might say the word nigger under their breath when singing song lyrics, or wizards avoid saying Voldemort.
Consider the scenario in which I accuse Price of referring to Van Badham as hysterical, meaning "causing unrestrained laughter; very funny". This would be just as legitimate as accusing him of being sexist, and equally incorrect because I am ignoring context and intent.
Again, incorrect, I did not say that. But it depends on what you mean by "held to account". If you mean others should be able to call out bad ideas and speech in the marketplace of ideas, yes I agree. If you mean people deemed of not meeting the "standard" of speech should be forced to make public apologies for things that they didn't even do, then no I do not agree. We all know Maguire didn't intend to be violent, we all know he didn't apologise for his actions thinking he had made a mistake, he just had to do so to save face in this strange world we live in. If someone were inciting violence, then this would be a different matter, and perhaps invite some sort of censorship.
Most of your argument I accept. But violence towards women by men (indeed, violence towards people by people, but let's put that broader subject aside for the purposes of this debate) is a very real issue, one which Australian society is in the process of coming to grips with and trying to conquer. It's very much in the public mind, as it should be.
Let's consider for a moment your "N" word example. It's a good example. One hundred years ago, it was just a hillbilly mispronunciation of a Spanish word meaning "black". But it has come to mean something very different. It is generally accepted - well, by most people - that in modern usage, this is a word which demeans and humiliates African-Americans, and as such, it is offensive; those who wilfully use it, collude in some way in the validation and hence perpetuation of anti-black racism. I've been called out on it myself, when I posted a GIF with that word in it on this site, and rightly so.
So here we have Mr Maguire, just being a bit of a lad and a buffoon, getting a bit carried away and cracking what he thought was a harmless joke in exceedingly poor taste. And yes, in a locker room that would be fine - sort of. Actually not even in a locker room. Because in that locker room, all the "good ole boys" would laugh and high-five each other, and their overall mindset might just slip a little further away from the renunciation of violence towards women.
The problem here is that feeble-minded individuals are easily influenced. Whether it's the Footy Show or the Science Show or the Hour of Worship, it's public broadcasting. It doesn't matter whether any women were listening. It's not about offending an audience, it's about influencing them. This is why I believe it appropriate that Maguire be "called to account" for his words.
Anyway, my understanding is that he did offer the lady broadcaster - Caroline or Catherine somebody - an apology of sorts, so I guess he's off the hook. Now, if Sam Newman and Steve Price wish to spring to Eddie's defence in general terms by saying "listen people, Eddie's a great guy, what he said was dumb, but he's apologised, OK? So let it go." - well, that's fine. But for them to start characterising the public abhorrence of Eddie's remarks as hysterical overreaction - sorry but no, I can't stomach that.