Beware pundits who paint with broad brush

“What,” Janet asked, “is a misogynist?”

The word was being bandied about on a TV panel show.

“A man who disdains women,” I answered, feeling puffed up and superior, which, to be honest, was a tad misogynistic, though unintended, given the circumstance.

“Wait!” I added. “Let me look it up to be sure I am not missing something.”

Turns out I was missing a lot. Here is what the dictionary said: “Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or deeply ingrained prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny is manifest in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism (focused on men), patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women ... ”

And, one must presume since the word is used often in a political context, someone who favors men over women in the voting booth or a public official who acts against the interests of women.

So what was the woman on the panel calling the candidate: A woman hater?

A wife beater? Someone who consults only with men?

Someone who considers men superior to women?

Or something in between? The spectrum is broad, and endless.

Janet weighed in again: “Why,” she asked “do they have to come up with an obscure word for that?”

I had no answer? Why, indeed? It is important to say what misdeed is alleged, but also to leave it to the listener to give it a label.

Otherwise, the English language becomes another victim of the predominant hatred that characterizes today’s political discourse, along with civility, truth and honest debate.

You can call someone a misogynist and the listener will have no idea what you mean. One suspects that the person who is making the accusation is often equally ignorant.

It is like calling a political foe a crook, inept, a stooge of the right, or left, or even a liberal or conser- vative.

As a lifelong journalist I cringe when I hear such lack of specifics. The characterizations by generalities is one more, albeit slightly more subtle, layer of dishonesty. Generalities are close to outright lies.

Most legitimate reporters in my day would not do that; we were taught to seek facts and let the reader deal with them. Generalities risk polluting a lazy mind or being dismissed by an inquisitive one.

TV commentators and panelists are the most often guilty of these distortions, mainly because they do not have the knowledge to do otherwise.

It is akin to the tussle last Sunday between the Patriots’ Tom Brady and the Packers’ Aaron Rodgers. It, too, was a lie. The quarterbacks are never on the field at the same time. They do not compete against one another.

It was Brady against the Packers’ defense and Rodgers against the Patriots’ defense. The only truth is Brady and his team beat Green Bay.

Stop believing TV panelists and sportscasters.