Anyone familiar with deconstructionist literary theories could easily tell you that the reviewer named "A reader" (the one who went on the anti-feminist rant and used the word "spokesbitches") is:

(a) Definitely not female (as s/he claims)
(b) Writing a review that is of and about this book in ways the reviewer, quite comically, will never understand.

Read this book, "The Language of War"--along with some Derrida, Lacan, Fineman, Greenblatt, and Bretzius--and you'll be able to see through such mis-uses of language too.

Language matters a lot. If you want to know how the rightwing media and government seduce the American people by playing the victimization game even while robbing the hard working class and want to win the real war against fascism, this book is for you. There is no question that be it OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Laci and Scott Peterson, Chandra Levy and Gary Condit, Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, Terri Schiavo, and other frivolous stories in the media, this book pretty much nails why this kind of unimportant bs beats the dangerous reality such as Iraq war failure and national debts. Time to reframe and smack out the distractors in the media and face reality.

Question: How many feminists does it take to drive a car forward?
Answer: Feminists have such backwards politics that they can't drive forward. They can only drive in reverse.
I was assigned this book in class and it gave me a lot of insight into the moldy mind of my professor. I am 21. She is 58. She is an intellectual relic from another age and I think her mind has not grown since she began to teach.
1) there isn't any, I repeat, ANY research in this book. This is a set of opinions. The author did no surveys, no studies, no experiments. It is one LONG editorial. This might work in a humanities department where everyone is making a living by pointlessly dissecting Sylvia Plath for the millionth time but it deserves absolutely no respect from anyone else in the world. Hint: GET SOME SCIENCE BACKGROUND!!!! DON'T IMAGINE WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT SOMETHING, GO OUT AND GATHER DATA!!! This annoys me because older feminists are always assuming they know what women want and what they think. HELLO!!!?? Did anyone ask any women what they thought or felt? I mean women under the age of 35, not the old bags who run women's studies departments. Of course not!! If they did, every one of their assumptions would be destroyed. Most of the women I know are sexually active, career oriented AND politically right of center on most issues except child care and abortion. Stop electing yourselves as spokesbitches for us younger women. OK??
Also, stop with the tired tropes from a generation ago. I am sick of this nonsense with the tired language and terminology. I have news for you: AS SOON AS YOU USE DECONSTRUCTIONIST CLICHES MY EYELIDS START DROOPING. Speak in plain english.
I am not really sure what is and isn't politically correct but I do know this: I know a lazy intellectual avoiding mental exertion with cliches when I see one and THIS AUTHOR IS ONE!!!!

A deconstructionist I am not. I get uncomfortable around such phrases as "interpretive framework" and "language community." While this book is deconstructionist in style, it didn't feel as akward as, say, reading Derrida. Much of her thesis, in fact, seemed quite the domain of common sense - almost as if the author was trying to say radically what might have been explained better non-radically.

In "Language War," Dr. Lakoff presents her thesis that much more of public policy (than we realize) is not a war of ideas or policy-solutions, but of WORDS; more than we think, language drives our perception of the state of national debate in the policy arena. She goes on to explore, for instance, how a term like "politically correct" originally used sardonically by the left, has become a word used by the right to demonize the same left. Dr. Lakoff "deconstructs" how language and how it was used played a huge part in the Thomas/Hill affair, has helped shape Hilary Clinton's (then) negative image, and the ebonics scandal in Oakland.

In a sense, Dr. Lakoff makes many decent (I hesitate to say 'good') points. A key idea of hers (that most examples attempt to back) is that she who is first to define how a term is used - the sardonic uses of "communist," "politically correct," and, yes, "deconstructionist" - is she who sets the 'ground rules' for the debate. Dr. Lakoff also sensitizes us to exactly how many seemingly trivial language tricks are NOT trivial, but highly effective - the use of "we" in political pundit's articles to connote the illusion of audience solidarity, or the political 'apology' that is not: "I'm sorry the media took me out of context."

But did we not know this on some level? Was it not obvious, to some degree, that elections are run more by rhetoric than ideational concerns? Did we not realize that much of what political pundits and spin-doctors do is play a "war of language" with eachother? (After all, founders like Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson were quite brilliant at it.)

I guess on some level we certainly DID know these things. But Mrs. Lakoff provides an enlightening 'stroll through the newspaper' driving the point home that how we use language - even the details - have a huge effect on public discourse.

While one star is subtracted for the sheer silliness of some of these essays (does anyone CARE how language was used in the O.J. trial, or the Thomas/Hill scandal?) the other was for the authors extreme left bias. In fairness, she admits this right in the introduction - she comes out and says it: "I'm a lefty." But sometimes this forces her to engage in language games of her own. At one point, even, when talking of Clarence Thomas's history on the bench, she talks of the republicans having been "forced" to bring on black judges - yes, the word she used is 'forced.' Forced by whom? (Answer: it was rhetorical!) Other times, she simply applies her theory unevenly: conservatives demonization of the word 'politically correct' was attrocious, but liberals demonizing of the word 'reactionary' was simply...well...justified. So much for trying to argue honestly. While I am no republican, I was quite struck by some of her more gauche moments of bias.

Anyway, read the book anyway; if anything, it will ensure that you never look at language (whether you want to include ebonics or not) again.

Some events you experience directly. Most events you learn about, usually by listening to someone or by reading an account. Because of this, who tells you the story and how that person tells it is important. If you interrupt a fight between two children, you usually expect them to tell different stories about who started the fight and why. In the terms Robin Lakoff uses, multiple narrators frame the story in different ways.

Lakoff's central thesis is that many of our most recent political and social conflicts involve the use and ownership of language and discourse, often as the central point of the "war." This is immediately obvious in the chapters concerned with the history and usage of "politically correct" and speech codes and on the role of Ebonics in education. As Lakoff herself admits, her thesis is more controversial when she discusses the other topics in the book: Clarence Thomas & Anita Hill; public perception of Hillary Rodham Clinton; the O.J. Simpson Trial; and the Clinton-Lewinsky-Starr imbroglio.

Lakoff embraces a post-modernist view of language and its use: the speaker's use of language can shape perceptual reality. Words have power and who defines a word is important. As Lakoff argues, many of the assumptions underlying Standard American English derive from the views and experience of a particular constellation of economic, social and ethnic groups, primarily white and led by men. As various minority groups have become more influential or have greater access to center-stage, standing assumptions are challenged. And when the status quo changes, those who liked it react strongly.

Lakoff also reminds us that who gets to talk and ask questions and what are allowable questions and answers is an important practical concern in linguistics. Thus, when considering Hill and Thomas, she is less immediately concerned with the facts than with what questions were asked of whom and how the media and the Senate Judiciary Committee depicted those involved. The depiction of Anita Hill depended in part on a set of definitions of who women are and how they may behave, i.e., on a common understanding of English and its meaning, whether or not this matched reality.

Lakoff writes in a very clear and pleasant style. While she uses linguistic terms throughout the work, she does so in a way that does not overwhelm the non-specialist reader, but also assumes a level of intelligence and ability to learn. Her chapters form coherent wholes, incorporating sufficient background to supplement what knowledge we already have of each incident. Most readers should find something of value in Lakoff's work, even if they don't find it as compelling an argument as others.

The Language War is particularly apropos for those who read or write reviews on Amazon. Lakoff briefly discusses the reviews of It Takes a Village and the techniques used by those who didn't care for Rodham Clinton, regardless of the merit of the book.