I don't find the issue silly, and I don't see it as a liberal issue. It is a significant discussion regardless of your conclusions on what is being discussed.

But then again, I'm a big, hair liberal. :)

Well, generally, Brittney, it is liberals who spend their time being offended by innocuous words and discussing the "social constructs" of such things. But, judging from some of the photos from Bonnaroo that you linked to, I'm guessing you aren't among the easily-offended wing of the liberal set.

I meant to say big, hairy liberal.

Here is what I had to say. http://www.news2wkrn.com/nit/archives/2005/06/one_word_to_div.html

"...it is liberals who spend their time being offended by innocuous words and discussing the "social constructs" of such things."

Bill, it's sad to see you descend to the right's anti-intellectual approach to the study of social issues. You may not personally care for the issue or disagree with my point of view, but the role of language in culture and society is absolutely a legitimate subject of inquiry, and thinking conservatives know it. Marrying complex, subtle issues with invective against "liberals" is the kind of thing I expect from the Tom DeLays of the world, but I thought you were better than that.

Yes, but you're applying that "intellectual" approach in a very silly case, one that has already been completely exposed as stupid once Liz revealed she, not the writer, chose that word. The whole point of the attack on the piece was that it was a male author using a specific adjective allegedly to objectify women. But a female editor put the word in the story. Once that point was known, the rest of the debate was just silliness.

Bruce --

Bill is right on this one. The folks over at TGW--one of them anyway--have ended up making utter fools of themselves. If they were truly interested in exploring "the role of language in culture and society," using this example as starting-off point, that's fine, but it demands some intellectual honesty when new facts arise. This the woman in question did not do. At that point, it devolved from an intellectual discussion to a name-calling screed. She wasn't interested in discussing a point--she was interested in scoring points. And you keep helping it along, with the audacity of claiming the intellectual high ground.

One of the key differences between conservatives and liberals is that, while we were all taught the truth that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me," only the conservatives actually believe it.

So someone used the word "breasted" as an alternative to saying "female." Whooptydo. Even less whooptydo once you learn that it was a female editor who pu the word in the Scene's story.

Nobody got hurt, and nothing was damaged except the psyche of some hyper-sensitive liberal who didn't want to be reminded that she was a she.

How do such hyper-sensitive people function? I would suggest she he that person not ever visit the Grand Tetons. You could really spoil a trip to the mountains by wasting time discussing the "social constructs" of the language of the French trappers who named them.

As I have argued over at PITW (I can't believe I'm commenting on one blog about what I said on another; get-a-life alarm bells ringing big time), the fact that the word was inserted by a female editor is not particularly relevant to the real subject of the intersection of language and sexism. The case is hardly silly -- it is small and isolated, but certainly relevant to this broader, difficult issue that Bill dismisses as somehow connects with liberal hypersensitivity. He's entitled to do so, of course, so perhaps we agree to disagree, man to man.

"Isolated", the Teatons surely are, but "small" they are not. I agree with the French trappers: those Teatons really are Grand.

(dismissing hypersensitivity one post at a time)

Not quite. If the byline had a womyn's name (like Rigoberta Abramson) I'm betting dollars to diaphragms that there wouldn't have been a mention. See Will & Grace rule.

I just want to point out that hyper sensitivity and extremist views are not exclusively "liberal". The righties have some psychos on their side too.

"But a female editor put the word in the story. Once that point was known, the rest of the debate was just silliness."

She put the word in a column with a male byline. All I did was write about how distracting the reference to a woman's breast is in a place where I certainly would not expect to find it. When it happens on the street or the workplace, it's no surprise. Unlike most of the commentors on this subject I am actually one of the 'breasted' people. What do I know?

The fact that it was an editorial decision is actually worse, in that it means we are not talking about one insensitive writer, but rather the policy of the paper.

Heck, I've never had so many hostile visitors to my blog as the Scene, er I mean Pith, sent. Next time I'm going to critique you Bill, you send nicer people.

Kevin, I've been reading your posts all night. I believe at one point, you compared me to a nazi and a facist.

Listen to a lot of Limbaugh, do you? Your points are not worth responding to.