It's not what you know, but who you know

Much like the wars of our fathers of yesterday and our brothers of today, the outcome of Robin Lakoff’s “Language War” depends on who is wielding the sword. In the hands of a skilled and feared soldier, a sword can level a battlefield of opponents; but in the trembling grip of a boy quickly turned killer, a sword is nothing more than a clumsy, heavy burden to the one who holds it.
Throughout the Language War, Lakoff emphasizes it is not just what is said, but who says it. In one example, Lakoff describes the politics involved in hiring university staff. One candidate may be more qualified, but the other is a woman, and to satisfy the quota, the university hires the woman. In this case, it didn’t matter what each candidate said, it only mattered that one was a woman.
While on the surface Lakoff describes to her readers scenarios which individuals fight for his or her words to be heard. Underlying all her examples Lakoff, however unknowingly, feeds to her readers the importance of who said over what is said. Take for example her introduction. Throughout she searches for a definitive characteristic of the “linguistics,” but she leaves the reader with a brief overview of her liberal viewpoints rather than lead them into the first discussion with several possible definitions. She laid the groundwork for her readers who are potentially susceptible to her “liberal” views to accept her arguments by stating that she is a “liberal.” By defining what she is, rather than letting her arguments define her, Lakoff has successfully won the attention of a certain demographic of readers, and more hopefully the attention of those who will take her arguments to heart.