Which is more deragatory: Redskins or “b***h?

Recently there has been a lot of news about the Washington Redskins having their trademark protection yanked for the term being derogatory. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking time from demonizing the Koch brothers to demand (in his whiny voice) the icky name be changed.

Yet, while the trademarks folks find Redskins to be to awful to be uttered, they have no b***h with the word “b***h”.

So, what percentage of women find the term “b***h” to be derogatory and offensive?

I daresay it would be at least equal to the percentage of Indians who object to the term Redskins.

So, then why is it perfectly OK to use the word “b***h” in a trademark? A quick search of the trademark site located 972 records.

So, which is worse: Redskin or b***h?

I know that if I used the latter term in my office in the presence of female coworkers it could be quite detrimental to my career, while mentioning the name of sports teams is normal office chatter.

If a man went up to a woman on the street and referred to has a “b***h” she would likely NOT take it as a compliment.

As for the trademark issue with the DC football team, I have two conclusions: 1. It is not a concern for the U.S. Senate; and 2. If it is that offensive then the solution is to organize a boycott of the team. If the owner sees empty seats at his games, then the market will have spoken.

I also wonder how many of the politico’s now calling loudest for the name change had no problems watching games (especially if the lobby paid).


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: