Serious A Women's Group Wants to Ban the Word "Bossy"

[elcheeso]

Genuinely interested if anyone actually bothered visiting those pages I linked. I can only assume no since people are being "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BOYS" or seemingly thinking that there's some sort of legal action that would ban music videos, or thinking this is purely about a word. From the studies linked in the pdfs:

By middle school, girls are 25% less likely than boys to say they like taking the lead.1

Ninety-two percent of girls believe they can learn the skills required to lead—yet only twenty-one percent believe they already possess them.2

DID YOU KNOW? In a comprehensive study of adolescents and their families, parents of seventh graders placed greater importance on leadership for boys than for girls.4

DID YOU KNOW? The confidence gap starts young: Between elementary school and high school, girls’ self-esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys’.5

Parents often place greater value on the chores boys typically perform, like mowing the lawn, than on chores that girls usually do, like folding laundry or dishwashing.6

DID YOU KNOW? The wage gap starts at home: Girls get paid less than boys for household chores.7

DID YOU KNOW? Both boys and girls think it’s easier for men to become leaders.9

DID YOU KNOW? Girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that leadership roles will make them seem “bossy.”8

Research has shown that father figures can have a significant impact on a girl’s ability to trust, enjoy, and relate well to the boys and men in her life.10 Girls whose fathers are positively involved in their lives also tend to have higher self-esteem and be more willing to try new things.11

Sports can be particularly positive for girls. A survey found that more than 80 percent of senior women executives played sports growing up.12

DID YOU KNOW? When they participate in extracurricular activities, girls gain leadership skills that stay with them for life. Encourage girls to try something new and work to develop those skills!13

On average, kids consume technology and media for almost eight hours each day.14 That’s an education in and of itself. But what are girls learning? Research shows that males outnumber females by almost three to one in family films. Even more discouraging, female characters are almost four times as likely to be shown in sexy attire.15

DID YOU KNOW? Of the top one hundred U.S. films in 2011, women accounted for only 33% of all characters and only 11% of the protagonists.16

DID YOU KNOW? It pays to be gritty: One of the most common attributes in successful women is resilience.17

That's just from the parent's guide. It has problems listed that may be encouraging young girls to be less confident or to encourage them to lead or not settle for second best and solutions for both you and her to help overcome them, as well as activities you can all engage in as a family to help (which by definition includes involving your male children if you have any). The headings are:

1. Encourage Girls and Boys Equally to Lead

2. Be Conscious of the Way You and She Talk

3. Make Your Home an Equal Household

4. Teach Her to Respect Her Feelings

5. Moms and Grandmoms: Model Assertive Behavior

6. Dads and Granddads: Know Your Influence

7. Seize the Power of Organized Sports and Activities

8. Get Media Literate—Together

9. Let Her Solve Problems on Her Own

10. Encourage Her to Step Outside Her Comfort Zone

#2 was probably the most interesting to me because it's something I've been aware of for a long ass time. It talks about how girls and women are more likely to soften their words to make themselves sound less confident. Starting sentences with apologies, or turning factual statements into questions. I've seen it with guys with shitty self esteem too, but experience and the confidence gap statistic from earlier show that it's far more common with girls. Also, for whoever said we should teach girls that bossy should be seen as a positive:

Talk About the Word “Bossy”
Calling a girl “bossy” when she asserts her voice—a word we rarely use for little boys—sends the message that girls should not speak up. Explain to the girls in your life that “bossy” is a word often used to make girls feel bad about speaking up. Brainstorm examples of moments when being “bossy” is a good idea. Talk about what you stand for as a family when it comes to speaking up and take steps to make sure the members of your extended community support your daughter when she speaks her mind.

Mah FREE SPEECH! MAH FREEDOMS! THEY WANT TO THOUGHT POLICE US!!!!! NOT DOING THE RESEARCH IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF RESEARCH NOW!

Honestly, all this is showing me is that #banbossy probably wasn't the best tagline to go for, if only because people are fucking morons and will not do the research and assume you want to send people off to jail for daring to use a word for any reason. I've spent entirely too much time on researching this shit, and I don't even HAVE kids. Hopefully someone will actually read this... but then again, reading the headline to the article/post and making up all your conclusions right there IS much easier.

 

[aVocado]

Do you realize what you're saying? It was known that man, since the dawn of history, was the one to go out hunting while the woman stayed home (in their case, a cave or some shit) and took care of the kids, cooked, assuming they discovered fire then, etc. It was known that man usually does the harder job(s), while the woman takes care of other things. This isn't bias or sexism, this is a fact.

Not much has changed now. Men and women think differently, they're different, they don't think the same way, they're not the same. It's two genders, if they were the same, it would have been one gender and we could just multiply by cell division but I know that can't happen.

I agree that doesn't justify men being paid more than women and some other shit, but this is just utterly ridiculous. Feminists and conspiracists are basically the same.

 

[ninetimesnine]

Why should men and women be treated equally anyway? They're not the same.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I can actually follow what she's trying to say-- not as a "barn all" on the word, but really; when I was a kid, even the words "dumb" and "suck" were banned at my elementary school. While that may seem extreme, regardless of the society it's the role of adults to frame the formic education of children and their environment. Banning words that shape the learning environment in a poor way is in no way poor education policy-- even if said words are totally appropriate for an adult-to-adult conversation.

That said, while I'm on board with the principle, I'm very skeptical of the actual target.

The problem to me with this movement is that "bossy-ness" is not connected to good leadership. "Bossyness" is not something we want to foster in our children or our leaders, male or female.

While pro-activeness, drive, and willingness to shoulder responsibility are qualities of a leader, the self-importance and dominating attitude of a "bossy" child are certainly not-- and something that ought to be criticized with a well-timed, "stop being so bossy."

To become a great leader, the best quality one can gain as a child is empathy-- the desire and ability to care for and understand others. The best skill that a future leader can gain, that every child needs, is the ability to cooperate, and to listen.

"Bossy", if anything, is a criticism that calls both boys and girls to learn to keep their attitudes/selfishness/self-importance in-check, pay attention to the needs/voices of others, and learn to empathize and cooperate.


I will admit that I'm Asian, and the culture/place I grew up in slants me to a much more group-focused, social-focused sense of good human interaction and work style--

BUT whether you're an American on one side, a Japanese on the other, or a European somewhere in the middle of the Individualist <-----> Group Focused scale of culture, I think we can agree that the best leader is one who is NOT a self-important, bossy, bigot, but someone who is pro-active AND empathatic-- able to understand, motivate, AND USE people to their full potential.

Rather than "promote bossyness" (a BAD trait) by banning the word, I think young girls would be much better served by activities and teaching that foster pro-activeness and drive.

 

[Trax]

I think Crux would be extremely insulted to be mistaken for Trax... and probably vice versa, lol.

It's not actually all that difficult a mistake to make given both names are ^r^x.

 

[elcheeso]

Do you realize what you're saying? It was known that man, since the dawn of history, was the one to go out hunting while the woman stayed home (in their case, a cave or some shit) and took care of the kids, cooked, assuming they discovered fire then, etc. It was known that man usually does the harder job(s), while the woman takes care of other things. This isn't bias or sexism, this is a fact.

Not much has changed now. Men and women think differently, they're different, they don't think the same way, they're not the same. It's two genders, if they were the same, it would have been one gender and we could just multiply by cell division but I know that can't happen.

I agree that doesn't justify men being paid more than women and some other shit, but this is just utterly ridiculous. Feminists and conspiracists are basically the same.

In what way? Did those filthy feminists do ALL of the science relating to social treatment and/or differences between the genders and, I don't know, faked the data in order to win points with those evil bitches who just want to steal er jerbs? In what way does hunting animals make you more suited to leading? Surely if what you're saying about ancient society is true (and let's not forget that these things are bound by assumptions and our own biases since we can't REALLY go back and see how the social structure was for Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals or even more modernish humans)... wouldn't THAT make women "biologically" better at leading since they had to take care of the household and had more practice in social interaction or planning that doesn't revolve around killing mammoths or whatever?

Men and women think differently and have traditionally had different jobs. OK, sure. So you're saying that women losing a shitload of self esteem by high school, far more than their male counterparts, is biologically wired and men just secrete hormones that protect themselves from it? What is the name of the hormone, surely someone could make a lot of money selling that shit to people and especially kids who are being bullied (words don't effect people though, so I guess it might actually be worthless. Damn). Paying girls less for household chores is just a biological construct that we can't do anything about? The people who produce entertainment media for children and in general just can't stop themselves, because of their hormones or gonads or whatever, from making sure women are sexy token characters and rarely protagonists? Words and treatment of men and women cannot differ between cultures or times, it's all just biologically wired! Man, I feel like I've learnt a lot from you Arikado. Please, tell me more about how the real world works. Now I'm going AFK to draw little circles around blurry pictures out of context to prove that the reptilians walk among us and were behind the JFK assassination.

Also Chou, I think that's what this campaign is doing. I suspect the implication is that we tolerate assertiveness (whether socially positive or negative) in general in women FAR less than we do with men and are more likely to comment negatively on it. Either way, the comments and the activities in the pamphlet are pretty focused on making sure it's about respectful and/or polite leadership/interaction, not being an asshole who chews out telemarketers for daring to call during dinner or whatever. It's actually pretty cool, just maybe somewhat flawed because 1. People not doing the research and 2. Possibility of people assuming the worst possible interpretation of words, so someone who is "bossy" is synonymous with some sort of shrieking demon who makes your life a living hell while ordering you around. C'est la vie.

 

[LonelyNess]

A better thing to do would be to try to make more girls see that being a leader and expressing your views is a GOOD thing.

It's way better to try to tackle the roots of the problem (of which there are many).

Stop telling us what to do god you're so fucking bossy.

 

[newtonja]

My biggest issue with this is that the ban on the word bossy will do... nothing. Realistically people will find a new word and then there will be a new movement and the cycle will continue (which is assuming that every movement is successful). Plus banning will give the word more insulting weight than it has ever had. This is the main issue I had with a previous arguement when elcheeso basicly equivalated bossy with the n word. the n word has always been a racial slur and doesn't have any other purpose. Bossy on the other hand is gender neutral and has apropriate times of use. Look I recognize that this movement means well, but honestly I forsee this doing more harm than help whether this movement works or not. sexism will not be stopped because of bans and laws, sexism will be stopped when society views on women change.

 

[Abra Kapocus]

I agree that doesn't justify men being paid more than women and some other shit...

Just a little something to point out here. The 77 cents for every dollar for the same job argument is an oversimplified myth. The number is pulled from the Bureau of Labor Department statistics, comparing the net pay between genders across the country, and doesn't take profession into account. It's also comparing part timers to full timers, the former of which is more likely to be populated by women. It's not a line-item comparison of pay in the same positions or professions.

The gap is indicative of personal choice far more than any discrimination. Higher pay versus flexibility, risk assessment, full time versus part time while raising a family, etc. Statistically speaking, women are more likely to gravitate towards safer, more flexible jobs that allow them to balance work and home life as well as raise a family (responsibilities which are still, overwhelmingly, shouldered by women), in which case pay and hours are sacrificed. By contrast, men are more likely to seek higher paying and often more dangerous jobs (hello hazard pay). It's comparing apples to oranges, really.

Is that to say there is no discrimination? Hell no, of course there still is. While salaries for men and women in the exact same positions are actually closer to parity than most people give credit, it could still be better. Men are hired more than women all the time, I'm sure, and men are more likely to be taken seriously, etc. Still, case-by-case basis, here. In a competition between the top man and the top woman applying for a job, which one is the more qualified, and which one poses the least risk to the company? Or are they just not big on hiring women? Are the ideas proposed by the men being considered disproportionately to the ideas of women? If so, are the actual ideas being measured or the genders behind them? Why are men more likely to be promoted than women? Is it discrimination or something else? It's called nuance, folks. In the case of employers who actually measure their staff with a gender-blind lens, the results can swing either way, and just because results appear to favor one gender over another that does not necessarily merit cries of gender bias or outright sexism. Gender equality is not always going to be a 50/50 split between men and women. The best candidate wins, gender notwithstanding. Everyone is subject to the same rules. That's equality.

On that note, when addressing any sort of pay gap, I must editorialize by saying it would be much more effective to focus on income equality based on social class, rather than gender. You'd see the numbers from those lower-paying, female-dominated jobs rise pretty quick.

As for the topic at hand, in general, I agree that women should be encouraged more to pursue roles of leadership, or even just to pursue higher-paying career fields which are more likely to attract men. Is banning the use of a word going to fix things, however? I sincerely doubt it. Sure, leaders need to be allowed to lead, but should also not be made immune to criticism (whether warranted or not) and should be prepared and empowered to deal with it accordingly ("Am I bossy, or are you just lazy?"). Otherwise, how will they deal with the same crap out in the real world? Banning words is silly and unproductive, and only creates more problems. Dismissing such arguments as whining and "crying freedom" or comparing your detractors to racists and tin foil hatters is just as unproductive to the discussion. Besides, last I checked, the "n-word" was never outlawed, society just made it taboo.

 

[Excitement]

I really like the idea, I just wish that they would change the name of the whole campaign from "Ban Bossy" to "Get People to Stop Using 'Bossy' to Discourage Leadership Qualities from Developing in Young Women" so that nobody, you know, TL;DRs and misunderstands the whole thing.

 

[elcheeso]

Alright so I wasn't going to address this when Newtonja brought it up, but since it appears there's at least two people here who seemingly took my statement in my first post to mean that bossy is equivalent to (BAN ME PLEASE) in meaning and/or offensiveness (maybe? Not sure if you're referring to me or the person who thought it was appropriate to talk about nazis in this thread), I figure it's worth mentioning. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just mentioning that words are in no way banned when they're considered socially unacceptable and that this campaign is not seeking to outlaw the word bossy. I'm not nearly stupid enough to think they're similar insults. Also Abra, you were the one who brought up thought crimes, and the OP was the one crying about freedom of speech, I think my mockery of that sort of ridiculous horseshit is well deserved.

Also, your claim that the male-female pay scale statistic is purely based on that is... kind of false. These tests have been repeated over and over and in different ways and even the ones that account for university major and profession are still considerably lower (I believe the number is closer to 82%), with 5-10% of that due to immeasurable/unknown reasons which probably include discrimination. Sometimes it's due to overt and blatantly sexist discrimination, sometimes it's due to "oh this person can get pregnant THEREFORE I'll pay them shit" (which still qualifies as overt and basically also gives a big fuck you to families with alternative childcare arrangements and women who don't want kids), and sometimes it's just due to ingrained biases against women that most people probably don't even realise they have. There have been noticeable improvements in the rate of female employment with TRULY blind auditions (like with orchestras), and there have also been studies done on comparing people's feelings on how well X or Y gender or A or B race stack up against each other when literally everything else is the same. Consistently, white women are perceived as less professional and just straight up worse at doing the exact same work or saying the exact same things as white men, and black men have the same problems. I believe the number on one of these studies was 13% worse. Obviously nuance is important with sociological studies, but I think you underestimate the effect of covert discrimination.

I do enjoy that every argument against this shit always seems to come back down to "banning words is dumb and useless", though. No other talking points that aren't vaguely off topic? Anyone want to address the stuff they suggest should be done to encourage girls and to prevent them from feeling shitty about being positively assertive? Does anyone who has posted that this campaign is useless/bad/whatever care that banning the word bossy is not the point?

I really like the idea, I just wish that they would change the name of the whole campaign from "Ban Bossy" to "Get People to Stop Using 'Bossy' to Discourage Leadership Qualities from Developing in Young Women" so that nobody, you know, TL;DRs and misunderstands the whole thing.

I know, right? Bad twitter hashtag, though.

 

[newtonja]

Alright so I wasn't going to address this when Newtonja brought it up, but since it appears there's at least two people here who seemingly took my statement in my first post to mean that bossy is equivalent to (BAN ME PLEASE) in meaning and/or offensiveness (maybe? Not sure if you're referring to me or the person who thought it was appropriate to talk about nazis in this thread), I figure it's worth mentioning. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just mentioning that words are in no way banned when they're considered socially unacceptable and that this campaign is not seeking to outlaw the word bossy. I'm not nearly stupid enough to think they're similar insults. Also Abra, you were the one who brought up thought crimes, and the OP was the one crying about freedom of speech, I think my mockery of that sort of ridiculous horseshit is well deserved.

Also, your claim that the male-female pay scale statistic is purely based on that is... kind of false. These tests have been repeated over and over and in different ways and even the ones that account for university major and profession are still considerably lower (I believe the number is closer to 82%), with 5-10% of that due to immeasurable/unknown reasons which probably include discrimination. Sometimes it's due to overt and blatantly sexist discrimination, sometimes it's due to "oh this person can get pregnant THEREFORE I'll pay them shit" (which still qualifies as overt and basically also gives a big fuck you to families with alternative childcare arrangements and women who don't want kids), and sometimes it's just due to ingrained biases against women that most people probably don't even realise they have. There have been noticeable improvements in the rate of female employment with TRULY blind auditions (like with orchestras), and there have also been studies done on comparing people's feelings on how well X or Y gender or A or B race stack up against each other when literally everything else is the same. Consistently, white women are perceived as less professional and just straight up worse at doing the exact same work or saying the exact same things as white men, and black men have the same problems. I believe the number on one of these studies was 13% worse. Obviously nuance is important with sociological studies, but I think you underestimate the effect of covert discrimination.

I do enjoy that every argument against this shit always seems to come back down to "banning words is dumb and useless", though. No other talking points that aren't vaguely off topic? Anyone want to address the stuff they suggest should be done to encourage girls and to prevent them from feeling shitty about being positively assertive? Does anyone who has posted that this campaign is useless/bad/whatever care that banning the word bossy is not the point?



I know, right? Bad twitter hashtag, though.

Sorry that I mistook the n-word comment. if you want to prevent that missunderstanding you might want to put an edit, or not, it's your choice. As for the pay gap this is what abra was refering to http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html or http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html I'm just posting these as references.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Also Chou, I think that's what this campaign is doing. I suspect the implication is that we tolerate assertiveness (whether socially positive or negative) in general in women FAR less than we do with men and are more likely to comment negatively on it. Either way, the comments and the activities in the pamphlet are pretty focused on making sure it's about respectful and/or polite leadership/interaction, not being an asshole who chews out telemarketers for daring to call during dinner or whatever. It's actually pretty cool, just maybe somewhat flawed because 1. People not doing the research and 2. Possibility of people assuming the worst possible interpretation of words, so someone who is "bossy" is synonymous with some sort of shrieking demon who makes your life a living hell while ordering you around. C'est la vie.

Elcheeso you should also avoid vague, non-concrete arguments as well then. We're also not talking about the "implication" and we're not talking about what the pamphlet tries to emphasize positively-- because the bottom-line action is the movement to remove the word bossy-- which frankly is not a good idea, and not justified by the "aims" of the movement either.

Because-- of the main point of my post, which you side-stepped: Being "bossy" is not something desirable in a leader.

Criticism on bossiness doesn't target assertiveness-- it targets bossiness.

If the word bossy is being misused to discourage assertiveness from individuals who are assertive but not bossy, then what is needed is not banning of a word, but very strict and assertive education regarding the difference.

When a child is told "don't call him bossy!" without understandable reason (something that will inevitably be a result of indiscriminate word-ban), the natural assumption on the child's part is that he/she's wrong, and the other child is right (in the eyes of adults)-- something that could DEFINITELY be UNTRUE-- especially if the other child is in-fact, being bossy. What the teacher needs to do is not scold the child who used the word bossy, but figure out whether the other child was actually being bossy or assertive, and upon determining that scold/correct the misuse of "bossy" and complement assertiveness, or scold for being bossy depending on the actual situation.

What the child NEEDS is clarification on the difference-- education on the virtue of assertiveness, and how it's different from "being bossy"; an education that will also help foster good leaders.

For this purpose too, you can't remove the word "bossiness" from the dialogue-- you need both words in order to point out the difference; where pointing out the difference and fostering assertiveness (while also fostering cooperation by continuing to discourage "bossiness") is a much better and valuable educational goal.

To me, the idea of banning the word "bossy" seems misguided from the standpoint of the ultimate goal of fostering leaders-- female and male.

A better goal of this movement would be to bring attention to the word bossiness from educators, and to create a coordinated educational movement to establish the difference between bossiness and assertiveness, as well as the virtue of the latter.

 

[Abra Kapocus]

Also Abra, you were the one who brought up thought crimes, and the OP was the one crying about freedom of speech, I think my mockery of that sort of ridiculous horseshit is well deserved.

I can see you're passionate about this, but mockery is no way to win over your detractors. It only pisses them off and causes more arguments. Especially if you gloss over the substance of the argument, like when I brought up that it was really reaching to equate the word "bossy" with the aforementioned sexist slurs, and that to say one you really mean the other. That's bullshit. Highly presumptuous to boot. But I suppose that's slightly irrelevant...

And don't tell me that if this were to become a thing that there wouldn't be some new avenue of punishment levied against boys who use the word or whatever else qualifies as "preventing girls from feeling shitty about being positively assertive" (not trying to mock here, just quoting you). School administration loves being given new things to do. And what message does that send to boys? That they're not allowed to call out overreaching authority where warranted, and that they should just sit back and take it like little submissive dogs? Doesn't everyone already get enough of that going through the whole public school system? In many ways, I'd say that's more of a culprit than anything else, ie: the robotic, one-size-fits-all, zero-tolerance standardized test factories they've become. Gifts should be nurtured, not tortured.

Also, your claim that the male-female pay scale statistic is purely based on that is... kind of false. These tests have been repeated over and over and in different ways and even the ones that account for university major and profession are still considerably lower (I believe the number is closer to 82%), with 5-10% of that due to immeasurable/unknown reasons which probably include discrimination. Sometimes it's due to overt and blatantly sexist discrimination, sometimes it's due to "oh this person can get pregnant THEREFORE I'll pay them shit" (which still qualifies as overt and basically also gives a big fuck you to families with alternative childcare arrangements and women who don't want kids), and sometimes it's just due to ingrained biases against women that most people probably don't even realise they have. There have been noticeable improvements in the rate of female employment with TRULY blind auditions (like with orchestras), and there have also been studies done on comparing people's feelings on how well X or Y gender or A or B race stack up against each other when literally everything else is the same. Consistently, white women are perceived as less professional and just straight up worse at doing the exact same work or saying the exact same things as white men, and black men have the same problems. I believe the number on one of these studies was 13% worse. Obviously nuance is important with sociological studies, but I think you underestimate the effect of covert discrimination.

Read that paragraph of mine again. Especially the bolded text, that's there for a reason. The key problem you have here is that you're reading your detractors with preconceived bias going in, so much so that you can't see the many points on which they actually agree with you.

 

[Alan]

They're just trying to "take it back" aka diminish it's negative connotation, just like Randall did in Clerks 2 with "porch monkeys"

 

[Shiruba]

If they're taking back the negative connotation, though, then we have no word. It's not a word that's intended to be positive or even neutral; it's designed to indicate someone who is overreaching or overbearing, not someone who is reasonably assertive or a good leader. Of course these change in the eye of the beholder, but the point of bossy was never to criticize without actual cause [eg racist terms like "porch monkeys," though they may have had actual meaning in the beginning, did not remain that way], and the word actually does have a place in the critique of people who are legitimately bossy; something that should not be supported. Sure, it quite possibly is being used incorrectly frequently enough to be of note and possibly alarm, but then the incorrect usage should be regarded and dealt with, not the usage of a perfectly reasonable and perhaps necessary phrase in its entirety.

 

[elcheeso]

Elcheeso you should also avoid vague, non-concrete arguments as well then. We're also not talking about the "implication" and we're not talking about what the pamphlet tries to emphasize positively-- because the bottom-line action is the movement to remove the word bossy-- which frankly is not a good idea, and not justified by the "aims" of the movement either.

I actually completely agree that bossy can be a legitimate and warranted criticism of people's behaviour. My problem with your and everyone else's posts on the matter is that they focus on this hypothetical ban of the word which will never happen and really only has relevance to the people whose only knowledge of the movement is the hashtag (which, for reference, I find stupid for a lot of reasons, a lack of nuance being the biggest). There is basically nothing in the pamphlets about stifling the use of the word bossy. The teacher's pamphlet is probably the only place it's brought up, and it's just in reference to making sure you use constructive criticism but make sure it's not disproportionately gendered and telling people how to share the hashtag. That, and the website at the bottom of every page.

Are your problems purely with the hashtag and what it says to the people who do not bother to do the research, like maybe those who have only heard of it via social media? I agree with most of your points about promoting leadership/assertiveness without celebrating or encouraging assholeish "bossy" behaviour, but I cannot for the life of me work out why you're all still acting like this is the sole aim when they can't even get around to saying DON'T USE THE WORD BOSSY in all of their information pamphlets?

I can see you're passionate about this, but mockery is no way to win over your detractors. It only pisses them off and causes more arguments. Especially if you gloss over the substance of the argument, like when I brought up that it was really reaching to equate the word "bossy" with the aforementioned sexist slurs, and that to say one you really mean the other. That's bullshit. Highly presumptuous to boot. But I suppose that's slightly irrelevant...

And don't tell me that if this were to become a thing that there wouldn't be some new avenue of punishment levied against boys who use the word or whatever else qualifies as "preventing girls from feeling shitty about being positively assertive" (not trying to mock here, just quoting you). School administration loves being given new things to do. And what message does that send to boys? That they're not allowed to call out overreaching authority where warranted, and that they should just sit back and take it like little submissive dogs? Doesn't everyone already get enough of that going through the whole public school system? In many ways, I'd say that's more of a culprit than anything else, ie: the robotic, one-size-fits-all, zero-tolerance standardized test factories they've become. Gifts should be nurtured, not tortured.

I can't control the stupidity of others, and this isn't about punishing boys (like girls would be less punished for calling another girl bossy if this were to happen '_,). That said, positively assertive implies non-assholeish leadership so... probably not many ways criticising that as bossy could be warranted. And the fact that you think most schools have a zero tolerance policy for... what, saying a word? just makes no sense to me. If anything, I'd argue the thing that characterises most school administration is laziness. Considering most schools default to blaming victims of bullying in some way for what happens to them, rather than actually attempting to solve the situation, the idea that kids using the word bossy, whether warranted or unwarranted, would be DEEPLY PUNISHED for it is laughable. Granted, there are some schools (I'm thinking certain Christian ones, Chou's and the like) where that sort of shit happens (albeit with different words and rules), but in general? Not in my experience.

Read that paragraph of mine again. Especially the bolded text, that's there for a reason. The key problem you have here is that you're reading your detractors with preconceived bias going in, so much so that you can't see the many points on which they actually agree with you.

Yes thank you I already read it. I know we were agreeing in general, my problem was 1. you seemed to be suggesting that the bureau survey was the only "evidence" of a pay gap, and 2. the gap is not (in my opinion) close to parity. Perhaps you said "closer to parity than most people give credit" meaning "more than 77%", but 5-10% is still a pretty huge deal considering we're talking about thousands of dollars a year. Also I was under the impression even the bureau survey only included full time workers, like most studies on the subject do. The stuff about discrimination in other studies? Just a reminder for other people that gender discrimination pops up in a lot of different ways and have actually been measured... and aren't just some "does this happen?" sort of thing like some of the language you used might have implied.

I'll try and ask one more time. Besides the hashtag and the perception that this campaign is based around banning a word, do you (Chou, Shiruba, Abra, anyone else) feel that the initiatives, ideas, studies and activities listed in the pamphlets are wrong or hurtful towards boys or girls and/or bad at fostering positive leadership in girls? Do you have any arguments against them, or do you just really fucking hate the hashtag and what it implies to intensely stupid people?

 

[Crux]

It's at times like these when I wonder if some people legitimately live in a different world than I do.

 

[WaterBomb]

Maybe if lady bosses weren't overcompensating so much and being so ridiculously abrasive we wouldn't be using the word "bossy" in a negative light?

(kidding of course please don't b mud)

In all seriousness someone should remind Sheryl that truly great leaders will strike the proper balance between assertive and kind, and people will be naturally drawn to that and respect it rather than insult it. This is not even a gender thing, because male leaders can still be (and frequently are) "bossy". Perhaps the focus should be, rather than eliminating the usage of a word, supporting female leaders with helpful tips on how to be more effective and command respect in a way that doesn't piss people off? I know that's what most professionals learn when their companies put them through management training, so why can't this concept be even more specifically applied?

EDIT: since apparently some people don't understand that there are exceptions to every rule, I guess I have to spell it out here.

There are exceptions to every rule and this post in no way is a statement implying that every single female leader who has ever been called bossy was deserving of it because they were a poor manager.

 

[Crux]

Just kidding lol I don't mean that.

Proceeds to reframe exactly the same sentiment.

 

[Abra Kapocus]

Mega Snip

Gee, I don't recall ever saying anything about zero tolerance policies or being "deeply punished." Maybe you should focus on what I actually said rather than strawmanning my positions with hyperbole. I'm genuinely surprised I even have to spell this out. If you make anything taboo, I certainly wouldn't put it past schools to be just a tad overzealous about it (and this doesn't have to mean setting draconian rules). Even just the slightest reprimand can have unseen effects on a child's psyche. This works both ways. Girls can be discouraged from taking active leadership roles, and boys can be discouraged from questioning authority. How exactly would something like this be implemented, and what form would it take? It seems to be growing increasingly more nebulous as this thread goes on. Also, if someone were to breach this new set of taboos, would any punitive action be taken? If so, what? Those are questions I've had since the beginning.

The source I provided regarding the wage gap was not meant to be my "be-all-end-all," just to dispell the "77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same job" myth. Just thought I'd clear that up. But what I was actually referring to in that paragraph is the big section in bold that reads, "Is that to say there is no discrimination? Hell no, of course there still is." I'm amazed that you seem to have completely glossed over that little number, despite bolding it and then once again referring to it in a later post. And also, like I said in that same paragraph, while it's closer to parity than we give credit, "it could still stand to be better." Frankly I'm not sure what else you want from me. I'm with you in general on these causes, but you're at about a 12. I need you down to like a 5 or 6. Cooler heads will prevail.


As for your conclusive paragraph, I don't think anyone here has anything against programs that encourage girls to bridge the gender-leadership gap. That's all good, and I'm for it. We're more concerned with the silliness surrounding some of the rhetoric thrown around by this campaigns supporters, as it serves to undermine the cause.

Example, from the article in the OP:

"Imagine a classroom in America where 50 kids are present: 25 girls, 25 boys," Chavez said.

"And the teacher walks into this classroom and says: 'Boys and girls, I have this really hard, difficult program that I need to solve that's gonna impact this country.' She writes the problem on the board and then turns around and escorts 24 of the 25 girls out of the room. ... She leaves one girl and 25 boys to solve that equation. That's what's happening every day in this country. Why wouldn't we want more girls to be opting in to building the right solutions this country.

R...really? Seriously? This is a thing that's happening? Lady, I'm starting to think you and I are living in two completely different realities. Beyond that, Sheryl's methodology is flawed. She lists troubling statistics of gender dynamics, and then just baldly asserts their link to the overuse of the word "bossy." What else could be contributing to that, I wonder? Also, please prove it, btw.

The rest of the article seems to suggest that everything should be 50/50. As much as I'd like to see less rich white males in positions of power, this is highly unrealistic, even in a gender/racial/sexual/religious-neutral world. Like I said, the best person wins regardless of gender, race, sexuality, creed, etc. You shouldn't be expected to hire someone incompetent just to fill the spectrum of diversity. We're not going to have an equal mixture even in a world free of the above forms of discrimination.

 

[elcheeso]

Gee, I don't recall ever saying anything about zero tolerance policies or being "deeply punished."

In many ways, I'd say that's more of a culprit than anything else, ie: the robotic, one-size-fits-all, zero-tolerance standardized test factories they've become.

And don't tell me that if this were to become a thing that there wouldn't be some new avenue of punishment levied against boys who use the word or whatever else qualifies as "preventing girls from feeling shitty about being positively assertive" (not trying to mock here, just quoting you).

I suppose you could argue that the "deeply" part of punished was slightly hyperbolic, but not by much. You also managed to make it into a boys vs girls thing where only boys would be punished for saying shit about girls (girls don't use gendered insults against each other or call each other bossy or similar things? News to me!), so I don't really know if accusing me of making strawman arguments is the wisest choice.

Even just the slightest reprimand can have unseen effects on a child's psyche. This works both ways. Girls can be discouraged from taking active leadership roles, and boys can be discouraged from questioning authority. How exactly would something like this be implemented, and what form would it take? It seems to be growing increasingly more nebulous as this thread goes on. Also, if someone were to breach this new set of taboos, would any punitive action be taken? If so, what? Those are questions I've had since the beginning.

Again, making this a boys vs girls thing. It has nothing to do with punishing boys. If you're saying these reprimands are going to affect kids in some way by making them not question authority, it would likely affect boys and girls since there would be no reason whatsoever to say "hur girls get a free pass in using gendered insults against each other in an insulting way!" Unless you're suggesting girls do not insult each other in these sorts of ways... in which case, HA! Anyway, if this thing became taboo, which it's not going to, the punishment would probably be... basically nothing. Most you'd probably see is the occasional person saying "wow saying that is offensive and wrong, pl0x stop", and like most schoolyard insults, you'd probably have far more people piling on telling the other person to stop taking it so seriously and being so sensitive and something something cry more (BAN ME PLEASE). It would be about as enforced as a school wide ban on swearing, most likely. I just can't see institutions that struggle with punishing major offenders like bullies and preventing their ongoing behaviour being willing and effective in stomping out what are wildly seen as incredibly mild (if slightly gendered) insults.

The source I provided regarding the wage gap was not meant to be my "be-all-end-all," just to dispell the "77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same job" myth. Just thought I'd clear that up. But what I was actually referring to in that paragraph is the big section in bold that reads, "Is that to say there is no discrimination? Hell no, of course there still is." I'm amazed that you seem to have completely glossed over that little number, despite bolding it and then once again referring to it in a later post. And also, like I said in that same paragraph, while it's closer to parity than we give credit, "it could still stand to be better."

I thought you would get it by now. Yes, thank you, I did read your paragraph... but my response wasn't FOR you! You're capable of naming where the original 77c gap came from, you seem to have a basic understanding of the methodology, you seemingly get that an 18 cent gap does not necessarily mean all of it is due to discrimination. But, hey, guess what? We're on a public forum! I even said in one of my sentences that it was a reminder for other people. Just like your original response about the 77c gap was probably directed at more than JUST the guy you responded to, my response was largely directed at the people who have no knowledge about these surveys or similar ones which do find systematic biases in employment/attitudes/whatever. Your original responses were vague enough that a passerby could easily read "oh, they're closer to parity? I guess that could mean that the gap is only 1% due to discrimination", or 22%, or 10%. "It could stand to be better? 1% better isn't a big deal." I was making these responses explicit so that people who do not get the methodology have a more thorough understanding than just assuming "oh they count part time work and flexible hours and stuff? Psh discrimination is basically dead except a little bit". I didn't gloss over shit, and I'd appreciate it if you'd remember that we are basically arguing for an audience. Their understanding is important.

Frankly I'm not sure what else you want from me. I'm with you in general on these causes, but you're at about a 12. I need you down to like a 5 or 6. Cooler heads will prevail.

Your U MAD?????? dig is both petty and stupid. I am figuratively stunned that anyone could mistake my attitude right now for anything approaching a 10, let alone over it. You must have some incredibly mild anger if that's the case. Don't mistake me using capslock to mock people qualifies as rage. I am basically just irritated that I can ask whether anyone has anything to say on the meat of the campaign which is less "BAN BOSSY" than "treat girls fairly, teach them positive leadership skills and engage with them", and every person who posted after me is STILL talking about WHAT IF THEY BAN BOSSY?? It's almost as if I did all that research for nothing since I don't actually have any kids I can use this shit on.

As for your conclusive paragraph, I don't think anyone here has anything against programs that encourage girls to bridge the gender-leadership gap. That's all good, and I'm for it. We're more concerned with the silliness surrounding some of the rhetoric thrown around by this campaigns supporters, as it serves to undermine the cause.

R...really? Seriously? This is a thing that's happening? Lady, I'm starting to think you and I are living in two completely different realities. Beyond that, Sheryl's methodology is flawed. She lists troubling statistics of gender dynamics, and then just baldly asserts their link to the overuse of the word "bossy." What else could be contributing to that, I wonder? Also, please prove it, btw.

The rest of the article seems to suggest that everything should be 50/50. As much as I'd like to see less rich white males in positions of power, this is highly unrealistic, even in a gender/racial/sexual/religious-neutral world. Like I said, the best person wins regardless of gender, race, sexuality, creed, etc. You shouldn't be expected to hire someone incompetent just to fill the spectrum of diversity. We're not going to have an equal mixture even in a world free of the above forms of discrimination.

I can see why you'd have a problem with that statement, though it's pretty obviously more metaphorical than literal. Of course, the problem with most of their statements to the media is that they have to be relatively short, catchy and marketable, just like the name of their campaign. There's no time for nuance, which is of cause the problem. All forms of discrimination are nuanced and usually quite subtle, enough that we can live in a world where white people get most of the scholarships (off the top of my head, 64% of the US college going population is white, they get 73% of the scholarships), but there is STILL a perception that minorities are stealing scholarships from white people or getting most of them. The reasons these things happen are quite diverse and not all of it is discrimination, but if you're trying to market putting an end to this sort of thing? Do you think your audience really has time to learn about what part is discrimination, what part is linked to inter-generational poverty, what part is legacy etc etc? No. They want a stupid tagline they can tweet about and maybe a sentence or two to talk about over the water cooler at work. Sucks, but that's the media and marketing for you. Nuance is anathema.

 

[WaterBomb]

Just kidding lol I don't mean that.

Proceeds to reframe exactly the same sentiment.

The first line was an overtly generalizing and sexist statement said in sarcasm. The second part was making the point that males in leadership positions are just as capable of being called "bossy", and that the behavior that elicits the "bossy" label is usually (READ: NOT IN ALL CASES) associated with poor management style. I also wanted to make the point that there are plenty of great leaders, male AND female, that do not have this problem because they are able to command respect without being "bossy". My stance is one of neutrality, not malicious sexism as you tried to make it appear. What exactly was the point of trying to demonize me?

 

[capefeather]

So what exactly is the nature of the problem with the word "bossy" in elementary schools, anyway? This thread has largely become an argument about feminism, but there's a pronounced lack of consideration of the specific issue at hand, which is the ways in which the word "bossy" are actually used by schoolchildren. I recall the thread about the teacher who was fired because she had done porn in years past, where people who actually worked in schools chimed in with something concrete. Here, I'm instead finding a lot of arguing about what the word "bossy" is supposed to mean.

How is "bossy" actually being used? If it really is being used to describe behaviour that exemplifies power-wielding rather than leadership, then sure, there's no problem with calling people bossy. However, the notion of "leadership" is a sensitive topic that's prone to personal and political biases. It's easy to put just about any leader down by claiming that they're being dictatorial / tyrannical / "bossy". It's also easy to excuse a leader's actions by claiming that it's just a certain leadership style. Surely if someone is demonstrably and unambiguously being a "bad leader", that could be made clear through methods other than empty insults? After all, aren't children supposed to grow out of such classic comebacks as "I know you are but what am I" and "your face"?

As an aside: A video from "The Amazing Atheist" was posted here, so I wanted to say that TJ is not a very good person to represent your views with. He embodies the reason I used to hate vlogs in general, and why I'm still very selective about who I follow. Even just considering the non-libertarian atheist YouTube crowd, there is a scale of sensationalism, and as far as I can tell, TJ is on the far right end. This isn't to say that he doesn't say smart, meaningful things, because he does, but it's obvious to any neutral observer that he's mostly just shit-talking at people for entertainment. And when that kind of content is taken too seriously, it ends up attracting genuine assholes whose already oversimplified views on such topics as sexism, religion and politics are confirmed and amplified by TJ's antics.

 

[Abra Kapocus]

Hyper-mega-snip

Excuse me, who's making this about girls versus boys? It was already about that from the get-go (however unintentional). At least, that's what it turned into, anyway. Hell, wasn't the whole point of this campaign to help make girls more on parity with boys? Such inferences were inescapable.

I realize that social pressures can negatively shape the outlook of entire demographics to foment discouragement, discrimination, etc., and I'm all for efforts to counterbalance that unfortunate side effect, but the champions of this campaign have made a concerted effort to make this about a word, not just in their taglines but in the body text of their dissertations. There's really only so much blame you can place on the short-attention-span public here.

I also think you're too prone to lump things together where I specifically made them separate. The "zero-tolerance standardized test factories" quip was a jab at schools in general, only tangentially-related to the topic at hand. On that note, how would I even know that no measures of punishment would be involved here unless I ask? I have a right to know how these policies will be implemented without my head being chewed off by mocking condescension.

... but my response wasn't FOR you!

Well, pardon me for assuming it was, even though you specifically quoted me, and follow it up with a paragraph of text specifically addressing me and how I apparently don't understand anything. :/

Your U MAD?????? dig is both petty and stupid.

Wow. Really? That's how you interpreted that line? All I'm saying is that throughout this topic, even though your intention belies what appears on screen, you come off as overtly antagonistic and abrasive (and apparently now we can add "presumptuous" to that mix). Again, not exactly the best way to win people over to your side. You may not have much control over the "actions of idiots," but you have much more control over your own actions than your excuses suggest.

regarding TJ

Just thought you should know, as a sidenote, that TJ stopped being a libertarian quite a few years ago. If that holds any sort of weight. Take it as you will.