Don't Ban “Bossy”
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Bossy people, we were taught, boss people around by using their rank. No one wants to follow them, they just have to. That's the worst kind of leader, we were taught. don't be bossy was good feedback. A good leader inspires, sets the example, is firm but fair, and through their behavior and actions people will want to follow them.
Not sure what all this implied sexism stuff is, I only heard it used around men, and it was and still is a damn fine term for the bad ones. What term would they prefer be used for someone that's acting bossy?
In corporations, boss subordination is so complete that "bossy" only applies to someone who isn't actually literally a boss. So I can imagine "bossy" is used to question the legitimacy of female bosses. However, more serious kinds of feminism directly attack the existence of bosses, since many more women are at the bottom of hierarchies than the top.
That's how hierarchies tend to be structured. :)
“a lady manager who was dreadfully bossy” (1882)
The purpose of language is to provide for subtle distinctions.
The etymology of the word bossy, boss with the -y suffix, suggests that the lady manager is acting like a boss but she is not a boss. The writer here makes it clear that this is intended to have a negative connotation and is therefore questioning her authority.
Recent meme has reinforced that. If we want to express this idea positively, we don't say "bossy", we say "like a boss".
"Bossy" means you are acting like a boss but in a way which is disapproved of. If this word is targeted more often at women, then that deserves reflection (especially in cases where we would praise men for the same behaviour).
I think your first point is stronger -- not that it's like a boss in a way that's disapproved of, but that it's like a boss in a way that's illegitimate or unearned. It's a challenge to the legitimacy of the leadership status of the person it's aimed at, in other words; a real boss can never be "bossy", because they have a legitimate right to boss people around. "Bossy" implies that the person it's aimed at doesn't have that right.
Similes require nouns and bossy is an adjective/adverb. How are we supposed to draw any conclusions from the use of boss?
I have never heard someone use bossy to praise the actions of a male.
TLDR: simple grammar, once understood, explains it.
> Recent meme has reinforced that. If we want to express this idea positively,
> we don't say "bossy", we say "like a boss".loss_y copies (high fidelity copies)
the opposite of boss_y
is nice (BTW, which means "accurate and well measured")
bossy means ill-considered and lacking in awareness#
There are lots of noun+y words that do not fit your theory, but linguistics is a messy endeavor.
Something entirely devoid of meaning so that it could never possibly hurt anyone's feelings for being someone who tells people what to do without leading by example so as to inspire people to do.
For example, a military style boss might value be at work on time, get your timesheet input on time, etc. and does an good job keeping them in check. Most innovative people with ENTP (rational inventor) personality people, or simply creative people will not appreciate that a bit. Result is low employee retention regardless of benefits. Well... that's just an example.
This applies both to male and female bosses. Things I observe in ineffective leaders:
Female bosses automatically associate their ineffective leadership with their gender; Male bosses acts like higher ranked military personnel in an inappropriate setting (like growupkids mentioned); Bosses fail to reevaluate their leadership style based on the data (most productive people keep leaving, they are generally 'kind' enough not giving you the real reason); Bosses do not have actual authority (this happens a lot in Federal Government, bosses can't really fire employees, it's just terrible business); ...
LOL. How does this not apply: "As a boss I should treat my employees the way I would like my boss to treat me." Any reasonable person understands that the professional context means that the relationship between boss/employee is not the same as friend/friend, stranger-on-subway/stranger-on-subway.
> military style boss might value...that's just an example.
That is a terrible, contrived example based on some strange concept/stereotype/cliche of military leadership. What branch of the service were you in? Did your well respected NCOs run around acting like the guy from Office Space and pester people about their TPS reports?
Because not everyone is like you. You are assuming everyone can separate personal life with professional life. That would be probably ideal, but doesn't happen often base on my observation. I find it's especially rare among highly talented/creative employees. Army ants, yes, it would be fair.
> That is a terrible, contrived example based on some strange concept/stereotype/cliche of military leadership. What branch of the service were you in? Did your well respected NCOs run around acting like the guy from Office Space and pester people about their TPS reports?
Ain't we all generalizing here? And yes, I have a boss like that, and female, too. What's your point?
EDIT: This entire thing is about young girls, not the military
Here's my point: bossy is not a sexist term, for example it's used to describe poor leaders in environments like the military, where leadership is NOT just men. Acting bossy is bad. Subordinates hate it, and you can't lead by rank alone. It's a damn good lesson.
Therefore, advocating for its banning (the movement is called Ban Bossy after all) is both unwarranted, and entirely unhelpful: because it's a clear unambiguous word that young leaders get" quickly to describe adverse behavior in a leader and it's the proper English use of the word Boss to describe someone acting in a manner like a boss. What word would you use to describe this adverse behavior?
And the "Ban Bossy" movements supposition that it's sexist that it's used to describe "girls" is unsubstantiated. It's a good word to describe behavior, if someone's calling you bossy you need to do some soul searching if you want to be a leader. Don't be a boss, be a leader.
If you're acting bossy, stop and lead instead.
Looking at the videos - to an outsider like myself, they look massively ridiculous. So there is a societal problem where girls are either not empowered to lead or are discouraged from leading by others. To stop that practice, we will get rid of calling them a specific word.
Words only have the meaning that we put into them. "Bossy" can be applied correctly or incorrectly. How is the word at fault?
I think "only in America" applies here. Instead of understanding that this is a complex, complicated issue in society, let's find a catchy campaign title and rail against intangible things. Oh aren't we all happy we have dealt with the problem in a format that we can easily post to our facebook wall instead of, you know, doing the hard work of actually figuring out and dealing with people on a deeper, personal level.
And yes, I get it, the campaign uses a reductive catchphrase to get a foot in the door and then deliver a more nuanced message. But I think a campaign set on a weird, possibly destructive premise may do more harm than good. It may lead people to think they're doing something when they're actually doing nothing apart from perpetuating a meme.
How about we all just stop and check ourselves before reducing others to adjectives in general? Grown-ups and children, women and men alike?
Maybe this tendency to grasp for the simple answer, the quick phrase at all times is the root of the problem and should thus not be utilized as a solution.
Beyoncé Lyrics:
Bow down bitches, bow bow down bitches
Bow down bitches, bow bow down bitches
H-town vicious, h-h-town vicious
I’m so crown, bow bow down bitches
Beyoncé's husband Jay-Z Lyrics Excerpt:
My nigga, please - you ain't signing no checks like these
My nigga, please - you pushing no wheels like these
My nigga, please - you ain't holding no tecks like these
My nigga, please - you don't pop in vest like these
1) Pharrell says those lines not Jay-Z. This is the same person who wrote/sings/produced the Academy-Award nominated "Happy" song from Despicable Me.
2) The context of lyrics within a song, the intended meaning of the song itself, and intended audience of a song should obviously be taken into consideration. On a site like HN, that so often seems to point out the ridiculous nature of arguments against video games causing violence, citing lyrics of someone's husband as somehow a statement about.... well I have to be honest, I can't follow the logic of the point you're trying to make... is disappointing.
And finally 3) Here are some lyrics from Jay-Z that seem pretty relevant to your comment:
"...Rap critics that say he's Money, Cash, Hoes I'm from the hood stupid, what type of facts are those If you grew up with holes in your zapatos You'd celebrate the minute you was having dough I'm like f-ck critics, you can kiss my whole a--hole If you don't like my lyrics, you can press fast forward...
...I don't know what you take me as Or understand the intelligence that Jay-Z has I'm from rags to riches, ni--as I ain't dumb I got 99 problems, but a b-tch ain't one, hit me"
"I fail to see how the lyrics from a Jay-Z song from 2002 are anything other than completely irrelevant to the Ban Bossy campaign."
We're talking about banning words. If I had to guess, I'd bet more people would support banning "nigga" than they would "bossy". Personally, I don't think any words should be "banned" because it's simply not possible. Society may evolve to not use a word, or shun those that do use a word - but a campaign to "ban" a word does an injustice to the literal meaning of the word "ban" because it's just not realistic, or possible.
Especially when readers don't know my relationship to the subject matter, or my relationship to the individual I'm addressing.
To your point about relevance, I'm going to point out to you that zero people are actually advocating banning a word. They're saying "hey let's stop calling girls who express leadership skills "bossy" because that has negative consequences". To which I think the average person would probably be open to. They are advocating not using a word in the wrong context. Call kids bossy when they're being brats, sure, but when someone, particularly girls are being leaders and doing the same things that boys are complimented for, don't call them bossy.
#WhenSomeonesBeingALeaderDontCallThemBossy is a pretty long hashtag and a terrible way to quickly market your campaign. #banbossy is memorable, gets to the point, and can encourage a conversation.
If you disagree then you are automatically labeled as one of the obvious sexist rapist rape apologist pedophile neckbeard supremacist spermjacked nerd sperglord virgin libertarian losers. They can't possibly be wrong, so if you disagree you must be one of the hell bound sinners of the most dire nightmare.
>"Avoid editing what you want to say in your head, and try not to worry about being wrong."
This is very sexist of them. Their implication is that males are stupid and don't ever censor themselves when they work to be good leaders - that they are only gain leader status because they say every dumb idea they have, and that saying stupid things shouldn't have any consequences.
Now if you'll please excuse me, I've just stepped in some of my own doggy doo, and I need scrape off my shoe.
1.Speak Up _in Class_
Raise your hand, even when you’re not sure about the answer. Avoid editing what you want to say in your head, and try not to worry about being wrong. Speaking up isn’t about having the perfect answer. It gives you the experience of thinking on your feet, debating with others, and wrestling with an idea—all crucial skills that you’ll use in every area of your life.
Really the only tip that matters is tip #9, which basically says people will give you shit but do it anyway. This is something all kids need to learn.
So regardless of your level of income or education, you can be, and probably are, still privileged in the way society sees and treats you.
For example, as a man, I pretty much never have to worry about being told I got a promotion because I was having sex with the boss, or that I'm only being angry or "emotional" about something because it's my "time of the month". Things that women have to deal with all the time.
Another example would be that I'm never worried wanting to have children is going to be seen as bad for business, and result in me being denied promotions or other advancement because of it.(Not to mention I'm statistically going to be getting paid more than women for doing equal work.)
Hopefully you can see how these are the type of privileges men, or another group of people in a similar situation, may never notice unless it is pointed out to them. Or they "check their privilege".
In relation to Ban Bossy, an important example seems to be that I've been conditioned my entire life to aspire to be a leader: team captain, salesman of the year, best on the basketball court, you get the idea. And not once was I ever, or will I ever, be discouraged from asserting my leadership skills as essentially "not knowing my place" because I'm a man, which can be the outcome when we tell girls and young women to not be bossy or other similar things.
Maybe a good exercise for you, and for all of us, is to listen to what people are saying when they describe the privileges we have, or to ask them to explain better because we would like to understand. Depending on our situation, maybe we'll gain a better understanding of our heterosexual privilege and being able to love who we want without having to worry that their gender will result in violence against us or them. Or maybe we'll learn about our religious privilege, and that we are able to practice a religion without inciting fear, being called names, profiled, assaulted, or killed because of the head covering we wear or for being "different".
What you are talking about, if it even exists, is a rounding error compared to the massive good fortune relative to the entire rest of the human race that has ever lived, of being born in the West in the late 20th/21st century.
Perhaps you can see that dropping a few hundred grand on a hobby makes the speaker incredibly more privileged even within this already privileged group, and gender is absolutely nothing to do with (as the majority of homeless, etc, happen to be men, where's the white male heterosexual privilege there? Oops your whole model of the world just imploded, sorry 'bout that).
You've responded with a breathtaking amount of immaturity. And completely ignored any of the points I made. Perhaps one day you'll be more open to hearing and responding to what I wrote to you. Maybe that day won't come. Either way I wish you well.
To a post displaying a breathtaking amount of naivety. I didn't ignore your points, they are, paraphrasing Feynmann, "not even wrong". And I am not sure what "troll" even means these days, it seems to be a catch-all term for "someone on the Internet who isn't a part of my echo chamber".
Likewise, I wish you well, and I hope that one day you will come around to what I wrote.
That's like trying to solve a math problem by changing the value of pi.
I don't think that this particular word is the root cause. More important is the reason why people are using it. If you ban that particular word without addressing why people are using it, then those people will adopt a new word to mean the exact same thing. Creating euphemism treadmills doesn't fix anything.
... then they aren't leaders anyway.
Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. No one thinks that change is what brought about the civil rights movement, but it's obviously a consequence of it that also contributed to the whole movement in a positive feedback loop.
I don't really want to pick sides on 'ban bossy', but I do think this particular analogy is flawed. Unlike a racial slur (or any other identity-based slur), 'bossy' describes intrinsically negative behavior. People who are 'overly authoritative' or 'domineering' will always be looked down on in society whether or not this word is 'banned' or not.
Their claim may in fact be false. But starting from the assumption that it is false doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.
It is interesting how race issues is one of only a few subjects where anyone that can form an opinion feels qualified to weigh in on it, no matter how far removed they are from the issue at hand.
My father’s name is William Paul Coates. I, like my six brothers and sisters, have always addressed him as Dad. Strangers often call him Mr. Coates. His friends call him Paul. If a stranger or one of my father’s friends called him Dad, my father might have a conversation. When I was a child, relatives of my paternal grandmother would call my father Billy. Were I to ever call my father Billy, we would probably have a different conversation.
I have never called my father Billy. I understand, like most people, that words take on meaning within a context. It might be true that you refer to your spouse as Baby. But were I to take this as license to do the same, you would most likely protest. Right names depend on right relationships, a fact so basic to human speech that without it, human language might well collapse...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-d...
Which are pretty much the exact same circumstances where a black person can do the same thing.
You mean, the yesterday's value-neutral racial descriptors that became today's racial slurs when used in the mouth of people with racial hate are no longer acceptable to people who don't share that hate -- but, of course, as has happened many times in the past, that just means that today's value-neutral descriptors will get used as slurs and become tomorrow's verbotten terms, and nothing will have changed.
Making words taboo that are used along with an unwelcome attitude is a particularly ineffective manner of eradicating the unwelcome attitude.
Language is the utter opposite - it constantly evolves and changes, with new words entering every year and grammatical patterns changing over time as well. The only way to stop a language changing is basically to stop using it.
When a little boy asserts himself, he's called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don't raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.
So yes, as others have said here, the goal is not necessarily (or only) to get rid of the usage of the word. But as is very evident from other responses, that is not immediately obvious to everyone, in no small part because of the arguably poor catch phrase being used.
I'm also not thrilled with some of the 'motivational' phrases being thrown around. "I'm not bossy; I'm the boss" (Beyonce) is not constructive. It's puerile and is more likely to encourage actual bossy behavior (the negative kind, as defined well elsewhere in this thread) than to help introduce equality in the way we encourage leadership attributes in all children.
Not, of course, that equality seems to be emphasized here. Which is a typical problem and one that's unlikely to help this campaign make a real difference, as it's immediately exclusive to some degree rather than encouraging everyone to be confident.
“If passed, the law will apply to Iraq’s Shia Muslims, the majority of the population. Provisions include prohibiting Muslim men from marrying non-Muslim women, legalising rape inside marriage by declaring that a husband has a right to sex regardless of consent, and prohibiting women from leaving the house without their husband’s permission,” reports Breitbart.com. The law, which has been denounced by Human Rights Watch as a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), would also lower the age of marriage to nine years old for girls and 15 for boys. Despite the fact that the law represents an egregious assault on women’s rights and wouldn’t look out of place in the stone age, you probably didn’t hear about it because self-proclaimed feminists were too busy concentrating on more pressing atrocities being inflicted upon women – such as people using the word “bossy”. http://www.infowars.com/new-iraqi-law-legalizes-rape-feminis...
That’s because second wave feminism is not about protecting women’s rights, it’s about stirring up a contrived gender war and impugning western culture, the middle class and the family unit as the source of all sexism and oppression, thereby making women more dependent on the government and hiding the true source of all oppression – the state.
How about you teach real leadership skills to girls who like to lead? Such as understanding, empathy, reward, etc. Of course the same goes for men, and bossy men are just as big a problem.
Does this mean I'm actually a woman?
-Adam Curry
Instead, it is used to describe someone who takes charge in a rude and disrespectful way. Examples include: giving others orders, shouting, emotional manipulation, tantrums, and so forth. Anybody who behaves this way may be "leading", in some sense, but they are not being a very good leader.
Conversely, a girl who leads her friends and peers in a kind and empowering way is not being bossy.
It would make just as much sense have a campaign to "ban douchebag" or "ban asshole", as these terms are disproportionately applied to men. And those terms don't apply to being a leader, they apply to being a rude, disrespectful leader.
If you create a marketing campaign and it is misinterpreted by what is presumably largely your target group (men who don't realize their words are apparently harming girls during their formative years) the fault is yours, not your audience.