The #BanBossy movement has sharply divided the opinions of fathers online, but Scott Behson believes that the campaign isn’t really about banning words—it’s about standing up for women
—
Officially, “retarded” used to be (thankfully no longer) the medical term for individuals with certain cognitive disabilities.
Unofficially, “retarded” is often used as an insult meaning “stupid.”
Officially, “thug” is “a violent person, a criminal” (actually, it is literally a follower of the goddess Kali—like the bad guys in Temple of Doom).
Unofficially, “thug” means a dangerous black man. We went through all this with the Richard Sherman post-game interview kerfuffle.
Officially, “gay” means homosexual.
Unofficially, “gay” is used as a pejorative for stupid or unmanly.
Officially, Mr. Mom was a crappy 1983 Michael Keaton movie.
Unofficially, “Mr. Mom” means that dads who are active parents or take care of the home are a). not real men and b). at best, a pale reflection of a mother. This term emasculates SAHDs and other highly-involved men.
Officially, “bossy” means “domineering and overbearing.”
Unofficially, “bossy” means “an overly-assertive, emasculating woman” (e.g., anything Rush Limbaugh has called Hillary Clinton).
We can’t ban these terms. And, despite their harmful connotations, we shouldn’t. But we can and should discourage their use. Here’s why this dad stands with the #BanBossy movement.
♦◊♦
In case you’ve been under a rock, you’ve heard a lot of people yelling about the Sheryl Sandberg/Beyonce/Girl Scouts/Condaleeza Rice movement to ban the word “bossy.” The #BanBossy campaign is concerned with the idea that girls who are criticized as bossy early in life—usually when they are only being as assertive as boys—learn a lesson early on that they will face consequences for being assertive later on. There’s plenty of evidence that these perceptions hold true in corporate America—“bossy” and other related loaded words are only leveled at women and often used as an excuse to not promote them, not work with them, and not give them the same opportunities men are afforded.
There was the usual vitriol from the men’s rights people, the ‘Murica crowd, and the usual idiots on social and traditional media (just google it). I’m not here to discuss their all-too-typical ranting here.
Instead, I’d like to reflect on the online discussion I had with a bunch of very smart, articulate, reasonable fathers in a closed Facebook group of which I am a member. While the overall response was more respectful and well-reasoned—and far less venomous than those I mentioned above—I was surprised that the clear majority opinion amongst the dads was “anti-ban-bossy.”
Most just thought “banning” took things too far, and that a better term would be “beyond bossy.” These folks agreed that bossy was a loaded term used against women, but thought the idea of banning or never using it goes too far. I get that, and largely agree. Others saw the campaign as stupid PC language policing.
Others didn’t see the word bossy as a problem and felt it was used equally between the genders. Based on my corporate experience (as a business school professor, I interact with a wide variety of managers and executives on a daily basis), I disagree with these folks, but understand their differing perspective.
A few went way further than I would have thought, with quotes like, “If you disagree with the Lean In contingent in any way, you’re engaging in misogyny. It’s pretty pathetic” and “Do these zealots not realize some people are bossy, cold, bitchy, and aggressive?” Again, I disagree; however, I do not understand the source of the anger underlying these statements.
To me, I see no problem in trying to dispel the notion that assertive girls and women are “bossy.” No one, not even Sheryl Sandberg, can actually ban the use of a word, but this effort has clearly gotten a conversation about subtly sexist language and how it can hurt women. To me, that’s a great thing and should be applauded. After all, the advancement of women in the workplace is directly linked to the advancement of men in the home.
I’d like to share some of the responses three other vocal dissenters* and I—all of us fathers debating with other fathers—gave in arguing that “Ban Bossy” was not a misguided over-reach.
I’ve seen many thoughtful posts, that while disagreeing with “banning,” are supportive of the idea that shaming girls for behavior we accept or promote within boys is a big problem. To see that discussion in the wider public audience, rather than just feminist forums, IS a big deal.
Here’s what the campaign does and why it matters. Fathers, mothers, and teachers will become more aware of the stigma we place on girls for behavior we call “just being a boy” for our sons. The idea is to become more aware of our bias, our gender role reinforcement, and our language. Women are underrepresented in supervisory rules—Is that because women are less capable or because society has taught them (generally speaking, of course) to be more submissive, demure, and not to challenge men? If language and discipline approaches contribute to this issue, then why wouldn’t we address it there? The first step to addressing a problem is bringing attention to it, hence #BanBossy.
I notice that SAHDs tried to get “Mr. Mom” banned. Some supported the idea, some disagreed, but I don’t recall anyone being up in arms about the foundation of freedom, the nature of language, and comparing the idea to burning books. It’s almost as if Sandberg and Lean In are being judged on a different standard. Maybe those ladies should know their place? Do we have a bias against women and feminists in general or is their offense so much worse? I recall a lot of blowback on the “Lean In” campaign as well. Just strikes me as odd. I think we all hold biases that we don’t even recognize most of the time (I know I do).
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
I dunno. I see no problem in trying to dispel the notion that assertive girls and women are “bossy.” What am I missing?
Bossy has a particular “dog whistle” loaded meaning to women, especially women in business. Go ask your wives or read Tina Fey’s memoir.
I’m OK with their effort—a man is an asshole in a meeting and he’s tough or strong, woman says same thing and she’s emotional or a bitch. I actually think it’s pretty unfair and my exec wife would agree.
She started a debate about something that was not even on my radar before now and makes sense to me. Of course, I won’t ever utter the word “banned” about the words my family or kids use, but I can discourage it. If she had to push way into the subject to get the rest of us to even look at it and shift our thinking to “discourage,” I’m cool with that.
Unless I missed something and they are actually trying to pass a law banning the word, this is hardly a freedom of speech thing. It’s just the first offer on the bargaining table of what seems like a worthwhile issue.
Trigger words should be discouraged. Retard. Gay (as a pejorative). Thug. Bossy is nowhere near the problem of these other ones, but should be actively discouraged. As a straight, Christian, able-bodied white middle-aged man, I have it sooooooooooooooooooo incredibly easier in life than most. Being a bit more careful with my words, so as not to unintentionally harm others, is a small price to pay, IMO.
“Bossy” and other codewords are absolutely used in corporate America to diminish women. We should stop the double-standard that an assertive man is assertive and an assertive woman is an emasculating bitch, etc.
Obviously, Sandberg is not Putin and can’t ban anything (Quick quiz: Who has been called “bossy” more—Hillary or Putin?). But she chose to use provocative language here to get people discussing and reacting and multiplying her mission. Well done, Sheryl.
Remember the whole flap about Richard Sherman and “thug” being a codeword for “angry dangerous black man”? Admittedly, Bossy is not as big an issue as that, but it has many similarities.
Sandberg can’t come out and say “ban calling us cunts.” So she calibrated the word for a mass audience. She also says BAN bossy for shock effect—obviously she/we can’t ban the word, but she sure has us talking about it.
Charles Blow in NY Times last week—“Girls must be given safe space to be assertive and boys to be vulnerable without feeling that they have failed a test of gender normativity.” Sandberg is focusing on the former, but it is a piece with the latter
If anyone calls my daughter bossy for being assertive, I’ll have something to say. That is true of many things, I don’t know about banning a word, but I don’t think the campaign is really trying to do so in any meaningful way. If it makes people think twice about using it, I see no problem with that. Teaching girls that taking a leadership position/stance can be seen as a negative is detrimental. It’s detrimental to boys as well, but we have to ask ourselves if males are the ones under-represented in leadership positions? And do you think their end goal is to legislate or drive the word from the dictionary? Hell no. It’s a marketing tool, in this case, leading to a discussion that no one was interested in yesterday. Just getting people to understand the impact of language and socialization is huge.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Will bossy become a term disallowed for use against women? No. Will HR reps advise male supervisors against using the term in reviews and formal communications? Probably. When you aim beyond a goal, you are more likely to achieve it.
Now boys are prone to over-competition, burying feelings/emotions, and being overly aggressive. We reinforce that with many sayings and attitudes (suck it up, don’t be a pussy, you’re crying like a girl, etc…). Do I think those words should be banned? Hell no, but, if you tell me the best way to get the most people to start thinking about it and being deliberate in how they speak on these things is to create a campaign calling for them to be banned, then I’d say sure.
The word “retard” comes to mind. Can you say it? Sure, of course. Does it make you look like an asshole? Yes. Why? Because we see the word causes harm to individuals and damages society’s perception of them. So we reexamine its use. Now reexamine “bossy.” And “bitch.” I find these words are more often applied to women and, most importantly, actually contribute to the environment where it is less acceptable for women to act like assertive and confident leaders. I’m willing to bet there are a lot of people being exposed to that idea than were just a few days ago. I call that success.
So do I.
Here at GMP, we correctly point out when language harms boys and men. We should also stand up for the assertive women in our lives.
* The smartest comments came from writer Eric Boyette (Dad on the Run), Neil Cohen (Man on Third), and Drew Gilbert. The lesser ones probably came from me.
I mostly agree with what the campaign says. What triggers my disappointment a little bit is that it stops short of trying to make things better for both boys and girls. I’d love this campaign to generate a larger conversation about how boys are also unfairly treated. In the spirit of working towards a common good and mutual benefit, I propose an alliance: I’ll work on getting rid of the word “bossy” as something applied to girls way more than boys. I get that. Count me in. Meanwhile, she can work on getting rid of the word “bully” or “abusive”… Read more »
The word bossy is not gender specific. Some one who is bossy is trying to be a leader with out tact. Some one who is pushy with out caring for others feelings. Some one who needs to work on social skills and team building. To imply that the word is gender specific makes me think those making the argument are being a bit overly sensitive. Many children have these traits, boys and girls. Unfortunately some never outgrow it, which is why we are having this conversation about bossy people who want to ban words.
Bossy women exist as do men who are jerks. Many bossy women and men who are jerks get promoted and are in positions of authority. Many do not or get fired because of their attitudes. To what extent any of these things happen is anyone’s guess. Having said that, according to The Bureau of Labor Stats, Asian women in similar professional and management jobs as white women.make more money. Why? Is their upward mobility not curtailed too because of the bossy label? Black women make less than Asian and white women and are even less likely to be promoted. Why?… Read more »
@ ogwriter
White women tend to make more than black and Hispanic men so are they not bossy at all or is their bossiness hurting them? Are white women succeeding over black and Hispanic men in spite of their being bossy or does not being bossy aid a woman in getting promotions?
@John Gottman You ask the best damned questions, you must be a teacher or prof. If the point being made is that being bossy hurts upwardly mobile white women -we are talking about white women-even though black women can be PLENTY BOSSY TOO-under what circumstances is that true? My point is that the general application of the theory or opinion, whichever one prefers to use, across all cultural boundaries is flawed. Therefore, in certain situations, depending on relative rank and status, due to race, culture, education, etc., being bossy yields different results.
I think you guys are on to something
This feels like an ill thought out campaign. A little bit more market analysis should have been done on the catch phrase – Ban Bossy. It is sinking the message. It is confusing and contradictory. The message of assertiveness is being lost and replaced with protectiveness.
Trigger warning for Ban Bossy being too close a phrase to Gary Busey.
Bruce Springsteen is “The Boss”….I hope some day that little girls and big girls and women of all ages will not give a flying f–k about being called “bossy”….I have to make decisions everyday and take responsibility for stuff at work….when you finally grow up, you have to take charge….certain people expect you to…
@ Leia
You’re right. Bossy has been directed at boys also. They just apparently don’t care as much as girls. We’re supposed to raise strong, assertive girls by protecting them from words. Sounds strange to me, but then boys were raised to overcome adversity and maybe that’s why “they’re bosses”.
Except that she used the words “the Boss” which means in charge. BOSSY and the boss are different. bossy suggests pushy and not accomodating. Boys are called the boss. Why would anyone care that they were called the boss. Who doesn’t want to call the shots and be in charge. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.. A boys being called bossy would understand that what they are doing is being pushing and forceful. That they aren’t accomodating to those around him and he is wrong for it. I hope someday you will have the intellectual capacity to understand language and… Read more »
@ Lynn Tom Brechlin “I don’t remember it being directed toward just women” Leia “I hope some day that little girls and big girls and women of all ages will not give a flying f–k about being called “bossy”….I have to make decisions everyday and take responsibility for stuff at work….when you finally grow up, you have to take charge” John Anderson “Bossy has been directed at boys also. They just apparently don’t care as much as girls.” Where does Lela say boss in relation to work? I see bossy. She says the boss in relation to Bruce Springsteen. Tom… Read more »
@John Gottman You know man i have raised one daughter and two sons. I was scared to death that the narrative that tells girls- the world must be perfect before one can achieve ones goals- would corrupt her, limiting her from the inside out. I taught her, as I did my boys, to block out the white noise and stay singularly focused on their goals and on personal development. She has never struggled with body image issues. Whenever she puts on 30 or 40 pounds she doesn’t want she gets off her fat butt and does what she was taught… Read more »
Here’s an article worth reading:
http://halloftheblackdragon.com/reel/punishing-bullies-uplifting-bossy-girls/
and another:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/opinion/drexler-sandberg-bossy/index.html?hpt=op_r1
Once you are done reading those then get back to “why” Bossy should be Banned…………
“There’s plenty of evidence that these perceptions hold true in corporate America—”bossy” and other related loaded words are only leveled at women and often used as an excuse to not promote them, not work with them, and not give them the same opportunities men are afforded.”
What evidence? Somehow I doubt the author actually has any evidence.
google: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=studies+gender+stereotypes+business&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=cGcnU5zxOYTv0gGA7IGIBA&ved=0CCQQgQMwAA
There’s plenty of evidence of this, in dozens of research studies and meta-analyses of those studies. Didn’t think this level of depth was needed for this piece.
Thank you for the buggy ride …. any studies that aren’t, 1984, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995 or even newer then 2002 (12 years ago)?
Really – you’re saying any of those studies talk about the use of the word “bossy”? No, of course they don’t. I’m sick and tired of liberals constantly demanding conservatives back up every statement they make with independent research, while reserving for themselves the right to make sweeping statements about widespread, structural bias in our society without providing any back-up themselves. Newsflash – in normal offices folks don’t discriminate against women. I’m sure it happens some times, just as I’m sure some women discriminate against men, but in the vast majority of cases women and men are valued for their… Read more »
MIke, I agree and I’ve worked in a LOT of offices. I went through affirmative action and had to pass up a lot of well qualified men because I had to show the right female mix to gain government contracts. Not much chance of discriminating against women where I am now. Out of 12 clinical staff on my all boys residential unit, there are only two men. All three of our residential male units are run by women, the business manager is a women, the director of our education section is a women, the head of accounting is a women.… Read more »
John- I don’t think it is a balanced perspective to think you can say someone esle is overreacting to something that isn’t projected at you or your ‘group.” Also, you have to think of the relevance of the words, how they connect to people’s experiences and the realities of their lives and opportunities. This word is used primary to describe women, and connects to the stereotypes that hurt us in terms of success, particularly in the business world. Asking if ball buster is ok is your way of trying to downplay the whole thing, to say to us, “what’s the… Read more »
@ Ericka
“with being a jerk or selfish”
And jerk comes from jerks off or a statement alluding to a man not being masculine enough to have sex with a woman. See how that works if we get over sensitive?
@ Ericka
“connects maleness with being a jerk or selfish”
And jerk is derived from jerk off or jerks off and implies that a man is not masculine enough to have sex with a woman. See what happens when we get over sensitive to words?
Males generally care about numero uno so if it doesn’t effect them, why should they care?
a lack of mirror neurons leads to a lack of empathy.
Males have less mirror neurons than woman and those they do have aren’t exercised.
@ Lynn
Boy were the Kamikaze and those 19 firemen who died fighting that wildfire misled. I’ve read your snarky comments and my respectful responses. Seems we have a different definition of empathy.
So is ball buster still OK? 🙂 I think you’re over reacting to bossy.
John, I agree!
I agree with you guys … I must live in an alternate universe because it’s been a long time since I’ve heard the term “bossy” and when I did hear it in the past, I don’t remember it being directed toward just women. Now “jerk” on the other hand, I hear a lot of and obviously the term is used toward men. So in some respects, I see this as “cow” shit.
There were two on Friday’s GMP from page
Mark Greene’s “for-crying-out-loud-can-we-please-stop-calling-them-sensitive-men” and Gint Aras’
“education-is-unmanly”
“Here at GMP, we correctly point out when language harms boys and men. We should also stand up for the assertive women in our lives.”
Sorry to say but the ratio at which GMP does the former is far less than the latter.
Two from Friday’s front page:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/for-crying-out-loud-can-we-please-stop-calling-them-sensitive-men-megasahd/
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/education-is-unmanly-gint-aras/
“There was the usual vitriol from the men’s rights people, the ‘Murica crowd, and the usual idiots on social and traditional media (just google it). I’m not here to discuss their all-too-typical ranting here.
Instead, I’d like to reflect on the online discussion I had with a bunch of very smart, articulate, reasonable fathers in a closed Facebook group of which I am a member”
Those who disagree with you are IDIOTS and those that agree with you are SMART, ARTICULATE and REASONABLE.
Not a good way to get your point across.
exactly, why bother trying to have a discussion, if you’ve already been labeled before it even begins.
My article is framed as disagreeing with others’ opinions. I focus on a subset of those differing opinions I find to be at least reasonable points of difference. I prefer reasonable debate instead of yelling matches with folks who are dug into emotionally charged opinions.
It would have been a very different article (and one someone else can write) to represent other views or to argue against the more vitriolic responses out there.
I apologize that this article wasn’t satisfactory to you. Thanks for reading and hearing me out.
She makes an excellent point about the “bossy” double standard. I’ve never heard a boy called “bossy,” but I and some of the other girls in my elementary school actually had words to that effect on our report cards. But, if you want to fight the double standard, then you need to provide a replacement that’s more gender neutral. Give an alternative word that covers both boys and girls. You can’t just stay “stop using that word!” You can’t just say boys and girls should do whatever they want to. Here’s where we women also need to take a hard… Read more »