Bossy women Seek to Ban the Word "Bossy"
A new campaign sponsored by Girl Scouts, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and dozens of female celebrities seeks to ban the term "bossy." The term apparently is used to demean women. Girls are not seeking out leadership positions due to a fear of being disliked or being called bossy.
When a little boy asserts himself, he's called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy"
What everyone seems to have missed is that the term "bossy" is not exclusive to females. Plenty of boys and men have been referred to as "bossy" or worse. This victim mentality isn't going to do anything to empower women.
Instead of banning words like "bossy," perhaps a more effective strategy would be to teach girls ways to exhibit leadership without being, well, bossy. "Leadership" isn't a synonym for bossy--but "dictatorial," "overbearing," and "abrasive" are. There's a huge difference between being a leader and being abrasive.
Also, for what it's worth, demanding that a word be banned is quite bossy in and of itself.
Source
11 comments:
The campaign was started by a wealthy Hilary Clinton supporter after it was determined that she was vulnerable to such a charge.
Sad that other orgs - e.g. Girl Scouts - have been so infected that they now openly propagate the propaganda.
See http://washingtonexaminer.com/ban-bossy-campaign-started-by-hillary-clinton-donor-ahead-of-2016-run/article/2545552.
Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight.
On Sunday, Facebook's Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg launched a new campaign, known as 'Ban Bossy,' which would - as you can imagine - encourage people to ban the word “bossy.”
Is there some kind of epidemic of that word being used to keep girls from achieving? Many of the surveys cited by the Ban Bossy campaign are decades old, and a more recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America found that girls are more likely than boys to see themselves as a leader or have the desire to be a leader.
So, why start a national campaign?
For starters, Sandberg is an ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
<snip>
Bossy is a name famers often give to their cows
Since cows are sometimes named Bossy, it seemed logical that calling a woman bossy meant she was a cow. As for the real meaning of the term, we refer to anyone who is bossy by that term regardless of gender.
I once referred to a pair of kittens as 'the itty-bitty kitties'. The name stuck, with one being called "Itty" and the other "Bitty." I caught seven kinds of heck from a feminist because "Bitty" was a female. Poor woman couldn't distinguish between 'bitty' and 'biddy'. She really was quite a biddy about the whole thing.
"Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight."
Like the teabaggers.
Anon 12:50 - No like the USE of the term "Teabaggers" due to the lack of any ability to provide real criticism.
The usual lefty tactics: ridicule, demonize, lie... anything except recognize honest griefs with their complete failure to make even one successful government program.
The term tea baggers was coined by the movement's early members. Just because you do not like the term now does not make it any less valid. Stop being so PC.
The term "tea bagger" refers to a particular homosexual act and was, and is, used by the left in a childish attempt to smear the movement. Anon 2:57 likely knows this, but would rather spread disinformation than engage in legitimate discussion of issues. This is par for the course for leftists.
This is par for the course for leftists.
Leftie trolls, yes, tho not all lefties; I know a few who are genuinely decent, albeit they tend to be old-school types whose politics from a distance are leftie but whose personal lives and local politics are much more conservative. Huzzah for firsthand knowledge!
As for trolls, they seek to antagonize as a way of garnering attention to themselves. They do so because they have no choice, their skills and mental abilities fail to impress, but their self-esteem (aka "ego") has been conditioned to expect reward.
/adolescent status anxiety 101
BTW, the self-esteem movement (as in unearned self-esteem) condemns the trolls to a lifetime of loserhood. You see, from the earliest age, even in kindergarten, children who are praised for their ability respond by ... well, by giving up and not trying anymore.
Why? Because they might fail and they have nowhere to go but down, now. And by not trying, and even learning to openly disdain effort and success - typical troll behavior, no? - they ensure that they will never get better at anything, necessitating increased sneering and tearing down of others as life unfolds without them. The cycle then continues.
So don't praise ability, instead praise effort. Don't say "oh, you're so smart, you figured it out" ... say "good for you, you worked at it till you got it right." Kids whose effort is praised, instead of ability, grow up as engaged doers instead of whiny spectators, and are much happier and less narcissistic.
Carole S. Dwerk has done good research in this area if anyone wishes to learn more. I think she might have also written a book or two, as well, tho I know of her work myself solely thru her essays and articles.
The entertainment value of this blog is top notch. Thanks stinky. You never fail to give me a good laugh. Still you are not match for the Christian Rightists showcased in rightwingwatch.org. Step up your game.
Yep, this is supposed to be a site about free-speech, but is mainly frequented by very rightwing &/or religious weirdos, who like preaching to the choir, and get very offended and offensive if anyone comes in to disturb their form circle-jerk.
I specifically referred to adolescent narcissists. Who said I was talking about you?
Oh, right, you did. Gawd but you're easy.
P.S. To everyone else, let's continue our "trolls explained" series, this time with a quick look at identity politics.
Ever notice how the Left has consistently moved towards an identity based on immutable characteristics such as race, gender etc.
That's the mark of those who cannot compete. Like our troll above, if you can't argue your case, you must insist instead. And try to stifle rebuttal with insults.
But if telling a child "oh, you're so smart" (instead of "good for you for working it out"), how is that any different from telling that child, or overgrown child, "oh, you're better because you're the right race or gender or whatever?"
It's not, really. It's the same thing. The child has nowhere to go but down by trying and potentially failing. So they don't, and they despise those who do, because other people's successes make the identity group members look bad in comparison.
The more you tell an identity group member that they are special because of their immutable characteristic, the more you ensure their failure.
And thus are conspiracy theories and "unconscious bias" hypotheses born; out of necessity, to explain a self-imposed failure whose supposed solution is in fact its cause.
Anyway, I got things to do today, so if our loserhood troll(s) wish to respond, they get last word again. Not that it's helped them yet.
Post a Comment