'Ban Bossy': A Bad Remedy for a Fictional Problem

Using girls as props for activism that schools them in invented victimhood is not feminist advocacy, it’s feminist malpractice.

Lean In/FacebookLean In/FacebookThe War on Bossy, led by Facebook boss Sheryl Sandberg, has been roundly criticized and even lampooned from leftright, and center. Sandberg’s proposal to banish "the other B-word" because it’s a common and damaging putdown for assertive girls has met with various objections, from "Why not teach girls to be bossy?" to "Why not teach both girls and boys not to be bossy?" to "Why not address real sexist barriers instead of playing language cops?" But the campaign has its supporters too, including famous ones such as singer Beyoncé Knowles and pundit Arianna Huffington. And now there is a backlash against the backlash, with some saying that “Ban Bossy” is based on real evidence both of the word’s sexist use and of a still-strong, pervasive negativity toward female leadership.

Real evidence? Not so fast. A closer look at the research invoked by "Ban Bossy" defenders shows it to be shaky and selective. What’s more, the "facts" cited on the campaign’s own website are such a collection of abused data that it brings to mind another common B-word—the crude synonym for bovine excrement.

Perhaps the most memorable and widely cited of the campaign’s factoids is this:

"Girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that leadership roles will make them seem 'bossy.'"

fact sheet refers to a 2008 study by the Girl Scouts Research Institute (Girl Scouts CEO Anna Maria Chavez is a co-leader of Sandberg’s campaign). The study, "Change It Up! What Girls Say About Redefining Leadership," is based on a survey of about 2,500 girls and 1,500 boys eight to 17 years old. 

Guess what the study found: Girls and boys were equally likely to say they wanted to be leaders. For both sexes, about 40 percent agreed with the statement "I want to be a leader." A little over half picked "I don’t mind being a leader, but it’s not that important to me," and fewer than 10 percent said they did not want to be leaders. Girls and boys were also equally likely to say that "I think of myself as a leader" (61 percent) and to see themselves as smart, talented, and strong. And girls were more likely to see themselves as "responsible" (40 percent vs. 35 percent), "highly motivated" (31 percent vs. 27 percent), "passionate about something" (47 percent vs. 38 percent), and "creative" (50 percent vs. 39 percent).

So what’s this about girls being twice as likely to worry that leadership roles would make them seem bossy? Well, the children who said they did not want to be leaders—again, fewer than one tenth of the total—were asked about the reasons for this lack of interest. In this small subsample, 29 percent of the girls and 13 percent of the boys agreed with the statement, "I do not want to seem bossy." That’s about 2.5 percent of all girls, compared to just over one percent of boys. Truly, a dreadful scourge of future womanhood that calls for a massive social media campaign.

The Girls Scouts study has other fascinating data about girls and leadership. For instance, girls are somewhat more likely than boys to have actual leadership experience (in every area except sports, where 18 percent of boys and 14 percent of girls had been a captain or co-captain of a team). Thus, 31 percent of girls versus 26 percent of boys reported having been the leader of a team for a school project; 13 percent of girls, compared to 10 percent of boys, had run for a school or class office; and 11 percent of girls but only six percent of boys had been officers in a school club. This fits with what a number of social critics such as Christina Hoff Sommers have been arguing for a while: that right now, boys are the ones falling behind in schools, academically and socially.

Another alarming "fact" from the "Ban Bossy" site:

"The confidence gap starts early. Between elementary and high school, girls’ self–esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys.'"

The source for this is a 1991 study from the American Association of University Women, "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America," that amounts to 23-year-old junk science. Writing on the Psychology Today website in 2010, the late Susan Noelen-Hoeksma, a leading psychologist and a Yale University Professor, noted that "the study by the American Association of University Women was refuted by subsequent studies using large samples and better measures of self-esteem." After reviewing the claims of a crisis in girls’ self-esteem and the relevant research, Noelen-Hoeksma concluded, "The phrase ‘much ado about nothing’ comes to mind."

And one more factoid:

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

This turns out to be based on a study that tracked a large group of adolescents from 1992 to 1997. Seventy-two percent of sixth-grade boys but 54 percent of girls agreed with the statement, "I like to take the lead when a group does things together." But is this correlated with the kind of leadership that translates into achievement? Is the gap partly a result of the fact that girls are more likely than boys to interact with friends one-on-one, rather than in groups? Is this replicated in other research? Don’t expect answers from "Ban Bossy."

Ashe Snow, a columnist for The Washington Examiner, contacted the study’s author and learned that the question was only asked only once over the course of the study, so the wording which implies that girls become more leadership-averse as they get older is misleading. ("Change It Up" demonstrated the opposite.) Snow also demonstrates that another "Ban Bossy" claim—that "parents place a higher value on leadership for boys than for girls"—is based on a single statistic cherry-picked from a survey which, overall, shows that parents value leadership equally for their sons and daughters.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Waaaaa

  • Juice||

    Just like the anti-bullying campaign, it's ironic that in telling people to not say the word bossy, they're being bossy.

  • sarcasmic||

    People like that are immune to irony.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • stephn289||

    Start earning with Google. Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. Its actually the nicest job Ive had. Linked Here www.CapitalPosts.com

  • Juice||

    Well, now I feel dumb because I got it backward. They aren't trying to stamp out bossiness just the use of the word. *shrug*

  • Gorilla tactics||

    "we need affirmative action to end race and gender discrimination"

    right over their heads.

  • I Love Irony||

    You’re right. That is the first thing that crossed my mind; “you’re bossing me to not say ‘bossy?’” Ha!

    If the people behind this had any true leadership skills they would glom onto some other saying that is a “do” statement rather than a “do not” statement.

    I suggest “talk tactfully.”

    Next I would suggest to those who complain about their daughters being called ‘bossy’ take a deep look at themselves since children nearly always closely mimic their parents.

  • CE||

    You're not the boss of me!

  • ||

    I would not mind one little bit if someone called me bossy. That means I'm TCB.

  • From the Tundra||

    Totally Cool Babe?

  • ||

    Well, yes. I thought that was implied :)

    (Takin' Care of Bidness)

  • AlmightyJB||

    Some guye will pay extra for that.

  • Mainer2||

    You little worm

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Not that I ever want to decry an exhaustive debate on any issue, but is there something here I'm not seeing? Is there some weight behind this "bossy" dustup that I'm missing?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Webster's is ready to delete it from the dictionary.

  • Homple||

    Would anyone have guessed that by 2014 "The Principles of Newspeak" appendix to Orwell's 1984 would be used as an instruction manual?

  • John||

    I agree with Glen Reynolds on this. This is nothing but battle space preparation for Hillary. If we "ban bossy", then we can't really point out what a meddlesome screw Hillary is can we?

    Also, I am fine with not calling girls bossy as long as we stop calling boys future rapists, sexual harassers and "domestic terrorists" when they point their finger like a gun. Deal?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: John,

    If we "ban bossy", then we can't really point out what a meddlesome screw shrew Hillary is, can we?


    I think that is what you were really thinking, so FIFY.

  • John||

    Thanks. And though I wouldn't want to find out, I bet she is a meddlesome screw as well.

  • Zeb||

    I'm trying to think of what that would be.

    After you screw her, she wants to run your life?

    Or perhaps as you screw her she tries to direct the whole thing?

    I really don't want to know either.

  • Curtisls87||

    actually, I thought it was a reference back to the 20s/30s for a cop. She is sort of a meddlesome cop when you think about it.

  • Mainer2||

    John's malapropisms are half the reason I visit this site.

    This of them as belapropisms

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I'm quite prepared to not call Hillary "Bossy". Meddlesome, arrogant, stupid, incompetent, shrill, petty, deranged………..

  • CE||

    Ancient.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    I just read that article. Very insightful, if the repubs had any balls they would run with that and preempt the preemption.

  • Pro Libertate||

    So bossy is the offensive word? Bitchy and cunty are now okay? Am I reading this correctly?

  • John||

    I think so.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    "You bossy bitch!"

    "Hey! No one calls me bossy!"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    What about prick or dick?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, those are fine. Put them on your resume.

  • ||

    What about prick or dick?

    Some snowflakes get names and others are so pure and individual that naming them is an insult.

    When homosexuals strive(d) to divest themselves of queer or faggot, I wonder aloud when men in general will be free from the tyranny of actual *hate* speech like "motherfucker", "jackass", and "bastard". Seems like I now have (yet) another venue.
  • Zeb||

    What about "twat"? "Twat" doesn't get used enough these days.

  • CE||

    Quim made it into the Avengers, without an R rating.

  • John Galt||

    Bitchy is encouraged, cunty not as much.

  • SIV||

    Gavin McInnes on "Ban Bossy"

  • OldMexican||

    Beyoncé is the songstress who warbles such sweet lines as,
    "I fill the tub up halfway then I ride it with my surfboard, surfboard
    Grinding on that wood, grinding, grinding on that wood."

    Her husband loves her very much and has made it clear that he has "99 problems, but a bitch ain't one." This dumb bitch, who spends thousands of dollars weaving white women's hair into her own, is telling young girls to be themselves. Did you know "bossy" is a sexist term used to prevent girls from becoming themselves? Me neither. I don't think anybody did.


    LOL! I love Takimag!

  • Gorilla tactics||

    Yeah Taki's awesome.

  • OldMexican||

    A closer look at the research invoked by "Ban Bossy" defenders shows it to be shaky and selective.


    A planet where feminists' research is shaky and selective?

    That's about 2.5 percent of all girls, compared to just over one percent of boys. Truly, a dreadful scourge of future womanhood that calls for a massive social media campaign.


    Oh, balderdash! Evidence is for old people! Look at the snazzy commercials, showing the beautiful celebrities switching at the quick-step repeating the same mantra! That must count for something!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What is supposed to be so bad about a social campaign to get people to be more sensitive to how they might undermine girl's ambitions towards leadership? I would like to see no girl (or boy for that matter) so undermined just because of some traditional idea we have about how boys and girls 'should' act.

  • John||

    That is one way to spin it. Another way would be that it is a campaign to undermine people teaching girls needed social skills. You assume being strong and assertive is the only necessary quality for leadership. I don't think that is true.

    I think telling a girl or a boy "don't be bossy" is teaching them social skills and how to respect other people. Encouraging them to be controlling and assertive is probably not going to do them much good in the long term.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree there is a line between being too deferential to aggressive and controlling behavior by boys or girls and undermining girls who show leadership skills because of some silly overly traditional idea of who should 'be the boss' or 'wear the pants.' I guess you could say this campaign overlooks the danger of the former side of the line to get to the latter, but that hardly strikes me as that terrible.

  • John||

    I think women have a problem in that it is hard for some of them to be assertive without coming across as a bitch. I don't think that is fair but it is just reality and there is no way to change it.

    Women can't lead the same way men do. I am not sure why but men can be directly assertive without coming across badly much easier than women can be. A lot of women don't understand that and try to lead like men and end up hated by their subordinates male and female alike.

    For a woman to be a successful leader, she has to learn to be assertive in different ways than men are. Good female leaders tend to be more deft and subtle than good male leaders are. I am not sure why that is. But it just seems to be the way people are wired.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I don't think that is fair but it is just reality and there is no way to change it."

    Perhaps you can forgive feminists for not just accepting this status quo, and for attempting to change it, at least as long as they stick with social campaigns and away from coercive governmental measures.

  • John||

    I think they are trying to change biology. Beyond that, they are trying to change it by saying everyone should just be okay with a woman being a bitch instead of saying "hey lets teach women how to be assertive without being a bitch."

    There are plenty of jackass male leaders out there for sure. I don't think one day deciding "lets ban asshole" is a very good solution to those leaders.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, take what you said: "I think women have a problem in that it is hard for some of them to be assertive without coming across as a bitch. I don't think that is fair but it is just reality and there is no way to change it."

    That very likely has something to do with societal expectations and attitudes about what is proper for women vs. men. It was not ancient history that women who wanted to keep their own property or vote were seen as 'uppity' b*tches who were going against biology. But that viewpoint changed. I for one am glad it changed. Maybe it changed because of social campaigns like this one.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

    Perhaps you can forgive feminists for not just accepting this status quo.


    Depends on what they think is the status quo. Making shit up and pretend it is the status quo is the same as tilting at windmills, fighting dragons, cleaning the house of ghosts or exorcising demons or whatever other metaphor for flapping at imaginary butterflies you can fancy.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fair enough. If people do not use bossy more on girls, if it does not reflect expectations about how girls are not supposed to 'be the boss,' then it is a silly campaign. It depends on the empirical reality. I just do not think Ms. Young has conclusively proven much about that, though I admit she undercut some of the common claims of evidence from the other side.

  • ||

    It depends on the empirical reality.

    The empirical reality is that you can't empirically determine every instance and usage of a word, it's meaning or context, and even if you could, the cited data to support the contention are mostly bullshit. Even if they were correct it would be meaningless. I'd venture to guess that the epithet "asshole" is more frequently directed at men than women. The solution to that problem is to not act like an asshole. That different words are used synonymously based on the gender of the recipient of the insult is nothing to get exercised about.

  • RBS||

    I think part of it is that some women take what a man would do and turn it up to 15.

  • John||

    Yes. And make it personal. I can be assertive and forceful without as long as it is about professional things. If I make it personal, then I am no longer assertive but just an asshole.

    Women for whatever reason don't always get that distinction.

  • ||

    Part of the problem is that many (NOT ALL) women see all interactions as part of their larger social lives. They can't compartmentalize professional and personal interactions. Dog knows my parents tried to make me into a little girly-girl. Lucky for me, they weren't that successful, and genetics won out when I turned out to be just like my dad.

  • ||

    (when I mention how I was raised, I'm referring to how people openly teach girls how to be "ladylike" and soft. Don't laugh too loud, don't smile too wide, don't shake hands too hard...)

  • ||

    As John said above, women are (and, IMO, should be more or differently subtle) I would add that women often fight gender roles with efforts like 'ban bossy' to the detriment of their roles as leaders whereas men rarely, if ever, do.

    Women, to me, seem to have the option of flouting (not fighting) their gender roles whereas men can only play them out.

    That is to say; I've never seen a man seduce his way to a goal in a way that inspired men or women to think he was a great leader. I've never seen a man play helpless in a way that inspired men and women around him that he was a leader. I've certainly seen men work hard to inspire others, but I've never seen a smaller frailer man inspire both the men and the women around him with the nature or amount of work that he's doing.

  • ||

    Grrr... EDIT: As John said above, women are (and, IMO, should be more or differently) subtle.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's not rooted in any kind of reality. It's a manufactured problem. On the internet it's called "concern trolling". Speaking of concern trolling...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think you know what 'concern trolling' is. It is not someone expressing a concern, especially one you disagree with. It is when someone pretends to agree with you, but then argues that we should be concerned about how the point we agree on is going to be perceived.

    It works like this:
    Person A: The minimum wage is stupid, it clearly harms those it seeks to help.
    Concern troll: I totally agree with you, but can't you see that if we push that we will seem like monocle wearing robber barons? Better for us to stay away from that issue.

  • JW||

    It doesn't disappoint, does it?

  • Michael||

    That...was magical.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.

    What is supposed to be so bad about a social campaign to get people to be more sensitive to how they might undermine girl's ambitions towards leadership?


    The fact that the campaign is based on misconceived notions, misinformation, downright lies and an invented hobgoblin?

    Just sayin'.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is not that clear. Cathy Young herself seems to only selectively present some of the facts marshaled in support of the claims.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

    Cathy Young herself seems to only selectively present some of the facts marshaled in support of the claims.


    Those are THEIR facts, THEIR studies, Bo. That's THEIR evidence, not Cathy's. If the "Ban Bossy" crowd presents shoddy and suspect research to prop up their claims, then AT LEAST that should raise some red flags, turn on some emergency light on the board, compel the dog to lift his ears, make the jackrabbit jump - whatever metaphor for raised eyebrows or lip-clicking you may fancy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What I am saying is that I do not think Ms. Young's criticisms are as effective as she thinks (for example, the claim that girls who were not interested in leadership for fear of being bossy is over twice that for boys is literally true, it is just that Ms. Young notes it is a small percentage of the total; but if your concern is about those kids who do not want to be leaders it is not a terribly unfair statistic; I would like to know if it was statistically significant, for example). It's also a bit selective, she does not seem to address the research she links to under 'research' which seems pretty powerful to me.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.

    for example, the claim that girls who were not interested in leadership for fear of being bossy is over twice that for boys is literally true


    Oh, come on - quick splitting hairs. The fact that 2.5% is twice more than 1% is mathematically true but for the purpose of statistical analysis it is meaningless: you're basically finding out that 97.5% of the girls do not let the word "bossy" bother them compared to 99% of the boys. Do you think that would tell you that girls are TWICE as concerned about being called "bossy" compared to boys?

    Please.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Sure, to be more specific they should have said 'of children that are not interested in leadership, which is a small percent of the total, girls were over twice as likely as boys to say they were so because of a fear of appearing bossy.'

    But look, that is one claim, and it is about young girls being able to articulate what is likely a subtle effect that occurs to them when very young. They have other claims about differential use of the term and such. Ms. Young calls some of that into question, but not all of it.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

    But look, that is one claim, and it is about young girls being able to articulate what is likely a subtle effect that occurs to them when very young.


    Maybe. That would make it an interesting subject for further study by child psychologists but does not turn it into compelling evidence that justifies the campaign to ban a fucking word. I mean, have you even given it a bit of thought?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It has some common sense appeal to me. As I said in a previous thread the way I often heard the term was 'Little Miss Bossypants' which I heard way more than the opposite. It makes common sense that to take the word 'boss,' which is a position of power, and combine it with 'pants' which has long been invoked to support traditional gender roles, and then apply it to girls more than boys tells me that its use is intended to keep girls in line with traditional gender expectations.

    That's just my experience and intuition though, empirical research might prove that to be anomalous or wrong. I just do not think Ms. Young has done that today.

  • Alan||

    Of the 2.5% of girls that don't want to be perceived as bossy - besides the low percentage issue, why do we presume that every girl (or boy) should be a leader?

    We might also ask what leadership is. Is leadership being the first to do something new and setting an example for others, or does leadership mean bossing people around?

    If someone doesn't want to boss people around, that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned, regardless of sex. If that is what 2.5% of girls have been led to believe leadership is, then by all means I support those girls who don't want to be bossy. In refusing to conform to the social expectations of feminist dogma, they are demonstrating leadership.

  • Homple||

    Look, people. "Bossy" is doubleplusungood Oldspeak. So shut up.

  • Azathoth!!||

    (for example, the claim that girls who were not interested in leadership for fear of being bossy is over twice that for boys is literally true

    No, it is not 'literally true', not in the least.

    40% of boys and girls actively WANTED to be a leader.

    A bit more than 50% said they didn't mind, but it wasn't important.

    Only 10% of boys and girls said they didn't want to be leaders at all--and of that 10% less than a fifth of boys or girls cited 'fear of seeming bossy' as a cause.

    To be "literally true" the statement would have to read,

    Girls that don't want to be leaders at all are twice as likely as boys who don't want to be leaders at all to worry that leadership roles will make them seem ‘bossy'

    And "Girls actively seek out leadership roles at exactly the same rate as boys(40%)" is to be buried at all costs.

  • wadair||

    If everyone is a leader, then nothing gets done.

  • gimmeasammich||

    The "all chiefs and no Indians" reason is why so many people got let go at a placed I used to work.

  • Weygand||

    How are things at the Indian casino these days?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What is supposed to be so bad about a social campaign to get people to be more sensitive to how they might undermine girl's ambitions towards leadership?

    If a girl (or boy) loses her ambition to lead just because some people tell her not to be bossy, she never had the fortitude to be a leader in the first place.

  • Mark22||

    Perhaps instead of useless "leadership roles" like COO of Facebook, girls and boys should aspire to being productive members of society instead?

  • Zeb||

    Bossiness is not a desirable quality in a leader or in anyone. And in my experience at least it is not a word used exclusively for girls.

    That's my take anyway. The whole thing is stupid. It is a good thing to tell kids not to be too bossy (or assholish, or whatever you want to call it) because bossiness is annoying and counterproductive in a person of either gender.

  • wadair||

    Bossy != Leader

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Let's ban "Ban Bossy" articles.

    And let's doubleplusban "Ban Bossy" articles with no alt-text.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Let's just use the term Bossy as much as humanly possible. Fuck them. They don't get to tell me how to talk.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are too tough to take anyone's admonitions about what you say in front of children as something to think on. OK.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You seem very concerned about this, Bo.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Draw your own conclusions EDG.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Hey, Bo...

    FUCK YOU!

    Think on that.

    I choose to not to follow your guidance on what speech is acceptable, you arrogant little twat. Get over it.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Bo's arguments on here usually revolve around redefining things. So of course he would be all about the topic of "bossy."

  • ||

    Does anyone else get the feeling Bo also tries to tell black folks about how they experience life in American society?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    He certainly tries to tell libertarians what's libertarian.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Bo: "a lot of people seem to have no idea what a 'black folk' refers to, so let me explain it..."

  • ||

    Or, *talking to a black person*: "A lot of people seem to have no idea what "the projects" refers to. Let me explain..."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What makes you say that?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I could care less whether you choose to follow my guidance on what speech is acceptable, but your tuf gai routine of 'I do not care what anyone tells me I should or should not say around children, I am going to say it more just so they won't be telling me what to do' is silly.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Well, I think you're silly, so double rat farts on you.

    Fuck off, pussy.

  • Mainer2||

    Don't you mean you "couldn't" care less ?

  • Thomas O.||

    I'd just say... instead of "BOSSY", we use the term "LIKE A BOSS". :)

  • Agile Cyborg||

    That damn letter 'y' changes every.t.h.i.n.g.

    So maybe these thugfems should start a campaign against the letter 'y' and leave the damn words alone. I'd stop using y's. Whi not? Hell, I even feel more feministi. Bossi just looks grodi aniwai.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Okay, AC, how would you spell 'yes'?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Si?

  • KDN||

    Jes. And it will help our transition towards Spanglish as country's the official language.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Bossi mofo. ;)

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Sprüngli||

    i i

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Who cares about "yes?" How would you spell "womyn?!"

  • ||

    Shouldn't/Isn't the feminist campaign for the letter 'Y' and against the letter 'i'?

    Do I have to draw you a picture?

    Y = (|)

    i = 8===D

  • Michael||

    So maybe these thugfems should start a campaign against the letter 'y'...

    Then how do you suggest they spell "womyn"?

  • lap83||

    The main assumption in the ban bossy movement is that you should be able to act anyway you want as long as it's somewhat related to "leadership". It reminds me of a quote by Scott Adams.

    "Maybe we should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow"

    Just because someone has leadership potential doesn't mean I should give them the time of day.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "Just because someone has leadership potential doesn't mean I should give them the time of day."

    Especially if they're fuckin' bossy! ;)

  • John||

    And not everyone is cut to be or should be a leader. Sometimes you are a leader sometimes you are not. It depends on the circumstances.

    My experience is that people have become so egotistical that they need to learn to be followers more than they need to learn to be leaders. How about people learn to shut up and listen to what other people have to say once in a while instead of always tying to be the "leader"?

  • From the Tundra||

    How about people learn to shut up and listen to what other people have to say once in a while instead of always tying to be the "leader"?

    Which is, of course, the definition of good leadership.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "And not everyone is cut to be or should be a leader."

    Sure, and I think they get this. That is why they concentrate not on the total number of girls or boys who say they do not want to be a leader, but on those that seem to have been discouraged about becoming one by fears of appearing too bossy. No one should be forced into leadership, but no one should be discouraged because of their genitalia.

  • John||

    Telling people not to be bossy is not discouraging anything. It is teaching proper social skills. Feminists only claim that it discourages girls because feminists seem to believe that no behavior on the part of women is ever in any way worthy of anything but praise.

    This campaign is the equivalent of a bunch of male journalists trying to ban the term "bully" because it discourages boys from being leaders.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, what you said supra, that there is selective judging of women engaging in similar behavior that men do, seems to undercut all of this. It is that selective thing I think these people are getting at.

  • Mainer2||

    I had a supra back in the 80's...damn fine cars.

  • Acosmist||

    Between "supra" and the Clarence Thomas thing, I think Bo might just be a fake account.

  • ||

    supra

    Drink!

  • wadair||

    This campaign is the equivalent of a bunch of male journalists trying to ban the term "bully" because it discourages boys from being leaders.


    Exactly. Having a daughter in public schools enlightened me to female bullying. Bossy is often involved in female bullying.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Somebody is concerned.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, a lot of people seem to have no idea what a 'concern troll' refers to. It's like they latch on to the literal meaning of 'concern' and run around saying 'ah, an expression of concern, concern troll!' Interestingly they only call out expressions of concern they disagree with.

    If it simply refers to someone registering their concern or that they upset with something, then every poster here who posted about their concern that we are going to go bankrupt is a 'concern troll,' and that does not sound right.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Had these ladies not taken what might be a valid chip on their shoulder and attached it to an absurd campaign to end the life of an innocent adjective I'm pretty sure that only a smattering would think they were obsessively-concerned.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Okay, Humpty Dumpty.

  • hawkfan050||

    While the gender gap is small (5%) for boys v. girls captains in sports, maybe part of that also has to do with the fact that girl captains tend to be better captains and so retain the title whereas there are more boy captains because teams and coaches tend to cycle through them quicker because the previous one wasn't such a good captain.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of pernicious nonsense...

    “I am proud that Connecticut is once again a leader on an issue of national importance. Increasing the minimum wage is not just good for workers, it’s also good for business,” said Malloy, following the vote. His sentiment was shared by President Obama, who stated that Connecticut had set an example wages for other states to follow.

    “But to truly make sure our economy rewards the hard work of every American, Congress must act,” Obama said. “I hope members of Congress, governors, state legislators and business leaders across our country will follow Connecticut’s lead to help ensure that no American who works full time has to raise a family in poverty, and that every American who works hard has the chance to get ahead.”

    I hope the title of the bill is The Take Your Business Elsewhere Act.

  • ||

    What a shithole that state is (I know - I wen to high school there). Hopefully some good employers will pull up stakes and move to NH. Then I will move to NH and all will be right with the world.

  • KDN||

    “But to truly make sure our economy rewards the hard work of every American Connecticut isn't fully punished for their stupidity, Congress must act

    FTFH.

  • JW||

    "Prices Rise Across Connecticut. Lawmakers Demand Answers from Retailers."

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    is there a Make Me a Sandwich campaign I can join, lol

    tiwtanlw.com

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    So, you say you can't handle being called "Bossy"? If you can't handle being called names, you need to give up all pretense of leadership and get your fat ass back to the kitchen where you clearly belong, you passive-agressive twunt.

  • Mainer2||

    Girls who don't like being called bossy can probably summon tears on command when called out on their bullshit.

  • KBronson||

    In day to day life, I find no evidence that women feel inhibited from being bossy. From the total stranger who stopped to lecture me about smoking while enjoying a cigar while walking on the side of an unpopulated stretch of road to a former coworker who liked barking out orders, it is usually women who violate my personal boundaries in ways that might get a man hit or at least a sound cursing out. Too many bossy people of all genders. Too many rules and too many rule makers.

  • antisocial-ist||

    There's a lot of truth to this. In my experience many women seem to be some what sheltered from the consequences of said behavior, and act accordingly.

  • Duelles||

    Holy statistically BS Batman. As always go to the raw numbers and find the truth. The media and reportage of anything possibly meaningful has turned me from a casual cynic to a passionate cynic. Why do I not believe in much of the first wave of news on any subject? Crappy reporting. Thank you,mince again "reason" for straightening out something I dismissed out hand based on 65 years of life.

  • Ann N||

    bossy is not a fabricated or imaginary trait.

    bossy extends beyond its authority and takes liberties where it has no claim.

    and yes, this is a particularly feminine failing, just like getting in bar fights is an particularly masculine failing.

    many women are bossy, AND unfortunately (due to feminism) in positions of authority. bossy + authority = rampant abuse of power

    honestly describing the behavior of these women is not a crime, and men can be bossy too. just like women can start bar fights and take the first swing also.

  • J. C. Salomon||

    Pretty sure the campaign is based on a typo: that “o” should be an “e”. #BanBessy

  • buybuydandavis||

    And girls were more likely to see themselves as “responsible” (40 percent vs. 35 percent), “highly motivated” (31 percent vs. 27 percent), “passionate about something” (47 percent vs. 38 percent), and “creative” (50 percent vs. 39 percent).

    “I do not want to seem bossy.” That’s about 2.5 percent of all girls, compared to just over one percent of boys.

    So girls had a much more positive view of themselves, approximately 10% more considered themselves "creative" and "passionate", and 5% more considered themselves "responsible" and "highly motivated" but the *real* story is that 2.5% more of girls don't want to seem "bossy".

    You know, maybe they just don't want to *be* bossy. That's only a catastrophe if your ideology says that women have to have the same zest for power as men.

  • Alan||

    Well said.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I think the real motive is to turn any pushback against the Progressive Theocracy into thought crime.

    "What? You're saying I'm controlling? That kind of language is sexism! How dare you?!"

  • John C. Randolph||

    Trying to tell anyone what they may or may not say is pretty fucking bossy.

    -jcr

  • CE||

    I thought Cathy Young was a fan of all wars.

  • Eric Bana||

    Thank you, Cathy.

  • ||

    This Lenny Bruce bit is the best counter argument to any attempt to ban any word, anywhere, for any reason. He articulates in a minute and a half the most concise explanation of the power (or lack thereof) of speech that has probably ever been recorded:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....feature=kp

  • Mark22||

    How come a COO of a major corporation has time to waste on such nonsense? And what kind of poor leadership skills must someone have who thinks that "being bossy" is synonymous with leadership? What an embarrassment for Facebook.

  • Alan||

    "Using girls as props for activism that schools them in invented victimhood is not feminist advocacy, it’s feminist malpractice."

    Well said, Cathy.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    So she's a billionaire harvard MBA-jeez, alongside the Georgetown law student who will be making six figures, I am really hoping someone will oppress me for a change.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement