Ann Friedman nails it:
The main reason I can’t stomach a bossy ban … is that it represents a feminist strategy that’s failed in the past, and it plays into a negative characterization of feminism more generally. The movement for gender equality is at its best when it emphasizes expanding choices for everyone. … [M]any restrictions are worth fighting for, especially when they protect physical safety and personal autonomy — think of child-pornography laws or perimeters around abortion clinics. When it comes to cultural change, though, applying such hard-nosed tactics doesn’t make much sense.
Culture is a constantly changing thing that we create and shape collectively, not a set of rules that are formally written and rewritten by some governing body.
Sure, radio stations can be persuaded to drop a host who used racial slurs or Wal-Mart can be pushed to stop selling girls’ underwear with the phrase “Who needs credit cards …” on the front. Bans and boycotts can be used to great effect when they’re concrete and narrowly focused. But the feminist movement, at its best, does not simply decry negative media depictions or declare certain words off-limits; it creates better alternatives and rewrites narratives to be more inclusive. Kathleen Hanna didn’t start a “Ban Slut” campaign in the ’90s — she wrote the word on her belly with a Sharpie, owned it, and continued making awesome music.
Which is why it’s so frustrating to watch Lean In try to expand girls’ options by restricting the way we talk about them. It’s counterintuitive, and it makes feminists look like thought police rather than the expansive forward-thinkers we really are.
Along those lines, Zara Kessler adds:
Perhaps instead we should champion bossy, both the word and the behavior, pushing it toward a positive definition instead of attempting to stamp it out of existence. Slate’s Waldman says bossy “seems like a great candidate for rehabilitation” and notes that Tina Fey “started off the recovery process by naming her book Bossypants.” At CNN.com, Peggy Drexler pointed to Sandberg’s bossiness as a likely contributor to her success: “So, how about an initiative to reclaim bossiness as a point of pride?”
Poniewozik looks at the “bossy” double standard in a different way:
As Lean In’s Sheryl Sandberg says, correctly, the problem with the term “bossy” is that we apply it more often to girls, while boys with the same traits are considered “assertive” and “aggressive.” Her solution: stop calling your daughters bossy. Here’s another idea: Start calling your sons bossy. The double standard Sandberg identifies is absolutely real. But why is the solution to encourage aggressive, domineering behavior in women, rather than discouraging it in men? I know plenty of obnoxious, bossy men. And maybe society does applaud them. But I don’t want to be around them, I don’t want to work with them, and I certainly don’t want to work for them.
A reader is on the same page:
As a male who isn’t obsessed with worshiping the reigning masculine paradigm, I absolutely love working under women in most cases. Female bosses are outstanding. Most of them collaborate, share, nurture. My experience is that the ones that suck are the ones who suck for the same reason the men I’ve worked under who suck also suck: they aren’t collaborative, they don’t share, they don’t nurture.
We should be retiring the word bossy because acting like a boss is a pretty shitty way to act. I’d much rather a boss that says, “Let’s,” or a boss that says “What could you do to…” as a way of starting a sentence. Male or female. Let’s work towards a world where both men and women act like human beings and not bosses. We might get more work done. We might be happier.
Previous Dish on the debate here.
The Dish 