Last weekend, I was at a lunch with an amazing group of
women discussing feminist issues. At one point during our lunch, Justine
Kallaugher (that’s right-it’s a “shout-out”), shared recent controversy over
Sheryl Sandberg’s “Ban Bossy” campaign. This conversation led to a spirited dialogue
of numerous vantage points and opinions, which I thought were valuable to bring
to a larger table.
For those of you who, like me, were late to hearing about
this campaign, Sheryl Sandberg recruited numerous prominent women to speak out
against describing girls as “bossy.” The core message is that girls are often
ridiculed or put-down when displaying leadership skills and are labeled as
“bossy.” I began compiling articles, blogs, critiques, critiques of the
critiques, and felt inspired by our own discussion to write an additional
critique. Out of my search, two to three authors found Sandberg’s points to
resonate with their own beliefs, and found meaning in this campaign (ABCnews.com,
BadgerHerald.com). It seems the large majority of writers found some issue with
the campaign, while others declared the movement “social idiocy” and “female
political narcissism” (Return on the Kings.com).
Overall, several themes seemed to emerge in the writing.
There seemed to be an interesting contradiction that sexism
is a “fictional problem” and women should “appreciate” what they have, while
also expressing confusion as to why more women do not seize the leadership
torch (RealClearPolitics.com, Return of the Kings.com). In other words, we
can’t expect women to compete at the same level, yet we ask women why they just
can’t do better? Why aren’t women happy with what they have? Perhaps women are
not satisfied with unequal pay, among other things, but this contradiction is
the precise position in which women are left.
Others seemed to blame women and parents for career success,
arguing that women spend more time childrearing and thus, have more access to mold
children (Return of the Kings.com). They
maintained parents and mothers simply need to “teach their children” more about
leadership (Return of the Kings.com, The Daily Beast.com, The Federalist.com). In
short, the issue of girls not entering leadership roles was framed as a woman’s
issue, and the author encouraged organizers of the campaign to “narrow this campaign’s
scope to women” (Return of the Kings.com). I would venture to say that most
parents wish they were the sole influence of kids, particularly in a world
where children are flooded with massive amounts of harmful messages.
Fortunately and unfortunately, children are also shaped by culture, media,
friends, the educational system, parents of friends, spiritual leaders,
neighbors, additional caregivers, and so many other sources that can be
impactful and difficult to filter.
Another theme emerged, wherein some conveyed frustration
with recent movements to encourage and support education for girls. One author expressed
confusion, stating, “people want what they want-the heart wants what the heart
wants, after all-if anybody needs so much assistance, something is amiss”
(Return of the Kings.com). Unfortunately, we tend to want what we are taught to
value, and even then, most children can quickly begin to acknowledge that we
cannot always have the things we most cherish for a multitude of reasons. In
this way, girls can quickly give up dreams for which they may be well-equipped,
essentially because they have understood the implicit social expectations.
Others aired frustration and minimized the movement, citing
the “top-down” initiative, wherein successful and prominent women brought
awareness to the use of the word “bossy” (CNN.com, NYPost.com). Some argued
Sheryl Sandberg has been privileged in many identities and is disconnected from
the needs of other women, while others posited that prominent women have
nothing to “complain about” (Return of the King.com, The Daily Best.com). Others yet, argued that there are “much bigger
fish to fry” (The Daily Beast.com). It
seems as though, as has historically occurred within feminist movements, moves
to alter the quality of life are framed in opposition to socioeconomic status
and race/ethnicity. While these variables and underprivileged identities are undoubtedly
intertwined, I argue that progress in one aspect need not be exclusive to
progress in others. Yes, there absolutely are larger underlying issues than the
use of one word, AND it also does not mean that there is, necessarily, a wrong
place to start. Broader change takes place over time, one small step at a time.
Other authors suggested “we can never be defined by the
labels others put on us” (Forbes.com). While this idea is awe-inspiring, perhaps
it may be more realistic to state that we wish we did not define ourselves by
the labels others put on us, but we are social creatures and build our
identities in relationship to others. In acknowledging our social experience,
other women suggested girls should “toughen up” if they want to survive in more
prolific career roles, by utilizing the argument that they were called “bossy”
and turned out fine (CNN.com, Forbes.com,
The Daily Beast.com,Time.com). By taking this approach, we not only deny that
others may experience encounters with being called “bossy” in different ways,
but we also revert to identifying the major problem as lying within girls for
being overly-sensitive. In a lot of ways, we blame the victim for feeling hurt.
Similarly, we are making the assumption that the world will never change around
girls, so girls must always adapt to hostile environments.
Several authors suggested that women would experience more
success by reclaiming the word “bossy” to remove its power, as banning words is
“un-American” and ineffective (CNN.com, Forbes.com, Huffington Post.com,
NYPost.com, Washington Post.com). These authors raised concerns that additional
words would be created to take the place of “bossy.” By arguing this point, we
remove our sense of responsibility and deny that words do not generate
themselves. People create and replace words to fulfill a social purpose. Words,
in and of themselves, are not inherently harmful, but represent our cultural
beliefs, thoughts, and can trigger judgment. More generally, perhaps the idea
of banning words has felt too zealous for some and it may be more impactful to
highlight that just because we CAN use words as descriptors, does not
necessarily mean we SHOULD.
One author offered the following statement as an argument
against Sandburg’s campaign: “Tina Fey is a bossypants
and I love her” (The Federalist.com). I cannot help but think that claiming to
have a friend of a different cultural identity does not automatically exempt one
from holding a general bias against that group. Perhaps this point is
self-explanatory.
Finally, several authors expressed concern that maybe some
girls frankly are “bossy” and unpleasant, and should be able to receive
feedback about their interpersonal style (CNN.com, Huffington Post.com, NPR.org,
NYPost.com, Time.com). While domineering, authoritarian, and dictatorial
behavior is absolutely not appropriate, perhaps we can continue to use a
variety of other synonyms to describe this behavior using words that are not
also used to describe healthy assertive and confident behavior in girls.
In a lot of ways, much of what struck me about the articles
I encountered was divisiveness among women. Women seemed to be attacking other
women-for not supporting women correctly.
Even while numerous arguments were proposed, many authors did not inherently
disagree with Sandberg’s desire to achieve equality, but rather with the
solution proposed. Perhaps the common goal can be to raise awareness about when
we find ourselves using this word, what behavior we are describing, and whether
or not the word fits. Let us find the common ground, let us embrace the spirit
of the movement, by supporting women who use their voices to reach equality. Let
this show of support be the example that girls might need to see, to continue
inspiring them to express their opinions and take on assertive roles.
I want to send a group “shout-out” to Justine Kallaugher, Dr.
Debra Mollen, Sonia Carrizales, Dena Abbott, and Jennifer Mootz, for sparking
this discussion and serving as the catalyst for this blog.
Written by Noelany Pelc
Sources:
http://www.returnofkings.com/32434/4-reasons-the-ban-bossy-campaign-is-mindless-narcissism?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=4-reasons-the-ban-bossy-campaign-is-mindless-narcissism
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/03/dont-ban-bossy.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sheryl-sandberg-launches-ban-bossy-campaign-empower-girls/story?id=22819181
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dynbzMlCcw
http://girlscouts.org/banbossy/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/25/ban_bossy_a_bad_remedy_for_a_fictional_problem_122051.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-dalton/5-reasons-i-will-not-b_b_5044633.html
http://banbossy.com/
http://time.com/25602/i-order-you-to-read-the-6-best-things-written-about-banning-bossy/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2014/03/14/instead-of-banbossy-how-about-embracebossy/
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2014/03/27/ban-bossy-campaign-upholding-gender-equality/#.UzhlHPldXtk
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/03/problem-with-the-ban-bossy-campaign.html
http://nypost.com/2014/03/14/sheryl-sandbergs-ridiculous-campaign-to-ban-bossy/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/opinion/drexler-sandberg-bossy/
http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/11/the-7-most-ridiculous-things-about-the-new-ban-bossy-campaign/