Recently, Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook and author of
the controversial book Lean In launched a new campaign: ‘Ban Bossy’. The campaign
is sponsored by Girl Scouts and has the backing of countless famous and
empowering women – Beyonce, Jane Lynch, Condoleeza Rice and Jennifer Gardner,
to name a few. So, all of the hype surrounding it and the quality of those
spokespeople indicated ‘Ban Bossy’ must be a good thing, right?
Wrong – ever since the campaign began, there have been
countless articles written about how unproductive the goal is. The onesI found
helpful to writing this blog were Feministing’s opinion, the New Yorker, and NYMag. The writers all made one common argument: this is strawman feminism.
Strawman arguments are fallacy’s that involve attacking something superficial
about a problem – not the real source. Attacking the surface, not the
substance, won’t help any young girls anywhere.
Is it true that some girls have probably felt lesser and unenthusiastic
about leadership after they’ve been called bossy? Yes. But I’m sure a girl
exhibits the traditional ‘bossy’ characteristics, such as self-assertiveness,
leadership skills, and a quest to always be right, has been or will be called
significantly worse words, including a certain other ‘b’ word. Those qualities
that make her ‘bossy’ should also give her a thick enough skin to not let the
name get her down. At its fundamental level, the campaign is correct – bossy is
a potential obstacle girls face to obtaining success.
 |
| One of the Ban Bossy campaign's slogans |
But, there are so many other, structural problems than a ‘word’
that inhibit success. Even one of the campaign’s own graphic knows it’s true.
Yes, it’s probably true that girls are called on less – but is banning the word
‘bossy’ the answer? It’s not.
The money and star power going into this campaign
could be used to achieve significantly greater success by targeting a deeper
problem with younger girls success – how about, to remedy the classroom
problem, LeanIn funds gender-based teacher training? Provide scholarships to
girls who can’t afford to go to college or other higher-learning opportunities?
Sponsor internships for girls at Facebook, or with all of the other
spokespeople? Target universities with high male/female ratios? Change the
stigma against working mothers, or women who chose careers over kids (see previous blog)? How about Sandberg finds a better option for the word bossy, or
attempts to reclaim it?
Old school feminists argue that the solution is never
to ban, like Ann Friedman of NY Mag, “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.” Banning anything, be it alcohol, drugs,
or words, has never been successful – women need to take words like ‘slut’ and ‘bossy’
as their own, and work to give a positive connotation.
Empowering young girls, and ensuring they make it up the
ladder of whatever career path is a tough, multifaceted challenge. Attacking
something as artificial as a word, and ignoring all the reasons behind why we
feel the need to criticize younger girls for ‘bossy’ actions, will not create the
substantial, much-needed change girls and younger women need in the long run.
Cia♀,
Charlie
 |
| I'm bossy, and I'm proud of it. |
