Bossy liberal feminists have just invented another ridiculous reason to be offended

untitled (24)

If I were to name the four most irritating things on planet Earth, the list would look something like this (in no particular order):

-The modern leftist obsession with manipulating language, subjectivizing words, arbitrarily declaring certain terms to be offensive/racist/sexist/homophobic, and then working to ban them, stigmatize them, and bully everyone else into adopting their interpretations of these newly vulgar phrases.

-The modern leftist obsession with creating cultural problems where they don’t exist, ignoring them where they do, and using completely fabricated statistical data to steer the conversation in their favor.

-The modern leftist obsession with encouraging self-esteem in our kids even to the point of embracing and excusing arrogance and self-absorption.

-Ventriloquists.

Now imagine the sudden onset migraine I’m experiencing after coming across a news story that incorporates at least three of the items on this list, all at once.

Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook executive, has partnered with the likes of the Girl Scouts, Condoleezza Rice, Beyoncé, Jennifer Gardner, and Google to promote the “Ban Bossy” campaign. Calling it the new “B-word,” Ms. Sandberg claims that women — especially young girls — are typically dismissed as “bossy” when they attempt to take charge and assert themselves, whereas men and boys are praised as leaders.

She says that “bossy” has a specifically female connotation, and the word is partly responsible for holding women back and making them feel timid and self-conscience.

Now, as much as I appreciate Ms. Sandberg, Beyoncé, and the Girl Scouts chiming in to tell us all what we mean when we say things (kind of bossy of them, actually), I still prefer to consult the dictionary on these matters.

According to that old misogynistic book of lies, bossy means “given to ordering people around, highhanded, domineering, overly authoritative, dictatorial, abrasive.” 

Hmmm. Could it be that girls are called bossy when they’re… well, bossy?

Could it be that boys are also called bossy for the same reason?

Indeed, through my investigation of the etymology of this word, I have not found even one slight bit of evidence to support the idea that “bossy” is or ever was an insult used exclusively against females.

And it’s patently foolish to pretend that males are always admired for their assertiveness. On the contrary, often people like Ms. Sandberg will call them “angry,” “chauvinistic,” “paternalistic,” “abusive,” “hostile.” The real problem is the precise opposite of what Ban Bossy supposes. The real problem is the continued emasculation of men, and the dedicated effort to eradicate every aggressive tendency in boys, even to the point of psychiatric medication.

Besides, do these women have any proof that assertive girls are more likely to be unfairly labeled as bossy, while assertive boys are more likely to be lauded as leaders? Of course not.

This is a maneuver right out of page 1 in the Progressive Playbook. It’s a very simple play, really.

It goes like this: make things up.

Want to prove your point? Easy, just come up with a thing that you want to be true, and pretend that is true. Then, when someone comes along and says, “hey, that isn’t true,” just call them sexist or racist. See? Simple as pie.

Specifically, simple as a pie baked by either gender, because women aren’t anymore likely to bake pies than men, you sexist pig.

Speaking of which, Ms. Sandberg builds her case by citing some startling figures:

“If you look at the world, women do 66 percent of the work in the world. Woman produce 50 percent of the food. Women make 10 percent of the income and women own 1 percent of the property. We are 50 percent of the population. We are 5 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs.”

Wait, women do 66 percent of the work in the world? Of all the work that is done, 66 percent is done by women? What does that even mean? What qualifies as “work”? I assume we aren’t just talking about paid positions here, particularly if we’re including poor countries where few people have jobs at all. So we must be referring to work in the general sense, which means “effort or exertion directed to producing or accomplishing something.”

So, out of all the exertions directed at accomplishing things in the entire world, 66 percent of it is done by women? Which means only about 34 percent of the men in the world are doing any sort of work? Fascinating. Out of the roughly 3.4 billion men on the planet, according to this figure, about 544 MILLION of them aren’t doing ANYTHING.

Two questions: how in God’s name did she come up with these figures, and why have I missed out on this sweet deal that so many of my fellow bros are apparently enjoying? How can you even calculate, down to exact percentages, something as broad as “work” done anywhere on the globe in any particular day?

Why am I harping on this? Because I’m tired of people just pulling numbers out of thin air, presenting them as fact, and using it to enforce some new progressive cultural dictate they dreamed up at a cocktail party one evening.

Oh, but she isn’t done.

On the Ban Bossy website, we’re told that the “confidence gap” between girls and boys “starts early.” Then they hit us with this statistic: between elementary school and high school, a girl’s “self-esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys’.”

Hold on. WHAT? How can you possibly quantify some immaterial psychological concept like “self-esteem,” measure it, and then compare it, not just between two individuals, but between genders? What does it mean to say that one person has “more” self-esteem than another, and how can you assign numerical quantities to that perceived difference?

This is nonsense. Complete and total nonsense that cannot be supported, proven, shown, or demonstrated.

On the other hand, I’ll tell you one statistic we can measure: suicide.

If boys generally feel better about themselves, why do they commit suicide in astronomically higher numbers? Depending on where you look, US males kill themselves at a rate between 3 and 10 times higher than females.

I’m not saying women have it easy, but I am saying that, in this country, men kill themselves more frequently, end up in jail more often, and die sooner.

But, hey, at least nobody calls us bossy.

Except when people, you know, call us bossy. Which they do, just as often, along with a host of other unpleasant adjectives.

As far as I can tell, kids are called bossy when they behave in a dictatorial and domineering fashion. They’re called bossy when they try to order people around and refuse to listen to authority figures.

Here’s a suggestion: instead of telling us not to refer to them as bossy, why don’t we teach them not to be bossy? We concentrate so much on eradicating negative words while forgetting to address the behavior that the words describe.

Ms. Sandberg tells the harrowing tale of being labeled as bossy by a teacher in ninth grade. She says this experience damaged her emotionally and caused her immense grief. Poor thing.

A very tragic incident, no doubt, but one thought occurs to me: what if the teacher called her bossy because she was pompous, arrogant, and pushy? After all, this is the woman who would grow up and attempt to ban innocuous phrases from our vocabulary. It would appear, ironically, that her teacher has been vindicated.

Really contemplate the arrogance here. The propagators of Ban Bossy have universally declared, without a shred of proof or coherent reasoning, that the word “bossy” is sexist, and that it’s only used against girls, and that it causes self-esteem issues, and that it has some connection to the lack of female CEOs at Fortune 500 companies, and that the behavior typically described as bossy is heretofore considered acceptable and admirable, and that nobody is allowed to feel otherwise.

This is hubris so extreme it dances close to lunacy.

Finally, there’s one more idea that I can’t seem to shake.

I’m warning you, this one is bad.

Sexist.

Chauvinistic.

Offensive.

Turn back now. I wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings and send you into a mental tornado of anguish that eventually ends with you becoming a chief operating officer at Facebook.

Still with me?

Brace yourself.

Ms. Sandberg cited the lack of female CEOs and politicians. She blamed this on girls having their self-esteem damaged by misogynistic words like “bossy.” Maybe she’s right. But maybe there’s another factor at work.

What if — and this is a big if — what if there are fewer women CEOs and politicians because fewer women want to be CEOs and politicians? Is it possible? Could this have, perhaps, something to do with the disparity? What if fewer women meet that particular end because fewer women choose a path that will lead to that end?

And what if — again, HUGE if — what if women are less likely to be outwardly aggressive because that’s just not a personality trait some women possess?

And what if — remember, massive, enormous if — what if we are all called to be leaders in some fashion, but there are different types of leaders? What if it’s actually a really horrible idea to try and force everyone to be Alpha dog, Type A personality, take-charge head honchos?

What if it’s insulting to women to label the scarcity of female CEOs as some kind of objective evil because it implies that becoming a CEO is a superior goal to which all people should strive? What if you’re not only criticizing society for erecting imaginary barriers to keep women out of the corner offices with the nice desks and the big windows, but you’re also insinuating that women who don’t want those things are somehow selling themselves short or shamefully submitting to the paternalistic structure of our male-dominated society?

And what if women are called bossy more often (if that’s even the case) because other women are the ones most likely to unfairly wield that term? What if the lion’s share of negativity towards women comes from women themselves?

What if the campaign to “Ban Bossy” succeeds in rationalizing the narcissistic attitudes of bossy people while also, yet again, shoving everyone into a certain box and telling them what sort of personality traits they ought to exhibit?

What if I’m at my wit’s end and I seriously can’t take another PC progressive assault on reason and vocabulary?

And, Dear Lord, what if Jeff Dunham jumps on board with this campaign? The four most annoying things in the universe, converged together to create an Apocalypse of Irritation, just as the prophecies foretold.

I shudder at the thought.

But I can’t tell anyone to stop trying to ban bossy.

That would be pretty bossy of me.

*****

Find me on Facebook.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

871 Responses to Bossy liberal feminists have just invented another ridiculous reason to be offended

  1. Pingback: Be Strong, Be Brave, Be You | Girls Being Girls

  2. Kevin M. says:

    Thank God Matt…..in a world of insanity, your words gleam with golden truth! As in, can not be tarnished with further nonsense and dribble. Let’s see; if a young girl (or boy) feels the exuberant need to express herself (himself) in an assertive manner, and to assume a leadership role among her (his) peers, without the requisite consent of the (soon to be) governed, and the necessary intelligence, kindness, foresight, experience, and intestinal fortitude required for such a “leadership” position………..Hmmmmn………. well, for lack of a better term, then that individual might appear to her (his) peers as “BOSSY”. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

    • dpbj602 says:

      “feels the exuberant need to express herself (himself) in an assertive manner, and to assume a leadership role among her (his) peers, without the requisite consent of the (soon to be) governed, and the necessary intelligence, kindness, foresight, experience, and intestinal fortitude required for such a “leadership” position”

      Bossy =/= Leader and likewise Leader =/= Bossy.

      On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:02 PM, The Matt Walsh Blog wrote:

      > Kevin M. commented: “Thank God Matt…..in a world of insanity, your > words gleam with golden truth! As in, can not be tarnished with further > nonsense and dribble. Let’s see; if a young girl (or boy) feels the > exuberant need to express herself (himself) in an assertive manner,” >

  3. Joscelyn says:

    Sheryl Sandberg is not saying anything negative about motherhood and it not being “higher calling” and bringing up her campaign and book seems to bring a defensive side out in stay at home moms and men. I am not sure why. NOT everyone wants to be a CEO and Sheryl clearly states that and respects that. Her point is for women who do want this and discussing factors that may be holding them back. Good for her. I don’t understand the attack on her at all and how everyone is jumping on the band wagon against her.

    She is trying to bring up real issues that women face. No one would ever say anything negative about a stay at home mom but it seems more socially acceptable to make comments about working moms, especially in the Christian community. Working moms can’t say it is a “higher calling” or gasp! …work even if they don’t need the money. This is one issue a lot of mothers face from women and men.

    The “ban bossy” campaign is more about than the word “bossy”; it is about the labels women face when they are in leadership roles. Is the end of the world? No. Is there more important issues? Yes. But she is trying to draw attention to a real issue and encourage women to go for leadership roles. Attacking her is shameful. I have read the Matt Walsh blog for awhile now and have promoted when I could but this is disappointing to read. Also Sheryl has never said men do not face any issues because she is speaking for women. Can both sexes face issues or does one have to be more important than the other?

    • JSantorelli says:

      @Joscelyn: “Can both sexes face issues or does one have to be more important than the other?”

      Well, men face a lot of issues but are forced to be silent by feminists like Sandberg who think women deserve the spotlight more than men. Anytime a men’s rights group tries to advocate their cause they get fire alarms pulled, protested, etc. Feminists don’t even want to listen what challenges men face because they are too high on their victim-hood complex.

      You want to complain about bossy? OK! I want to complain about words like “jerk,” “dick,” “a-hole,” “creep,” and “neanderthal” all of which are A LOT more insulting than “bossy.” Each is associated more closely with males than females. You think a majority of feminists are going to want to sit down and hear it? I haven’t come across a single one that does. I posted over at Jezebel about it and my post got deleted. Looks like censorship is OK if you’re a woman doing it. LOL!

      • Joscelyn says:

        I agree with you that this “ban bossy” campaign is a little silly to complain about. It is to bad because I think Sheryl has a strong message to encourage women and it is getting miscommunicated by this campaign.

        I also agree those words you mentioned are terrible to say to men! I guess my point is that it seems like when anyone tries to stand up for something there is always someone who thinks their message is more important and tries to take away from what the original party is trying to communicate (i.e when someone advocates for animals there is a many people to tell them their time could be better spent standing up for human rights).

        I have read all of Sheryl’s material and follow her closely because at the heart of it she is trying to get women to take on go for leadership roles if that is what they want and think about why they are not going for them (it is labels? pressure from stay at home moms? they can’t do it?). I have had this “ban bossy” debate with many people and it is hard to defend because it seems to be missing something to stand on from a quick glance.

        Everyone should take a stand on what they believe in strongly (which is kind of what this whole blog is about) and not everyone will agree (as we can see by this message board) but we should try and not take other people’s stands so personal…but that’s life 🙂 We just have to keep standing up for what we believe in and hope it effects and touches someone else’s life for the positive.

        • E_nation says:

          “I agree with you that this “ban bossy” campaign is a little silly to complain about. It is to bad because I think Sheryl has a strong message to encourage women and it is getting miscommunicated by this campaign”.

          If you are honest enough to admit that the “Ban Bossy” campaign is silly, you agree with Matt then. If she wants to encourage women, then she should do just that. ENCOURAGE WOMEN! Rather than create a virtual beast, cast it in the shadow of men, club it to death, and appear heroic for the cause of women. These women are seeking glorification for themselves and their tool is you- women, because it is sellable talking point. You just don’t see it, but that is what they are doing.

        • CJ says:

          Joscelyn,

          I’m a woman, and yet I agree with Matt and the men agreeing with him. I have personally seen women like Sheryl who get offended at the slightest descriptive word men call them, but are rude, mean and yes, BOSSY to men, even to their own husbands or boyfriends. At the workplace, I have seen women who scream into the phone and rudely shout, “Why are you calling me when I’m busy at work?!” in a high-pitched, BOSSY scream at their boyfriends or husbands. And then, when their phone remains silent, they keep on bothering their men and wailing, “Why aren’t you calling me or picking up your phone?” I have seen this personally at work and I honestly am disgusted by this annoying behaviour amongst females in the workplace.

          And Matt is right on all counts. Why should women or girls be traumatized by the word “bossy”???? You WOULD BE traumatized if your soul, heart and mind thinks it is true. And perhaps it is true. Sheryl and probably all women who are like her are indeed bossy. Even some married women ARE bossy. Men aren’t offended when women ask them to take the garbage out, or ask them to do something. Men ARE offended if you COMMAND them. Or if you ask them in a whiny, high-pitched, bitch tone. THAT is being bossy.

          Also….I am wondering. How come the word “bossy” is offensive, but the word “bitchy” or “bitch” is sometimes taken to mean that a woman is “cool”? I’ve seen people use this word in real life, and sometimes in TV shows and in films saying, “Hey, I’m the coolest bitch you’ve ever met” to mean something cool, when originally, bitch is supposed to be a derogatory term. And this coming from women, too, mostly.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @CJ: It’s refreshing to see a woman with her own mind around here and not part of the feminist collective. Good for you and don’t yield your honor to these false “bosses” who have none.

        • k23mt says:

          “It’s refreshing to see a woman with her own mind around here and not part of the feminist collective.”…..says the MRA tool, lol.

      • HEATHER says:

        I must say that I agree. As a woman I find it harder and harder to stand behind this campaign its simply ridiculous. women say that they want to be treated as equal but fight for special rights. Its basically saying “we women are as equal and we are as strong physically and mentally as men, however we are so weak minded that a simple word can hold us back from career and leadership growth”…wtf…I will never understand the foolishness of this

        • Christine says:

          Women are not weak minded for requesting terms of respect. Where do you see “bossy” as a means of improving someone’s personal attitude towards what they do?

          When my husband experiences difficulties working with other women, he doesn’t say, “you’re bossy.” He listens to what they have to say and sees if he can make improvements. If he cannot make the changes they request, he explains why and sometimes even asks for help. He may be able to meet a request better, if others are involved too. Sure it can be frustrating, but communication doesn’t need to come with ambiguous labels related to personal attitudes.

          Do you see how I explained negotiating personal work performance, without the need for the word “bossy”. Is it foolish to use effective communication, over trivial terms of reference? I would think it prudent and wise to choose words with meaning, instead of assuming how unimportant it should be for someone else to hear.

      • Angela says:

        “jerk,” “dick,” “a-hole,” “creep,” and “neanderthal” ARE negative words that DO hurt more. But if the people who are acting that way would change their behavior they wouldn’t have to worry about it. I’m not assuming you disagree because I do think it’s stupid to ban words that hurt people’s feelings. Hell, my SON is bossy. Sometimes. So is my neighbor. In both instances I look them dead in the face, cut them off with a “NO!” and walk away. My son seems to get the message faster 😉

    • HVee says:

      Joscelyn,
      There’s just one major fallacy to your argument. You say “No one would ever say anything negative about a stay at home mom…” I guess it must be a positive thing to tell a SAHM, “Don’t you want to ‘do something’ with your life?” I guess raising children must not be considered ‘fulfilling’ and that we should desire more, according to feminists. I don’t have a problem with a women working, being a CEO, etc. But many of us don’t have a desire to be in those high leadership positions, and we should not be deemed as having a lack of ambition if we don’t. In my opinion, men are much easier to work for than women because women tend to have a ‘chip on their shoulder’ and are indeed bossy. I’m generalizing here–not ALL women are like this. If women don’t want to be called bossy, then they should alter the way they give direction to subordinates, and like Matt stated “address the behavior”.
      Such a silly thing to have an issue with. Instead of starting a movement to ban a word, maybe start a movement to teach young girls with natural leadership abilities leadership skills? Indeed, both sexes face issues, but the victim mentality and ‘woe is me’ constant ‘movements’ are getting foolish and boring. Seems to me, instead of keeping their head down and striving toward goals, people are becoming lazy and looking for ways to excuse their failures.

      • HEATHER says:

        Very well put. and I honestly don’t see why women can’t do both. I myself took the time to stay at home with my children. 7 yrs as a sahm of 3 little boys I wanted to be there for everything and now that my youngest is in school ( all three are top of their class and love to learn if that is not fulfilling I don’t know what is knowing that my kids will always have a desire to learn.) I picked up a few odd jobs found an investor and started my own LLC cleaning business. I have only been in business for less than 2 months and I landed one of Lubbocks biggest property management relators as my first client. I am not trying to get recognition for this by stating it Im simply saying that I achieved all this as a woman who has been called a bitch, bossy, insensitive, rude, polite, kind, freak, cunt, loser, wonderful, amazing, failure, ridiculous, stupid, kind, well mannered, boring, outgoing, wasteful, conservative, ect. by now I hope you get the point. If not let me clarify: Every person you come in contact with will view you differently through their own eyes. the only thing that matters is how you see you. You are the only person (man, woman, adolescent, black, white, brown, tall, dark, wide, light, ect) who can take yourself higher and you are the only person who can restrain yourself to what others think of you and I whole heartedly believe that we should all teach our children how important this is to really understand.

    • Dianna Pohl says:

      @Joscelyn “No one would ever say anything negative about a stay at home mom” yet Mitt Romney’s wife was slammed on national t.v. because she never had a real job. I beg to differ with you Joscelyn, our society has much to say negative about stay at home moms.

  4. Michael says:

    Thank You Matt for writing this.It is refreshing to read this,and not the constant polically correct insane nonsense.We see men who exhibit the same behavior,and they are labeled abusive and manipulative.It is about time the men of today start calling these hypocritical women on their garbage.It is not shameful,and it is not attacking to note the hypocrisy of narcissistic,self-centered,and women with a huge sense of entitlement today.I am a man,and I was once labeled as bossy,and not in a good way.I am so tired of the anti male misandric society we live in today.Why should women be the only ones who matter.I am not anti female,I only want to state that men are tired of being kicked around,pushed aside and mocked.It is time that somebody expose feminism for the sham and the money making racket that it is.Also expose these people for the despicable hypocrites that they are.They receive government funding for women and girls ,but programs for men and boys are called sexist.What hypocrisy!

    • Christine says:

      I would think you the first person wanting to stop the assumptions of being labelled bossy, because you have first-hand experience with how it feels when people get it wrong.

      Positive labels are important enough for the author to note in developing boys, but girls having them as they develop, is deemed wanting “special” privileges. What the author is really suggesting is that girls in society, can only act selfishly when it comes to evaluating their esteem issues, but boys are merely misunderstood.

      I have the privilege to know a few men, who welcome self-assessment as personal improvement. They take charge of their authority, even when its not easy to. These men don’t go looking for scapegoats when they’re made one themselves. Because they know that’s the real source of being disempowered – believing you never had a choice, someone merely made you say and do those things you knew to be wrong.

      You can follow men who can lead you to the perpetual fountain of blaming women, or you can follow men who can lead you to a sense of identity without taking potshots at the opposite sex. The choice is yours. I’m just suggesting you have a choice, instead of believing your credibility can only be returned by kicking a misconception about feminism around the internet.

      • JSantorelli says:

        @Christine: Believing in lies and supporting a movement based on one is, in and of itself, not taking responsibility. Feminism has done nothing but blame men yet you sit here lobbing the same criticism. Hypocrisy much? I think your deception and preying on the male ego is rather obvious.

  5. Danie says:

    “So, out of all the exertions directed at accomplishing things in the entire world, 66 percent of it is done by women? Which means only about 34 percent of the men in the world are doing any sort of work? Fascinating. Out of the roughly 3.4 billion men on the planet, according to this figure, about 544 MILLION of them aren’t doing ANYTHING.”

    Matt, I have recently started following you blog and this is the first thing I have seen that I have to say is flat out wrong. I have seen things I can’t fully agree with. And probably 95% of what I have read I agree with completely. But this?!
    Her statement was that women did 66% of the work. That means she believes men (and/or children) only do 34% of the work. You seem to have used a tactic that many of your attackers use. I am somewhat disappointed. I know that off days happen, and that sometimes we use illustrations that we later regret, But this is a pretty major whopper that has been there for a while without any editing or correction.

    If someone else has pointed this out and it has been answered in the comments, I apologize. I do not have time to go reading through all the comments no matter how intriguing.

    Keep up the good work. 🙂

    • Daniel says:

      As it will not let me change my name and I did not realize I left off the ‘l’ until after I clicked “post”. let me clarify my name.

  6. Rodrigo says:

    “She says that “bossy” has a specifically female connotation, and the word is partly responsible for holding women back and making them feel timid and self-conscience.”

    So, I went to google’s image search, looked for “bossy person”. The first page shows me about 45 images. Out of them, 11 are men, 1 is a cartoon bear of indeterminate gender, 1 has a man and a woman arguing, and the rest are women, girls, and an explicitly female cartoon: “little miss bossy”. So, it seems that when people use the words “bossy person”, about 70% of the time they are talking about a woman.

    As a control, I also searched for “person”. Out of (again) about 45 results, 12 are women and the rest are men.

    So, please continue believing that the word “bossy” does NOT carry a specifically female connotation. I’m sure it’s nice being able to ignore the real world.

    • dpbj602 says:

      Please continue believing that the word bossy means someone is being assertive or showing the characteristics of a leader. Meanwhile I’ll be here in the realm of things that are actually true.

      On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, The Matt Walsh Blog wrote:

      > Rodrigo commented: “”She says that “bossy” has a specifically female > connotation, and the word is partly responsible for holding women back and > making them feel timid and self-conscience.” So, I went to google’s image > search, looked for “bossy person”. The first page ” >

    • E_nation says:

      What if it carries a female connotation? So? After all, ‘Jerk’, ‘domineering’, tyrant’ all carry male connotation for men who over-exert their power over others. Have men made a fuss of it? Having worked with women in authority who give instructions and all that, I’ve never seen or heard any one call them ‘bossy’ and that’s because so far, none of them are. When we have a bossy woman, we’ll know one just worked into the building. Women who are called bossy are so called because they actually are. Now we have to call them something sweet because feminists just launched another politically correct word. I strongly believe the beast feminism has created will destroy it someday. It is becoming too toxic, even for objective thinking women.

  7. Elizabeth Eckel says:

    Enjoy!

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  8. Kelly says:

    You don’t reference the Heidi/Howard experiment, which drives her point home with numbers. It leads me to believe you didn’t read the whole book or you choose to ignore facts that don’t support your speculations.

  9. Danny Mills says:

    From the perspective a linguist, which I am by profession, when trying to determine if a word has particular connotations associated with it, I use a corpus. (A corpus is a collection of spoken and written language that can be searched with keyword phrases to evaluate usage within the data. They are usually constructed to represent the average usage of a particular language.The one I used is called the Corpus of Contemporary American English and it accurately reflects typical usages of American English in the current era, that is from 1990-now) Below, I’ve included a link to the corpus I used to find the following evidence.15 of the first 100 instances of “bossy” are used to describe a male specifically. I noticed maybe 1 or 2 instances that were indeterminate, we’ll say two for the sake of safety. The other approximately 83% of instances of usage for “bossy” were used to describe or refer to females. As it turns out, evidence suggests that people do not, fact, “just as often” refer to men as bossy. In case you missed it, I’m in no way suggesting that men are NEVER called bossy. I, or rather a body of data that represents common American English language usage that is regularly used in scholarly research, am suggesting that women are much more commonly described as bossy. I cannot prove through this research that women don’t exhibit bossy characteristics more often, but I can prove that bossy is used to describe females more often.

    Corpus: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (Lucky for anyone who REALLY HATES “The Liberals” for spreading their leftist agenda, this corpus was developed by Brigham Young University, which is well known for being Morman, which is well known for being highly conservative. This means that if the data has any political leaning, which it probably doesn’t since academics usually try to stay objective and also because it’s just a collection of data, t’s likely a conservative one that you can fully support.)

    Also, “On the Ban Bossy website, we’re told that the “confidence gap” between girls and boys “starts early.” Then they hit us with this statistic: between elementary school and high school, a girl’s “self-esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys’.” You can’t say that the following statistic “cannot be supported, proven shown, or demonstrated.” If you follow this link (http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/shortchanging-girls-shortchanging-america-executive-summary.pdf) it turns out that this is the study that the Ban Bossy movement is quoting, which is a scholarly study done to determine self-esteem in children between the fourth and tenth grade.

    I often enjoy reading this blog because Matt Walsh, unlike many conservatives, usually makes claims that are founded on logic and fairly objective reasoning instead of using the typical “i disagree because liberals said it and liberals are stupid because they’re liberals because the left is liberal which is left which i disagree with” logic that irks me. This article was very far off base, not necessarily because it’s wrong, but because none of the claims were supported. I would suggest making sure, to avoid being a typical uninformed liberal-basher seemingly for the sake of bashing leftist agendas because they make you mad, that you investigate with more than a dictionary and visiting one website.

    On that note, have a great day! – from your neighborhood linguist and accuracy enthusiast!

    • JSantorelli says:

      And who are the terms “a-hole,” “dick,” “jerk,” and “neanderthal” directed at? Big fuss over 1 or 2 words for women but the more degrading ones for men are no big deal? Guess, what that “study” you cite is bogus. Its another example of self-reporting which will show perpetual victim-hood. The girls in the study likely grew up thinking of themselves as victims thanks to feminist media / education so of coarse they “feel bad.”

      Also, that “study” you quote was sliced for the “Ban Bossy” campaign. They picked the numbers that fit their case and dismissed the rest.

      http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-the-ban-bossy-campaign-misfires-1.7418631

      • k23mt says:

        Maybe those terms for men are valid, lol. Maybe women being bossy isn’t bad. Maybe you guys need that. Maybe.

  10. Okay, this has to be the first post that I blatantly disagree with. I see what you’re trying to do here, but it’s not working. You’re coming off as an unfeeling, insensitive jerk.

    You do have some really good points, ones I haven’t thought of, but it’s been proven pretty well that “bossy” is usually a term only applied to women. And it’s not applied to women who are abusive or whatnot, it’s a synonym for an assertive woman in the corporate world or any position of power. Bossy is not a gender specific word, so why is it that men are hardly ever given that label? What is the male equivalent of bossy? There isn’t one because they are said to be assertive which has a positive connotation. Even being called aggressive isn’t necessary a bad thing if you’re a man, but it’s implied that it is if you’re a woman.

    It’s like whore. You know it’s referring to women even though the word itself isn’t gender specific. And there isn’t a male equivalent at least not in its connotation of horror. Pimp and gigolo just isn’t the same, doesn’t give the same feeling of shame.

    I’m not going to make this long, but I will say this. Even if you did not appreciate the way it was done, I’d think you’d be able to appreciate the spirit of what they’re doing. They want more women to step into positions of power, to think about it, to see it as a possibility and for corporations and businesses to strike the word “bossy” out of their vocabulary when referring to women. Because there’s no evidence to prove that these women who are getting these labels are doing anything other than their jobs, no evidence to prove that a man doing the exact same thing wouldn’t be getting a pat on the back instead of lambasted for being too assertive.

    I think you should have done more research on this article. I don’t think it would be too hard of you to find whether some of the questions you asked were valid or not. And maybe I’m being influenced by an episode of Suits I saw not too often, but I thought this was a pretty well-documented issue.

    This isn’t, of course, going to make me hate you or stop exploring your blog, but I do think you should think hard about this. Also, all liberals aren’t evil. It would probably do you good to cease generalizing them in such a way… sounds more like hate than love.

    • CombatMissionary says:

      The male equivalent of bossy is a**hole. The male equivalent of whore is sellout or traitor, depending on circumstance. While you may not like Walsh’s way of saying it, I think it’s very valid to say that these kinds of movements almost always end up demonizing adjectives when they should be focusing on changing the culture. I think it’s great that they want women to be confident and have the skills to be leaders. But bleating mindlessly about adjectives isn’t going to give women confidence or leadership skills. The way to do that is to focus on mentoring girls. I’m giving my daughters confidence and leadership skills by showing them via parent modeling how a good woman deserves to be treated… I love and respect and serve their mother and honor the commitments we’ve made. I make her the center of my life. Their mother shows them how to merit that love, honor and respect… she is loving, kind and supportive of me, and makes me the center of her life. On top of that, I am ensuring they’re taught responsibility, work ethic, critical thinking, service, love of God, family, country and self. I teach them to not treat themselves as worthless beings by sleeping with anything that moves, but rather demanding love, respect and commitment from a potential mate in the form of marriage before they go to bed. I have them in martial arts so they can learn confidence in protecting themselves physically and I am teaching them firearms training so that if they find themselves with a physically overwhelming attacker, they can still protect themselves.

      Amazing women are not created by demonizing adjectives. Amazing women like my wife are cultivated over years through dedication and love.

      • I can admire the way you’re trying to teach your daughter and it warms my heart to see how much you obviously love her.

        As a woman whose father chose to be absent, that means more than you know.

        But I think you’re missing the point of what this campaign is about. This campaign is about women who display certain characteristics, but more than that, it’s about how those around them, namely men and even other women, react to those characteristics.

        Let’s take your daughter for example.

        Say she gets a job at a Fortune 500 Company. She chooses to put off having a family to prove herself. She works long hours, offers to do the undesirable work and displays all the characteristics you instilled in her. Then, for her efforts, she attains a lower leadership position. She takes to it like fire to oil. She is firm in her decisions, polite when she rejects ideas that she doesn’t think works and is confident in what she does. Say she thinks everything is going perfectly. But then, when her name is rejected for an upper leadership position and she asks why, they say it’s because she’s bossy. Her confidence has been perceived as arrogance, her firmness, as high-handedness and her politeness as being belittling.

        She has gained the bossy label and everything that that word implies.

        Do you want to know some synonyms for bossy?

        Domineering.

        Overbearing.

        Pushy.

        Commanding.

        Controlling.

        Despotic.

        Strict.

        Overpowering.

        Oppressive.

        My God! These are women, not female deviations of Kim Jong-un!

        Those are words you associate with dictators and terrorists and monsters, not women who are trying to make money for your company!

        The sad thing is this: Everyone doesn’t have to think that she’s bossy, only those in power whose first inclination is to think, however unconsciously, that she should be at home cooking while barefoot and pregnant. And you know what? It might not even be that knowingly chauvinistic. It might just be unidentified prejudices in their hearts that is coming out in their leadership choices.

        What I don’t understand is why so many people seem to assume these companies are just? You’re assuming that these women deserve the label, that they are indeed acting ‘bossy’. That in and of itself shows a male disconnect from the struggles that women face on a daily basis. Why are you so willing to believe these companies are actually treating women fairly? Or is this not about the companies at all?

        Has the extremism of the feminist movement enraged so many men that they strike out at anything that appears to be empowering to women just to get in a hit?

        Also, I’d have to disagree that the male equivalent of bossy is as*hole. It still doesn’t hold the same sting and is not gender specific. If it doesn’t meet that criteria, it cannot be equal. Same thing for the male equivalent of whore: Sellout and traitor doesn’t come close to working. Not only do they not carry that same connotation of sexual deviance and perversity, but it, once again, is not gender specific.

        You never call a man a whore. You have to specifically call him a ‘man-whore’ because anytime you say the word ‘whore’, you assume it’s a woman.

        Now, you asked: Does demonizing an adjective create an amazing woman?

        You make it sound as though a single adjective isn’t important, but as I said in a previous response: Words are not just words. That’s been proven over and over again. And even if it wasn’t proven in the secular world, as a Christian, you should know that such a sentiment isn’t even BIBLICAL.

        The Bible says, that “Death and life are in the power of the tongue…” Proverbs 18:21.

        Why should it be okay for these people to speak death in the form of low self-esteem, low confidence, a general sense of personal lack and pain in the lives of these women?

        The Bible also says:

        Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. Ephesians 4:29 ESV

        and even BETTER, THIS:

        I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak. Matthew 12:36 ESV

        It says EVERY careless word. Not ‘words’, plural. But WORD.

        EVERY.

        WORD.

        Because God knows how important words are. With words alone He created the Heavens and the Earth, with words alone He breathed life into Man, with words alone He declared His people above and not beneath.

        So, does demonizing an adjective create an amazing woman? It may just do so and even if it doesn’t, if it provides protection for even one woman then this campaign would not be for naught.

        In conclusion: Many seem to think that this campaign seeks to protect women who are terrorizing the workplace. I don’t think that’s true, I think they seek to protect women whose actions are perceived negatively when, if done by a man, they would have been applauded.

        I have said this before and I’ll say it again here. Even if you thought this was frivolous and ridiculous, I’d hope you’d be able to look pass your own sense of disgust to respect the spirit of what these women are trying to do. Not everything that looks like feminism or women’s rights should be smacked down. Every issue, EVERY issue should be looked at on a case by case basis, applying God’s Word and most importantly, His LOVE.

        If you do this, it’s nearly impossible to go wrong. And even if you do, God will understand the truth of what you do. Because unlike Man–who are judgmental, arrogant, selfish and unkind–God doesn’t look at actions or perceive things as we do. He looks at our hearts.

        So, if you’re not sure what to do or how to respond: air on the side of love, make errors on the side of love. Don’t error while rolling your eyes and dismissing people’s plea for help, for acknowledgement. Jesus made a point of helping those who were disenfranchised, who cried for help even those who weren’t considered ‘his people’.

        Helping these women, supporting these women will not hurt you. But maybe, just maybe, it’ll help someone’s mother, someone’s sister, aunt or daughter… or maybe even your own.

        • CombatMissionary says:

          Thanks for that reply. Maybe you’re right about overreacting, maybe the way some feminists turn into foaming-at-the-mouth anti-male loonies creeps up on us men to the point where we’ve quit listening at all to feminists in general. We can probably thank a lot of the media for that, or feminists like Gloria Steinem (“Women need men like fish need bicycles”) who dominate the media and claim to speak for all women. I think Ann Coulter has a valid point when she claims that abortion is the highest form of sacrament for militant feminists.

          Are there discriminatory men out there? Yes. Are even a majority of men that way? No. There’s probably a couple of things going on here. Corporate upper-level management is highly competitive. That means that the people willing to work 80-100 hours per week for a salary are going to get there. When Chrysler went through its reorganization after bankruptcy, the new CEO announced seven day work weeks for senior managers. How did he justify it? “You’re getting paid over half a million a year to work here, so you’ll put in the hours to earn it.” Most MEN don’t want to work under those conditions. You may view traditional gender ROLES as a social construct, but most people admit that, generally speaking, personality traits such as being more or less aggressive and assertive, and being more competitive or more nurturing fall along gender lines as a natural result of brain development due to the presence of either testosterone or estrogen. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions to this, but the generalizations about men’s and women’s personalities have their roots in the physiology of the brain. So when you have a job that attracts the hyper competitive and aggressive to the point where most men aren’t interested in that job, it’s a good bet that even less women will be interested. Most women still want kids and have limits to how many hours they’re willing to spend away from their kids. Heck, most of the men that end up in these jobs end up as thrice-divorced alcoholics, because they’re married to their jobs and their family life sucks, plus the hyper competitive types tend to act like a bunch of frat boys their whole lives, which isn’t good for a marriage to begin with.

          Which leads to my next point. I admitted above that some men are discriminatory. Well, in my all-knowing capacity as the arbiter of what’s right and wrong (wink), I can tell you where these people are. They’re the frat boy types. They’re the same hyper aggressive ones that toss their families on the altar of success. There are a few like that in the Army, even. They tend to be the kind of officers who slit the other guy’s throat to get a promotion. Thankfully, the past 30 years, we’ve been doing a great job of weeding out the guys who are like that, because the Army doesn’t want to be liable for that kind of behavior. We don’t want or need frat boys here. They still pop up now and again, but usually their shenanigans convince higher leadership that they’re not Really Useful Engines (gratuitous Thomas the Tank Engine reference). I’m pretty sure that a lot of those types are being weeded out of corporate life as women continue to break barriers into upper management. Liability is working its magic. Of course, since neither you nor I (I assume) is an upper level corporate manager, we’ll have to guess where the line is between lifestyle choices and discrimination keeping women out of upper level corporate positions. My guess is, the vast majority of women aren’t willing to make the sacrifices to have that kind of job. A huge majority of men aren’t. We’ll probably see a much bigger number of women in upper level management positions when we see a much bigger number of women in general who are like frat boys.

          The whole adjective thing is a two-edged sword, though. I teach all my kids (boys and girls) to be respectful, to treat each other nice. As a society, that’s critical. That said, there will always be people who are rude and obnoxious. I’ve seen very sensitive boys AND girls that are crushed by careless words, let alone insults. Frankly, they need to be told what I tell my kids when someone is rude to them. “Are they in charge? Is what they’re saying right? No? Then they’re morons.” Being dismissive of people is usually not a good thing, but in the case of people who are rude, being dismissive is very, very valuable. Eleanor Roosevelt said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” I’m not a big fan of FDR, but Eleanor was dead on with this. With some people in life, the only possible answer is to tell them to shove off, to put it politely. Kids HAVE to learn this.

          Finally, the scenario you describe at the beginning of your reply (I’m way out of chronological order here) is implausible. A person would have to be intentionally discriminatory to call someone who is high-handed, fair and firm but polite in their beliefs as domineering, overbearing, etc. The adjectives you’ve described are exactly opposite the person being described. However, for a person that might be treated that way (I had that happen to me one time), there are two potential courses of action:
          1) Demand to know exact times, dates, and events that you’re being penalized for, or else this will be taken to HR (the next step after HR is to get a lawyer). There had better be written counselings describing in detail how you messed up and what is expected in the future. I just helped a female Soldier through this exact circumstance, but the supervisor who was mistreating her was a female herself. Also, the last time this happened to me, what was supposed to be a 15-minute counseling session turned into an hour-and-a-half session of me repeating “I still fail to see where I’ve messed up.” The manager lost his temper and stormed out. The counseling went nowhere. The supervisor that did it to me? Female. The idiot manager who signed off on this? Male. Go figure. Neither gender has a corner on stupid.
          2) Start floating resumes.

          I guess these are my points, boiled down:
          1) I don’t know why anyone would want to work as a senior manager at a fortune 500 company unless they’re a hyper-competitive workaholic, and the number of women that are is miniscule compared to the number of men that are. And there’s not that many men that are to begin with.
          2) Yes, there are discriminatory men out there, but lifestyle choices and personality likely account for the number of women who aren’t CEO’s, just like there aren’t a lot of women roofers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, coal miners, lobster fishpersons, etc.
          3) Yes, we need to teach people to be polite and kind, but we also have to teach kids not to let jerks keep them down. The world will never run out of jerks.
          4) Whether it’s the fault of the media or militant feminists, feminism at large is losing credibility because it casts fault on all men for the faults of a few, so men aren’t listening much any more, and a lot of women are turning their backs on it too.

        • Like I said in a previous reply and I’m quoting myself directly:

          I don’t blame you for hating feminism and for immediately placing up a wall as soon as you hear the word. I, myself, am not one and find myself disagreeing with many of their tenets. I went to an article about abortion not too long ago, one that was insisting that women felt nothing upon having one because I was curious about what it would say. The article itself didn’t bother me; I don’t believe everything I read.

          What did bother me was the comments at the bottom by self-styled feminists. Their complete and utter disregard for the human lives growing within them, ones that they happily destroyed multiple times, SICKENED me. My spirit was so shaken, so grieved that it bothered me until I talked my disgust out with my mom and forced myself to put the thoughts away.

          Extreme feminism, however much they claim it’s not their goal, doesn’t just hurt women’s relationship with men. It hurts women’s relationship with other women and it hurts women themselves.

          And you don’t have to explain the differences between men and women, lol. I’m not among the uh… misguided people who believe that men and women are exactly the same. To me, that’s ridiculous.

          Yet it’s just for the very characteristics in women that you described that companies need more women in them. They and so many others seem to see those traits as undesirable when the opposite is true.

          I think it used to be true that most women wanted children, but I think that is changing. Not quickly, mind you, but slowly. It’s because the world isn’t allowing them to do something other than be a caregiver. In other words, they can’t be a caregiver and something else too at the same time.

          Even though women are naturally loving and caring, that’s not all we want to do with our lives. So, instead of being stuck in a mothering role, women are deciding to give up having children and even a family in order to do something else. More women than you think who are JUST caregivers regret it. I just talked to this one writer whose stay-at-home mother told her flat out not to give up her life for a man and family.

          It sounds as though she’s bitter because that’s not ALL she wanted to do with her life. But after 18 years plus of caring for other people, she’s older now with limited options, with her only true one being to continue caring for others.

          If any man was faced with that choice then what would he choose? To be a father or a banker? To be a father or go to college? To be a father or be the CEO of a company? These are the types of choices women face. Would you want to be a father and nothing else? No career, no real outside interests, no way to make a mark on the world but through your offspring?

          Even in the Bible, Proverbs 31, the virtuous woman wasn’t JUST a caregiver. She was also a woman who took care of her business and she was admired because of it. Many women in our society aren’t given those types of option.

          I understand what you’re saying about the frat boy mentality, but we can’t really assume that women must be like frat boys to get to upper management, but we can definitely agree that they must be willing to put in the time and effort to get there, but I think they’re doing that.

          Actually, you can look it up: Couples who are making the big bucks tend not to have children for that very reason. It’s a growing phenomenon.

          As for my scenario, that’s the point. While it seems the military is actively trying to weed out the frat boys, who is doing that for the corporations? No one. There is no outside governing body forcing these companies to resist acting through their own discriminations.

          But it’s not implausible because it’s been known to happen even if the prejudice is subconscious. It might not even be intentional, but the results are the same.

          As to your points:

          1. I don’t know if I’d ever want to work in a Fortune 500 company, but that’s not for me to say for others. If these women want this, then they have every right to go for it like any man and to be treated justly in their pursuit of it.

          2. In a perfect world, you’d be right that only lifestyle choices and personality, not gender, account for the number of women who aren’t CEOs. The other jobs aren’t really the same because they involve physical labor and most, if not all, CEO positions definitely don’t.

          And when we say gender, we’re talking about all the things that women are that men aren’t which affect the way women approach the job. This article is an example of what I’m talking about… I’ll look it up later and get back to you.

          3. Yes, we do need to teach people to be polite, but it’s easier said than done when you can’t get away from said jerks at your job.

          4. As I said before, extreme feminism–note the use of the word ‘extreme’ is a killer. Anything extreme is.

          You should take a look at one of the replies I sent on the same comment I made. That pretty much sum up my feelings about feminism.

          I must say though, I’ve enjoyed talking to you. Thank you for keeping it civil, lol. =]

        • k23mt says:

          CombatMissionary….maybe men should be grateful for getting to choose not to listen. Maybe you should be more concerned about male loonies than frustrated feminists. You think women need men? You sure women aren’t just putting up with men, lol?

    • JSantorelli says:

      For every 1 term for women, there are 5 for men. Women are “bossy” so what? Men are “a-holes,” “jerks,” “dicks,” and “neanderthals.” Do you hear men crying for resources and parading around over a few terms that should be buried? I think it really says something about women if a word like “bossy” holds them back. Maybe THAT’S what we should be talking about instead of getting into a “its not fair the guys get to lead and we don’t.” A leader should not be easily swayed by 1 or 2 words! A leader needs to be reliable and crying over a few words does not make the cut.

      • It may seem that way, but none of them have the negative shameful sting that “bossy” has for women and I think if you were honest, you’d be able to admit that. Or perhaps this is something you just don’t realize.

        A leader can be bullied just as easily as anyone else. Constantly being put down by those you lead can have a negative effect on anyone and belittling women’s very real struggles or considering it imaginary isn’t going to help anyone because EVERYONE benefits when there is more diversity in a business. That’s been proven over and over again.

        This isn’t a ‘man against woman’ thing. This isn’t a ‘feminist thing’, this is a ‘let’s treat everyone with courtesy and respect’ thing.

        So please stop talking about it like it’s us against them. It’s not. The tone of your message is so inflammatory and venomous and there is really no need. This is not a way to put down or attack men, it’s a way to empower women, to address an issue that has long been a problem in the corporate world.

        Words aren’t just words. They accompany actions. That’s what these women wish to address.

        And that’s fine by me.

        • dpbj602 says:

          A leader is not bossy. Being “bossy” is indeed a shameful thing, since it means you are not respecting the people you are trying to lead, making you not a good leader. Being bossy is a sign of a poor leader.

          On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 PM, The Matt Walsh Blog wrote:

          > writtininstone commented: “It may seem that way, but none of them have > the negative shameful sting that “bossy” has for women and I think if you > were honest, you’d be able to admit that. Or perhaps this is something you > just don’t realize. A leader can be bullied just as easily a” >

        • I agree.

          But we cannot assume that the women who get the label deserve it, that the companies giving it to them are just and treating them fairly.

          Besides, the language used for horrible male leaders and horrible female leaders should be the same in a neutral setting which is what a corporation should be neutral.

          You wouldn’t normally call a male bossy, so a woman shouldn’t be called that either.

          It might not sound like much, but you’d be surprised.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @writtininstone: And you’re an authority on what “stings” men? You totally dismissed my feelings on the issue then turn around and accuse me of the same? LOL! Yes, this is about feminism. Yes, this is about learned female victimhood. Yes, this is about shaming men. Feminism has always been about the female ego beating the male ego into submission. Feminists have “proven that over and over” with their actions. Maybe you should grow a back bone and “suck it up” like we’re always telling little boys and men to do. You haven’t got a clue what it’s like to be a man or deal with the issues men face yet you expect men to put all that aside because your female complex is more important. I saw you quote scripture in another post. Here’s one for you since you’re so into the Bible:

          “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Ephesians 5:23

          “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,” 1 Peter 3:1

          “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” 1 Corinthians 14:34

        • I’m sorry if you felt I was dismissing your feelings on the issue, that wasn’t my intention.

          I don’t blame you for hating feminism. I, myself, am not one and find myself disagreeing with many of their tenets. I went to an article about abortion not too long ago, one that was insisting that women felt nothing upon having one because I was curious about what it would say. The article itself didn’t bother me; I don’t believe everything I read.

          What did bother me was the comments at the bottom by self-styled feminists. Their complete and utter disregard for the human lives growing within them, ones that they happily destroyed multiple times, SICKENED me. My spirit was so shaken, so grieved that it bothered me until I talked my disgust out with my mom and forced myself to put the thoughts away.

          Extreme feminism, however much they claim it’s not their goal, doesn’t just hurt women’s relationship with men. It hurts women’s relationship with other women and it hurts women themselves.

          You’re taking this personally and you shouldn’t. You should be PRAYING for these women because they’ve been deceived. They think that what they’re doing is okay, that they truly have every right to destroy the lives growing within them, and that it’s a good thing.

          But what you don’t seem to realize is that this isn’t just about YOU, or about MEN. This is about women’s need to be free… Women have felt subjugated for a long time; their need to be free is so desperate, so important to them that they dehumanize everyone, lowers everyone’s importance in the face of their own in order to be able to make their own decisions, have their own lives, be the master of their own destinies.

          Extreme feminism–note the repeated usage of the word ‘extreme’–is a killer. Anything extreme is.

          So, once again, I don’t blame you for hating feminism. Yet in your hatred for it and the horrors that the more extreme members have propagated, you seem to have completely dismissed the fact their concerns come from a very real place; they focus on very real issues that women still face.

          You’re right about one thing, though. I don’t know what it’s like to be a man, but I don’t have to. I can see, I can discern and men talk to me all the time, admit to me that they couldn’t work under the amount of stress that women do every day.

          If you were honest, even if you couldn’t agree completely, you would admit that there’s at least a hint of truth in this.

          No one should have to tell you that women work their butts off. Look up the woman’s ‘second shift’ if you don’t believe me. No one should have to tell you that women are more sensitive to criticism and thus, the words thrown at them hurt more. No one should have to tell you that not every one who wants women to succeed is interested in beating ‘the male ego into submission’.

          And it’s funny that you would say ‘male ego’ and not just males or men. Why the heck should we be beneath you to save your EGOS? It’s another word for your pride, which is something that God hates.

          But as I said before, I do understand how you feel about feminism

          Yet if you ARE a Christian, you cannot let their extremism throw you from the path, because that’s what it sounds like it’s doing. It’s in the tone of your message; your anger is bleeding through my computer screen.

          I’m glad you bought up those scriptures. People love to use them as you do. But I’m afraid people have been misinterpreting this Scripture for a long time. Let me explain: This is how the Bible reads:

          “For the HUSBAND is the head of the WIFE as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Ephesian 5:23.

          and

          “…WIVES, in the same way submit to YOUR OWN HUSBANDS so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their WIVES.

          But what people REALLY see is this:

          For the MAN is the head of the WOMAN as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

          and

          “WOMEN, in the same way submit to MEN so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of WOMEN.”

          No.

          No.

          No.

          No.

          NO.

          The Bible never said, has NEVER required women to submit to every person who had something dangling between his legs, ONLY her husband, her OWN husband. So, you see, that Scripture isn’t really relevant to women’s rights.

          Oh and you forgot to add God’s command to the Husbands: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her (meaning the Church)…”

          There is a lot more, but I think this says it all.

          Christ told Wives to submit to their husbands, to obey him. But Christ told HUSBANDS to BLEED for their wives, to be BEATEN for them, to be HUMILIATED for them, to be BROUGHT LOW for them, to TAKE THE WRONG FOR THE RIGHT for their wives.

          Because is this not what Christ did for the Church?

          If you read it, then you’ll see that God’s mandate to Husbands is much more involved and sacrificial than a Wife’s. And if Husbands did as God commanded, women would have no problem obeying because a Husband’s every action would be for her good. That includes CONSULTING her. This is a relationship, not a dictatorship. Even God, who is supreme, consults us about the things that concern us.

          He told Husbands to LOVE their wives. You can see 1 Corinthians 13 for what that is. Just according to that Scripture right there, a Husband should never make his wife feel like a possession or feel like she’s not less than.

          If HUSBANDS treated their wives the way Christ commanded them to, feminism would not exist.

          One more side note: There aren’t many plainly stated ways that any man can gain favor with the Lord in the Bible. It speaks of how he DOES favor certain men, by not why or how in a lot of cases. And sometimes when it does, it’s not in a way that can be duplicated.

          But one very clear way for a man to gain favor with God is this: The man who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.

          It implies that this woman was a wife BEFORE the man met her (in other words, that she already had everything in her to be the help mate that God created women to be), and that perhaps, it is being married to a wife that makes a man a Husband. There are women, then there are wives and wives should be cherished. But a man… he can’t be a Husband until he finds a Wife.

          Now for your last scripture: Oh, how people love to use this verse to discourage women from being anything but wallflowers in the church. If this was meant to be taken literally, then why, in Chapter 11 of the same book did Paul say that women could pray and prophesy in church? Because this obviously wasn’t meant to be taken literally or in such a complete and holistic manner as so many people use it. It has to be taken in context.

          You can find the correct interpretation of that scripture here:

          http://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9

          The simple truth is this and I’ll end here: If women didn’t feel mistreated, abused, misused, taken advantage of and used, then the women’s movement never would have come about. ‘Feminist’ would be a misspoken word said in jest and then forgotten about just as quickly with an amused shake of the head.

          Please think about that the next time; think about how we got to this point. I think you’d find that it would make your heart softer toward the ones who have taken this thing too far.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @writtininstone: All feminism is extremism. They seek to actively seek to separate themselves from the rest of society as some superior power. The reason I chose the term “ego” was because that is what feminism is. It’s a battle of ego. Those men you spoke about saying they would never want to do the work a woman does haven’t a clue. They are bleeding hearts much like yourself. I cook, clean, and run a household doing many of the “woman’s chores” IN ADDITION to a full time job. Many guys do more housework that they report and are still expected to “suck it up.” Those men you spoke of are probably more of today’s plastic men with no backbones. They bendover backwards for women because they have no sense of value for themselves and validate themselves on women’s opinions of them.

          As for your Biblical critique, I am very well aware of what those quotes says. If your husband told you to stay home and take care of the kids would you support that? I think not. God doesn’t micromanage our lives and whether you bring home a paycheck or not is probably not of much interest to Him. It would however be of interest to your husband. St. Paul was quite clear what he meant. He knew women were easily swayed by words and a leader who is easily swayed by something as words is not reliable. You’re whole “women need freedom” thing is bologna. Freedom comes at a price, a price mostly men pay. Your use of the word freedom is better interpreted as “ego.” Women want to do what they want and leave men to deal with the consequences because most suffer from an entitlement complex that was nurtured by conservative ideology and reinforced by liberal ideology.

          You say if women weren’t mistreated feminism wouldn’t exist. Well, I say if men weren’t mistreated and exploited by women they wouldn’t give women a reason to run to feminism. Yes, I am aware of Ephesians 5:25 but if I have to die for my wife then she needs to listen and follow my lead. I’m not taking responsibility for her if she is a rebel and does what she wants. You say a woman is a wife before a man is a husband. Sounds like gender inequality to me. A women is a wife when she earns the title by doing what a wife does. A real wife does not cleave to feminism or her own ego. She shows preference for her husband as her husband shows preference for her.

        • Okay, I see that you’re determined to demonize all women who fight for women’s rights especially if you start your sentence off with all feminists are extreme. That’s crazy and doesn’t make much sense.That’s like saying that all Republicans are extreme based off the actions of the Tea Party.

          It’s quite clear now that this is not a discussion, this is a way for you to vent and I’m not really interested in that. Taking that into account, it’s not beneficial for either of us to continue this conversation.

          I am sorry that you’ve been hurt by a feminist, or for whatever occurrence has made you so angry, hurtful and bitter toward anything concerning women’s rights.

          I do hope you find peace with it though because it honestly sounds like it’s eating you up.

          God bless.

        • E_nation says:

          @writtininstone, I don’t like JSantorelli’s tone, but I think he’s expressing a sentiment most men have but won’t express bcos of the political incorrectness. Feminism is the new world religion. Like a neo cult. But I think a time will come when this feminism thing will backfire. This notion that women don’t need men, when both need each other is subtle rebellion. My wife who is a career woman is so anti-feminism and we are happier for it. Most (not all) feminists I know around are either divorced or in troubled marriages, egoistic, insensitive to men’s ordeals, biased, lonely but in denial, and of course, toxic. She’s smart enough to stay away from any woman with strong feminist ideology. This ‘Ban Bossy’ silliness confirms the very bossy idiosyncracy inherent in feminists; telling the world to get rid of a mere word simply because u don’t like it. Not u by the way! You seem modest and gracefull even in your case for women, and I respect u for that.

        • E_nation:

          Thank you so much for commenting. =]

          You know, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a great deal of men who disliked feminism, but I don’t think they dislike what it stands for in its purest sense, but what the extremists have made it to be. I don’t have evidence for this, but I’d like to think that most feminists don’t hate men and DO want to have a family one day. Feminism in its truest sense really isn’t supposed to alienate men, it’s simply supposed to put men and women on an equal playing field. I would hazard to say that the most bitter feminists are those who have been hurt and/or harbor anger in their hearts for wrongs done to them. Now, like most people, they’re striking out against those who hurt them.

          To me, feminism is equality. Equal pay for equal work, equal respect and that sort of thing. Even though I do believe very strongly in those basic rights, I’m not a feminist because I do not believe that equality necessarily equates to fairness and justice in every situation. This basically boils down to the differences in men and women. For example: Abortion. What if the man wants the child but the woman doesn’t? Well, that doesn’t matter in our current system. The man has no say in the destiny of his child although he is 50% of the reason why the child exists.

          As far as many feminists are concerned, that’s the way it should be because it’s THEIR bodies. All I can think is this: What if the roles were reversed? What if it were the men who had the babies? How would I feel if I could do NOTHING to save my child while he/she was in the womb?

          I would be absolutely devastated.

          But in the minds of many feminists, being able to have an abortion without input from anyone, even the father, is equality because that would equate to having complete control over their own bodies like men do. But men and women are DIFFERENT, nothing a man does with his body will affect anyone else in the same way that bearing a child would. How is that FAIR? Is it JUST, is it RIGHT that fathers, not random men, but FATHERS have no say over what happens to their children until they make it out of the womb?

          We should have something in place that allows a father to have a child that the mother doesn’t want. PAY her to basically incubate the child… after she signs over complete rights to him/her. It should be a legal contract with guidelines and jail time if the mother agrees to it and doesn’t comply. Not only that, the government should pay for it. Because, hey, if the United States can pay for a child to die, it should be able to pay for him/her to live. A father has the right to know about his children, to be able to save his child if he wants him/her. That’s right, it’s fair; it’s justice.

          But is it equality? I don’t know if feminists would agree.

          I think the time for feminism to backfire has already come, in a sense. Like I said in a previous reply, women are so desperate for control over their own lives that they’ve taken it too far.

          I’m glad that your wife feels no need for feminism; it means that she’s happy and you have done a brilliant job as a husband. Kudos to you. And I mean that in all seriousness.

          But let’s not forget and ignore the things that feminists in the past have done for her. In a very real way, they’ve paved the way for her to BE a career woman. If not, she’d have no other option but to be a housewife. So, while I respect that she does not agree with modern feminism and the route that it has gone, to hate it completely is disrespectful to all the women who worked their butts off to give women basic rights like the right to vote, the right to own property and the right to care for their children when their husband passes. They also paved the way for women to go to school and to get jobs that WASN’T being a teacher.

          She, your wife, is able to do all these things because of feminists. For that alone, if nothing else, it should be respected. It’s like the civil rights movement for women. Now I’m not advocating hanging around extreme feminists, but respect it for what it has done. You know?

          As far as the word “bossy,” I think it’s less the word itself and everything that comes with it. You’ll see what I mean if you read my previous response.

          And thank you for what you said about me! =]

          I really, really appreciate it. It’s truly the sweetest thing anyone who disagrees with me has ever said! XD

          Most people are so combative and stubborn in their opinions that it’s hard to reason with them. I can say, though, that your comment was very respectful and I thank you for that.

          I think I can be that way because I understand both sides. As a woman, I desire basic equality, but as a person, a human being, I understand how a man could be alienated by extreme feminism. Because of that, I can empathize with both sides… and be merciful with and gracious to each.

          Or, at least, that’s what I try to do, lol.

        • E_nation says:

          @writtininstone, moreso, thank you too for your warm remarks. True, people tend to be bullish and abusive online because that’s where they feel invincible. I try to be as civil as possible. Reading thru your objective and civil responses even to what sometimes appear to be harsh comments, I couldnt but admire that. Well, I believe the initial women right campaigners fought a more noble battle from what we hv today. They fought for right of women to vote, own property, treated fairly in jobs as with men etc. What we hv today is ‘ban bossy’, ‘women need men like fish needs bicyles’, ‘right to sexualise their bodies but not to be consequently sexualised by men’, ‘right to abort regardless of the man’s right’, ‘initiating the notion that women are ALWAYS oppressed’, etc. And that most of these coming from very successful women like beyonce and sandberg is all the more ironic. If the oppression was that bad, hw did they make it to the top of their careers or attend privileged institutitons like havard (sandberg)? They simply make up figures and manufacture notions far worse than it seems to appear as heroes and saviors of women. Thanks for ur kind words about my wife. For the records, she earns a little more than I do, accords me 100% respect as much as I respect and treat her no less. We have no such thing as 50/50 framework in our marriage. We both put in 100% each. Neither does our marriage thrive on equality, but on unity. Sorry about my subtle boast about her. I would be less excited if she were a diehard feminist I’m sure. Anyways, thanks again. I think I’ll follow ur blog henceforth. Ink Well I guess? All the best.

        • I admit, you do have a point about some of the contradictions in feminism. And although I don’t agree with a lot of the things feminists do, I try to keep in my mind that their actions are a result of them feeling wronged.

          It’s important that I don’t harbor in anger toward them in my heart. After all, you can’t minister or talk to someone if you offend them and it’s hard not to offend THEM if you’re already offended BY them. You know?

          And it’s totally okay for you to boast about your wife. 🙂

          I love it, actually! Haha, it’s soo sweet and shows that you’re truly one in a million.

          I’m truly happy for you because you sound like you’re really happy in your marriage: That’s awesome. You are highly blessed. Truly.

          Thank you for following my blog. I celebrate every one. And yes, it’s called Ink Well. I think my blog is pure awesome sauce although it does need to be polished up a bit, LOL.

          But it was a pleasure talking to you. I wish you the best as well. 🙂

        • JSantorelli says:

          @writtininstone: Feminists demonize themselves by rebelling against men and sowing seeds of strife (“women need men like a fish needs a bicycle”). If a man made that comment about women the gnashing would never cease. I’m not venting. I’m stating facts.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Seriously painful sting with the word bossy i could understand if the word was whore or something. But bossy i think this whole debate over the word bossy is hilarious

        • JSantorelli says:

          @mommyx4voys: You know what’s even more hilarious? Only 32% of women think this is a problem according to the study cited by the campaign itself! (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-the-ban-bossy-campaign-misfires-1.7418631) It’s a real skewed interpretation of statistics to boot with. The irony of all this is it actually proves the case as to why people (male or female) who let their emotions run wild over their logic should not be in leadership positions!

        • Javin says:

          Where’s the “Like” button?

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Just wondering if you had seen the post on freshly pressed titled, Why the men’s rights movement is garbage. Another fembot

        • JSantorelli says:

          @mommyx4boys: No, I haven’t seen it. Where is it?

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Its on freshly pressed

        • JSantorelli says:

          @mommyx4boys: I Googled it and found it on Huffington Post (not surprised). Some people just never grow out of the teen years of “demanding rights but shunning responsibility.” The irony of the feminist movement is it in every way validates the old stereotypes of women, which is to say that of immature human beings who behave like children. I certainly don’t think there is anything innate in woman that makes this true, but its hard to fight a stereotype of being emotionally hysterical when one so quickly and angrily dismisses unbiased data. I posted a link (ironically sent to me by a feminist) to a site that discusses the issue of false rape. Feminists won’t even hear any arguments or concerns men have about it.

          I think the feminist attitude about false rape was best summarized by former Vassar assistant student life DEAN, Catherine Comins. “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” A former Harvard president was forced to resign and was paraded around in the media like there was no tomorrow for saying most women don’t have the personality profile of those who are hardcore into math. Ever hear about Comins? I didn’t until recently, but that’s because I was looking for examples of feminist hatred of men. Did you hear the N.O.W. ladies challenge Ms. Comins? Nope!

        • Leann says:

          I’ve worked in schools and can say with woman “confidence” that the kids who are in an aftercare
          program 5 days a week (due to working parents) suffer from “bossiness”. Also, thinking I was doing the right thing by putting one of my girls in Girl Scouts..wow, was i wrong. I took my kid out after a month. I disliked earning a badge for every good thing they did, why couldn’t they just let the little girls be satisfied with a job well done. Acceptance by merit system…so horrible! I’ll even give up their cookies!! If only those feminists understood that men going to work see work very differently than they do. Most men do that out of necessity not looking for merit(although more money is always a goal for them because they have families to support..that’s their responsibility and not always a choice. I find Liberal women have a princess mentality(or queen for some)..look at the wonderful example of how woman don’t need men..the new movie Frozen! Indoctrination of dangerous thinking! I value the relationship I have with my husband, our different roles as a parent do not come between us, they bring us closer together…teamwork!

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Its awesome to hear from a woman who isn’t screaming about their rights and how men are evil. And i agree with you it seems like most women now expect a reward for anything they do.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          I have not seen frozen yet, neither have my kids, now that i know that, i think we will skip it.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @Leann: “If only those feminists understood that men going to work see work very differently than they do. Most men do that out of necessity not looking for merit”

          WOW!!!!!! You are seriously the only woman I’ve ever met that gets it! You’d win the lotto with this because its absolutely true. I don’t go to work because I want praise from others. I got to work because I have people that depend on me. Men have always operated to fulfill the needs of their families. Feminists only care about the sisterhood. It’s about amassing power for them and spreading their drivel.

          “look at the wonderful example of how woman don’t need men..the new movie Frozen! Indoctrination of dangerous thinking!”

          Ironic that she still needed the guy to get her to the top of the mountain though lol! You can sure bet you’ll never see a movie about a guy that doesn’t fall for the girl. You should watch the Disney movie “Mars Needs Moms.” It is a feminist paradise. The female martians took over, throw male martian babies in garbage cans, and need to capture Earth moms to raise their off spring. Love it how male babies being thrown in the garbage completely flew under the radar of the media yet if a woman breaks a nail because a man we’ve ready to hang him in a trial by media.

        • Eva says:

          @writtininstone
          I completely agree with you! Feminism at its core is aimed at obtaining equal rights and equal status to men and it’s really upsetting and irritating that some women have adopted the movement and twisted it to satisfy their own superiority complex. I call myself a feminist because I support the real motives of feminism.
          I personally think the Ban Bossy campaign is a bit of a joke. I understand where it’s coming from, but I think feminists (that is, real feminists) would be much better to focus their attentions overseas to countries where women have real problems, as in, they wish their biggest fear was being called ‘bossy’.
          Also, to the feminist extremists, I think the men get it by now, haha. 😀

        • JSantorelli says:

          “I call myself a feminist because I support the real motives of feminism.”

          And who got to set what those motives are and how one goes about achieving them? Feminists dont want to answer that because then they can be held accountable which is the last thing a movement built purely on emotion wants.

  11. J says:

    Just a few things…
    1. The confidence gap test is administered at different ages to the same individuals which makes results comparable. Boys’ confidence remains stronger than girls’.
    2. To your “statistic that can be measured: suicide” (because apparently doing representative surveys about people’s working activities isn’t accurate enough for you): Girls attempt suicide at much higher rates than boys, they’re just not succeeding as often.
    3. Maybe girls don’t WANT to be leaders???????? And what the hell does “different types of leaders” even mean?
    4. Prime example of what women face when being criticized for their work: attack the woman. You don’t like what she says, fine. First of all, your “stats” are no more accurate (or complete) than hers, second, was it necessary to attack her character (“called her bossy because she was pompous, arrogant, and pushy”)?

  12. Pingback: PNN Live #69 March 16, 2014 ‹ Peace News Now

  13. JSantorelli says:

    The “study” that “Ban Bossy” draws its fire from is bogus. The statistics were found to be skewed.

    http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-the-ban-bossy-campaign-misfires-1.7418631

  14. Pingback: Sisterhood of the traveling bossy pants | bluebird of bitterness

  15. Pingback: Sisterhood of the traveling bossy pants | For God, Family, and Country

  16. I dislike the way some liberals play their soft-power games too. I dislike the one-upmanship and the shaming and the stigmatizing techniques that they use – it isn’t kind; beyond simply saying that something is wrong, it coerces the reader to agree with them by attacking their self image with a kind of emotional blackmail. If the reader is in turn more worried about how something is making them look to others, rather than whether something reflects truth, then they will be led on by this emotional bullying into accepting whatever they have to accept to look ‘good’. And as you’ve said, the manipulation of figures and the flattering interpretations of scientific research sort of ‘twist’ reality into a way that tries to take the rug out from under your feet. So much of the humanities has a vested interest in feminist ideology that a fair amount of institutional research is designed to feed into these people’s ideological goals, rather than reflect ‘truth’ – I know this from my MA degree, where I had a lot of contact with Cultural Studies.

    Feminist Theory is, of course, associated with the postmodern notion that there is no such thing as ‘reality’ or ‘truth’; that reality is a construct; that it’s up to people to create it, and that the way it is created and modified is by conversational habits, social trends and language choices – in short,societal interaction and the media. Reality itself is fair game for people who fully subscribe to Feminist Theory, and within it the only qualification you need to dictate ‘reality’ is to have the loudest and most popular voice – so it figures that in some cases, appeals to authority sources such as scientific studies to verify their ‘facts’ reveals a double standard, and may as well be just an act to win over the punters.

    They jump on the bandwagon of contemporary moral sentiment, getting all the moral and ethical rhetoric right, so that they can dictate the trends and be seen to have a right to tear anyone down who doesn’t agree with them by attacking their self worth. I can respect people I disagree with, but I have very little respect for the intentions of people who have no concern for integrity or truth, and who use cunning, surreptitious culture-conditioning and psychological manipulation to win people over to their side. That isn’t all people, nor is it all feminists. But if a person is that deeply invested in an ideology that has a denial of the existence of objective truth and reality deep down at its ontological root that they’re going to write an academic article or a serious blog, then I think it’s less likely that they’ll fall into that camp.

  17. Just this: I like ventriloquists. Mimes, not so much.
    Carry on.

  18. k23mt says:

    Of course a male supremacist wouldn’t get it, lol.

  19. Rick Wade says:

    This may have already been pointed out (I may have missed it in all the comments), but I question one bit of logic in the blog. Does it follow that, if 66% of *work* is done by women, only 34% of *men* actually work? I think it should be 34% of *work* is done by men, a very different thing. Besides that, I’m with you. And this propaganda is being dished out to kids left and right who aren’t prepared to evaluate it. Is there a term just shy of “child abuse” that applies?

  20. Sarah says:

    Honestly I think that “Ban Bossy” is ridiculous. It seems like to me, they are trying to prevent girls from loosing their self esteem in Jr high and high school, but from my personal experience, most of the delinquent children at my school tend to use swear words and such simply because they aren’t allowed to. “Ban Bossy” would only bring attention to that word and more and more teens would start using it just because they think its funny to break the rules. I’m not saying that all the teens are like that, but in my personal experience, most kids at my school are only interested in breaking the rules.

  21. Pingback: Exciting News and Shoutouts | jamieson

  22. Shunter says:

    I did not read the whole article written here, I’ll be honest. But, I will also say I’m an 18 year old woman who when I was little was called “too loud” “too talkative” “bossy” and “aggressive.” I was never called this by teachers though, mostly by students my own age. Well, as you can imagine after a while I stopped talking in class. I started getting nervous to speak what was on my mind because I was afraid of what was going to happen to me if I did. So, to say that women are just called that when they’re being mean is not true at all. It’s a way of controlling women who are finding their leadership voice. With males, we very rarely do this. This isn’t to say that it is okay for men to be mean when they are in a position of power, but because you felt the need/right/privilege to post this article maybe shows you don’t understand what’s going on with women in the world.

    • JSantorelli says:

      It also shows that you are a naive young girl that needs to learn how read statistics and spot propaganda. Most women are NOT going through this. In fact the survey cited by Ban Bossy said only 29% and 13% of boys said “bossy” bothered them. Newsflash sweetheart, you’ve been had.

      http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-the-ban-bossy-campaign-misfires-1.7418631

      • Stevie says:

        First, I’m eighteen, I’m not a girl. Second, you have no right to call me sweetheart. Using both of these words shows that you have some sexist attitudes. You used both of these words to put me in a lower position than you so you can assert yourself. So yeah, have your own opinion! Yeah, good for you! But, don’t assert yourself by degrading me or anyone for that matter.

        • JSantorelli says:

          You’ve degraded yourself by buying into biased and skewed statistics. The fact that even after I provided you with the exact statistics Ban Bossy uses, you still buy into it shows your emotions have been exploited and you don’t listen to reason. That is quite typical of your age range and part of the reason the western world is as screwed up as it is. You vote / advocate with your feelings and not reason. Making a victim out of yourself is a cowards way out, but that’s what today’s young girls do.

        • Christine says:

          Congratulations Stevie, for finding your voice. I happen to agree the male components in this discussion, haven’t really demonstrated enough knowledge of the issues they’re telling women to take responsibility for.

          My husband believes people (men and women alike) are free to have their own opinion and even their slightly uninformed ones – but they don’t have the right to tell someone else how to think *without* engaging in the same mentality first. Because only then can you speak with a little authority – instead of complete denial.

          I’ve noticed a lot of men blaming women for talking about their issues. They suggest women remain victimised, because they were taught to identify with pain as a construct of feminism. Any honest man can tell you pain is very real, and they’ll do anything in their power to avoid experiencing it themselves. How many men would throw themselves in the place of a woman though, to experience what she feels?

          A very rare man, indeed. It’s easier to make women responsible for addressing their own issues, while at the same time judging them as insufficient. How much courage does it take a man to bring himself to a woman’s level, willingly, but what insight does he gain as a result?

  23. Ray says:

    How about, instead of calling them “bossy”, we use gender-neutral terms such as “jerk”, “butthead”, or (please forgive the obscenity), “a$$hole”? That would be better, wouldn’t it?

    (Just a note for those who can’t read between the lines: I’m not being serious here.)

  24. jaw44 says:

    Love your blog & especially this article! I jus thought I would share my take on it as well.
    http://virtuallyj.com/why-i-wont-ban-bossy/

  25. Angela says:

    I’m going to have to totally guess at two things: the self-esteem thing and the suicide thing. it is interesting how people measure intangible things. My guess is they have a nice list of self-esteem ingredients with scales of 1- 5 (never – always) that specifically randomized (I’m pretty sure I made that term up) students fill out every year. If girls consistently score lower from one year to another, I suppose they can pull a percentage from there. I did fairly well in psych classes but I failed the heck out of stats.

    On the suicide thing, I think I do remember my psych teacher stating that women attempt suicide more and that men succeed more (way to be driven to success … sad). Her reasoning was that men used more guaranteed methods, such as a gun or hanging, while women were more likely to pop pills or drown themselves. I’m sure there are quite a few psychology journals online in databases that actually have those statistics, but I’m not a college student so I couldn’t really find the “good” sources. Heck, maybe those magazines also explain how those self-esteem tetsts work.

    At any rate, I quoted you (and credited you) to a friend of mine when I was talking about this article and having only heard the part about changing one’s behavior, some people got in my face and called me a racist. Which is funny, because I wasn’t aware I’d said anything about race after all. Hmmm ….

  26. Pingback: Ban Bossy? | Skin Deep Exposures Magazine

  27. arrogantcunt says:

    Oh thank you, thank you so much for saying this. I absolutely agree on all counts. Thank you for being a voice of reason in a time when everyone prefers to be zombified.

Comments are closed.