I follow a lot of truly terrible people on Twitter — Manosphere bloggers, white supremacists, Fidelbogen — so it took me a moment to realize that this dopey, backwards tweet didn’t come from some obscure reactionary bigot but from none other than antifeminist celebrity academic Christina Hoff Sommers, inventor of “equity feminism” and the author of the bestselling The War Against Boys.
If "bossy" has to go because it is sexist, then shouldn't we stop using male-vilifying terms like "mansplaining" & "rape culture"? @banbossy
— Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) March 12, 2014
Oy.
Also, I think she meant to end that with #BanBossy, not @BanBossy.
Interesting that she doesn’t seem to understand hashtags any more than she understands rape culture.
I hope one day I can actually find an MRA who knows what an ad hominem really is.
Wait, I thought that meant “when an inferior being disagrees with a man who knows what’s what”.
@Tracy- thanks. I really think it’s important to look at class issues when it comes to intersectionality, given how it ties into other types of disadvantage.
@ Katz, Cassandrakitty & Trans-commie – my feelings on Sheryl Sandberg are specifically on her, Sheryl Sandberg. Did you go past that paragraph into my acknowledgment that the double standards exist, and why it would be more effective to address the underlying beliefs that limit both genders when teaching kids, or did you just stop there because it kind of sounded sort of like something an MRA might have said about non-specified women? I disagree with Sheryl Sandberg on this, I disagree with her particular brand of pro-corporate, pro-capitalist feminism. Which is my opinion, as a woman and feminist. What, , it’s suddenly MRA to disagree with another feminist about something?
This entire paragraph addresses exactly nothing of what any of us said, but I will note that both “I’m just using a denigrating gendered term about this one person who happens to be female, not women in general” and “if you didn’t read the whole thing, you aren’t allowed to respond to any part of it” are two more classic tactics to silence dissent.
(For the record, I did read the whole thing; your silencing tactics at the beginning were just the most interesting bit.)
No, I asked if you read beyond that paragraph, I didn’t claim you “weren’t allowed” to respond to it. If anything you seem to be using a gaslighting technique of claiming things were in that post that weren’t to try and validate your position.
It’s also kind of funny that you perceive someone who is advocating to examine the meanings of different words instead of just outright forbidding them as “silencing.”
I have no idea why I was supposed to have read whatever post you made, but no, I have not. Did you think the entire rest of the thread was people talking about your post or something?
No, just the three, who seemed to be remarking one this one paragraph out of the whole thing, which you seemed to be doing in your response to Katz’s critique. If you hadn’t read it, then I was mistaken on you, people specifically using my name or things I’d written, not so much.
I don’t think you were supposed to have read it or not. I just saw that Dave had done a post on the topic and I’d posted about it the night before, so I just shared the link rather than re-typing all my thoughts again. Like anything else published publicly on the internet, everyone is free to read it or not as they choose.
@jennydevildoll
I’m just confused because one of your comments name-tagged me, and I haven’t addressed your post at all. When someone gets all DID YOU NOT READ PAST THAT THING WHERE I when talking about something that you neither read nor commented on that does tend to be a little confusing.
@cassandrakitty – Just a misunderstanding then. I thought your remark about tautology was an agreement with Katz’s critique of what I wrote, or at least the paragraph in question. Like I said, my mistake if you weren’t referring to that directly.
Jennydevildoll, any time anyone tries to actually engage, you find a reason that their contribution isn’t legitimate. Sandberg is bossy, Ally just read the first paragraph and stopped because it sounded like something an MRA would say (I assume that was aimed at Ally? It’s wildly random if it isn’t, not that it isn’t wildly random in any case), I’m gaslighting, etc.
Coupled with your continued failure to respond to any of the criticisms that have been made, it’s pretty clear that you don’t want to have a real conversation.
Well, I just read the whole piece, and I wasn’t at all impressed with your “my experience negates Sandberg’s” take, jennydevildoll. Nor your claim that it’s about assertiveness vs bossiness. What gets called assertiveness in a boy is all too likely to get called bossiness in a girl. I wasn’t impressed with the notion that it’s no good “policing” words. That’s just the same argument the FREEZE PEACH types use to say they should be allowed to use slurs.
Oh, nice touch about celebrities being used to “shill” about this. I guess celebrities aren’t able to or allowed to have their own opinions about things.
Oh my. While I agree in a general sense that we need to focus on the root of the problem, not just outright ban a word (which is, from what I gather, more of a catch phrase anyways than a call to start bleeping the word on tv, but you know), and I am personally anti-capitalist, I think the reaction to the reaction was a bit OTT. You can certainly disagree with other feminists without being an MRA, but you can also parrot an MRA-style argument without being one. If that makes sense. LOL I’m just gonna walk away now..
And thanks for the tip David! In reading more from her, my god, she was so paranoid. She seems very tinfoil hat when it comes to her views on feminism, talking about it as if we’re like, stationed in every publishing co, media outlet, government entity, and that we’ve been that way for a long time, so that we can control things.
Like, I’m sorry…. the whole notion of “women are the actual privileged class who are catered to by their husbands who pay the bills and die in war” is something that, if I really strain my brain and stretch my imagination, I could create a fantasy world in which I could literally do whatever I wanted because I had all the free time and money to do so, and sure, that sounds pretty nice. But the REALITY was not women sitting around doing nothing but partying, at least not for the vast majority of them. Like they’re really trying to tell me that women willingly traded their personal liberties (seeing as how they had no protection under the law from their spouses and could be involuntarily committed just for speaking up against them) for the chance to take on the 24/7 job of raising kids AND cooking and cleaning BEFORE modern technology made such things slightly easier? Just, no. But that’s the type of conspiracy theory Erin Pizzey is suggesting when she tried to assert that feminists were in control of things, that they willingly forfeited their rights…. ok lady.
@Jenny – I think we’re probably all skeptical of the Sandberg ‘5k-a-night yoga retreat to discuss the future of feminism’ style of feminism.
But in this case, I do think she’s started an important discussion about the way coded language is used to stifle women. If you go to the ban bossy website, it’s clearly not all just about banning a word. There are actually some really nice educational materials about fostering leadership in girls, which I will probably adapt for use when I’m in the classroom.
Maybe I’m a running dog for the man, but I need my job, and having subordinates undermine me is unsafe [chemical exposure] and puts me at a disadvantage compared to my other male colleagues. It has downstream impacts on my career. I may not agree with everything Sheryl Sandberg says and does, but the fight against stereotype threat, coded language and implicit bias is a big part of my professional life because it has to be. I’m glad to see the issue gaining traction.
[Side note: I know some of you do coding, and the Grace Hopper Foundation has a mailing list called systers for discussion women-in-STEM issues. It’s aimed mostly at computational women, but other women in fields dominated by men will probably also find it interesting.]
@katz – I could just as easily say the same of you. I have responded, but apparently because I don’t say what you want to hear, you accuse me of “silencing” and also try to claim I said things I never did (such as when people are “allowed” to respond. I didn’t say that.)
Given that this whole thing on “bossy” boils down to semiotics anyway, tell me, is your version of “wanting to have a real conversation” defined as “only agreeing with your viewpoint”?
@kittehsherf – Then we disagree on tactics. Like I said, I know the double standard exists, but I really do feel bossy and assertive are two different words with two different implications. For the record, I’d also put men who engage in censorship practices, and history is filled with them–in the “bossy” category. I just think it would be more valuable to teach kids that a) there’s a difference, and b) That a girl exhibiting assertiveness is not the same as being bossy. Maybe teachers could get kids to question *why* they have been taught to view the same behaviors differently in boys then girls . On the flip side, they could question why sometimes behavior that goes well beyond assertive into “bossy” can be rewarded in boys.
I don’t know what “freeze peach” is but I’ve heard plenty of slurs over time regarding my gender, mixed race background, or mental health status. I’m all for fighting stigmatization and stereotypes. I just feel you could engage kids to learn more about the values behind how they’re using the word, and maybe change their beliefs about girls in leadership roles, rather than just going “well don’t use that word”.
@reginaldgriswold – I didn’t mean to imply you were a “running dog for the man” by doing your job- it’s true I’ve been unable to work and get disability, but my criticisms are more directed at a system designed to keep most people in a certain spot to benefit a select few. Not the people who work in various jobs.However, one of the problems with coded language is that without tackling the beliefs that create it, the taboo word may be replaced with a new expression, but business will go on as usual. I remember a few years back a slew of articles about how some racists had adopted the word “Canadian” as a way to speak derogatorily about black people in mixed company, here’s one from Shakesville. They obviously understood other slurs were offensive to most people, but how can the core negative beliefs, that will still affect their actions, be changed?
@jennydevildoll
I will try to elaborate on my response to your article. (And FTR, I believe I’m in agreement with basically everyone else here.)
Basically, you are arguing that the word “bossy” itself doesn’t have to be sexist, but the fact is that it is almost always used in a sexist way. You also argue that there should be a focus on the sexism underlying the gendered usage of the word “bossy” instead of banning the word itself, but the same argument is used in defense of harsher pejoratives such as “bitch.”
One could argue that there is no reason to stop using the word “bitch” and that all that matters is that the attitudes towards assertive women change. But the word “bitch” never has a non-misogynistic connotation unless it is used in a reappropriative context. In most sociolinguistic contexts, that word is used to demean women as a group regardless of the speaker’s intent, and the same goes for “bossy”. It is therefore important to target specific words, not just word usage, because patriarchal power relations are partly upheld by the language that supports them.
Besides, there are words that can be used instead of bossy that carry no gendered connotations, such as “controlling”.
@Jenny-
I guess I still don’t understand the criticism. A quick perusal of the ban bossy website digs up materials about how to talk about leadership to girls, create non-gender biased classrooms and how to start conversations about media and gender roles. I think that tackling the beliefs underlying the use of the word. Can you explain why you disagree?
You. Are. Still. Not. Engaging.
Everything you have said in this thread is either repeating your initial points or, more often, complaining about the ways people are responding to you. This is a very common approach we see by people who don’t actually give a shit about what they’re saying but only care about defending themselves.
Believe it or not, “silencing” is not a generic insult like calling you a big meanie head. I am describing specific things you are doing and the effects that they have. (Also, I let this slide the first time, but you are not in the position to be complaining that other people have interpreted what you said in words other than the exact ones that you used, Ms. “it’s suddenly MRA to disagree with another feminist about something.”)
If you want to have a conversation, respond to what people are saying. I can’t believe I’m explaining this to a grown-up. Here, I’ll repeat just one single solitary point in an easy-to-respond-to format so that you can have a crack at it: How is calling Sandberg bossy because she wants to ban bossy different than calling a feminist ugly because she wants people to stop saying feminists are ugly?
@trans_commie – yet I know women, even those who identify as feminist or womanist, who have embraced the word “bitch”. Likewise, when this “ban bossy” thing was discussed over at Feministing, some of the womens’ response was to embrace the word “bossy”. (Not that I agree, obviously). http://feministing.com/2014/03/11/feministing-chat-ban-bossy-vs-be-bossy/
I’ve also seen other women express misgivings that bossy *has* to be a gendered insult. Obviously there are different perspectives and approaches to this even within feminism.
@reginaldgriswold – I don’t disagree with those particular things. That’s what I’m saying would be a good approach as well. What I disagree with is exacting a ban.
You, unfortunately, are not a majority, and your idiosyncratic uses of words do not dictate how the culture at large views them.
@Katz – Oh, you “let” something slide. How graciousssss of you. You’re no more in a position of telling me what position I’m in than Sandberg is of telling me what I can or can’t say, LOL.)
Contrary to your sorry speculation of my motives (and here I thought Woodhull would be the worst outpatient I’d ever come across)I do give a shit about what I’m saying. If I’m reiterating the same points, it’s because they are my actual views on the subject. Do you somehow believe that they aren’t, that it’s just something I’m saying to annoy you personally?
If the things I’m doing have the effect of silencing, then how come no one here has been silenced? (Nor should they be.) Is that your own goal perhaps? To cease any view that dissents with yours and Sandberg’s?
By the same token, I’m calling Sandberg bossy because I actually find her actions to be bossy. Or controlling, if you prefer.A person saying a feminist is ugly because that feminist is saying not to generalize all feminists as ugly? The person might find the speaker ugly and be using it to validate their view of all feminists as ugly, but I did not say all women were bossy. On the other hand, the person may not find the speaker ugly, but may lie and call her that anyway to be hurtful. Physical attractiveness is subjective to the onlooker’s tastes, but to draw a correlation between what people believe and what they look like doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.