As I so often say, I CANNOT make this stuff up; I just cannot! My imagination isn't that good. Anyway, it seems that Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, wants to ban the word, "bossy", because of all its negative connotations and how it supposedly holds women back from pursuing leadership positions-gag! Vance, a member of Mancoat, found this; it was too good to pass up, so I'm posting it here. I'll post the article below, and render my unique brand of commentary and analysis...
Sheryl Sandberg Wants To Ban The Word 'Bossy'
Mar. 7, 2014, 9:03 AM
Sheryl Sandberg's ninth grade teacher once called her out for being too aggressive and too "bossy."
People use the word to describe someone who likes giving orders, someone they consider pushy or domineering. The word is inherently negative, and yet it is almost always only applied to women. While man is a "boss," a woman is "bossy."
No, you dumb bitch (a Miss Jillian D'Onofrio wrote this poor excuse of an article), bossy isn't applied exclusively to women; it's applied to men too! I know, because I and other coworkers (both male AND female, I might add!) have used it to describe asshole male bosses too. Folks, it only gets better, as you shall soon see...
Thankfully, Facebook COO and "Lean In" author Sandberg didn't let that early criticism stop her from continuing to be a strong leader.
There's no stopping this strong, independent woman! Never mind the fact that she: 1) took advantage of preferential treatment in college admissions; 2) never mind the fact that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action when hired; and 3) never mind the fact that, because the all too often held "we just have to give women a chance" meme held by the management of Whoreporate America, she was given preferential treatment on the career ladder, enabling a quick and easy trip to the executive suite. Strong, independent woman, my ass!
Now, Sandberg is teaming up with former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and CEO of the Girl Scouts Anna Maria Chávez to launch a public service campaign called "Ban Bossy," according to a Parade Magazine interview.
Are you KIDDING me?! Are you freakin' kidding me?! Waaaaahhhh, we don't like the word, so we're going to ban it-waaaaaaahhhhh! Leave it to a woman & a feminist (redundant?) to ban words, ideas, and beliefs that they don't like. Women & feminists are always seeking comfort and comity, so we can't have any dissent & disagreement here-no sir! Or should I say, no ma'am?
Oh, and did you notice that former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, is a member of this campaign?! If memory serves me right, she was a member of the Bush Administration (Bush 43, not Bush 41)? You see, feminists are found in BOTH political parties, even though they're predominantly in the Democrat Party.
Another thing I'd like to point out here is this: banning the word will not stop its use; people will simply be more covert in using it. People who have to work for a bossy person will simply use it amongst themselves; they won't use it where the higher-ups will hear it. Did you ever think of THAT, Ladies?
Before I forget, Miss D'Onofrio, you're a poor excuse of a writer! You actually got PAID to write that preceding, clumsy phrase? What clumsy phrase are you alluding to, MarkyMark? I'm referring to this: "...and CEO of the Girl Scouts Anna Marie Chavez...". It would have been better to say: Girl Scouts CEO Anna Marie Chavez, Miss D'Onofrio-and I'm not even a professional writer! And what about capitalizing the title, Secretary of State, hmmm? I learned about that in eighth grade, Sweet Pee! You know, Miss D'Onofrio is living proof that women are beneficiaries of affirmative action; she actually got PAID to write such a poor turn of phrase. Who is the editor over there at Business Insider? Why did he let such an obvious faux pas past him?
Because of the negativity built into the word and its potential to stop girls from pursuing leadership roles, they want to strike it from common vernacular and empower women and young girls.
Excuse me, but I'm confused here. I thought girls and women were strong, independent, and empowered. I thought that they could do anything a man could do, and do it better. Yet, we're to believe that, because of one, little word, girls are being discouraged from pursuing leadership positions; they're too weak and fragile to overcome one, unpleasant word. So, which is it? Are women strong, independent, and empowered, capable of doing anything? Or are they such fragile little flowers who need a word banned? Which is it?! Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways, Ladies...
“Women still represent only 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. And more worrisome is that the number has been stagnant for a decade," Sandberg told Parade. "What hasn’t changed fast enough is our acceptance and encouragement of female leadership. That goes for all of us – parents, teachers, managers, society, everyone.”
Uh, Miss Sandberg, might there be-gasp-a REASON for that? Might there be a reason that the number of female, Fortune 500 CEOs has remained stagnant? Could it have something to do with the CHOICES women make with respect to their lifestyles? Isn't it true that women will often take more flexible, less lucrative jobs so they can spend more time with the families? Isn't it also true that these choices will impact women's abilities to rise to more lucrative and more demanding positions in a company? If someone wants more pay, will they not have to accept more responsibility to go with it? Will they not have to-gasp-give the company a reason to pay that person more?
My brother is a VP of a well known company (a household name everyone would know), and he NEVER, ever works less than 50 hours a week; in fact, he considers a 40 hour week a vacation! THAT is the kind of dedication it takes to rise to the executive suite, and it's not everyone has that level of dedication. Furthermore, on average, men work 200 hours more per year than woman do; that is to say, over the course of a year, a man will work the equivalent of five, normal (i.e. 40 hour) work weeks! Gee, when it comes time to promote someone to a demanding position, who will the company pick? Will they pick the woman who leaves on time or early to spend time with her kids? Or will they give that promotion to the guy who's willing to go the extra mile? Who, in short, provides extra value to the company?
You know, when I was working in Whoreporate America (I worked at two, well known Fortune 500 companies, household names everyone would know), women we always promoted ahead of the guys-always! In fact, when I was new there, a biker chick told me that, if I wanted to get ahead, I'd have to have boobs and a vagina. Only the division president was a man; everyone else in positions of leadership was a woman! It's not that women aren't given chances to rise to leadership; if anything, they're given too much preference, I think; no, women simply aren't willing to do what it TAKES to rise to the very top-end of story.
They hope the Ban Bossy campaign will not only start an open dialogue about women in leadership and their obstacles, but help inspire young girls to speak up and seek out leadership roles early.
Oh, gag a maggot! Either women are strong, independent, empowered, and capable of anything; or, they're such fragile little flowers who cower at the mere mention of an unpleasant word. Which is it?! If they're strong, independent, and empowered, why does a mere word need to be banned? If women are everything we're told they are, should a mere word matter?
You know what needs to be banned? It's PC, fascist bitches like Sheryl Sandberg! I feel sorry for the poor SOBs who have to work under her. After all, she considers "bossy" a compliment; she considers it a good thing! Well, I and others who've had to work for bossy people consider it many things, but none of them are good. Until next time...