<p>I’ve never heard anyone use the word “uppity” here out West, so I don’t even know what it means. For some reason I thought it was word applied to the behavior of some slaves in the old days. </p>
<p>“So you agree that there’s a double standard–you’re just questioning this particular verbal manifestation of the double standard?”</p>
<p>Yes, certainly. But we have come so far already, though there is still a long ways to go. I don’t think the way about it is banning words and telling everyone the standard of political correctness.</p>
<p>For this particular word, “bossy”, I think it’s a word they shouldn’t take a stand on. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and calling that “leadership” doesn’t help anyone.</p>
<p>Equating bossy behavior with leadership is the faulty premise Ms. Sandberg is operating under.</p>
<p>Well, that certainly sums it up nicely. Maybe we should send our link to Ms. Sandberg.</p>
<p>
It is a word that has been applied to a lot of black people, including in the not-so-old days. It applies to black people behaving “above their station”–i.e., as if they were as good as white people. Perhaps it’s my memory of this term that makes me think something similar is going on with women, whether it centers on some particular word or not.</p>
<p>I also read HFBoards hockey forum regularly. I thought this thread had a different meaning.</p>
<p>The words bossy and uppity have no correlation whatsoever for me. They seem completely different.</p>
<p>One thing that bugs me about this campaign is that as Ms. Sandberg’s little girl grows up, Sandberg is going to discover that girls in her SES are doing just fine, in school, in leadership positions and in life. Perhaps even better than boys, and in her bossy way, she is going to give herself undue credit for it, when it was us parents who have already raised those girls who paved the way, not her.</p>
<p>I get tired of people holding up the number of women CEO’s as the premier measure of how girls are doing. Why is that the standard? Maybe there are fewer women CEOs because women are smarter than men, and know in advance that they do not want those stressful, all-consuming, thankless jobs, and could care less whether they pull down $2 mill per year. </p>
<p>The trouble I see in this situation is the idea that women need to alter their behavior to avoid being labeled as bossy or b***y. That’s why this is like the situation with blacks who were told not to act “uppity.” The problem is with those who are imposing the double standard. It’s not fair that a woman who speaks up is “shrill,” a term that is never applied to a man, no matter how loudly he talks. (Note: I’ve also seen the term “pushy” applied to people who aren’t WASP males but who assert themselves too much.)</p>
<p>I worked for 17 years for a female boss who was a very assertive person, and she had to navigate this problem all the time. She was simply not treated the same way that a man who behaved the same way was treated. She overcame this, but it’s a shame that she had to.</p>
<p>I think the source of the problem here is that, in order to maximize press coverage and to accommodate major participation by the Girl Scouts, the organizers decided to substitute an imperfect synonym for the real “b” word being targeted. Yeah, “bossy” is gender-related, and is used to put girls down, but nowhere near as much as you-know-what, and that’s really gender-marked.</p>
<p>My wife is so allergic to that word - which has followed her around her whole career, I’m sure - that even when our daughter subscribed to the magazine for young feminists that was named that (as an attempt to reclaim it), my wife would never use the word.</p>
<p>Bay–women already have stressful, all-consuming, thankless jobs–kids. But I wouldn’t trade 'em for 2 mill a year.</p>
<p>Men have those, too; but yet…</p>
<p>With child-rearing, I think the double-standard is different–it takes a lot less to be considered a great dad than it does to be considered a great mom.</p>
<p>JHS–still disagree. The B*** word describes several women I know. They probably started out bossy and excelled .</p>
<p>I, personally, do not feel the word “bossy” is the problem. It’s the attitude. If I find someone is being bossy, I’ll say so and I will most likely use that word. The word is mainly used to describe women, but, again, I don’t think the word is at fault. </p>
<p>“Maybe there are fewer women CEOs because women are smarter than men, and know in advance that they do not want those stressful, all-consuming, thankless jobs, and could care less whether they pull down $2 mill per year.”</p>
<p>Or maybe there is a lot of social pressure on women to be family caretakers, regardless of whether or not they are interested in that at all. If you grow up being told family is your responsibility, even if you work, it’s pretty hard to escape that.</p>
<p>There is a huge double standard. Women are expected to do the lion’s share of the work for raising kids - why is that? Why is the standard not 50-50 or close to it? Until people’s attitude towards women and their responsibilities changes, I will never buy that they just don’t want to be CEO’s. Some women, sure, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I firmly believe things would be a lot different if men were viewed as having the same caretaker responsibilities, not the automatic breadwinners.</p>
<p>P.S. I think the b**** word is NEVER OK to use towards a woman, no more so than a racial slur or any other host of words that are completely unacceptable.</p>
<p>I don’t exactly buy the notion that because women are socially pressured to take care of the children, that is the reason why there are less CEOs. There is more that goes into into. </p>
<p>But there are a lot of women who like it that way and are quite happy to work part-time or not at if possible. Thus, statistics can be very misleading.</p>
<p>This “bossy” stuff is very silly. Being bossy is bad. imho.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If women are feeling victimized by some perceived double standard in child-rearing, then here is an idea: Don’t have kids. Or if you do, only do 50% of the work. Why is this concept so hard for any particular woman to take control of? I don’t get it. </p>
<p>Because not everyone is able to just change the way they were raised. If you grow up in a household, as one of my college friends did, where you are told that you must cook and clean, or you will never get a man, and the house is your responsibilty, how easy do you think that is to break? When you are told and taught something over and over again by your family and social norms, you don’t think that has an effect?!</p>
<p>Do you maybe also think that when young girls are told/used to be told they don’t have the mind for math, that doesn’t have an effect? Come on! Social expectations are huge in the life path people choose. Very few are able to break it.</p>
<p>There IS a huge double-standard in household duties and child rearing, and no, the answer is not to not have kids - the answer is for both men and women to accept that there is no default that makes the woman be a primary caretaker - it can be discussed based on finances, goals, etc., but it’s not some sort of women’s job.</p>