The coverage of Jill Abramson’s firing from the New York Times makes much of the fact that she was once described as “pushy” in a profile about her, some pointing to this as evidence that sexism played a role in her firing.
Anyway I had no idea that “pushy” had apparently become some sort of misogynist dog whistle until last week.
Same thing with bossy - had no idea about the apparently sexist connotations until I saw an interview with Sheryl Sandberg on the Daily Show awhile back, when she was leading some campaign against the word.
Personally, I’ve always used the terms to describe both female and male asshole bosses. Have they always had sexist undertones?
“Pushy” seems to be applied equally to men and women, in my experience. But “bossy” almost always seems to directed at women. Actually, not women, but little girls. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a guy described with that term.
I had no idea that they were considered sexist. Perhaps people just don’t like takin orders from women? I dunno though, coz I’ve had 5 female bosses and most of them have been lovely.
It’s fairly asinine, IMO. I don’t see any justification in referring to either term as misogynist, and the basis of the “Ban Bossy” campaign seems to be “if we can stop people from calling girls these bad names, we’ll have more women in leadership positions”. Um, guys, if someone calling you “bossy” keeps you from wanting to assert yourself and from wanting to assume leadership positions, then maybe, just maybe, you weren’t a good choice to begin with?
Maybe though, in a way, the “bossy” label is reflective a womens’ collective relative lack of power, or positions of leadership—“bossy” typically being used in a sense to describe someone being controlling or ordering other around without justification, or without a legitimate position of authority. A state which might disproportionately affect women due to myriad social, cultural, historical, legal, etc. ills.
I mean, you might still be an overbearing martinet, but if you’re institutionally disenfranchised, you might be stuck being a “bossy” angry little corporal rather than being able to blossom into a full-fledged crazed tyrant.
I don’t think the idea is that it’s purposefully misogynist or that it’s used as a dog whistle; only that it reflects a bias in how we describe similar behavior differently across genders. The basis for the campaign isn’t that if we stop saying nasty things to the poor dears they won’t get their little feelings hurt and that will make them leaders. It’s that the way we talk about these things demonstrates that we’re evaluating women on some invisibly different scale from men when we imagine what leaders look like. We’re cheating. Unless you believe “bossiness” is a trait that women exhibit way more often than men, which seems a stretch, considering, there has to be some other reason that we call women “bossy” more often than men when they assert themselves.
The most common noun described by “bossy” on Google Books is woman. Third is women. Fifth is wife. Sixth is mother. People and person appear lower on the list of significantly common nouns, but not man, men, husband or father. “Pushy” is similar. Take something you would expect to be used about equally, like say “good looking,” and you end up with a list of man, woman, guy, girl, women, men, girls, boy.
I don’t think it’s the word itself that is sexist, but more the way certain traits are lauded in men and criticized in women. A man with a forceful personality is more likely to be described as driven, confident, assertive, and a leader. A woman is more likely to be described as bossy, pushy, or a bitch.
I’ve had many male bosses and almost as many female bosses, and I’ve liked almost all of them. ALl of them have been smart and competent, and almost all of them have been good at conveying my responsibilities and/or offering the occasional negative comment without being jerks. I’ve never had a boss I regarded as unqualified or unfair, nor a boss of either gender I’d call “pushy” or “bossy.”
The only female superior I’ve ever disliked was actually a VERY nice person outside the office. My compalint was that she was too much of a micromanager, and should have just let me do my job. I think I’d have gotten a lot more done if I didn’t have to keep her posted on every tiny detail, and I think most of my colleagues felt the same way. But I’ve never called her “pushy” or “bossy,” and neither did anyone else.
So, I don’t think it’s TRUE that most employees judge female supervisors more harshly than male ones. I don’t think it’s any more demeaning for a female boss to be called a bitch than it is for a male boss to be called a prick.
This debate reminds me of a time when someone asserted to me that ‘Manage’ meant run by old men.
sigh No it doesn’t, it is from the word ‘to handle’ in Latin.
Same with bossy. ‘Boss’ and ‘Bossy’ are not synonyms. Words with the same root do not usually have exactly the same meaning.
According to Dictionary.com Bossy means domineering, given to ordering others about. Synonyms are highhanded, officious, dictational; overbearing, abrasive.
the words highhanded, officious, dictational; overbearing and abrasive are not qualities of a good manager. Having these traits do not make you good management material. Noone is going to call their boss (male or female) ‘bossy’ simply for giving them direction on their work tasks.
if I had male and female children I would not hesitate to tell any of them not to be bossy. I would hope that they excel at whatever they choose to do, however, including management.
As I said above, the word ‘bossy’ does not mean ‘having a forceful personality’. It also does not mean ‘driven, confident, assertive, and a leader’.
I’m tired of this trend of redefining words to match a persons agenda rather than finding the appropriate words to express their otherwise perfectly reasonable concerns. (this is not directed at Troutman, the post was just there and easy to reach.)
But that wasn’t my point. I don’t think any words are being redefined. I’m suggesting that the same personality trait can be interpreted in different ways, and this happens more frequently with women in leadership positions. Where you might see a strong and confident leader who sticks to his vision despite detractors, someone else might see a pushy blowhard who ignores anyone who doesn’t agree. It’s great that a few posters here don’t interpret things from a gender perspective, but it is a real problem for many women.
ETA: here’s one study on this, and there are many more.
Sure, but your cite uses ‘disagreeable’ not ‘bossy’. Also it does not suggest telling children not to be bossy discourages them from being management material. It says disagreeable men are seen as ‘tough negotiators’. really? That just seems odd to me.
I’m not suggesting how women are treated in the workplace is not a real problem btw. I have noticed it myself, and just today some co-workers of mine, in a job I just started, were mocking our Chinese project leader about his name and accent. bigotry of any kind is annoying.
It’s the same concept as “A man who has lots of sexual partners is a stud, a woman who does is a slut.”
Disfavoring the word won’t change everything, but words do shape perceptions and it is helpful to put some thought into what ideas our word choices are based on. And while I don’t think I’ve said “bossy” in years, I could see unthinkingly telling my daughter “Oh, isn’t Sophia being bossy?” Or I could see a teacher reaching for that word without considering the broader message.
In the end, there are plenty of no gendered words for “bossy in a bad way.” I can see only value in defaulting to those.
And this isn’t about just careers. The idea that good women don’t speak up is a huge factor in sexual assault, for example. Teaching little girls to be afraid to use their own voice is bad in a million ways.
In what context would you say bossy in a good way, given the definition I posted above? To me, speaking up is not bossy. Nor is the word bossy ‘gendered’ (??)
Yeah, it’s one of those terms that CAN apply to anyone, but seems only to crop up when we’re describing a woman. Strongly implied in that tendency is a suggestion that women who are in positions of power are there illegitimately or are out of their natural place.
I would say that I’ve only ever used bossy as a synonym for micromanaging.
Especially in little girls, my experience is that they go through a phase where they’re not just being independent or leaders, they’re being micromanagers. You can’t just pretend to have imaginary tea with them. You have to hold the cup just right. Take sips at just the right time. Butter your imaginary toast in just the right way at just the right time. Address the stuffed doll in just the right manner.
I’ve seen little boys tell people what to do, but I’ve never been micromanaged by one.
So I guess this issue has highlighted something that’s potentially useful. Since calling someone bossy could be misinterpreted as criticizing any form of leadership, it makes sense to criticize the micromanaging behavior, which can be separated from the general concept of leadership.
Say I’m your boss. I call a meeting to tell everyone that we’re inconsistent in how we fill out TPA reports, and I need everyone to follow the template. If you like me and respect me, you probably look at that as strong leadership - I’m pulling everyone together to improve quality. But if you don’t like me and resent that I’m your boss, you probably interpret it as stifling creativity, micromanaging, and being bossy. It’s the same behavior but you interpret it differently based on your opinion of me.
The problem is that women are more likely to have their actions interpreted negatively, when the same action by a man is not. Not by everyone, not in all cases, but on average. It isn’t so much the word “bossy”, which always has a negative connotation no matter who it’s applied to. The problem is interpreting a woman’s actions differently based on her gender.
And it has huge implications for women in the workplace. Women, we’re told, don’t push for raises or negotiate as hard as men do. Part of that is socialization, but part is also the realization that we can’t be as aggressive as men without getting pushback. Aggression in men is considered a positive trait. In women, a negative one.
I invite people to read the Sheryl Sandberg book, not because she knows everything and you have to believe all she says, but to get some perspective about how one powerful woman sees the difference in the ways the sexes behave and are treated in the workplace. It’s a short read. You don’t have to make her a prophet of your new religion or anything, but it’s a good, readable place to start to think/hear about these issues.
