We call our four-year-old son bossy all the time.
Bossy and pushy aren’t sexist terms. I would use bossy to describe children of either gender.
(Bolding mine)
Children. To say that this shows that it’s not gendered is absurd. We may use it for little boys, but not grown men.
I have indeed described my son as “bossy” when he was 4 years old and telling everybody on the playground what to do. Now that he’s 12, I could still see telling him he was being “bossy,” but only if I was trying to give him a smack-down for really overstepping.
Very well-put.
And also very well put.
When I think of the word “bossy”, it seems like it’s frequently applied to little girls (not as much to female bosses, in my experience) or a small pet- like a little dog that dominates a larger dog, or a cat asserting itself over a dog or something. In both cases, the word has a strong connotation that the “bossy” individual is acting like an authority figure, but is actually puny and insignificant.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to say this to little girls, encouraging them to be demure and to not speak up. If the girl is actually being antagonizing, there are ways to discourage that other than calling her “bossy.” I don’t mind if the term is applied to a small dog or cat, though 
A gendered word is one that applies primarily or exclusively to one gender. Words like he or she or aviatrix or steward are all gendered words, whereas they or it or pilot or caretaker aren’t gendered. Then you’ve got words like cunt or skank or whore or dickhead that the actual dictionary definition might not mention gender, but they’re really only used to talk about one gender or the other. Guys are sometimes called man whores, but never just plain whores, and they’re never cunts or skanks. (Note, this is in American usage where we don’t just call each other cunts for giggles.) Women are never dickheads. Whether the words are gendered in and of themselves, their usage is gendered.
Of course, the thing with words that are gendered by usage is that they can over time become less- or un-gendered by shifts in usage. Doctor and nurse used to be very strongly gendered, and people often felt the need to specify that someone was a “lady doctor” or a “male nurse.” Now, if someone under the age of 90 says “lady doctor” people assume they’re talking about a gynecologist. Slut used to be super gendered–it was never, ever, ever used about guys. Ever. Then people started calling guys “man sluts” and then slowly just regular sluts. It’s still a gendered term because people are still somewhat more likely to judge the same behavior slutty in a woman than in a man, but how gendered it is has shifted a LOT in the last 25 years.
Is bossy a gendered word? Well, it’s not gendered by its definition, no. But by its usage? Yeah, I think it probably is. I can’t recall the last time I heard someone call a man or boy that word. Not even when they’re being all pushy and demanding and micro-managing. People call them push or demanding or micromanagers or just plain assholes, but hardly ever bossy.
Neither have I. I’ve personally used the word to describe any person that’s pushy, and I’ve more heard it from my female friends describing their experiences with men.
In fact, after reading the thread title and seeing the “sexist” part interjected into it, I assumed “bossy” was referring to Women (little girls, more so) and “pushy” was referring to Men/teens, in an attempt to establish equivalency between the two terms. In relation to bossy, I wondered why they didn’t go with “asshole”, if they were going with terms which leaned towards a particular adult gender.
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. I don’t view either gender who is driven, confident, assertive, and in possession of leadership skills, as “bossy” or “pushy”.
“Bossy” is a negative trait and is usually an alternative term or one used to summarize micromanagement, overbearing, over-talking, and other similar behaviors/terms-- usually by a person who has no business being the boss, such as the case with children. The thing is, such a person could also be driven, confident, and assertive, but it’s all too easy to fail to establish a good distinction between the former and latter terms.
I also agree with Ranchoth.
No. Sheryl Sandberg would appear to believe that because she’s a corporate executive with tons of money to toss around, she gets to decide what words everybody uses. She’s started a “ban bossy” campaign based on studies which, she claims, demonstrate that girls are less likely than boys to want to take leadership roles, and more likely than boys to be afraid of being seen as bossy.
To anyone who’s very familiar with feminists and their use of statistics, it will come as no surprise that Sandberg and her campaign lie, misrepresent, cherry-pick the data, and ignore a vast set of research which flatly proves them wrong. In fact, the very studies cited by Sandberg actually say that boys and girls are equally likely to be leaders, think of themselves as leaders, and desire to be leaders. So in short, it’s a whole lot of foofaraw about absolutely nothing, just like so many crusades launched by our ruling elite these days.
Not consciously, but you never know what is happening at the subconscious level.
One statistic you don’t agree with doesn’t amount to “absolutely nothing” as long as you spend more than five seconds thinking about it before starting with this horseshit about feminists. There’s statistics in this thread to substantiate that the term is used in a highly gendered way. More would be available in a matter of seconds if you bothered looking.
Some people do and are disingenuous about it, so it’s possible. It’s also definitely likely that someone chooses to make a semantics debate of it, where it otherwise wouldn’t matter.
This. The reason a lot of women managers are called “bossy” or “pushy” is that they act like fucking bitches. Or more specifically, they misinterpret the assertive qualities that make a good manager as being shrill, snide, belittling, curt and generally mean-spirited. I’ve met plenty of women managers who effectively manage without being those things.
Being “bossy” or “pushy” is not effective traits in a male manager either. A good manager can be direct, assertive, even blunt without making his reports feel sad.
As successful as Sheryl Sandberg is, here’s the problem with her whole “Lean In” philosophy IMHO. Basically, for all her education, success and wealth, she has proven that if a woman studies hard, busts her ass, goes to the top schools and does good work for some of the top companies, she can be the #3 executive in a 24 year old college dropout’s startup.
As a similar data point, I recall a 60 Minutes (or some news magazine) show about former Lehman Brothers CFO Erin Callan and how she sacrificed everything to get there. So IOW, if a woman puts work ahead of everything, she can aspire to be the #2 in a failed investment bank.
In both cases the relative success of these women executives hides the fact that there is still a mentality of “do what is expected of you, follow the rules, play the game”. While that is generally good advice for most people most of the time, when I look at male CEOs like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Mike Bloomberg, Richard Branson and others, it is their ability to take risks and break out of their pre-defined mold that propels them ahead of other corporate leaders, both male and female. I don’t know any equivalent examples of women CEOs. Where are the women CEOs who say “the way you are doing things is stupid. I’m going to form my own company and do it this way!”
So while women still approach management with the mindset of “follow the rules” and default to “bossing” and “pushing” their reports to do the same, these male CEOs are defining a vision and inspiring people to follow it. More Dagny Taggart, than Hank Rearden.
This is perfect. For everyone arguing we are past gender bias in the workplace, you have demonstrated the fallacy of that much better than we were able to argue.
Okay, so the term is used in a highly gendered way. Why should anyone care?
Sandberg claims that girls are less likely to lead or have the desire to lead. She’s wrong, and the very study that’s quoted on her own website shows that she’s wrong. If the basis of her campaign had some connection to reality, it might be worth thinking about, though I still can’t see much reason why anyone should care. But since the entire basis of the “ban bossy” campaign is garbage, why should anyone care how the word is used?
As others have pointed out, there are words with negative connotations that are applied most often to men. Doubtlessly if anyone wanted to do research on the matter, they could come up with the statistics. But who cares? Why would anyone want to run a campaign against “highly gendered” word usage? Why should all 300,000,000 Americans be pushed to speak in the way that one super-wealthy woman wants us to speak?
I have multiple issues with Sandberg and her Lean In … stuff, but I agree with you that it’s good for people to read about the differences in perception of the sexes in the workplace, especially if their first reaction to the very IDEA is to roll their eyes and say it’s bullshit. : cough : It doesn’t necessarily have to be a conscious decision or thought, but it still happens.
Related to the bolded section, women and men are absolutely perceived differently when negotiating wages, even when they use the same words and techniques.
The feminists are now our elite overlords? Sweet!
Interesting article, zweisamkeit. I wonder how people who dismiss the existence of gender bias reconcile studies like this one with their worldview. Do they assume the authors are fudging their findings? Perhaps some of the posters here can shed some light.
Below is a finding that especially caught my eye:
I wonder if men were also more likely to negotiate when they believed they were dealing with a woman. Because if so, it suggests that gender bias not only adversely impacts those in subordinate positions, but it also causes subordinates to treat female bosses less deferentially. You are probably less prone to negotiate with someone if you see them as a powerful person.
ETA: Ooops, just read the finding more closely. Men and women negotiated no differently when they both assumed they were dealing with a woman. Doh. Discard that last bit.
Is that seeing them as less powerful or seeing them as less likely to hold it against you?
Fuck if I know. Maybe they’re totally bonkers and actually want to be responsive to the actual question in the OP?
Good question. One could argue that women hold back when negotiating because of projection (i.e., they avoid behavior they would penalize if they were an interviewer’s position). But the fact that men are biased against female negotiators suggest there is more going on that just that.
Projection doesn’t make sense if the women will negotiate with women, but not with men. It’s more an assumption that women will treat them more fairly than men will.