My stance: Agree that women being assertive and in powerful positions is less common than with men, so it stands out more. Agree bossy can be used to subconscious discriminate against women. Don’t think the word bossy in and of itself is bad.
I think the Ban Bossy campaign outlines the central problem in political dialogue. The BB campaign is about more than just banning a word and discussing semantics, which is why the fact that it chose the theme of banning words as it’s core first impression it wanted to make on people was totally wrong. It has made itself way too easy to strawman.
At the same time, how much can we blame people for opting with catch phrases over sophisticated arguments? Had the ban bossy campaign, it would not have gained attention. But by simply putting a catchy title, it has received mountains of attention. And Thunderf00t even engaged it as a result.
It’s the same logic with deceptive news headlines. We say we want a hunger for less sensationalism, yet we respond easily to catchy headlines than we do to reasoned arguments.
Xan. Side where you want, but the game remains the same.
Yes, I’m taking the path of least resistance, but I care about the meat behind a point as much as the point itself. That’s the issue with Code’s arguments. They sound like canned political rhetoric suited for an echo-chamber rally rather than a genuine attempt at reasoned discussion.
This is an overarching mentality (the baggage; name-calling, sweeping generalizations, demagoguing) that is present in millions of people, leftist, right-wing, feminist, anti-feminist, anything. I really don’t think Code is much different than the Ban Bossy people. Plain and simple.
I cant help but find much of the anti- #banbossy arguments on the internet wholly different than the twitter-hashtag mentality that we should be trying to break out of. I’m happy people are speaking up against the tactics of the Ban Bossy campaign, but that in itself isn’t enough.
You entirely missed the point of most of my remarks.
For clarity and context, I’ll repeat my remarks unadorned, prefix your replies with “>”, and prefix my responses to your replies with “>>”. So…
Strength is a man’s charm, just as charm is a woman’s strength.
> General platitude.
That is the basis of true balance between the sexes.
> General platitude.
>> No, these are simple, timeless truths. I wish they were platitudes. At one time they were – in the sense that everyone knew they were true, so there was little to be gained by repeating them. But, starting from the false claim that human nature is no more than an arbitrary social construct, cultural Marxists are relentlessly driving such truths out of general awareness. So, nowadays, one cannot repeat them often enough.
No one likes bossy females.
> Slanted generalization.
>> Okay, I should have said no one normal likes bossy females. For the definition of normal, see the so-called platitudes above, which obviously can’t be platitudes, otherwise you would get why no one normal likes bossy females.
Well, a certain kind of men, of the type the Romans called gallinae (hens), do like bossy females.
>> Not at all. You really ought to read about the self-castrated followers of Cybele… if only because those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
And that is what the cultural Marxist / feminist agenda seeks to make all men into.
> Weird conspiracy.
>> Weird or not, it is an extremely effective conspiracy, and one that has reappeared throughout history. I suggest you review the advice given by the defeated Midas to Cyrus the Great, on how to subdue the Lydians and prevent them from revolting, without actually having to kill them. Then compare that prescription to modern Western society.
Why? Because such men will not stand up for their rights, nor are they capable of protecting their women.
> Another slanted generalization.
>> What, you think effeminate cowards will fight for their rights, their women, or anything else? When has that ever happened? Refer back to Midas and Cyrus.
Therefore women try to fill the void by turning to the state.
> Um. Evidence?
>> Um. Look around you? Do you suppose all these baby mommas would be able to live the way they do, had they not taken the state for a surrogate husband? Western society is being transformed into one huge gynaeceum, wherein the state sequesters its women and wages war on all males who dare to challenge its dominance.
And society as a whole is rendered submissive and compliant.
> To what, exactly?
>> The state, of course. More precisely, the global totalitarian corporocratic state – by which I mean the incestuously intertwined nest of snakes born of the unnatural union of big government and big business, which oppresses the people by violating their inalienable individual rights, and exploits them by privatizing the profits and socializing the losses of an increasing segment of world’s economy.
Of course the women who run this “ban bossy” campaign have no clue about the long term consequences of their machinations.
> Fair enough.
>> The reason I point this out is to draw attention to the man behind the curtain, pulling the strings.
They are just a bunch of spoiled brats who just want to get away with being shrill and bossy without getting called out for it.
> Name calling with simple words.
>> Are you saying they are not spoiled brats who want to get away with being bossy? What are they then? The princess and the pea has nothing on these self-cantered complainers.
And such use of shallow, obstreperous spoiled brats to push an agenda they don’t even dimly comprehend is the quintessential modus operandi of cultural Marxism.
> Name calling with complex words.
>> The one I am naming is that rhetorical man behind the curtain. Cultural Marxism has always exploited useful idiots to push its agenda, precisely because no one could seriously look at these front men (or girls, in this case) and accuse them, with a straight face, of having any agenda beyond inchoate wilfulness. In the background, however, the cultural Marxist apparatchiks guide the dialectic so the cycle of problem-reaction-solution furthers the agenda.