Have you heard about the #banbossy campaign started by the eminently boring Sheryl Sandberg? I mean, I’m very happy that Sandberg is managing to make a pile out of people’s lack of extreme intellectual sophistication. I always support people’s attempts to enrich themselves by legal means. But can anything be sillier than this campaign?
The whole idea is based on the ancient sexist stereotype that women are tender flowers who need to be approached with extreme care because their unstable psyches can collapse at any moment. The most popular form of bastardized feminism these days is that which strives to remove every aspect of reality which might hurt the tender feelings of fair damsels.
Clarissa's Blog 
I can’t speak to anything American as it has a whole different dynamic from anything that would make any sense, but as you point out, a lot of contemporary feminism has the tendency to hedge women in, rather than to give the the range they ought to have to explore the world. I have hypothesised that many times Western types have had too much freedom and therefore welcome any caging or unfreedom. Moreover, the lack of freedom gives a limit to the ego, which produces a sensation of safety, albeit at a great cost. (I think to some extent we all rest easy in the lazy assurance that we “have limits.) So Americans, having been given too much freedom to “be themselves” seek re-entry into a defining box.
Now, me, I’ve had to move in the opposite direction, out of the box. At a later stage in development — as an adult — that is MUCH harder to do than if you do so as a child. For instance, in my original society, men had access to knowledge of violence but women did not. Women may have been victims of psychological violence, and often were, but they had no direct knowledge about the mechanisms of violence. This was precisely what I had to learn about to stop being such a child-woman (the natural default state of my upbringing — you witness my right-wing female peers, who are still like this in middle-age).
I sought knowledge of violence everywhere, to better understand it and its relationship to myself. Obviously if your character structure has formed so that there is a great deal of the mature range of experience and emotions that you have not been permitted to know about, you have already been the victim of strong cultural violence. Also, you are going into forbidden “male” territory.
Bataille terms this expansion of self-awareness “transgression”. It is very fraught.
But Americans, who have rarely been the victims of cultural repression have the opposite drives. In fact, I am totally unintelligible to them. My wants are the opposite of their wants. I want to understand how violence formed me so that I can master those forces of violence, whereas they desire more violence (repressive measures on their psyches) so as to be finally formed by these measures of repression.
I suppose it is okay to desire repression on one’s own behalf — but never on my behalf.
American feminism really has the opposite goals to my sort of feminism, which would make men and women more similar. My method for increasing similarity (and a psychical balance within myself) has been to increase my knowledge of violence to the greatest extent. Bataille was useful for this, as his project seems not dissimilar from mine. Andrea Dworkin and other feminists, however, cannot see any value in this sort of method. This already shows their extreme limitations in terms of self-knowledge, in my view, since they expect the limits against violence to be drawn arbitrarily, by some repressive social force, instead of by their own minds after having encountered their own natural limits. In other words, they show they prefer an externally imposed system of order rather than the option to adventure, find out what one needs, and then impose a personal limit, based on furthered knowledge abot their own individual nature and its needs.
But what I have described here is very intellectually complex and sophisticated — therefore, also hard to communicate, especially to people who have the opposite goals and ambitions to mine. You would really have to be of the same type to be able to resonate. And then, too, there are my female peers, who are of my type, but have no desire to be anything other than they already are, although they may express unhappiness with their lot on occasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy3-4jy0uSI
LikeLike
Regarding the child-woman status of my Rhodesian peers, this is what one of them posted just a second ago:
“This morning these words from Ann Voskamp’s blog remind me that life is not an emergency-life is a gift!
“When we only allow nooks and crannies in our days for rest, time alone, and self-care, then we are left threadbare to love others when they most need it. When our calendars are scribbled out in the margins because they are too full, we have no way to empty ourselves out in sacrifice.” ”
I don’ t know what it means.
LikeLike
I would think that banning the word ‘bossy’ would give it more power. I am also confused by the constant and ever-growing need to censor the English language. On a personal note, I am bossy, I like being bossy, and I like and respect other ‘bossy’ women. To me, bossy means “knows what she wants and goes after it”, and to me this is a good trait. I watched a news segment on this and it seemed to be aimed at protecting female children, not women. They claimed that ‘bossy’ is the playground equivalent (and therefore precursor to) ‘bitch.’ They believe that the fear of the word ‘bossy’ stops young girls from becoming future leaders. They are very earnest.
LikeLike
Bossy is used as an extremely negative word to condition young girls to be more quiet, nice, doormatish, etc. This young age conditioning is extremely problematic. I think you’ve spoken yourself on how careful you and your sister are to make sure Klubnikis doesn’t get conditioned in such a way.
The word isn’t often used on anyone that’s over age 10 – the words abrasive, and bitchy replace it.
Of course, the campaign is simplistic, but bringing attention to the ruthless conditioning of young girls to be pleasing and agreeable is a noble one. Words, like bossy, that are used almost exclusively on girls are part of that conditioning. I don’t think they really mean a literal ban, just that parents and teachers should stop conditioning girls to be so agreeable, when they should be encouraging them to speak out.
LikeLike
But it’s the same concept as “lean in”. The idea is that if only women were more assertive, equality would suddenly appear, when in fact the dynamics acting on the situations creating inequality are far more complex than that cheap fix.
LikeLike
Obviously, I haven’t read the book but I can’t wait for American women of my generation to stop rustling in scared little voices. This is a class thing , too. Educated women have this problem to a much greater degree than the working classes.
LikeLike
Somewhat similar to Australia, then, too, although I think all the nice bourgeois housewives are hiding over East. You can tell who they are because they have been sucking on helium and their voices are an octave higher than a normal person’s.
LikeLike
I didn’t take the campaign idea literally, as in to censor a word or to construct girls as poor flowers.
I thought it meant: when you tell assertive women/girls that they are “bossy” and that that is bad, you are trying to condition them to *be* those flowers. I thought it meant, stop with that conditioning, and why not reconsider your ideas of proper gender roles while you are at it.
I get the bossy complaint all the time and it is meant to be destructive — don’t give your perspective, or your recommendation, etc., or as code for “I do not like the fact that you even have views.” I’d like for assertiveness not to be considered so bad.
Although I agree with musteryou on the lean in parallel — it is not nearly enough, and it implies that just by becoming more assertive we can address structural inequality, and so on.
LikeLike
I’ll stop using “bossy” when Modern Womyn stop using “creepy”!
LikeLike
I guess I am in the minority but I completely agree with you on this one!
My opinion is that this cultural removal of anything that might intrude upon the fragile sensibilities of the “fair sex” is the reason why many American women are so fragile in the first place. This difference is most apparent among the domestic and international women students in my class. If you tell a domestic woman student that her work is not good, she will fall apart. If you tell an international student the same thing, she will ask you what exactly is not good, and come up with better work the next day.
LikeLike
Gotta love condescending band-aid feminism!
LikeLike
Band-aid feminism, exactly. Let’s find the magic word and it will transform the universe.
Yeah, right.
LikeLike
That’s a better (and more diplomatic) label than what I was thinking: magic pixie dust feminism
LikeLike
“Bossy is used as an extremely negative word to condition young girls to be more quiet, nice, doormatish, etc.”
– This kind of conditioning doesn’t occur through the use of specific words. It isn’t about words at all. A child sees through words to the reality behind them. The example of the mother and the dynamic between the mother and the father will be of central importance, irrespective of what words surround the experience.
My mother has spent my entire life telling me to be quiet, feminine, gentle, and to look up to men, recognizing their superior intelligence. But what she showed with her behavior was exactly the opposite. And as a result I am who I am.
People dedicate so much time and energy battling insignificant little things like the color pink, Disney princesses, or the word “bossy”, but none of these things can even begin to make a dent in the really crucial, formative experiences of observing your mother either shutting up or raising her voice.
What would be really useful in this campaign is for adult women to try to figure out why it bothers them (if it does) to be called bossy. I, for instance, can’t imagine being bothered by the knowledge that some uninteresting people call me something or other.
LikeLike
Band-aid feminism reminds me of the ABA that’s used to “treat” autistic children. It’s more about tweaking behaviours/words/actions of others that the band-aid feminists finds uncomfortable or incomprehensible to themselves than it is about finding a real, long-term solution to any real problems that come up.
LikeLike
“A child sees through words to the reality behind them. The example of the mother and the dynamic between the mother and the father will be of central importance, irrespective of what words surround the experience.
My mother has spent my entire life telling me to be quiet, feminine, gentle, and to look up to men, recognizing their superior intelligence. But what she showed with her behavior was exactly the opposite. And as a result I am who I am.
People dedicate so much time and energy battling insignificant little things like the color pink, Disney princesses, or the word “bossy”, but none of these things can even begin to make a dent in the really crucial, formative experiences of observing your mother either shutting up or raising her voice.”
This should be a post on it’s own
LikeLike
Even baboons can figure out if a female is subjugated within a society. In that case, they attempt to intimidate human women but not the men.
LikeLike
Human beings have a tendency to project their needs onto animals in strangest ways.
LikeLike
Watch any nature programme and you will see the patriarchal norms reinstated. “The mother really cares to bring up her two boys big and strong. She dedicates her life to their well-being.” Blah.
But it is actually the case that baboons, like dogs, read cues concerning dominance.
LikeLike
Dogs don’t read anything. They are the stupidest animals ever. I’d maybe believe that a cat reads something but a dog?
LikeLike
I’m not sure, maybe you are misunderstanding something I said or conflating two things. The two things are:
1. nature shows that are anthropomorphized, almost inevitably
2. Certain animals’ ability to read dominance and submission behavior, which is a well-known and documented scientific fact.
LikeLike
I’m not a native speaker of English. The words “animals’ ability to read” are as incomprehensible to me as “animals’ rights.” Whenever it comes to animals, there is such a chasm between me and Anglophone people that I learned not to engage at all. This is a cultural difference that cannot be overcome.
LikeLike
To “read the signs” does not mean literally reading text but to interpret the signs around one. It’s a metaphor.
Although postmodernists would have it that everything around us is a “text”, to be “read”.
LikeLike
http://www.italian-greyhound.net/packbehave.htm
LikeLike
I don’t know. I got long lectures about it as a child and I still have to deal with this reaction from those types of agents of the patriarchy. I mean: I find that one is sanctioned for this kind of thing, and that the deferential women are the only ones who get ahead (although they of course pay other prices). That is perhaps because I live in such a conservative culture … a friend much younger and I sat up all to late last night talking about this; she is essentially leaving a profession because she cannot get ahead in it in this town while also being outspoken and having views.
LikeLike
That’s right. It is the eact opposite to what is presented as the common-sensical solution. We are told to be more assertive, because we are so silly we just can’t figure out that we would automatically get a great deal of what we wanted if only we asked for it. In fact, the deferential women are the ones more likely to get ahead. They’ve got to play the feminine game to a high degree. Even Julia Gillard softened her image, wore make-up and tried to draw attention to the fact that she engages in knitting. It’s all part of the game to give patriarchy more of what it wants — so that it will allow you to get ahead.
LikeLike
You can either stay there and wait for civilizational changes slowly to occur or move to a place that has started to get civilized. One only gets one life, so. . .
The situation you are describing is untenable and I’m guessing you are not even describing everything that is going on.
LikeLike
I laughed out loud at your description of Sheryl Sandberg as “eminently boring.” I should go read her book so I can give a full complaint against it, but from what I’ve read about it, her arguments are a result of her ultra-privilege tunnel vision.
Also, if you wrote about this, I missed it, but what did you think of Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All” in The Atlantic (July/August 2012)? I really need to force myself to read the whole thing. When I learned that her children were high school age and she wanted to quit her high-impact job to spend more time with them, I stopped reading. Kids that age don’t need a helicopter mommy. They need to figure things out independently. Then again, coming from (yet another) hugely privileged family, maybe they were never taught to wipe their own bottoms.
I’m a white American, so I know I’m privileged, too, but I come from socio-economic disadvantage that Sandberg and Slaughter couldn’t understand. I feel 0% guilt about working. I like what I do (90% of it anyway), and if I keep my job, my kids will go to college for free. But even if I didn’t like my job, we need my income in order to survive. If I didn’t work, we would be in the midst of financial disaster. Thus, I feel it is my moral and fiscal responsibility to work. Then again, my mother and her mother always worked, so it never even occurred to me that staying home was an option. I wouldn’t have anyway. I like working too much — even jobs I hated were better than doing nothing but house work. I hate domestic crap. Thankfully, my husband is into cooking and cleaning. I can (and do) do that stuff, too, but there’s no joy in it for me. He loves it.
LikeLike
Yes, this is precisely the problem: feminism is too colonized by extremely bored people with trivial concerns who discuss their non-existent suffering in every public space.
LikeLike
I could have written most of that last paragraph — I feel no guilt about working, I never thought about not working, I strongly (very strongly!) believe think all able-bodied adults should work. And I also hate the domestic goddess crap and would go out of my mind if that were all I was ever supposed to do. And I completely agree about bossy or not bossy: if you are a kick-ass mom and proud of it, your daughter will model that behavior. While I am sure being called bossy or whatever can upset a little girl temporarily, if she has a good and strong role model at home she will be just fine in the long run.
LikeLike
“the eminently boring Sheryl Sandberg”
It occurs to me that she’s a human equivalent of Windows 8. A shiny decoy whose users/followers are condemning themselves to being sheep who placidly line up to be fleeced, again and again and again.
LikeLike
and the weird thing is I just look at that crap and say, “oh, more American crap.” I think I’ve got that now.
Here is a video I made today in response to something Clarissa said about the behavior of mothers. It’s not about mothers, but I think it makes its point about extreme patriarchy and its consequences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmOd-t9mILg
LikeLike
When people begin to quote from Sandberg’s book in my presence, I feel intensely embarrassed for them.
LikeLike
musteryou: “Even baboons can figure out if a female is subjugated within a society. In that case, they attempt to intimidate human women but not the men.”
Back in the days when I read a lot of things about non-human primate behavior I developed an intense dislike for baboons – they seemed like the least dignified and most lowlife (trashiest, chaviest?) monkeys ever. The closest to an exception were mountain baboons in ethipoia who made the most human like vocalizations of any non-human primates ever (and that was just creepy, but that’s a step up from trashy I guess).
I still don’t like baboons so my prejudice has not waned over time. Is there a message in my unbending monkey intolerance? No. Probably not.
LikeLike
I now see they are called geladas and more distantly related to baboons than I thought. Now I think of them as trying to better themselves while the crummy baboons are happy in the trailer park.
her’es a link with a sample gelada vocalization (.40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYP6ypx9mE
LikeLike
They’re a very primitive and somehow primeval creature. They’re very much in tune with the dynamics of dominance and submission. When I went horseriding in the wilderness, we stopped at a creek surrounded by a rocky outcrop. The tour guide said that we were in their territory and they would consider that an affront. Sure enough when we lay down to rest one of the baboons threw a stick at one of the travelers.
These creature will also enter restaurants and get into your car if they think you are vulnerable. Some African restaurants are constantly frequented by baboons, which can be known to scare away the guests to eat their food.
LikeLike
I am fully expecting the #bossystrikesback campaign simply on the basis of the perversity of matching perversities …
Also: “… a human equivalent of Windows 8”
More like Nokia’s Belle — what you see might not be offensive, but you’d have to care about the platform in order to admire the aesthetics …
LikeLike
I feel the same way about “trigger warnings.” The idea is to coddle and protect through band-aid type manipulations of language. A trigger warning warns the delicate flower that some reference to a traumatic subject is imminent. But the trigger warning itself names the thing, so an “eating disorder” trigger warning itself triggers someone with sensitivity to eating disorders.
LikeLike
The sheer mention of an eating disorder will be triggering to a far smaller number of people than those triggered by an explicit description of disordered behaviour/thought, which is what the warnings are supposed to warn for.
LikeLike
The problem is this: the trauma doesn’t really go anywhere if we try to ignore it. The pain is not located in the descriptions of painful things. The pain is located inside us. All we achieve through avoiding any confrontation with our pain is to drive it even deeper inside. This way we ensure that we never liberate ourselves from the pain.
LikeLike
Oh, definitely agreed, there are, of course, people who use the concept as a way never to have to deal with their pain. Thing is, from my own experience with triggers (an experience a bit far from the trigger warning framing since none of them were verbal triggers, but I think the same thing does apply to verbal triggers too) I know that a big part of what gave me the strength to deal with the pain was meeting it on my own terms, in moments and situations of my choosing. I’d have found that far more difficult if the trigger had been something that I couldn’t have avoided in the mean time, and while I don’t believe the universe owes us to never hurt us except when we’re prepared for it, I don’t think it wrong to help traumatized people acquire a certain degree of control over when and where they have old wounds reopened.
LikeLike