COMMENTARY | On the one hand, teaching young girls to be self assertive is a good thing. On the other hand, trying to ban a word like “bossy” smacks of – well – being bossy. Indeed one suspects a hidden political agenda behind the campaign.
After all, what is the one adjective (at least that can be printed) when one thinks of Hillary Clinton? If one has the courage to admit it, it has to be “bossy.”
“Bossy” is not necessarily a synonym for “self assertive” or “being a leader.” It is a way to describe anyone, female or male, who tries to push people around without any justification or credibility. “Tyrannical” or “dictatorial” are other words that come to mind.
Besides, “bossy” is the least what real women leaders get called by inadequate males who feel threatened by an assertive woman. Just ask Sarah Palin. Just ask Condi Rice. Things that they have been called do not bear repeating.
A real woman leader does not concern herself with being considered “bossy.” As long as she is able to lead, it doesn’t much matter what she is considered by her detractors. Indeed, trying to ban words is the last thing that should be done.
One cannot imagine that the great female leaders of the past were overly worried about being called “bossy.” They were too busy being leaders and getting things done. No one ever dared say anything to their faces except, “Yes, ma’am. I’ll see that it happens.” One asserts leadership by actually accomplishing things.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has not accomplished a while lot aside from making scandals and messes. Thus she needs to have people shut up about what she really is, a bossy woman who uses bluster and victimhood to get ahead. She is what the drive to ban the word is really about and the reason why it should be resisted.