Forums / Discussion / General

I support #BanBossy. We should replace the word "bossy" with a four letter word that starts with c and rhymes with "bunt"

Why was Jimmie Johnson the only dude in that video? And since when is 'bossy' a horrible thing to say? I can think of plenty of 'labels' far more offensive than bossy…

Jimmie Johnson has become God of the Beta Males.

>called stupid in grade school by teacher
>looked at her and said "heh, okay".
>mfw people are complaining about being called bossy

Saying things like "words matter" and "being labled something matters" is just fucking wrong. being called stupid all those years ago hasn't kept me from doing whatever I've seriously put my mind to and if I thought that way I wouldn't even have my drivers license or high school diploma right now. I hope nobody actually thinks these people know what they're talking about.

Exactly how is assuming girls can't handle being call "bossy" going to empower them?

"Wah, you're bossy!"
"Yeah, I am, because I'm the boss!"

Jimmie Johnson has become God of the Beta Males.

NASCAR fans are going to have a field day with this.

Meanwhile, in Africa…

As many as ten girls are raped daily to cure the rapist's AIDS. [1.]

Three million girls every year are at risk of having their genitalia mutilated. [2.]

50% of women above the age of 25 are illiterate. [3.]

The second modern feminism gets its head out of its own ass and starts actually giving a shit about real problems is the second I'll start taking it seriously.

1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/04/cnnheroes.betty.makoni/index.html?_s=PM:LIVING
2. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
3.http://achieveinafrica.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/facts-on-education-in-africa/

So even if kids get called bad names over their race or sexual orientation, people want to ban, of all words, bossy?
First world problems…

…that is all I have to say regarding everything about this movement

I get what they're trying to say (kinda-ish sorta in a way). But is the word bossy really the main threat here? Even I, who doesn't have any real problems with most modern feminism, thinks this is a step too far. I don't think the word bossy causes girls to be scared to lead, and if it is, I'm sure it doesn't apply to just girls.

I am moderately concerned why a culture that loves freedom can influence a movement only wanting to ban words because 'it could be hurtful'.

First, I would strongly suggest not using this approach to arguing in a lot of cases. You're moving away from their point without saying why their stance isn't as important. You didn't make an argument against theirs.

We all spend hours, if not full days, each week frequenting KYM, and much of that time could go to better causes in the US and abroad.
We all spend hours, if not full days, each week playing video games or watching anime or whatever, and much of that time could go to better causes in the US and abroad.

By this logic, we should all be doing whatever we can to address [1], [2], and [3] instead of posting about this.

At the very least, they are trying to do something about what they feel strongly about. You're just talking badly about them doing something.
 
Second, as individuals, we can do whatever we want with our time and resources and passions, as can anyone else.

If you're not passionate about something you do outside of your day job, then you're not going to feel fulfilled or be inspired to keep it up. To do charity, most people have to be passionate about it.

If you're passionate about the issues of very core feminism abroad, then please do go see about that.
I, myself, am more passionate about the stuff that prevents anyone from being in a land of plenty but not being able to be as successful as others. Because they, as women, will be able to understand issues of women being raised as women all of their lives, but they'll have the power and resources to address them better than men who don't have the experience that any woman has as being a male.

(Note that I'm not saying that men can't understand women or the issues they deal with. Feminism and equality, in my opinion, can only thrive when people who aren't in disadvantaged roles cooperate with the disadvantaged to bring about change. But men simply are not women nor do they (or are easily allowed to) live the lives of women. Even a transgendered male won't live as a woman, because society just plain won't allow him/her to. His/her friends might; school/work/life won't.)

Also, larger, "more important" issues are often not easily handled. If everyone in this movement placed all of their resources to the very evident and troublesome issues you listed, that doesn't mean the matter will be fixed.

A lot of issues in many governments is that they pour money and resources into an issue without understanding how to best address it. So you end up with money being spent on something that doesn't work (and sometimes, the help given actually makes an issue worse.)

I can't say if this campaign will be any more successful, but again, money and time spent here may not be better used somewhere else. Ms. Sandberg, though, has more experience with what can spread and communication (with her ties to Facebook), so this is where she can efficiently make a change.
 
Third, we should all take modern feminism seriously. I think a lot of people in Web Culture speak a big game about social issues, but they have no training or extensive experience with it.

We don't hang out with many, diverse racial minorities.
We don't hang out with many, diverse religious people.
We don't hang out with many, sexual minorities.
We don't hang out with people who do have training and expertise in these areas.
 
And we all know that very few of us are majoring in the humanities or the social sciences.
 
It is very arrogant to believe that our uninformed stances given in 1,500 character spurts have more weight and legitimacy than entire, academic fields that can tell us something entirely different.

Modern feminism is no more a joke than religion or anything else with their own extremist movements. Please don't assume that all movements within "modern feminism" are misinformed. And if you think a movement within it is misinformed, then try to figure out why they are calling for what they are.

…the person (Sheryl Sandberg) behind the movement is no idiot. Far to the contrary.

If this is the case (and it is,) then wonder why such an intelligent and accomplished person is getting behind it. Then debate that.

Try not to only take an issue at face value.

Now for my own stance, when it was first brought to my attention, I was thinking that "#BanBossy" was just symbolic.

The main message is that there's a double standard for women regarding leadership roles. When girls and boys come up, a boy can be assertive and confident (and even loud) and be seen as a leader. If a girl has the same attributes, then they will be seen as "bossy."

That's due to what we expect from people. Many of you probably think there are attributes that some people have over others (e.g., black people can dance better than most white people, religious people aren't as intelligent as non-religious ones, feminists have personal problems that they're trying to explain off as sexism and other forms of oppression, etc.)

I'd wager most of you just want equality. And that's legitimately great.

The thing though is that we all have been raised to believe certain things about people who are in certain roles. And even if you don't think you do (or maybe if you're one of the very few who don't hold those opinions, which probably means you don't pick up on social norms and cues very well which leads to an entirely different set of problems,) most people have internal definitions they aren't aware of. They just know something "isn't right" or makes them feel uncomfortable.

When someone who is categorically X but they act in a way inconsistent with what you think of people who are categorically X, people usually end up with cognitive dissonance: where the cultural understandings that are necessary for you to understand the world around you in an efficient manner are challenged

Those revolving around gender are usually more deeply ingrained than many others. So much so that a lot of hatred comes about from challenging those understandings. This is how hate crimes against sexual minorities and trans people come about and why a person like Hillary Clinton gets so much criticism when she isn't very much more aggressive than others.

So taking that back to the campaign at hand, girls who show traditional leadership capabilities often get called bossy or overly aggressive when a boy showing those attributes would be called something else.

When you're a kid, being consistently told you're bossy or the like will draw change from a normally functioning person.

(Again, there are those who can overcome or ignore such messages. These are also the people who end up getting beat up, picked on, shunned, and such. When you're 8 or 10, this is a lot for any one child to fight against…again, unless they're lacking in other social capacities. And lacking social skills in any society is a much larger hurdle to overcome. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," if you will. Which, oddly enough, is the sociological definition of oppression: where one is being placed into a social situation where the only options are not beneficial ones.)

So you can be a leader and get called a bitch, cunt, dyke or others all throughout school and life and have few friends (social support is important for everyone, again, unless you're lacking something…which means you're at a severe disadvantage anyway).

You can also not exhibit those attributes and never be seen as or be selected for being a leader. Showing those sorts of attributes though are important for getting people to see you as being a leader for when you have to be chosen for those roles. If you never show those roles because you're getting constant harassment about it…

"Rachel is a smart student, but Billy has the attributes of a leader: he's more assertive and is very adamant about achieving the goals he has in mind. Let's appoint/vote for him."
 
 
The thing I don't think many people in Web Culture understand is that humans are "messy" research subjects and are even messier intervention subjects.

In a society, a lot of things have to change (slowly but completely) for there to be actual change that ends up with equality.

…all that said, actually banning the word "bossy" isn't the way to go about it.

You nix that point of the movement and make it a symbolic message (i.e., that girls should be encouraged to lead and have their any natural inclinations to lead supported and nurtured), then I'd be all for it. I'm still all for it, actually. I just really wish they'd drop that tenet.

Actually asking to ban one word in any language leaves the door wide open to criticism. People will miss the actual message and movement and will just call you extremist.

I'm surprised that a person in communications wouldn't think that would occur.

Also, the Internet calls people "nigger" and "faggot" on the regular. As the Internet and real life become one and the same, please believe that a lot of things will have to happen before you can ban a word with selective negative connotations with sexist implications in only some situations ("Bossy" itself is gender-neutral. "Nigger" is not race-neutral. "Faggot" is a slur for gay people.)

And finally, a suggested mod note, don't downvote someone for their opinion on a matter. Or even if it's just a bad argument.

When you downvote someone for speaking their mind in a cordial manner, then you're just promoting a circlejerk where no one says anything unless they believe other people will agree with it. That's not good for discussion. It just becomes "whatever we don't agree with" bashing, and it prevents newer users from wanting to participate and give their own opinion which may or may not side with one of the two (or more) predominant sides.

Save it for excessively rude posts or stuff that's off-topic.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think I could fill a book the size of the complete works of Spakespeare with things that are worse to be called than "bossy"! I mean, since when is that neccecarily a bad thing? In the real world, this is how that conversation would go:
"Steve, you need to file that report by 8:00 pm sharp."
"Wah, you're being bossy girl!"
"Yeah? Well, that's because I'm your boss, bitch! Now get back to work or you're fired!"

I think this movement has been drawing a lot of unnecessary hatred. I don't think they're literally trying to ban the use of one particular word. I mean, they must realise that it would never make it into law. It's more that they're trying to fight against the idea that it's bad to be authoritative as a young girl. I really don't see how they're doing anything wrong. Seems like yet another case of feminists doing feminist things, and everyone getting all flustered because they'd dare to do something about women's rights.

Iamslow wrote:

Saying things like “words matter” and “being labled something matters” is just fucking wrong.

I'm really not a fan of this attitude. Okay, fair enough, maybe you've got thick skin and the opinions of other people don't get to you, but you can't assume that everyone else in the world will react this way, or even that they should react this way. This type of argument tends to move blame away from the perpetrators and towards the victims. People end up being called 'overly sensitive', and the problem itself is never corrected. Anyway, even if you don't consciously react to criticism, it will still be having some influence on your behaviour, and if that criticism is directed at your tendency to assume a leadership position, it's likely to make you less assertive.

I'd also like to back up what Verbose was saying: Just because there are larger issues in the world, it doesn't mean that the smaller problems should just be ignored. We'd never get anything done if our only concerns were the largest problems faced by society.

Bossy is a perfectly reasonable term to use against people who are, well, bossy. A gender neutral term at that. Sorry, being an ambitious person is not the same as being a person who tries to make you do everything for them. That's a bossy person.

Because removing a single word from people's vocabularies will magically make them not think you're a bitch anymore. Seems legit.

Banning words? Sounds kind of familiar…

I find this to be absolutely pathetic. Do they not know something exists called, ummm, I don't know… Free speech maybe? If the word bossy bothers someone and makes them not want to be a leader then they shouldn't be a leader in the first place. Also, why should women get special privileges because these people are suggesting that "women are emotionally weaker"? Shouldn't them saying that women are weaker and need to be treated like children be considered sexism and not the word "bossy"? It's scary how many of these celebrities with so much influence support this bullshit. Luckily, if you go to the original YouTube video, the dislikes are pretty heavy, which is a good sign that this might not get very far. If they actually succeed in censoring out the word "bossy", I'm moving to Ireland.

I look around here, and I see opinions.

The Biggest Boss said:

I find this to be absolutely pathetic. Do they not know something exists called, ummm, I don’t know… Free speech maybe?

YOU HAVE AN OPINION!

xTGSx said:

The second modern feminism gets its head out of its own ass and starts actually giving a shit about real problems is the second I’ll start taking it seriously.

YOU HAVE AN OPINION!

This entire thread is opinions. The same opinions at that.
Get your shit together and start arguing each other. I want to see hurt feelings!
Don't just stand there, get MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN OPINIONS WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?

You guys and your circlejerk disgust me. Grow a set.

Sandstone said:

Get your shit together and start arguing each other. I want to see hurt feelings!

Uhhmmm… Ur mum was a dirty hooker?

I know you're joking, but to be real, it's because the opposite side has a pretty stupid opinion that not many people can agree with to be honest. I don't see what kind of valid argument you can put out for wanting to ban a relatively harmless word when compared to crueler words in a country that takes pride in letting people say what they want.

All I see is that "in my opinion the other argument is retarded therefore I don't have to argue".
If you're going to perpetuate the circlejerk at least put more effort towards arguing why. Don't make me get the list of logical fallacies and explain to you why this thread is bullshit.

Doesn't matter.

As long as people aren't breaking rules, you shouldn't be downvoting them. Karma isn't to make ourselves feel good because we have the same opinion. It's for wit, well-placed images, well-constructed arguments, and generally being helpful.

The use of karma is to encourage and to discourage.

Currently, we're discouraging people who don't agree with us (on the whole), and we're encouraging those who just agree with us regardless of how good their arguments or posts were.

If that's the case, then there's not much point to a forum where we can discuss things openly. We'd all just bring up the same points.

A correct assessment. All I see here are ad hominem arguments, appeals to ridicule, and facllacies of relative privation. The "argument" is thus:

I find your opinion stupid, therefore it is wrong.

This is completely illogical and I'm glad someone decided to speak up about it.

Verbose says:

As long as people aren't breaking rules, you shouldn't be downvoting them.

I haven't downvoted a single person in this thread. Don't assume things.

opspe says:

A correct assessment. All I see here are ad hominem arguments, appeals to ridicule, and facllacies of relative privation. The “argument” is thus:

I find your opinion stupid, therefore it is wrong.

This is completely illogical and I’m glad someone decided to speak up about it.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I think people shouldn't jam their fingers in their ears and start shouting "LALALALALALA" when confronted with an opposing opinion, no matter how fallacious. I haven't really seen anyone on this thread agree with the other side though, so I have nothing to argue against. If someone brought it up, I would gladly attempt to counter them. My main argument is that banning a word undermines free speech, which makes the whole opposing argument invalid. I can't think of anything to counter that.

The Biggest Boss says:

…which makes the whole opposing argument invalid.

That's the fallacy fallacy. If it must be poorly argued and contains a fallacy then it ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE WRONG. Its going to take a lot more than that to bring down their argument.

Yeah no. Nice try. You win nothing, good day sir.

That’s the fallacy fallacy. If it must be poorly argued and contains a fallacy then it ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE WRONG.

Yeah no. Nice try. You win nothing, good day sir.

So could you please fill me in on your supposed counterargument that you put up as this unstoppable thing and dismiss mine before even revealing yours because it is so gloriously infallible?

Hahaha oh that's so cute. You do realize you just did exactly what I was saying people were doing?

Your argument is both a false dilemma and an argumentum ad populum (appeal to the popular opinion).

Just as illogical.

I understand the message of the video, and like I said, I kind of get what they're trying to say. I don't really feel like this fear of being called bossy is the issue as to why girls aren't taking up leadership roles, I don't think anyone likes being called bossy. It's not an issue which I feel is prevalent, is what I'm trying to get at. Of course they're not literally targeting the word bossy, that would be silly, they're just using it to symbolise the problem. It's just not an issue I feel is that big. Like I said, I have no problem with feminism, hell, I'll defend Anita Sarkeesian anytime people try to disparage her case as 'just another feminist rant', but that's because I feel as though she makes a good point most of the time. With this on the other hand, I don't really think the issue is all that bad, at least from my perspective of things.
Oh, and related point, I don't agree with arguments saying that "Why are you complaining about this when there is worse out there?". To quote something I heard from one of my favorite reviewers, just the other day: 'Just because some stuff is even worse doesn't mean that invalidates the nastiness of a thing; If I step in dogshit, the appropriate response is not "Hey, don't be upset, it wasn't horseshit"'
Jesus Christ, there's so much stuff going on in this thread, my head's starting to hurt. That's not even a joke, I actually have a headache now.

Appeal to emotion. In this case its spite. And its burden of proof. Meaning you expect me to prove you wrong rather than you to prove yourself right. Strike three, you're out.

@Boss

Whilst I agree with you that free speech is important you still should know when and when not to use certain words. This is why so many slurs have a lot of taboo around them. Sure you can say whatever you want but you need to understand that your words and actions have an effect on other people. The point of this movement is to make people stop using the word because it makes girls less assertive and ambitious. That's the point of this whole thing.

opspe says:

Hahaha oh that’s so cute. You do realize you just did exactly what I was saying people were doing?

Your argument is both a false dilemma and an argumentum ad populum (appeal to the popular opinion).

Just as illogical.

…So where's the counterargument? I don't see any yet. Are you just going to be a condescending asshat or are you going to attempt to argue? No one tries to debate. You're doing what you just accused me of doing and you're harassing me for doing something you're guilty of. This is basically of what I got out of your posts so far on this:

"Your argument sucks balls! It's totally a fallacy and you're an idiot for using it. Case dismissed!"

See Sandstone's post. I need not present a counterargument, since I was not debating the issue of banning the word "bossy", I was discussing the logical inconsistencies in your arguments. My opinions on the word "bossy" are irrelevant to this discussion.

To use the Latin phrase, this is a classic case of tu quoque; an appeal to hypocrisy.

Yeah Boss stop digging yourself a hole here. You're committing the fallacy of responding to criticism with criticism. And said criticism contains the strawman fallacy. Get reked scrub.

I do agree with that. Insults shouldn't be just flung around. I'm not supporting the use of an insult. I don't think little girls (or little boys or really people of any age for that matter) should be called bossy. However, the word is useful sometimes. There's a difference between "leading" and "being bossy". If someone is overly-controlling and likes to order people around just for the fun of it, "bossy" would actually be a very good term to be used in this situation, regardless of someone's age or gender. In fact, this totalitarian-style behavior should be weeded out of children before they grow old with this kind of personality. People should be encouraged to take charge and lead at a young age, but only to an extent.

As for double standards, this issue could be handled differently than by banning a word. Maybe we could show little girls role models of female leaders so they can aspire to be just like those women since there aren't many in today's society. Another way to tackle this issue instead of banning the word is to inform little girls to not let harsh words put them down. If you empower girls at a young age so that negativity mostly does not get to them, that's a whole lot more effective than violating free speech to an extent and not letting people use a word, which leaves women unprepared for negative criticism which is something people need to learn how to face. If you just spoon-feed people compliments and hide negativity from them at a young age, they will grow up unprepared for the real world where this is part of the norm. Giving girls special treatment doesn't empower them.

Okay, I honestly don't know what the fuck is going on between you people, but how is "responding to criticism with criticism" a logical/rhetorical fallacy? Isn't that just pretty much the definition of debate?

They're just being trolls trying to get reactions. I just try to ignore fallacies like that. Yes, that's pretty much what debate is, but they don't care. I'm not sure if they're just not thinking before they type or if they're just purposefully putting in weird stuff like that.

Considering one of those 'trolls' is a mod, I doubt that is the case. However, I also am unsure of what exactly is going on here. Can a neutral party simplify this down for someone with a simple mind like me?

That's an oversimplification. Criticism has to relate to something, and the problem comes with how the criticism was directed in this case.

A: Flawed argument.
B: That argument is illogical.
A: I agree, however I stand by my original (flawed) argument.
B: That's still illogical.
A: Well I don't see you making any logical arguments!

So you see, a criticism of the logic of his argument was retorted with an ad hominem criticism. It's diverting the subject.

Which has gone on long enough in these posts. My stance on this is the following.

Banning a word is impractical. Reducing the usage of a word is less impractical. But, I see it akin to trying to heal a severed arm with a band-aid. It's a small, superficial, cosmetic measure that really does nothing whatsoever to address the underlying issues.

You underestimate the trolling potential of a mod. They were sick of all the circle-jerking going on and picked me out as a potential target to get some rage and "arguing" to start in this thread, and since I replied, they decided to have a ball game and just watch my reactions as they keep stringing me along and keep introducing more new strawmen for me to freak out about.

The end result is not a pretty sight.

If we mods were so willing to troll people, we wouldn't still be mods. It's generally not a mod's job to troll people. I don't think they picked you out per se, it was more of a case that you were the one who responded, and it's not that they're trolling you, they just disagree with you.

ITT: Constructing Arguments 101

This is a forum on the Internet, not an English class or a Debate class. These responses aren't inherently going to be well constructed counter-arguments, because most people on here will just respond with how the OP makes them feel. There is also no reason to change from a list of responses depicting how this website community feels about the OP.

Random 21 wrote:

I don’t think they picked you out per se, it was more of a case that you were the one who responded, and it’s not that they’re trolling you, they just disagree with you.

That's what I meant. They wanted actual debate to go on (which didn't happen), so they started talking in a "Come At Me Bro"-esque manner to get people to start arguing. I was the first one to respond, so I was the one they started bothering.

As for disagreeing with me, they don't. They actually agree with me for the most part.

Exhibit A:

opspe wrote:

My stance on this is the following.

Banning a word is impractical. Reducing the usage of a word is less impractical. But, I see it akin to trying to heal a severed arm with a band-aid. It’s a small, superficial, cosmetic measure that really does nothing whatsoever to address the underlying issues.

All he really wanted was to screw with me a bit.

Sigh I think I've had enough internet for one day. Case in point – You're all off-topic, get back on it. I think this needs to be the end of the argument, it is not related to the topic of the thread. As for my final words on the matter, I agree with Captain Badass, a lot of users aren't wanting to debate here, they're just posting they're gut reaction, which is ok. There's no need to pick apart their responses as if they were acting like what they were saying is their balanced debate. Now back on topic everyone, don't let the thread get out of hand with irrelevancies.

The site and forum don't revolve around you.

Stop thinking you are of any importance.

How'd you get that from my post?

Also, other Random already said stay on topic anyways, so why is this still going on?

It really saddens me seeing so many people that aren't even looking past the title of the campaign and are already making judgements on how "unimportant" this issue is. I don't think this campaign is actually trying to ban any words (despite its name) but it is trying to discourage people using terms like this against women and girls because it perpetuates the mindset that women don't belong in leadership roles. Both my sister and I had to grow up with being called bossy, among other things, basically any time we tried to take charge of a situation. My sister especially had to deal with shit like that because of her aggressive and commanding nature (something that is encouraged in men taking leadership roles). "Bossy" is a gender neutral term, but personal experience and the existence of this campaign tells that this term is used on women and girls more than it is on the other gender. Women are still being discouraged from leadership roles, and it's so deeply ingrained in our society that we don't even see it. Just take a look at the ratio between women and men in a leadership/managerial roles and you'll see this is no coincidence. Obviously, banning a word is not the answer to this issue, but like I said already I don't think that's what's actually trying to be accomplished here.

@Iamslow: You should be congratulated for your ability to overcome verbal insults, but this does not mean words don't hurt and have a powerful impact. If words were really so meaningless, why do we even bother frequenting a forum where we communicate 100% through words? Why do we want our loved ones to say "I love you" every once in a while? Why does verbal debate even exist if words don't matter? The mindset that one should just get over bullying is outdated and allows the bullies in question to continue hurting those around them without repercussion. Some people, like you, are able to get over bullying and move on with your life, but it unfortunately has the side effect of thinking anyone can just get over abuse like that. Not everyone can.

BOSSY IS EXTREMELY STUPID AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND MAKES MORE TROUBLE THAN ITS WORTH #BANBOSSY2014

Alright, that’s where I draw the line. No more posts on the matter in this thread. Get back on topic, and that’s an order. I don’t care if you call me bossy for it.

>mfw

You just HAD to bring the fire, didn't you, Sandstone?

Anyway, back to why this campaign is a terrible idea. Like I said before, it's counterproductive, like this thread has become, BUH DA TSS. Moreover, if you're going to run a campaign to stop people uttering benign insults like "bossy", then you may as well launch campaign encouraging people to be more polite to one another. At least then we'll have less of what we just witnessed here…

Ever heard of "jerk, asshole, dickhead, prick" – that's what men get when they try to impose status and go "out of their league"?

Or my favorite "creep" which is what boys get when they try to show interest in a girl outside "their status level" (or league)

What kind of bullshit claim is this that boys just simply do whatever the fuck they want and everyone encourages them – what planet is this on? Apparently I have been living under a rock because I have never seen this.

If people want gender equality then they have to stop acknowledging gender. Women are just as equally guilty as men, and you know it. Funny how self-absorbed these women are that they can make a gender neutral word gender specific….

How about we just make a campaign called #don'tbeadicktopeopleregardlessofgenderandtrytobenice so everyone's happy? Sounds reasonable enough. I know they don't necessarily want to "ban bossy", but it's still a strange idea. Good intentions, terrible methods. The overall good message we can get out of this is that there are double standards for leadership when it comes to gender and that some people use harsh words when it is not necessary.

I am similar to iamslow in the way that I am resistant to insults, but I know that not everyone is like that, so that should be considered.