That's funny, I actually heard the word used when I was a military cadet in high school. It was used to teach the difference between being a a leader, or just, well bossy. Don't be a boss, don't act bossy, and so on.
Bossy people, we were taught, boss people around by using their rank. No one wants to follow them, they just have to. That's the worst kind of leader, we were taught. don't be bossy was good feedback. A good leader inspires, sets the example, is firm but fair, and through their behavior and actions people will want to follow them.
Not sure what all this implied sexism stuff is, I only heard it used around men, and it was and still is a damn fine term for the bad ones. What term would they prefer be used for someone that's acting bossy?
In Sandberg-style liberal feminism (which preserves inequality except for the more well-off white women and therefore doesn't help all women), I can imagine they want to improve subordination to female bosses. So you should be ready to follow her imperatives like you would Zuckerberg's.
In corporations, boss subordination is so complete that "bossy" only applies to someone who isn't actually literally a boss. So I can imagine "bossy" is used to question the legitimacy of female bosses. However, more serious kinds of feminism directly attack the existence of bosses, since many more women are at the bottom of hierarchies than the top.
> However, more serious kinds of feminism directly attack the existence of bosses, since many more women are at the bottom of hierarchies than the top.
>What term would they prefer be used for someone that's acting bossy?
Something entirely devoid of meaning so that it could never possibly hurt anyone's feelings for being someone who tells people what to do without leading by example so as to inspire people to do.
My general impression about being a boss is that "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" does not apply for such situation. Like business should focus on customers, leadership style should focus on employees. Some boss set example according to their value and standard, employees might just not appreciate that.
For example, a military style boss might value be at work on time, get your timesheet input on time, etc. and does an good job keeping them in check. Most innovative people with ENTP (rational inventor) personality people, or simply creative people will not appreciate that a bit. Result is low employee retention regardless of benefits. Well... that's just an example.
This applies both to male and female bosses. Things I observe in ineffective leaders:
Female bosses automatically associate their ineffective leadership with their gender;
Male bosses acts like higher ranked military personnel in an inappropriate setting (like growupkids mentioned);
Bosses fail to reevaluate their leadership style based on the data (most productive people keep leaving, they are generally 'kind' enough not giving you the real reason);
Bosses do not have actual authority (this happens a lot in Federal Government, bosses can't really fire employees, it's just terrible business);
...
> My general impression about being a boss is that "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" does not apply for such situation.
LOL. How does this not apply: "As a boss I should treat my employees the way I would like my boss to treat me." Any reasonable person understands that the professional context means that the relationship between boss/employee is not the same as friend/friend, stranger-on-subway/stranger-on-subway.
> military style boss might value...that's just an example.
That is a terrible, contrived example based on some strange concept/stereotype/cliche of military leadership. What branch of the service were you in? Did your well respected NCOs run around acting like the guy from Office Space and pester people about their TPS reports?
> LOL. How does this not apply: "As a boss I should treat my employees the way I would like my boss to treat me." Any reasonable person understands that the professional context means that the relationship between boss/employee is not the same as friend/friend, stranger-on-subway/stranger-on-subway.
Because not everyone is like you. You are assuming everyone can separate personal life with professional life. That would be probably ideal, but doesn't happen often base on my observation. I find it's especially rare among highly talented/creative employees. Army ants, yes, it would be fair.
> That is a terrible, contrived example based on some strange concept/stereotype/cliche of military leadership. What branch of the service were you in? Did your well respected NCOs run around acting like the guy from Office Space and pester people about their TPS reports?
Ain't we all generalizing here? And yes, I have a boss like that, and female, too. What's your point?
The etymology of the word bossy, boss with the -y suffix, suggests that the lady manager is acting like a boss but she is not a boss. The writer here makes it clear that this is intended to have a negative connotation and is therefore questioning her authority.
Recent meme has reinforced that. If we want to express this idea positively, we don't say "bossy", we say "like a boss".
"Bossy" means you are acting like a boss but in a way which is disapproved of. If this word is targeted more often at women, then that deserves reflection (especially in cases where we would praise men for the same behaviour).
> "Bossy" means you are acting like a boss but in a way which is disapproved of.
I think your first point is stronger -- not that it's like a boss in a way that's disapproved of, but that it's like a boss in a way that's illegitimate or unearned. It's a challenge to the legitimacy of the leadership status of the person it's aimed at, in other words; a real boss can never be "bossy", because they have a legitimate right to boss people around. "Bossy" implies that the person it's aimed at doesn't have that right.
In english, a "noun_y" suffix signifies an approximate imperfection (ie a quasi~noun). Or in other words, a "corruption of concept". This is why you don't praise someone as "like a quasi-X". You rather say, "like an X".
TLDR: simple grammar, once understood, explains it.
I think 128k mp3s recordings sound tinny, but as someone else pointed out that is because of the lossy data encoding. The distortion is not as noticeable in the early Dead shows --you know the ones with PigPen that have that bluesy feel--but I think it ruins the jazzy sound of late 70s early 80s Jerry songs. But all this talk of bootlegs and the Dead might be to heady of a discussion for HN. Suffice it to say I think flacs/shns are sexy and low bitrate VBR mp3s are shitty.
There are lots of noun+y words that do not fit your theory, but linguistics is a messy endeavor.
This campaign isn't about grown women in leadership, it's about kids. No one expects little boys or girls to be very good at leadership, but boys are praised when they try while girls are dismissed. So the boys are more likely to keep trying and improving, while the girls eventually give up.
Huh? Perhaps you should read what I wrote again, it appears you've completely missed my point. And yes, I read the article, and went to the website, I know what it's about if that's your point.
Here's my point: bossy is not a sexist term, for example it's used to describe poor leaders in environments like the military, where leadership is NOT just men. Acting bossy is bad. Subordinates hate it, and you can't lead by rank alone. It's a damn good lesson.
Therefore, advocating for its banning (the movement is called Ban Bossy after all) is both unwarranted, and entirely unhelpful: because it's a clear unambiguous word that young leaders get" quickly to describe adverse behavior in a leader and it's the proper English use of the word Boss to describe someone acting in a manner like a boss. What word would you use to describe this adverse behavior?
And the "Ban Bossy" movements supposition that it's sexist that it's used to describe "girls" is unsubstantiated. It's a good word to describe behavior, if someone's calling you bossy you need to do some soul searching if you want to be a leader. Don't be a boss, be a leader.
Bossy people, we were taught, boss people around by using their rank. No one wants to follow them, they just have to. That's the worst kind of leader, we were taught. don't be bossy was good feedback. A good leader inspires, sets the example, is firm but fair, and through their behavior and actions people will want to follow them.
Not sure what all this implied sexism stuff is, I only heard it used around men, and it was and still is a damn fine term for the bad ones. What term would they prefer be used for someone that's acting bossy?