Over spring break, while I sadly wasn’t on some amazing getaway, but in the comfortable quarters of my home in VA, I was doing the daily scroll through Facebook and came across a trending video.
The video was for the “Ban Bossy” campaign started by Sheryl Sandberg—the chief operating officer of Facebook—and her Lean In organization, partnered with Girl Scouts. It was titled, “I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss,” with Beyoncé’s flawless face as the cover shot—so of course with those two things, I was hooked.
I watched the video and instantly loved the message it was sending—or at least the one I interpreted. That is, to not let our patriarchal society allow women of any age, especially young women, feel ashamed of their assertiveness when aiming for success; to not be ashamed of their ambitions.
However, when researching the campaign’s public feedback, I realized not everyone was as on-board as I was, which sparked my interest in discussing the different interpretations of this campaign and the overall feminist issue it combats.
I recognized over a few response articles that the biggest critique of the campaign was its counter-productiveness with trying to ban the word “bossy.” Or in the words of another, “the campaign is an heir to that earlier type of activism, which sought to restrict bad stuff rather than create a compelling alternative” which in their opinion, did nothing to help women’s issues.
This author from the website “The Cut” has the interpretation of “Ban Bossy” as a campaign that only perpetuates the negative connotation of the word “bossy” because it does not “create better alternatives and rewrite narratives to be more inclusive.” Take for example the word “slut”, she implies that the best way to ride the nasty cultural connotations of the word is to embrace it and create an alternative meaning to it.
To summarize her thoughts; banning the word “bossy” will not help young girls or women in the long run, it will only put negative thoughts towards feminists, continuing the use of damaging female words like “bossy” or “bitch.”
But I beg to differ.
I understand the writer’s claim and I hear others when they say the word “bossy” is not offensive to them. However, we must think of the campaign’s target audience—young girls.
Imagine being at the vulnerable age of 10, 11, 12, or even 13, and someone calling you “bossy.” Saying it with such a sting, it puts that word in the subconscious brain bank of “sucky words to be called”. After that, wouldn’t you think of being assertive, negatively? Think that being the “boss” is a bad thing instead of a good thing? Or wouldn’t you subconsciously think boys are allowed to be “bossy” because you see them doing it and no one cutting them down with names?
Situations like those are what I believe the campaign is trying to prevent. It’s common sense that this campaign alone can’t prevent people of all ages to stop using words like “bossy” or “bitch,” but it can certainly spread awareness of how our society tries to confine women into such boxes that produce gender inequality.
By Beyoncé saying “I’m not Bossy. I’m the Boss” young girls may recognize you CAN be the boss and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
My interpretation of this campaign is one that empowers young women to see themselves as equal to men and to not limit themselves because of their gender; to let them know both males and females can be leaders.
It says being bossy, ambitious or assertive is perfectly fine, especially when you are aiming for your dreams. And if this notion is recognized at a young age by girls, their confidence in their abilities will be so much more empowering. Something every girl needs to be; empowered.
So of course, feel free to let me know your own interpretation of this Ban Bossy campaign. Thank you!
ShoutOut! James Madison University 
I think that this campaign is really interesting! As someone who has always been on the “bossier” side I’ve never been one to see being bossy as a negative thing. I would get called bossy all the time and I never really cared because I liked being in charge of people, but that may just be me. I actually have to lean on the side of those who want to provide an alternative rather than banning it all together. Even in your example you speak to the fact that a little 10 year old girl may be teased with the word, but what’s the likelihood of us being able to stop the mean little brats from using it in the first place? Kids always seem to be doing and using things that they aren’t supposed to anyway, so wouldn’t it be better to give that little girl a defense against the word? That way she can come back at them with, “Yeah I am bossy, but that just means that I’m going to be your boss/going to be a leader/going to be more important that you.” Why is “bossy” an inherently bad thing to begin with? Shouldn’t it just mean that you are like a boss? Isn’t that what it means to be nerdy, to be like a nerd.
LikeLike
I really appreciate the sentiment this campaign is trying to put forth, but it might be better served by instead banning the word “bossy,” trying to reclaim it or working to remove it’s negative connotations. To be perfectly honest, I think the words “bossy” and “bitch” have much different meanings and I’d be infinitely more offended by someone calling me “bossy” than a “bitch.” I think the real issue here is getting people to associate positive qualities with the word “bossy” rather than negative ones.
LikeLike
Thank you both for replying and I apologize for the late response.
To imagineherstory, I see your point in the hypothetical situation of giving a little girl a defense to being called “bossy” instead of continuing the negativity of that word. As I said in the post though, I realize that banning the word “bossy” can not actually happen, but the entire point to the campaign is to make young girls feel empowered to be assertive or leaders. I guess that’s just not as clear with the trigger word in the entire campaign, “ban.” Maybe they should have used a different word to get their true objective across; which is to make young girls feel okay with being the boss.
To mscherhorwitz, my response to imagineherstory goes well with your comment. As I said, they maybe should have created a different word than “ban” in their campaign to get their point across more successfully. I understand that banning the word just creates more negativity around it. Again, the campaign is directed towards young girls, so the word “bitch” is not necessarily what they are trying to tackle.
LikeLike
I get the arguments mscherhorowitz and imagineherstory put forth, but I think I’m going to have to agree with you on this on Xenawarriorprincess. I think the campaign is awesome and agree that the specific demographic of young to preteen girls is smart. Its in this age where you really start to internalize what other people say to you, and middle school is when every kid seems to be their nastiest. I think reclaiming a word is more powerful, but I think its easier to ban it like the campaign is trying to do. Personally, I think it would be easier get people to stop saying “bitchy” rather than attempt to reclaim it as positive because of cultural norms and expectations others would hold outside of the movement to reclaim.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input ladylikesailormouth. I also agree that banning a word such as “bossy” is better than reclaiming it for the demographic of younger girls. Banning it is easier like you said and reclaiming it may be confusing for them. Either way, the campaign puts forth effort in empowering younger females to see they have the same possibilities and capabilities as males their age, which is always needed.
LikeLike