intramuralist ™ – Page 140 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

04/08/201404/08/2014

debate over?

On Sunday we penned a poignant post about the self-proclaimed tolerant being intolerant. While it is rare I wish to primarily borrow from another source, the following weekend editorial in the Orange County Register insightfully expanded upon that thought, calling it “the debate is over syndrome.” Written by Joel Kotkin, I thought his analysis was excellent. It has been edited slightly for space purposes — and of course, so I can add my own emphasis and editorial comments…

The ongoing trial involving journalist Mark Steyn – accused of defaming climate change theorist Michael Mann – reflects an increasingly dangerous tendency among our intellectual classes to embrace homogeneity of viewpoint. Steyn, whose column has appeared for years on these pages, may be alternatingly entertaining or over-the-top obnoxious, but the slander lawsuit against him marks a milestone in what has become a dangerously authoritarian worldview being adopted in academia, the media and large sections of the government bureaucracy.

Let’s call it “the debate is over” syndrome, referring to a term used most often in relationship with climate change but also by President Barack Obama last week in reference to what remains his contentious, and theoretically reformable, health care plan. Ironically, this shift to certainty now comes increasingly from what passes for the Left in America.

These are the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech, while conservatives, with some justification, were associated more often with such traits as criminalizing unpopular views – as seen in the 1950s McCarthy era – and embracing canonical bans on all sorts of personal behavior, a tendency still more evident than necessary among some socially minded conservatives.

But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy. In this rising intellectual order, those who dissent on everything from climate change, the causes of poverty and the definition of marriage, to opposition to abortion are increasingly marginalized and, in some cases, as in the Steyn trial, legally attacked.

Kotkin then references the case of Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla Firefox [see post entitled “Tolerance,” 4.6.14], who was pressured out of his position for a 6 year old donation in support of traditional marriage. Some gay activist groups decided “the debate is over.”

…Liberals should find these intolerant tendencies terrifying and dangerous in a democracy dependent on the free interchange of ideas…

But what started as liberation and openness has now engendered an ever-more powerful clerisy – an educated class – that seeks to impose particular viewpoints while marginalizing and, in the most-extreme cases, criminalizing, divergent views…

Those who dissent from the “accepted” point of view may not suffer excommunication, burning at the stake or other public rituals of penance, but can expect their work to be vilified or simply ignored…

Climate change is just one manifestation of the new authoritarian view in academia. On many college campuses, “speech codes” have become an increasingly popular way to control thought at many campuses. Like medieval dons, our academic worthies concentrate their fire on those whose views – say on social issues – offend the new canon. No surprise, then, as civil libertarian Nat Hentoff notes, that a 2010 survey of 24,000 college students found that barely a third of them thought it “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

This is not terribly surprising, given the lack of intellectual diversity on many campuses. Various studies of political orientation of academics have found liberals outnumber conservatives, from 8-to-1 to 14-to-1. Whether this is a reflection of simply natural preferences of the well-educated or partially blatant discrimination remains arguable, but some research suggests that roughly two of five professors would be less inclined to hire an evangelical or conservative colleague than one more conventionally liberal…

The lack of intellectual diversity is hurting our country. Hopefully, that debate is not over, too.

Respectfully,

04/06/201404/06/2014

tolerance

Are all men and women entitled to their own opinion? Rightly or wrongly? Wise or not? Can we allow dissenting opinion? … even if it’s perceived foolish?

In 2008, Brendan Eich gave $1000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, an amendment that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, which was later judicially struck down. Last month, Eich was appointed as CEO of Mozilla Firefox, the world’s second largest Web browser.

Upon Eich’s appointment, the popular dating site, OkCupid, called for their visitors to boycott the browser. Their boycott had nothing to do with Eich’s resume nor professional qualifications; in fact, Eich actually invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla. OkCupid’s boycott was based solely on that $1000 donation.

As written by OkCupid: “Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people-all people-together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

On Thursday, Brendan Eich resigned as CEO.

Mozilla released the following statement: “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all. We have employees with a wide diversity of views.”

The White House was asked about Eich’s resignation in Friday’s daily press briefing: “Does the White House think that there should at least be tolerance… and that there should be other views heard?” The White House said they’re not “in a position to weigh in on decisions made by a private company.”

Never mind that the White House regularly weighs in on decisions by private companies. Never mind that the White House has consistently called out both companies and citizens to point out agreement and/or disagreement. And never mind that in 2008, the year of Eich’s donation, Pres. Barack Obama was also against gay marriage.

Friends, there are good people on all sides of our nation’s most intense issues. There are also “bullies” on all sides of these issues. Bullies are not confined to middle school playgrounds; bullies are people — regardless of age — who by definition, use their influence or power to intimidate others, forcing them to do what they want. Bullies see holders of dissenting opinion as “enemies.”

If we are going to be a tolerant nation — if we are going to be a nation that “reflects diversity and inclusiveness” — then that means we also tolerate the person who thinks differently than we do.

Otherwise, we are not as diverse, inclusive, nor near as wise as we like to think.

Respectfully…

04/02/201404/03/2014

squelching opinion

Together we are a collective bunch of “pro’s” and “anti’s.” Some of us are pro-abortion; some of us are anti-abortion. Some of us are pro-gay marriage; some of us are anti-gay marriage. Some of us are pro-yada-yada-yada; still others are anti-yada-yada-yada. The bottom line is that there are good people who disagree on challenging issues.

The Intramuralist is comfortable with our differing. It’s not my job nor your job nor anyone’s job — nor even anyone’s capability — to be the convictor of truth. No one, my friends, is capable of usurping such a sacred role. What disturbs me, however, is when one works not to “win the argument,” so-to-speak, on the merits of the opinion itself, but instead works tirelessly to squelch opposing opinion. Allow me to borrow from Tuesday’s editorial in USA Today, written by Jonah Goldberg, member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Let’s discuss the yada yada yada… [Note that the emphasis will be mine.]

“… A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described ‘rant’ on the pressing need to arrest, charge and imprison people who ‘deny’ global warming. In fairness, Adam Weinstein doesn’t want mass arrests (besides, in a country where only 44% of Americans say there is ‘solid evidence’ of global warming and it’s mostly due to human activity, you can’t round up every dissenter)… Weinstein suggests the government simply try the troublemakers and spokespeople… ‘Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.’

Weinstein says that this ‘is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles.’ He credits Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello for getting the ball rolling. Last month, Torcello argued that America should follow Italy’s lead. In 2009, six seismologists were convicted of poorly communicating the risks of a major earthquake. When one struck, the scientists were sentenced to six years in jail for downplaying the risks. Torcello and Weinstein want a similar approach for climate change…

The truth is this isn’t as new an outlook as Weinstein suggests. For instance, in 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that ‘deniers’ in Congress who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill were committing ‘treason’ while explaining their opposition on the House floor.

‘The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected,’ Krugman insisted. How fast the earth is changing is open to all kinds of debate, but short of an asteroid strike it won’t change as fast as the global warming pessimists have claimed. For example, in 2008, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole Ice Cap would be ice free by 2013. Arctic ice, which never came close to disappearing, has actually been making a bit of comeback lately.

Gore’s prediction — echoed by then Sen. John Kerry and countless others — was always ridiculous hyperbole. But even most serious, non-hyperbolic, computer-modeled predictions have overestimated the amount of warming we’ve experienced. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to retract several histrionic predictions, such as its erroneous prophecy that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Its new report, out on Monday, contains a new raft of dire prophecies requiring trillions in new spending. If I greet it with skepticism, shall I pack a tooth brush for my trip to jail?

Climate change activists insist that in science, revisions are routine, and that such corrections prove the good faith of scientists. Even if that’s true, one might still note that incentives are unhealthily arranged so that even well-intentioned researchers are encouraged to exaggerate the dangers of climate change and discouraged to criticize hyperbole. Moreover, were it not for the skeptics and deniers, many such corrections would never have been brought to light…

The real problem is that political activists and many leading institutions, particularly in the news media and academia, are determined to demonize any kind of skepticism — about the extent of the threat or the efficacy of proposed solutions — as illegitimate idiocy…”

The point is not the proposed validity of global warming. The point is that it’s foolish to squelch opinion — whatever the yada yada yada.

Respectfully,

04/01/201404/01/2014

important

So as I sat in silence, prepared to pen today’s post, I ran through my mental list of what’s most important and what I desire to discuss today.

I contemplated writing about health care…

Sorry. I know this is an issue to which the Intramuralist frequently refers; my sense is simply that it’s a glaring example of partisan politics, in which transparency is scarce, economics and ethics are compromised, and neither advocates nor opposition are respectful of contrary opinion. Today is supposed to be the first day in which annual enrollment is complete, and mandates and fines are imposed. Talking with several of you across the country, I also hear your irritation in regard to how this has been implemented and executed. We could discuss this today, but my perception is that it isn’t what’s most important.

We could speak of Russia’s armed aggression…

Two weeks ago, they voted to annex the Crimea region of Ukraine after the people in the area supported a public referendum. (I wonder… if Minnesotans voted to be part of Canada, would we so easily support letting them go? But lest I digress…) I cautiously watch Russian Pres. Putin as he strongly and swiftly alters the Ukrainian border. I watch, too, how his military amassing seems unthwarted and his ambition unmoved no matter the words of Western leaders. And then I see Pres. Obama on ESPN.

I contemplated writing about Obama on ESPN…

I have mixed emotions on this, friends. The Intramuralist is no fan of being a critic for critical sakes. I expect our nations’ leaders to have interests outside of foreign policy. But there’s something about Pres. Obama’s frequent flirtation with pop culture that makes me uncomfortable.

On ESPN, the President did his annual analysis of his NCAA college basketball picks. We all do that. (Ok, most… sorry, Mom…) But the point is that the kind of analysis the President presented takes significant time. It takes focus. It takes energy and concentration to know that the Spartans of Michigan State were in position to make a long run in the tourney, due to their preseason ranking, early season injuries, and late season prowess. That takes time — more than the 2 hours interviewed by the original Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want the leaders of our country, regardless of party, to spend their time on what’s most important. Right now, our foreign policy and relations are vital. Pop culture is not. Is it right? Is it wrong? I can’t definitively answer those questions. I simply suggest it makes me uncomfortable.

And so as I was seeking to focus today’s blog on what is most important, I had to chuckle. Down at the bottom of my page, as I prepared to type, was the following:

“josh is a awsome son”

So my 12 year old, special, special needs son doesn’t consistently hit the “shift” key. His spelling isn’t always correct, and sometimes he talks differently that you and me. There are a lot of things he can’t do. But what am I focused on? On what he can’t do — or what he can? Only one of those responses prompts gratitude in me this day. So I stopped writing, went to his room, and teased Josh about his semi-humble, self-assessment. He immediately matched my chuckle with his own contagious glee, and then joyfully said, “Mom, I want you to write about me today.”

Once again, when I look at life through eyes other than my own, I see what’s most important.

Respectfully,

03/29/2014

SEBELIUS v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.

In the week that was, we witnessed an especially interesting set of juxtaposed events, as the proprietors of Hobby Lobby met with the Supreme Court and Pres. Obama met with Pope Francis. Religious liberty was at the forefront of both discussions.

As always, we must first sift through the plethora of stabs at rhetorical spin, knowing that political motivations unfortunately always pierce the transparency objective observers crave. In fact, I found the dueling press releases from the White House and Vatican somewhat ironic, as the administration emphasized the topic of “growing inequality,” a phrase absent from the Vatican’s public statement.

The White House press office stated that the Pope “did not touch in detail on the Affordable Care Act,” and that he and Obama “actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms.” Obama added that any social schism “really was not a topic of conversation.”

The Vatican’s far more brief description stated the following: “In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”

With the Vatican referring to the case before the high court, the question is: should a company whose owners morally object to an action be forced by government to act anyway?

The issue with Hobby Lobby has zero to do with any or our personal opinions on whether or not birth control and contraception products and services should be included within Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act/whatever-you’re-most-comfortable-calling-it-now. The question before the court is whether the government is violating one’s religious liberty. The family-owned company is a crafts retail chain that objects to being compelled to provide four specific preventive services believed to be abortion-inducing.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” Is the government burdening the owners’ free exercise?

What if we removed the specific subject? What if we spoke of something other than birth control? What if we removed the subject that causes some of our emotions to swell? Simply stated, does the government have the right to trump our religious beliefs? Is some wiser, compelling governmental interest involved?

As I wrestle with this, two aspects cause me to pause. One, if the federal government is allowed to mandate behavior here, how far will they go? What limitations will exist on what government can require? And two, I’m uncomfortable with government feeling they are wiser than the church. Friends, the Intramuralist is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but my sense is that the Pope is attempting to receive his direction from an authority greater than most. Obama uttered a similar statement, saying after their meeting, “His job is a little more elevated. We’re down on the ground dealing with the often profane, and he’s dealing with higher powers.”

My sense is we should pay more respect to anyone dealing with the divine than pursuing our own political policy and opinion. My sense is also that when we begin to justify trumping an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs — whether or not we adhere to similar thinking — we are treading in dangerous territory, less mindful of any “higher power.”

Respectfully,

03/27/201403/27/2014

yes & no

For years I’ve wrestled with Obamacare. Call it Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the “healthcare security act” — each of which I’ve heard a person utilize when it’s most politically expedient. When the bill was perceived popular, some made certain to name it after the President; others were resolute in avoiding any name recognition. Once the act became far less popular, the utilization of the term totally changed. Geepers. Talk about Washington hypocrisy. It’s rampant. For both parties. (Please allow me one more “geepers.”)

But after the new healthcare law officially passed its 4th anniversary (note that I didn’t say “celebrated,” as it’s not a term generally thought to be compatible with the law), I believe I’ve finally discerned the Intramuralist’s bottom line on why this bill bugs me so. It’s no secret, friends; after reading the proposal, the Intramuralist has long thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unwise policy. While it addresses some significant problems within the application of healthcare, it also creates a whole new host of serious snags.

The snags are significant…

Rising costs…

Cancelled policies…

Loss of doctors and hospitals…

Poor execution of enrollment…

Mandates, taxes, and fines…

More mandates, taxes, and fines…

Arbitrary and inconsistent implementation…

Making people pay for services they don’t need…

Etc., etc., etc…

These are just a few of the snags. Still, none of the above are my primary problem. None are why the bill bugs me so.

Economically, I don’t believe the bill is wise. You can’t expect to cover more people more effectively and efficiently, give them more stuff, and for the care to somehow cost less. That doesn’t make economic sense. Again, however, such is not my primary problem.

The bill is still not popular. Current polling data puts support of the bill at no more than 40-42%, while now 54-56% oppose the law. Granted, the Intramuralist has never been driven by popularity.

As stated here multiple times previously, the bill was passed via a strictly partisan vote. Only one party voted for this law. I don’t like any law crafted in such a way; however, still not my bottom line.

My bottom line problem with this law is actually rather simple. It has nothing to do with economic theory nor the nuances within healthcare. It’s basic. Perhaps its one of those “all I really need to know” things from kindergarden. It’s easy. But it’s true.

I was always taught to let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no. It’s not rocket science. In other words, we should mean what we say and say what we mean. So much rhetoric and salesmanship was used to make us want this bill. It was not honest, transparent conversation. From being able to “keep your doctors” to “liking the plan once we found out what’s in it,” all seems designed to sell us on something the majority of us don’t want. Even if the majority wanted it, the Intramuralist will never be attracted to the politician whose “yes” and “no” mean something other than “yes” and “no.” That bugs me. Still.

Respectfully,

03/24/201403/24/2014

unequal

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Such truth is self-evident: all men and women were created equal. We have equal value, equal worth, and are equally loved by our Creator. We were endowed with equal, unalienable rights.

But we have unequal…

… gifts…

… talents…

… natural bents and abilities.

Unequal strengths…

… weaknesses…

… places where we succeed and fail.

Unequal challenges…

… temptations…

… circumstances and events.

Unequal ambitions…

… work ethics…

… passions and drives.

“Equal,” my friends, does not mean the same. It seems there exists a growing bubble yet to be burst that we are each — all — somehow the same. We are not.

Like the school districts who can no longer give grades — or can no longer give “tests” or “assess” or offer any difference in grades… I think of Jackson County Schools in North Carolina, where earlier this school year they implemented a grading policy in which teachers can no longer give students anything below 55% regardless of whether an assignment is even completed.

In Grand Rapids, Mich., high school students no longer receive “F”s but instead earn the letter “H.” The “H” stands for “held,” meaning their results are being “held” until their work is up to expected par.

Can we no longer honestly speak of inequality in ethic or effort? Some of us will never be “up to expected par.” And here’s a newsflash, friends: each of us will not be “up to expected par” in something… be it algebra, golf games, comprehension of Puritan literature, or understanding the nuances embedded within political rhetoric.

We are unequal people. That is not said with any judgment nor criticism; it is also not stated with an omission of compassion. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality. When we cannot acknowledge reality, such seems foolish indeed.

This past weekend, rounds 1 and 2 of the 2014 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship were played across the country. With hopes high and dreams even higher, several teams unexpectedly found themselves ousted in the single-elimination tournament. The #1 seeded Wichita St. Shockers… the #2 seed, Kansas Jayhawks… the 3rd seeded Orange from Syracuse and Duke Blue Devils… each found themselves making an early exit.

They also learned the often painful but authentic lesson that not all people are created “equal.” They are certainly not the same.

Respectfully,

03/22/2014

march madness

As several spend more time on their brackets than their business, I propose that the madness began long before March. Thus allow me to expediently utilize the madness of the hardwood to humbly offer my entrants into what has contributed to the craze of current events. Note that they are currently not in exact order; remember that even what some may consider a #16 seed is still allowed in the dance. We won’t all agree on the seeds nor on who/what should be included. The following aspects, attitudes, circumstances, and events are the real contributors to March Madness… at least in 2014…

#1 Seeds: “The Lackeys”

Lack of respect for all mankind
Lack of empathy & compassion
Lack of humility
Lack of gratitude

#2 Seeds: “The Unwilling”

An unwillingness to compromise
An unwillingness to acknowledge God
An unwillingness to adhere to the Constitution
An unwillingness to sacrifice

#3 Seeds: “The Selfies”

Self-centeredness
Self-reliance
Self-focus
Selfishness

#4 Seeds: “The Shunners & Ships”

1. Discrimination

2. Reverse discrimination

3. Partisanship

4. Materialism as one’s sole ambition

#5 Seeds: “The Ele-Ments”

Entitlement
Environmental disrespect
The Establishment
“Excrement” (feel free to substitute another word here)

#6 Seeds: “The Dazed & Confused”

The confusion between wants & needs…
… wisdom & intelligence
… blessing & wealth
… success & celebrity

Note that violence, famine, climate, debt, disease, hopelessness, hate, fear, poverty, political instability, war, traditional values, evolving values, income motives & assessments, the economy, Barack Obama, Republicans, Democrats, socialism, sexism, social media, too much sports, pickles (ok, sorry — that’s from me), terrorism, texting in place of real conversation, Arabs & Israelis, Russia & Ukraine, Iran & everyone else, Obamacare, obesity, gluttony, ignorance, radical Islam, inequality, equality, tolerance, intolerance, population growth, population growth myths, and red tape filled out the rest of the bracket. Each lost to a higher seed.

Yes, as previously stated, the madness began long before March.

Respectfully,

03/20/2014

2014 ncaa tournament

What’s so maddening about the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament?

Is it the diversity? After all, only in the 2014 bracket will you seem to find…

… Cavaliers vs. Chanticleers, Huskies vs. Hawks, and Aztecs vs. Aggies.

That’s not to mention skin color…

… Bearcats vs. the color Crimson, Broncos vs. Orange, and Lobos vs. Cardinal (… what’s a “lobo” again?).

Don’t confuse the color Cardinal with the bird Cardinal, as birds are again well-represented via defending champ, Louisville, and those prominent Jayhawks, Blue Jays, and even Ducks.

Let’s also not forget the nuts (… sorry, Buckeyes).

There actually exist multiple commonalities among the teams, especially noting the half dozen included Wildcats. In fact, there exist such a plethora of the animal that they will quickly become an endangered species, eliminating one another when Arizona meets Weber St. and Kansas St. meets Kentucky all in the first round… each an untamed feline. Those Wildcats tend to eat their own… just sayin’…

Speaking of eating their own, evil is again unfortunately alive and well on planet Earth, as Devils hail from both Arizona St. and Duke. Sorry, nothing against those two well-respected educational institutions; the Intramuralist just can’t support evil.

Sooners and Shockers…

Colonials and Colonels…

It’s no wonder it’s hard to know who to root for.

We might also note that it’s hip these days to broadcast any weather event not easily explainable; hence, we welcome both the Cyclones and Golden Hurricane to this year’s conversation.

We will see Spartans vs. Blue Hens (… sorry, but the whole hen idea sounds a little weak) and Rams vs. Lumberjacks (… who are respectfully taking some time off to play a little basketball).

Don’t also miss the inclusion of both Bison and Buffaloes. Is there a difference?

Ah, let’s not forget the Billikens, Jaspers, and team from Louisiana-Lafayette. What’s in a name? LOTS… especially if you’re a Ragin’ Cajun.

Speaking of individuals, there are a handful that stand out that we should at least give a mention… from UCLA’s Wanaah Bail to North Carolina State’s Staats Battle to St. Louie’s Jordair Jett… too bad Wofford’s Indiana Faithfull left the team earlier this year.

But lest we begin to think the tournament is not an accurate blend of contemporary society, remember that there will also exist jeers and cheers and tears and fears. There will be “one shining moments” and moments that no one wishes would be publicized again. There will be winners and losers, but only one team will win in the end. Some teams will be better than others. Some will simply play better. It’s not a measure of equality. It is just a game.

Welcome to the madness, friends. Personally, I kind of like those Shockers from Wichita State. I also like the Spartans from East Lansing, Michigan. And oh, yeah… I like Louisiana-Lafayette. I like to say their name.

Respectfully,

03/18/201403/18/2014

bossy

So have you seen the latest extent of so-called political correctness? Allow me to quote the current campaign, initiated by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and supported by Anna Maria Chávez, CEO of Girl Scouts of the USA, who wrote the following last week in a special to CNN:

“Assertive and bold, strong and courageous.

These are the words we use when we think of our leaders — the characteristics we look for when we elect politicians, vet CEOs or select captains of sports teams.

Yet throughout history, these terms have been primarily applied when men have occupied leadership roles. We expect men to lead and assert themselves, and we encourage and reward these behaviors when young boys exhibit them.

So why is it when a young girl exhibits these exact same characteristics, we often resort to a different word to describe her behavior? A word that says to young girls: These are not the behaviors we expect from you. Why do we call her ‘bossy’?…

When we refer to a girl who demonstrates leadership qualities as ‘bossy,’ she receives a message she is doing something wrong, that somehow, the same behaviors we praise and reward in boys are inappropriate for her, and we are limiting the scope of her potential as a result.”

Banbossy.com (yes, an actual web site) makes the assumption that “bossy” is tied to effective leadership… that “bossy” is the trait others are identifying that is similar to a positive strength in a man… that “bossy” is synonymous with assertive and bold, strong and courageous.

I have tremendous respect for Chávez and Sandberg and those such as Beyonce and Condoleezza Rice, who have jumped aboard the rhetorical bandwagon. It’s true, as they eloquently assert, that words can be limiting — that they can shape our perceptions and either encourage ambition or limit our awareness of potential. No one likes to be called “bossy.” No one likes to be called anything seemingly derogatory.

Yet there’s a bit of a glaring challenge: some people actually are “bossy.” Some people actually are fond of giving others orders; some are domineering, overbearing, authoritarian, choleric, controlling, dictatorial, imperious, and at least one other “B” word that I’d prefer not to post. There are “bossy” men, and there are “bossy” women. And the primary challenge that potentially bursts the bubble of the current campaign is that being “bossy” is not synonymous with positive, effective leadership; being “bossy” is not an accurate measure of strength or effectiveness. To this frequent female boss, being “bossy” means something else (something more synonymous with that other “B” word), and it is not a necessary nor effective trait for anyone’s leadership, especially if there exists any authentic attempt to actually win friends and influence people.

While I believe the motive of Sheryl Sandberg’s initial campaign was rooted in positive encouragement, the challenge is that it misses the mark. Once again in our seemingly, constantly watered-down society, we seek to ban something in order to avoid dealing with the reality. Instead of acknowledging that there are good female leaders and poor female leaders — just as there are good male leaders and poor male leaders — and that there are “bossy” and non-bossy professionals, the focus is aimed at the use of the word. That seems off to me. Not all men nor women are good at what they do. Being “bossy” is often a part of that.

Chávez states that the “Ban Bossy” campaign promotes “equality.” My sense is that it instead promotes an ignorance to the fact that “bossy-ness” exists… and yes, among both men and women.

Respectfully,