And let's add "capable." And "determined." And "resilient." And of course, there's my personal favorite: "honest."
That last one traces back to the roots of the women's movement, and a lot of other "equality" movement's as well. The cry then was the women and African-Americans and (fill-in-the-blank-of-your-favorite-minority-here) just wanted to be able to compete on an equal basis. They just wanted a level playing field.
Back then, a "level playing field" was understood to mean equal opportunity and access. I thought that was a great idea. Then came the quotas and set asides in hiring and government contracts, the nebulous "goals" for diversity in business and college class size. Along the way, I, and a whole lot of other people getting the short end of the stick, realized that we had been lied to. And the beat goes on.
One of the bulldozers used to "level the field" for some time now has been banning the use of certain words offensive to particular groups. Some are well known. Others less so. The latest (that I am aware of) to make the hit parade is "bossy." This hideous invective is known to upset the sensibilities of strong young women to such an extent that they lose interest in pursuing leadership roles in society, thereby robbing us all of the full measure of their gifts and talents. In the interest of the greater humanity, therefore, use of this word should be banned. Or so the reasoning goes.
There are some that might question the wisdom of this course of action, wondering how a newly minted leader might respond to her first serious challenge to authority. Such questions hardly merit consideration, bordering on heresy, but far too ludicrous to bring formal charges. No doubt, the leader will have previously accrued a wealth of confidence from training in a supportive, judgment free environment. Or so the reasoning goes.
Seriously, you would think that we would have learned something by now. You would think that all of those years of bolstering children's self esteem over nothing and seeing the results of that might have provided a clue. You would think that sending several generations of students into colleges that they were unprepared for might have been an example.
You don't become a MIT graduate by being accepted to MIT. You become a MIT graduate by having the necessary skills, intelligence, and determination, and then by completing the necessary course prerequisites. You study and work to master the required skills, so that when the opportunity comes, you are ready to take it and succeed.
In the same way, you don't become the boss by being hired as the boss, at least not most people. You become the boss by learning about the job, and developing the needed skills. Some of them are academic, some are interpersonal. Some people have a natural ability or inability that defies description. But in most cases, if you drop someone into a supervisory role without training or experience, you are setting them up to fail. And part of that training will be dealing with difficult hires.
Or more succinctly, if you can't handle being called "bossy," you can't handle being the boss.
Honestly, I can't think of a campaign more destructive to the aspirations of young girls and women than this one. This is going to reinforce every negative stereotype out there about how women can't "cut it" in leadership roles, and "women need special treatment." And since that's basically your case, how will you answer them?
I'm on your side, ladies. Or more correctly, I'm on the side of equality. I know that men and women need each other. Any campaign that reduces mutual respect takes us away from that, and that's a place I don't want to go. How about you? Are you tough enough to be "bossy?"
No comments:
Post a Comment