I'm the Boss - Part 2

Continued from Part 1

We can support women as political figureheads or CEOs while still being critical of their actions. Just because someone does some shitty things doesn't mean they have no redeeming qualities. We do draw the line somewhere though, and that's easy to do when it comes to rejecting women who support homophobia or restricting reproductive rights.

For something more complicated, take a look at the "Ban Bossy" campaign, spearheaded by Sheryl Sandberg, author of Lean In, and Girl Scouts of America.

Based on the criticisms I've read of "Ban Bossy," many people seem to be missing the point of the campaign. It's goal is not to ban the word "bossy" or criticize assertive behavior in young women; it's to eliminate the micro-aggressions that young women face every day. Those micro-aggressions have negative, lasting impacts on female self-esteem. Other criticisms point out that there's a difference between being bossy or rude and being a leader, and say that the campaign should have focused more on assertive leadership. That right there is a micro-aggression: it's repeating the message that young women have to be nice in order to get things done, avoiding behavior that might get them branded "bossy" or "bitchy" while the same behavior in a young man would be applauded.

Women are socialized to be nice. Being not-nice is an act of defiance. In my opinion, being aggressive on a daily basis is one of the most powerful ways to assert individual feminism. Then again, maybe I'm just a stuck-up cunt.

Just kidding. Don't ever speak to me like that. I will eat you and toss your bones into the Los Angeles river.

I applaud the "Ban Bossy" campaign for its diversity. Unlike the CoverGirl campaign, we have a variety of female role-models to choose from, both in profession and in race. I see no problem with little girls having singers and actresses as role models; the issue arises when those are the only role models those girls have. I'm not a fan of Condoleezza Rice for her political actions, but I respect her as an accomplished woman of color.

Still, both campaigns are selling you something. CoverGirl is obviously selling you makeup. Sandberg is selling you her book, and she's selling you a narrow view of female leadership that exists within the corporate structure. To quote Lierre Keith,

“People sometimes say that we will know feminism has done its job when half the CEOs are women. That’s not feminism; to quote Catharine MacKinnon, it’s liberalism applied to women. Feminism will have won not when a few women get an equal piece of the oppression pie, served up in our sisters’ sweat, but when all dominating hierarchies - including economic ones - are dismantled."

Keith has a standard of feminism that excludes corporate feminism. She's an activist and a revolutionary, just as environmentalists often are. She doesn't buy what Sandberg sells.

Feminism is a varied subject, with different flavors those all kinds of lifestyles. Who we label as feminist has to do with how we relate to our own culture. What we prioritize in feminism has to do with what we prioritize in life. In acting as a feminist, be aware of the effects of your actions, be critical of the media you consume, and do your best to not be an asshole.