News

You used the Wrong B-Word, Cheryl

Well you may have heard by now that there is a movement (complete with star-studded Internet Video and all) to “ban” the word bossy. Hmmmm. Really? OK, there are several things about this that make me cringe. First reaction is that it reminded me of one of those bad ideas reminiscent of a forced collaborative project by a bunch of low performers desperate to gain visibility within their organization – or something to come out of one of the “Celebrity Apprentice” challenges. Nonetheless, it is all over the Innerwebs:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/living/ban-bossy-anna-chavez/index.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/celebrities-join-sheryl-sandberg-a-campaign-to-ban-the-word-bossy

I get the feeling “bossy” was not the word they originally wanted to ban (or at least I hope.) I wasn’t aware that the term “bossy” was always meant to be derogatory. Of course, I’m a guy so I will accept that ignorance. However, as the father of two daughters, I would much prefer my girls to be “bossy” or even “bitchy” for that matter, if that is what it takes for them to earn respect in spite of their achievements. What I don’t want is to call further attention to this trait as being always negative because as someone who works in corporate America who has had female managers, I can tell you that I would much rather work for the “bossy” boss or even “bitchy,” or “cold” boss then the “hippie” manager or the one who “mothers” her staff and pretends we are all her children.

It’s not the word “bossy” that is bad. It is the attitude and context behind it. When I have actually heard this style of critique of a female, the word “bossy” is followed by the word “bitch.” The latter being the derogatory phrase. We love to work small to big. We always want to go for the low hanging fruit. That is what makes most of us mediocre. We don’t want to solve real problems so we create pointless campaigns. We do have bigger problems to solve. We even have more important issues to address with our daughters. How about helping our daughters by encouraging STEM education and interests beyond reality TV and “escape-my-parents-by-baby-makin?” How about we educate women to stop being mean to each other? How about we teach the pretty and popular girls not to be so cruel to the plain, frumpy, mousy, and chubby girls they will one day be working for – and perhaps – learn a few lessons from them (focusing on education and career.) How about teaching them that if they insist on going through that bad-boy phase, at least use birth control so you won’t be trapped with him for the next several decades.

So with all of that being said:

1.) Banning a word does nothing to address or change the negative feelings and attitudes behind it.

2.) If you are going to ban a word, at least ban the right word.

3.) Do we actually think that the word “bossy” is on par with other words for which we have understood unwritten rules removing them from the mainstream lexicon? (i.e. the N-word or the F-word, or now the R-word.)

Of course, as I am finishing this up, we have several other articles that are also ridculing this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gail-gross/ban-bossy-really_b_4960868.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sonya-rhodes/dont-ban-bossy-be-bossy_b_4958624.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/opinion/drexler-sandberg-bossy/index.html

http://nypost.com/2014/03/14/ban-bossy-no-be-bossy/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-sheryl-sandberg-beyonce-ban-bossy-campaign-20140312,0,6194333.story?track=rss#axzz2vxu7sZXo

The more I think about it, the more I believe this was a grand idea by Cheryl Sandberg to follow up her successful book. But isn’t she attacking the very trait that propelled her to massive success. If she’s trying to change the culture from within, she should have stuck with her original idea (I believe) which is to ban the word “bitch” instead of listen to her HR people who warned her it might be too harsh.

Advertisement

Either Jan Brewer is a Political Genius or the Public and the Media are just Fools

Fool me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice . . . well . . . I knew this was coming. So the same strategy that Arizona Governor Brewer employed during the last mid-year cycle is holding up just as well the second time around. It’s an ingenious strategy when you think about it at first. Then when you realize the public has such a short memory and the media is completely driven by actions in the now, nobody does their research. Even if we are talking about events in the last few years.

Rewind to 2011: Remember when the obsession with Obama’s birth certificate was reaching high visibility? How do you propel yourself to the top of the daily news cycle over and over again? Have your far-right cronies play the bad cop so you can come in at the last minute and play good cop – or rather – the voice of reason. You can be the epitome of the “cooler heads will prevail” mentality.

Back then, the very social conservatives in the Arizona state legislature – fueled by the upcoming presidential election and the obsession with Obama (also helped by long term Arizona character Joe Arpaio) passed legislation that would have required presidential candidates to provide documentation showing that they were born in the United States in order to be allowed on the state’s presidential ballot. The process was dragged out in the legislature and the duration between passage and her final action was also dragged out for dramatic effect. When she finally made the decision, she came across as the moderate rational hero. The good cop. The voice of reason. The bill, she said in a letter about her veto, was a “distraction” and “a bridge too far” that would have created “significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona.”

Fast forward to 2014. Here we go again. The Obama obsession has been played out. What’s another socially conservative firestorm that can energize the base yet allow her to look like a moderate leader? Let’s capitalize on the hatred of homosexuals. She was smart enough to have her staff be sure to purge all references to this from her Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Brewer) since she knew this would be the extent of any historical research on her (especially since going deep into a search engine required too much diligence. But a simple query of the phrases “Jan Brewer” and “bridge too far” would have brought it all back.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53710.html

For the past two weeks, Jan Brewer has been in the news. I have no doubt this was orchestrated where the idea was created with the end in mind. Beautiful politics exploiting both sides of the political spectrum. Another reason why I don’t participate in the game. Some say Jan Brewer is old and winding down. I think she is looking for higher office. The question is, how long will she continue to reuse this strategy?

ZZ TOP Had a Reality Show on A&E?

So once again we have a “controversy” regarding a basic cable celebrity. Good thing because the keyboard commandos were starting to get bored – I mean, it’s not like a major holiday season is occurring. We have to have manufactured controversies to give social networks some traction even if it makes no sense since you have people like me constantly on them.

Anyway, my thoughts – i.e. the usual applies: person has the right to speak their conscience, network has right to fire them, supporters have the right to support, haters have the right to hate -yada yada yada. Free speech means free speech but choices do come with consequences. What has happened is not UN-constitutional. Read the first amendment. It applies to governments. No one prevented this person from speaking their conscience, but a private employer has the right to terminate or suspend employment especially if contract was breached (although surely this did not come unexpected.) That’s the “fiscal conservatism” the social conservatives tend to forget.

With that being said, what I would *really* like to know (as I did in the Paula Deen case) is WHO ARE THE PUBLICISTS AND HANDLERS FOR THESE PEOPLE? I mean, obviously the business managers and merchandisers were smart to capitalize on this while they could – because I cannot move in any retail outlet without bumping into something with the Duck Dynasty logo feces all over it. No careers will end over this other than the usual 15 minutes-of-fame expiration. If you think I am wrong, Don Imus has a radio show that is also simulcast on cable. Remember when his career was “ruined?”

If Alec Baldwin’s cable show actually had millions of viewers he would still be on the air. His little controversy gave his employers the opportunity to cancel a money-losing venture. In the case of this person from ZZ Top/Duck Dynasty/SwampNard/Whatever this could just be a bargaining chip for the network to keep salaries in check – especially if they signed a morals clause.

Or – you could all just be a victim of manufactured controversy – as in “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Of course, my favorite slant on this (NOT) is the turning of this into the usual political red vs. blue politisport with even Sarah Palin chiming in.

As far as this being the end of A&E? Seriously? Americans have short memories and are massively ADHD. There will just be another “reality show” to come along showcasing rural America with a large audience consisting of people who actually believe and idolize the bullshit before them, people who will watch to make fun of the reverse minstrel show before them, and those that are simply just fascinated with the trainwreck before them.

If you do not believe people idolize and emulate these reality stars, look at the correlation of the emergence of MTV’s Teen Mom and the re-emergence of teen pregnancy in the South.

Then again, I still do not understand the feigned ignorance on both sides. You allow Hollywood to exploit you, you attack a lifestyle well understood to be accepted and even a part of Hollywood culture, and then you wonder why there are consequences? You put a bunch of swamp people from rural Louisiana on TV and you are surprised when they speak out their beliefs?

To tell you how ridiculous this is – Glenn Beck is the voice of reason on this – http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-duck-dynasty…

Then the irony got creepier – makes you wonder what is really going on – http://seattle-sunset.newsvine.com/…/21992558-duck…

Wow – this is definitely following the Paula Deen Crisis Playbook – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/phil-robertson-black…

*Munches Popcorn* #CantLookAway #TrainwreckComing – http://www.rawstory.com/…/westboro-baptist-church-to…/

Turns out the whole thing was probably staged – As they say where I come from – Joke’s on y’all! – Very creative – turn a normal hiatus into a “suspension.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/phil-robertson-duck…

Poor Gary

Maybe Gary was wise making his former manager his executor. Between his ex-wife and his parents (One is a cold seaword and the others stole all his money) who could blame him? Too bad he forgot to change his power of attorney for medical decisions. That whole scenario is suspect.

http://www.popeater.com/2010/06/05/gary-coleman-burial-fight-cremated/

The ex-wife is certainly suspect! Cold and calculating:

Documentary film director Michael Moore, who has become a millionaire thanks to the profits from his movies, told CNSNews.com that “capitalism did nothing” for him.

Doesn’t this remind you of a spoiled child? This article is an exercise in irony. Better yet, even more ironic is the fact that Michael Moore’s rise from nothing is an example of how the entrepreneurial spirit and Capitalism can self-make you. I agree with him attacking coporate welfare. I just think its overshadowed by a flawed premise. What he attacks is not true free-market Capitalism.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833