What do bad female bosses have to do with feminism? And why should feminism be dealing with women not liking each other? And if 'girlboss' is okay to use, can we use 'blackboyboss' too? Doesn't seem like that would be any more demeaning.
I don't know whether Matt C realizes this piece was written by a woman and not Crow. Or if Rozali is okay with the lesson Matt is drawing from her article: Rozali should not be allowed in the workplace or at least not in any position where her decisions affect others. Her lack of self awareness and responsibility are merely the tip of the iceberg. Being female, she is a narcissist. Obvi.
To be fair I didn’t actually use the word “GirlBoss” in my piece. I think crow took creative editorial liberties there. But I feel like the comments here were missing my point which probably means I didn’t do a good job articulating the purpose of writing the piece in the first place -or- it confirms that women are extra critical on other women for sharing a very real experience.
It really feels like you can’t win: the men (Matt) see this as further confirmation that women shouldn’t be in the workplace at all which is absurd, while the women seem to feel like there’s some inherent deficiency with me.
No you didn't use 'GirlBoss' in your piece, you're right, Rozali. Crow used '#BossBabes' to describe your piece. If you feel that it turned your piece into something that ridiculed women in managerial positions, you should tell Crow that you don't appreciate him using your words to insult women, in ways he couldn't get away with as a man. Because that's what he did.
I don't know what you expected, other than Matt's reaction. You're not just talking about a personal experience, you're generalizing your specific experiences into 'female-dominated environments' having more hostility and 'soft aggression.' What other logical conclusion is there than women shouldn't be in positions to dominate? By your argument, men dominating is the way to avoid hostility and aggression. If women are in the workplace at all, it should be where they have no decision-making power that effects anyone else. That's the only solution to the problem that you generalized as 'female-dominated environments.'
I've said nothing about your character, Rozali, and any inherent deficiency. Where do you get that from my comment? You have the power to change the world. You have your whole life to do that, as does Crow. You're an excellent writer with deep insights, which is why I subbed you. The world needs you in your full power, changing the system. The world should be a female-dominated environment, as it was for 9500 yrs, because the purpose of the world is to protect and nurture the children.
You and Crow are both people after my own heart, because you care deeply AND you identify as anarchists. You can't serve the patriarchy and its system of authority while being an anarchist. As a woman and mother of women, I disagree that women are inherently deficient in positions of power. But that's not saying that you are.
I’m very familiar with the term “pick me girl” and I’ll be honest, I find it really sad and a little insulting that anyone would characterize me as such for relaying my experiences that I absolutely do think has validity.
Should the alternative be that I said nothing and stayed quiet about my experience? How is that fair to women who want to share what they’ve been through? And then when I do share a moment of vulnerability (which I don’t often do in my writing), I’m the one being characterized as not being a ‘girls girl,’ which I explicitly anticipated in my piece.
Conflating me sharing some aspects of how I’ve been on the *receiving* end of aggression I’ve been through as “trashing other women” is totally unfair and completely proves my point.
My solution is not that power should sway any one way — there should be a balance. Because men, as I’ve mentioned, are generally overtly aggressive; women, are generally, covert and engage in psychological mind games.
I also think it’s fair to make generalizations and in fact generalizations help us better make sense of the world.
I feel like you’re not being super charitable here and I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree. I respect you loads.
Thank you for the respect, Rozali, and I also respect you loads. I wouldn't engage in this conversation, knowing that it would feel hurtful to you, if I didn't feel we had the rapport to work through it. It's not an exaggeration to say that the future of the world depends on people on the same side working through the ways communication is thwarted. If we 'agree to disagree,' we will leave it at you feeling hurt and slighted, and me being insulting to you. We will have reached no point of understanding. As I've written, we need to agree to agree and work through things until we do.
I don't doubt that your experience is true. One of my tropes is the secretary who works her way up to manager and thinks every woman should sacrifice their family because she did. As a former HR Director, I have plenty of female archetypes to share. Another is the exec who has to show she's more ruthless than the guys when it comes to layoffs and profit-prioritization.
I do well in male-dominated environments, as does my attractive middle daughter. As have the women being sexually harassed by the CEO and CFO in my second company. Not so much the very competent women who don't attract the 'male gaze.' Although a focus on corporate profits certainly evens that out--if you make them money, that's sexier than eye-candy.
What has driven me crazy is the non-profit world or--shudder--the consensus driven volunteer organization. Cut off my arm before I get involved in one of those again. They're composed, in my experience, of people who have very little power in their own lives, who will fight tooth and nail to preserve their little corner of domination. Back when books had to be requested, the research librarian was one of my key examples. Sticklers for rules only they understood.
Rather than gender-equity dominance environments, isn't it the purpose of you, me and Crow to get rid of dominance altogether? That's what I think we should be focusing on, ending the need to be subservient to men or women in order to live.
“What men do to women isn’t worth talking about because SEE women are shitty towards one another too!”
Or perhaps to use another example: “Anti-Christian violence isn’t worth talking about because look at all the bad things Christians have done to each other.”
It’s dismissing one kind of pain with another kind of pain. Whereas we could calmly talk about both types rather than drawing dismissive comparisons that silence people.
Yes, women being catty or bad bosses sucks. Speaking from experience.
And yes, men being violent, raping, threatening murder, and exploiting women also sucks. Also speaking from experience.
What is the purpose of this article besides to either:
- silence conversation around unique harms women experience at the hands of men by drawing attention to the different harms we experience with one another or
- imply what women do to each other is just as bad (if not worse) than what men do to women (therefore no need to talk about the latter, again)
PS For anyone who wants to read a sobering book on anti-Christian violence, see The Damascus Events by Eugene Rogan.
I did state a number of times that men are not immune to these types of behaviours, but this piece is not about men, it’s about the harms women do to other women in the workplace.
What women do to each other can be just as psychologically harmful, but it doesn’t mean “there’s no need to talk about the latter”. I’m talking about my specific experience about a very specific thing.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, you can’t win. Men will see this as proof women shouldn’t be in the workplace at all while women will read this and respond, well, exactly like this.
Well articulated article. Every woman I’ve worked for was evidence women should not be in the workplace. Or at least not in any position where their decisions affect others. Lack of self awareness and responsibility are merely the tip of the iceberg. Feminism = narcissism in today’s world.
I wish i was. My experience with female bosses has been extremely negative. For balance i’ve also had cowardly fools that were men for bosses. I am the first to admit i have issues with so-called authority. :)
I know what you mean with the requirement to conform - in dress and habits.
And the requirement to bare your soul and personal life.
All inflicted with fake friendliness.
What do bad female bosses have to do with feminism? And why should feminism be dealing with women not liking each other? And if 'girlboss' is okay to use, can we use 'blackboyboss' too? Doesn't seem like that would be any more demeaning.
I don't know whether Matt C realizes this piece was written by a woman and not Crow. Or if Rozali is okay with the lesson Matt is drawing from her article: Rozali should not be allowed in the workplace or at least not in any position where her decisions affect others. Her lack of self awareness and responsibility are merely the tip of the iceberg. Being female, she is a narcissist. Obvi.
To be fair I didn’t actually use the word “GirlBoss” in my piece. I think crow took creative editorial liberties there. But I feel like the comments here were missing my point which probably means I didn’t do a good job articulating the purpose of writing the piece in the first place -or- it confirms that women are extra critical on other women for sharing a very real experience.
It really feels like you can’t win: the men (Matt) see this as further confirmation that women shouldn’t be in the workplace at all which is absurd, while the women seem to feel like there’s some inherent deficiency with me.
No you didn't use 'GirlBoss' in your piece, you're right, Rozali. Crow used '#BossBabes' to describe your piece. If you feel that it turned your piece into something that ridiculed women in managerial positions, you should tell Crow that you don't appreciate him using your words to insult women, in ways he couldn't get away with as a man. Because that's what he did.
I don't know what you expected, other than Matt's reaction. You're not just talking about a personal experience, you're generalizing your specific experiences into 'female-dominated environments' having more hostility and 'soft aggression.' What other logical conclusion is there than women shouldn't be in positions to dominate? By your argument, men dominating is the way to avoid hostility and aggression. If women are in the workplace at all, it should be where they have no decision-making power that effects anyone else. That's the only solution to the problem that you generalized as 'female-dominated environments.'
My daughters use the term 'pick me girl' to describe the role you're playing, Rozali. You're being 'one of the guys' and trashing other women in a way that they'll approve because they want to say it but only another woman can. You're letting yourself be used. It's a pattern I've critiqued elsewhere: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-anti-matri-male, https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-twisting-of-tonic-masculinity and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/michael-tsarion-myth-of-the-terrible.
I've said nothing about your character, Rozali, and any inherent deficiency. Where do you get that from my comment? You have the power to change the world. You have your whole life to do that, as does Crow. You're an excellent writer with deep insights, which is why I subbed you. The world needs you in your full power, changing the system. The world should be a female-dominated environment, as it was for 9500 yrs, because the purpose of the world is to protect and nurture the children.
You and Crow are both people after my own heart, because you care deeply AND you identify as anarchists. You can't serve the patriarchy and its system of authority while being an anarchist. As a woman and mother of women, I disagree that women are inherently deficient in positions of power. But that's not saying that you are.
I’m very familiar with the term “pick me girl” and I’ll be honest, I find it really sad and a little insulting that anyone would characterize me as such for relaying my experiences that I absolutely do think has validity.
Should the alternative be that I said nothing and stayed quiet about my experience? How is that fair to women who want to share what they’ve been through? And then when I do share a moment of vulnerability (which I don’t often do in my writing), I’m the one being characterized as not being a ‘girls girl,’ which I explicitly anticipated in my piece.
Conflating me sharing some aspects of how I’ve been on the *receiving* end of aggression I’ve been through as “trashing other women” is totally unfair and completely proves my point.
My solution is not that power should sway any one way — there should be a balance. Because men, as I’ve mentioned, are generally overtly aggressive; women, are generally, covert and engage in psychological mind games.
I also think it’s fair to make generalizations and in fact generalizations help us better make sense of the world.
I feel like you’re not being super charitable here and I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree. I respect you loads.
Thank you for the respect, Rozali, and I also respect you loads. I wouldn't engage in this conversation, knowing that it would feel hurtful to you, if I didn't feel we had the rapport to work through it. It's not an exaggeration to say that the future of the world depends on people on the same side working through the ways communication is thwarted. If we 'agree to disagree,' we will leave it at you feeling hurt and slighted, and me being insulting to you. We will have reached no point of understanding. As I've written, we need to agree to agree and work through things until we do.
I don't doubt that your experience is true. One of my tropes is the secretary who works her way up to manager and thinks every woman should sacrifice their family because she did. As a former HR Director, I have plenty of female archetypes to share. Another is the exec who has to show she's more ruthless than the guys when it comes to layoffs and profit-prioritization.
I do well in male-dominated environments, as does my attractive middle daughter. As have the women being sexually harassed by the CEO and CFO in my second company. Not so much the very competent women who don't attract the 'male gaze.' Although a focus on corporate profits certainly evens that out--if you make them money, that's sexier than eye-candy.
What has driven me crazy is the non-profit world or--shudder--the consensus driven volunteer organization. Cut off my arm before I get involved in one of those again. They're composed, in my experience, of people who have very little power in their own lives, who will fight tooth and nail to preserve their little corner of domination. Back when books had to be requested, the research librarian was one of my key examples. Sticklers for rules only they understood.
Rather than gender-equity dominance environments, isn't it the purpose of you, me and Crow to get rid of dominance altogether? That's what I think we should be focusing on, ending the need to be subservient to men or women in order to live.
I agree, Tereza.
This article is like saying:
“What men do to women isn’t worth talking about because SEE women are shitty towards one another too!”
Or perhaps to use another example: “Anti-Christian violence isn’t worth talking about because look at all the bad things Christians have done to each other.”
It’s dismissing one kind of pain with another kind of pain. Whereas we could calmly talk about both types rather than drawing dismissive comparisons that silence people.
Yes, women being catty or bad bosses sucks. Speaking from experience.
And yes, men being violent, raping, threatening murder, and exploiting women also sucks. Also speaking from experience.
What is the purpose of this article besides to either:
- silence conversation around unique harms women experience at the hands of men by drawing attention to the different harms we experience with one another or
- imply what women do to each other is just as bad (if not worse) than what men do to women (therefore no need to talk about the latter, again)
PS For anyone who wants to read a sobering book on anti-Christian violence, see The Damascus Events by Eugene Rogan.
I did state a number of times that men are not immune to these types of behaviours, but this piece is not about men, it’s about the harms women do to other women in the workplace.
What women do to each other can be just as psychologically harmful, but it doesn’t mean “there’s no need to talk about the latter”. I’m talking about my specific experience about a very specific thing.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, you can’t win. Men will see this as proof women shouldn’t be in the workplace at all while women will read this and respond, well, exactly like this.
Well articulated article. Every woman I’ve worked for was evidence women should not be in the workplace. Or at least not in any position where their decisions affect others. Lack of self awareness and responsibility are merely the tip of the iceberg. Feminism = narcissism in today’s world.
I think you might be exaggerating a wee little bit...
I wish i was. My experience with female bosses has been extremely negative. For balance i’ve also had cowardly fools that were men for bosses. I am the first to admit i have issues with so-called authority. :)