Now this is interesting. Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner offers some counter-information and does a little dot-connecting on the Ban Bossy campaign:
Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight.
Is there some kind of epidemic of that word being used to keep girls from achieving? Many of the surveys cited by the Ban Bossy campaign are decades old, and a more recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America found that girls are more likely than boys to see themselves as a leader or have the desire to be a leader.
But…that’s not what we’re being told! And the dots form what picture?
Clinton does not always poll well. She’s been called “bossy” before, even by feminists. For better or worse, when compared to other woman leaders, Ms. Clinton is perceived more harshly, more domineering. So if this really is, as Schow suggests, an effort to pre-emptively cast those who disagree with Clinton’s policies as sexists and/or people who are afraid of strong women, this is frightening. We’ve already seen, under President Obama, a continuous effort to cast critics as racist. Do we want more of this under a different banner?
Had the last election come down to a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton I would have voted for Hillary, not for racial or gender issues, but because of their policies. I would be hopeful that Clinton, like her husband, could be swayed to take a more centrist approach like he did in his second term. But frankly, if I have to endure another presidential term of not being free to disagree with the person holding one of the instrinsically controversial positions in the free world, then heaven help us all.
I really, really hope Schow is wrong on this one. It would be most ironic if the “Ban Bossy” campaign is nothing more than preparations to boss us all around some more.