Two Politically Incorrect Words

With all of the problems facing people nowadays, there are some who are obsessed with words that people use.  I don't mean the hateful epithets of the type that Norman Lear satirized coming out of the mouth of bigot Archie Bunker in that old groundbreaking series All in the Family.  No, I'm talking about words like "bossy" and "thug" that describe behaviors and are applicable across the board, regardless of race, sex, or religious beliefs.

There has been a strange movement afoot among some feminists to stigmatize the use of "bossy" because it supposedly is only aimed at women.  That's strange to me, because I have heard it used quite often to describe men's behavior as well.  "Bossy", as I have come to learn of its general usage definition, is used to describe the behavior of someone toward others that goes beyond the agreed-upon authority level that said person possesses in his or her relationships.  So perhaps a manager or supervisor in the workplace somewhere might tell a subordinate to get for him (or her) a cup of coffee or exert pressure to contribute to a personally favorite charity...or a kid in a school class small group may automatically assume the role of "leader" and assign tasks to members without any authorization from them.  Apparently, though, some women feel that "bossy" is just used at them and not at men.  To me this is a preposterous statement.  "Bossy" may not be the most diplomatic, love-inspiring thing to call someone, but it doesn't come under the heading of "hate speech" either. I've used it myself...and haven't slanted my use to make women seem more bossy than men.  To me, bossiness is something that people sometimes need calling out on...I have a right and, ultimately, a social responsibility, to assert myself against overly aggressive people who go beyond their established, specified authority over me. Maybe using the word "bossy" isn't the most diplomatic way to go about this, but it is an accurate description of the problem...

The term "thug" is another example of a term that one group...or at least one representative of that group, i.e. professional football's Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, deems inappropriate.  In his case, he thinks it is used in a racist sense against blacks...maybe he has a point here, though.  You see, I would myself employ the word "thug" to describe a bully...with weapons.  So the appellation as "thugs" of the groups of (white) armed pseudo-soldiers who occupied Crimea a few weeks ago seems fitting.  This obviously has nothing to do with race.  But I heard the word "thug" thrown around Sherman after his outspoken comments following last year's NFL championship  game...and it didn't make any sense to me either.  Sherman is brash, to be sure, but he is also a well-liked pillar of his community and is no "bully with weapons".   Maybe here we are seeing a special use of "thug" that stereotypes a certain type of cultural presentation within the African-American community that somehow tries to imply that it is inherently criminal.   

I would like everyone on Earth to get along and have sparkling personalities and never hurt one another or make mistakes.  But since none of this is true, then our language needs to have some words that serve a criticizing and corrective function to educate and guide those exceeding the norms of acceptable behavior.  And sometimes, although it may be hurtful, hearing someone call you "bossy" or that you are acting like a "thug" may be an important warning sign that there is a problem with your behavior that needs your attention. I understand the well-intentioned reasons behind those seeking to ban the use of these words, but the only thing that this will accomplish is to raise up substitute euphemistic language that conveys the same meanings. Anybody from any segment of society can be "bossy" or a "thug". If you eliminate these words, the problems won't go away...talking about them will just be made taboo...