'You're just angry/shouty/making a fuss ...'

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

Yes, yes I am. I am angry. Sometimes I shout. Sometimes I make a fuss.

You know what? These are all perfectly valid, sane, natural, responsible reactions to circumstances. There is no reason I shouldn't be angry. There is no reason I shouldn't use that anger to motivate myself, or others. The fact that I am angry is nothing I should apologize about.

Being angry doesn't incapacitate me. It doesn't make me less of a woman or less of a rational human being, and more than it would a man. If I hear or see hatred against woman, that makes me angry. That is the right response. If that doesn't make you angry, you should question what is wrong with you.

FWIW, I think that the problems of getting women paid correctly for their hours/experience and challenging the expectation about women and childrearing need to be tackled in tandem.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being angry, it's a natural human response. However there is unhealthy and unproductive anger as well as healthy and constructive anger. Being clear about your needs, how to get them met and focusing on solutions without being hurtful to others is the best way to deal with anger.

Anger produces the same physiological and psychological effects as stress. That effects physical as well as emotional and mental health. Ranting isn't healthy because it tends to make people more angry and aggressive. We can't lash out at every person or object that irritates or annoys us; laws, social norms, and common sense place limits on how far anger can take us. Also apportioning blame and fault finding is unproductive in bringing about change because self-righteousness alienates others and is usually an unstable prop for someone's ego.

Hmm, I'm not sure that is true.

I think apportioning blame and finding fault are important to society - a mark of civilization, even. If it didn't happen, we'd have no moral system and no justice system. So I don't agree those things are unproductive at all. I also don't think it is necessarily self-righteous to be angry, though I see why you say it, because people often misread the one as the other. IMO that's part of the problem: people still don't expect women to be justifiably angry so find other explanations for their behaviour when they are.

As to anger and stress, I do think that's important. It's awful to get angry in a non-useful way, so it doesn't go anywhere and just gnaws at you. I think what jenny quoted on the other page is a very good explanation to bear in mind here - anger used constructively is very powerful. And repressing anger is never, I think, healthy.

Anger is a valid and real feeling. It is the way in which anger is expressed which is important.

It is entirely possible for a person to be angry yet remain calm, consistent and rational. Rage (as in losing control/flying off the handle etc) is not constructive and even if the result of being 'right', inexcusable.

Well actually, inexcusable maybe too severe. But it isn't constructive and isn't acceptable.

Yes, I certainly agree with that MBJ. I'm not trying to sanction flying off the handle or losing control. But I do think there is a problem that people keep suggesting anger is somehow inappropriate in a woman, or a major weakness in feminism. The way I see it, being angry is quite normal in some circumstances. It doesn't automatically equate to being irrational, or violent, or out of control. Some people would like to pretend it does.

Yes, with you now LRD (and TrillianAstra thank you for illustrating it). I did not intend to intrinsically link 'the truth' to the positions of the debaters and you are entirely correct to point out that it may actually be external/outside the spectrum that occupies the space between the two. I also completely agree that it isn't a process where you each have to give a little and then accept the position that you eventually meet with.

wrt to equal pay, I would add that it isn't just women who don't receive the remuneration 'x factor' that relates to the extent to which you give yourself to your employer. Companies often choose to reward total committment, and this is why, to my mind, only certain types of people reach positions of authority - and, yes, those certain types are predominently men. You may choose to place those limitations on yourself through a lifestyle choice, or they may be related to being a single parent or disabled. A better model for the future is one that rewards talent and experience rather than how many hours you are prepared to put into your work and how much shit you are prepared to take.

I think my sterilize gingers/kill gingers is a better (less controversial) illustration. :o Two people can have opposing views and the answer is not necessarily for them to meet in the middle, it could be that one is right or the other is right or it could be that neither is right and the correct answer is not between the two but far off somewhere else.

I agree with MBJ that anger as a feeling can be very valid but angry uncontrolled behaviour is often counterproductive.

some of this thread has lost me[big words]so excuse me if i repeat if i say anything anyone else has said....

i find the subject of anger quite interesting..especially women and anger.

LRD[16.27]
[.......is somehow innapropriate in a woman...or a major weakness in feminism]

yes i agree LRD.
look how many times that a feminist[patticcally rad]is ACCUSED of being angry when trying to have a disscussion/putting a point across.
yeah-might be angry but its this ACCUSSION isnt it-like"theres something wrong with you"....its like its being used to undermime[undermine?]

also-i feel that women often/sometimes internilise anger.
eg-im a layed back person and i dont often shout.but today my dd headbutted me....god did it hurt and i yelled.i immediatly felt dreadful and guilty for yelling and became appologetic.yet it was a normal reaction to feeling that i had been hit by a brick.its like youre a bad mother for yelling.
then you internilise it[this thought]and then feel guilt.

another thought..i often hear people say things like"..two intelligent people"regarding arguments/anger....why?does this make theyre anger more valid cos theyre intelligent?

sparky

Sorry Sparky - that last bit includes me. All I mean is that both 'get' the basics of the argument. If I had an argument with Einstein about physics then I'd have to think to myself, well, maybe he understands more about it than I do.

sorry jenny-i should of put"not taking a dig at anyone"!
i often hear this in rl..and i was just interested.
hmmmm....yep i can see what youre saying...ok...what about[for instance]
two people-one a psycologist and the other not but has life experiance.
having a argument....which one wins the argument?
is learnt knowledge better than experiance?
is one seen more powerful than the other[i think so]

haha... Well, a criticism of academics is often that they are completely convinced of their own research, but have little experience of RL.

David Irving, for example, is an historian who has convinced himself that the World War 2 holocaust didn't happen. Someone once told me that when you get to a certain stage in research it's like pissing down your leg - it feels hot to you, but no one else really cares.

ah-ive just found out im a critic then.
thanks Jenny.

Sparky, you got your head screwed on right and don't let anyone tell you different

start - yep, totally agree. And with what sparky said about internalizing.

I'm noticing too how when men are being emotional, it's often presented as a gigantic issue they're angry about ... not trivial. It goes along with all those crappy platitudes people give up about men being 'different' and not 'noticing' the small stuff like dirty dishes .... society tells us that men are always single-mindedly angry about important issues. That's why people argue feminists concern themselves with too many small issues - they don't want to see that it's all one big issue, because then it'd look powerful and rational to be angry, not scatter-brained or irrationaal!

Consider the phrase "angry women" (the usual put down for feminists) versus "twelve angry men".

Basically, men own anger as an emotion. It's one of the few that they are allowed to express publicly. If a woman expresses anger, she's lost the high ground, lost dignity, is seen as hysterical, but if a man expresses it, he's taken seriously and people look for the cause of his anger - women's anger is automatically assumed to be unreasonable or unjustified.

If a man is angry enough to murder his wife or children, people look for the cause of that anger and actually take seriously the notion tht if only his wife had been nicer to him, then perhaps his anger wouldn't have been aroused, whereas a woman who kills someone because she's angry, isn't excused for her behaviour - people simply aren't as concerned about what caused the anger.

Being angry is good however there are certain groups and times when this shouldn't manifest itself:

Children
Seniors
Work - including working with above

There is no need to get angry in a way that destabilises other peoples security. By all means be angry with your partner but in a fashion that excludes those who would feel uncomfortable and insecure about it.

That is very true, HerBex

Dworkin - I think there's a distinction to be made between being angry and acting angry. I have cared for a very sick elderly relative and at times I was furious at life the universe and everything on her behalf, but I never let her see that. It was right to be angry but not right to show it.

Incidentally, I think (and this is very much anecdote not argument!) it's no accident that none of the people I've met who defend hitting children as punishment have been feminists. I think lots of feminists have a respect for other people's vulnerability, which extends to knowing where anger is appropriate and where it is not.

Ooh that would be a good thread LRD

The feminist perspective on smacking children

Ooh, ok, I'm going to start it ... I reckon I can cope with that as I know what I think (don't have the energy for starting complicated ones atm!).