Women’s anger has proven to move mountains: one needs only to look to the suffragette movement for proof of this. So why, then, are women still vilified for being angry? If feeling this emotion can aid in people changing the world, then why isn’t it encouraged? The gendering of this emotion as one to only be expressed by men is no recent phenomena; in 1972, the first issue of Spare Rib magazine asked its readers what a liberated woman is, with one reader responding: ‘one who has worked her way through and out of the psychological, social, emotional and intellectual limitations stamped on her by false role definitions and indifferent education’. The liberation of women, then, will not be complete until we can act, feel and be educated in the same way that men can. This injustice has been most obvious to me throughout my life in how others respond to anger, specifically the anger of women, and how the reactions to one’s anger allows for the dismissal of the very cause of that anger, perpetually resulting in a woman’s point of view never being taken seriously once she so much as raises her voice.
It is taught from a young age that anger within women is unattractive, selfish and annoying. To be an angry woman – someone who is often simply voicing her own opinion aloud – is to be aggressive, rude, irrational. This stops women from speaking assertively for fear of being labelled as too difficult or, even worse, too emotional. When a man becomes angry or emotional during a debate, listeners are more likely to abandon their own opinions and share his instead. For women, the opposite is true. In her automatic violation of gender norms, she becomes seen as an untrustworthy wildcard, someone who is not in control of her emotions. This certainly rang true for Hilary Clinton when Running against Donald Trump for the presidential election; Trump decided to attack Hilary’s femininity by saying that she is crazy and unable to regulate her emotions. By saying this, he implied that it is her womanhood – not other qualities, such as her bad email management – that makes her unfit for presidency.
A study on Education and the Workforce by Georgetown University Center in 2018 found that over 1 in 8 Americans still believed that women are not as emotionally suited as men to serve in elected office. When Clinton cried on the 2008 campaign trail while discussing the toll of running for public office, the media questioned her mental health and her ability to do her job, yet when John Boehner, House speaker, cried in 2010, reporters and commentators merely poked fun at him. There was not one instance where his ability to lead was called into question. It is nothing less than shocking that women are considered less powerful leaders solely because they may be more emotional – a stereotype which itself is promoted by the patriarchy. Research shows that women and men don’t experience anger, or any other emotion, differently, the difference solely lies in the reaction to the person exhibiting anger.
Serena Williams found herself sorely misjudged when she argued with an umpire that accused her of cheating in the 2018 US Open final. Her open act of anger cost her the game, which brought attention to the inherent sexism that was on show: Billie Jean King, winner of 12 grand slam singles titles, tweeted “when a woman is emotional, she’s ‘hysterical’ and she’s penalized for it. When a man does the same, he’s ‘outspoken’ & there are no repercussions”. The sexism that is evident here, however, also has its roots in racism. After all, white women may be marginalised against white men, but black women and people of colour suffer even greater marginalisation. As Soraya Chemaly summarises in ‘Why Women Don’t Get to Be Angry’, “in the United States, anger in white men is often portrayed as justifiable and patriotic, but in black men as criminality, and in black women as threat. In the Western world, anger in women has been widely associated with madness”. This shows that perhaps it is not just women who suffer with the inability to be angry without being labelled as something other than ‘strong’, perhaps it’s everyone who doesn’t fit into the white man mould?
The cost of being an outraged woman has perhaps never been as prominent as it was during the court case between professor Christine Blasey Ford and then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. During a gruelling four-hour testimony, Blasey “thank you’d” and “I’m sorry-d” her way through a courteous and calm speech. She had every right to be angry, but she wasn’t, knowing that the cost she’d pay would be higher if she were to deviate from the female norm of being polite and cooperative. Unlike women, men can shout their way to respect, with their anger being viewed as a sign of power even if what they are saying is entirely misdirected. Whilst Blasey was polite and smiled, Kavanaugh came in with his metaphorical guns blazing – yelling, interrupting other people, talking back to the Democratic senators, even asking one senator whether she had drunk to the point of memory loss. To see this dynamic – her self-restraint and his shouted rage – played out on the public stage was painful to watch, especially considering most women themselves have been in a similar situation, where the power dynamic is clearly weighted against them, making them choose silence over loss.
Greta Thunberg is perhaps the youngest woman who has experienced negative responses to her anger on the public stage. Her emotional speech at the UN climate summit repeatedly told the world’s leaders that it is their fault that she is having to fight this fight, that them not having taken their job seriously has resulted in a schoolgirl having to do it for them. When once women on the public stage would have been praised for their ability to stay calm and collected when faced with adversity, there has been a slight shift in the ways the public have responded to Greta. Onlookers have been praising Greta for her angry words; her tears and piercing words are being welcomed with open arms. Whilst the praise for Greta is abundant, there are still people who are reluctant to trust a young girl’s anger, choosing to question her sanity and whether she can form a coherent argument. Even Donald Trump decided to sarcastically comment on the way Greta chooses to present herself by tweeting “she seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future”. It is impossible to read this without the condescending tone that was clearly the purpose of the comment. Why is a powerful man – the president of the United States, no less – being threatened by a young girl who is simply doing his job for him?
By denying women their anger, we are denying them the ability to feel and express without repercussion, we are telling women that their emotions are only justified if they are communicated a certain way. To be angry is to be bold, audacious, to stand in defiance of a system that tries to silence women – it is liberation.
Opmerkingen