Why we have to be noisy, shrill, demanding -- or else

[Morgana LaFey]

They are, of course, criticizing Cindy Sheehan for doing what she did to once again gain attention for ending the war. I don't want to open that same dialog here (there are plenty of threads in GD and probably GDP on the subject), but I was reminded of this quote from Frederick O. Douglass on oppression in general, how it operates:


"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and never will.” -Frederick Douglass


And, how true it is. Today's wmen quietly submit to a whole range of things that give us just what we expect: sexist media everywhere, receding pay equity, a continuation of the epidemic of violence against women, and so forth and so on.

[noamnety]

1. I was called shrill here today.

Because I ignorantly accused a slave owner of being a racist self-centered bastard. Apparently I didn't realise he fought to keep others from having slaves, or that he would have gotten rid of his, but he needed them for financial reasons (he was in debt).

I don't know why the people making excuse after excuse for human rights violations aren't the ones being perceived as shrill - it always seems to be the people speaking out on behalf of the oppressed that are called shrill.

[Triana]

2. One of my favorite rants:

..."Too Angry for What?"

I find the "too angry" label most often hurled at women and people of color. And likewise, that intended insult, or leverage, is usually not hurled *by* people of color. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember ever being told I am "too angry" by a person of color. I recall it being mostly white males who call me "too angry." The women who call me "too angry" are usually women who are white, middle class, and very tied into the patriarchy as their support system. Or, more simply put, women who are financially dependent on white men. Basically *anyone* who does not support and promote white male land owner privilege, as was instituted at the birth of this nation, is labeled "too angry." I have come to see the anger label as a form of political manipulation in and of itself.

Just as it was fear that motivated my white male acquaintances to belittle rap and hip hop in ways that starkly contradicted the rest of their musical preferences, I think it is most often fear that makes people label women "too angry" too. When I think of women society labels as "too angry," Roseanne is the first to come to mind. (Personally, I found her rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner," and subsequent crotch grabbing and spitting, at that baseball game, to be one of the most brilliant performances in history and I still get chills thinking about the pure genius she has displayed over the years). Gloria Steinem is called "too angry." Feminist author bell hooks is labeled "too angry." Very intelligent women, who are notably full of genius and vision, have been and currently are, labeled "too angry." Basically, if you are an outspoken feminist, you *will* be labeled "too angry." It is guaranteed. But why? Why is it impossible to be an outspoken feminist without the "too angry" name calling? I think it is because using the "too" in front of the "angry" has an inherent judgment to it, and that the label "too angry" is used more often to control women, than as constructive behavioral criticism.

So let's see here…Feminists are too angry. People of color are too angry. Funny thing, it seems disempowerment and abuse breeds anger. When I look at who is labeled "too angry," I realize I am in good company. I do not want to be in, or support, the status quo or middle class. If I scare patriarchy enough to warrant the "too angry" label, it means I am effective. You have got to look at who is calling you "too" angry and why. The political use of the "too angry" label has been hurled in the past at Malcolm X, Black Panthers, famous feminists throughout history, anarchists, rap artists…basically anyone who threatens to upset the status quo. Even the Dr. Rev. M.L.King, jr., who many view as too pacifist, was called "too angry" as a way to try to neutralize his influence within the status quo.

Am I "too" angry? Too angry for what? Too angry to fight for an end to homelessness and hunger? Nope. Too angry to fight for women's equality? Nope. Too angry to stand up for what I know is right even amidst a sea of armored pigs waving sticks and spraying chemicals? Nope. Too angry to fight rape? Nope. Too angry to fight for children's rights? Nope. Too angry to fight to save our eco-systems? Nope. Too angry to fight against third world exploitation by first world countries? Nope. Too angry to formulate coherent arguments and persuasive articles on these issues and my anger? Nope. What am I "too angry" for? I am too angry for the status quo. Yes, I admit that. But is that a bad thing? I am not convinced that is so. Who draws the line between enough anger and "too much" anger? Who can we trust with such judgments?

http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pagetooangryforwhat.html

[Morgana LaFey]

3. Trian

:yourock:

[Triana]

4. :)

I love this rant. It just hits the nail...you know?

[SemperEadem]

5. too angry

for the male accusing me of being too angry to achieve/sustain his hard on, most likely.

If I'm too angry, then the guy whining about it is too hysterical to be taken seriously. I throw it back on them... it doesn't fit me.

[Triana]

6. They say that to oppress and control and often...

...they are projecting, to boot. That is to say they are sometimes the ones with repressed/residual anger that they cannot/will not acknowledge. Nonetheless it comes out some way, somehow. Often, in their intimate relationships - as jokes you are the butt of, namecalling, blaming, and lack of respect for you and your feelings.

Respect seems to often be what it boils down to. In a healthy relationship, each parther respects themselves, AND their partner. Too often though, a male partner will respect himself, but the same amount of respect is not afforded to his partner. He'll treat his friends and others with respect, and use his good social, anger management, diplomatic, and problem management skills with THEM but he doesn't respect his intimate partner enough to use them with HER.

Same in society. It's a matter of respect. Being told you're "too angry" when you push back against the patriarchal male-dominated status quo shows a lack of respect and an attempt to oppress via ridicule. Demand respect, and you will be called a 'bitch', and told you are 'oversensitive', and 'too angry'.

But - I think we should do it anyway - and just know the source and the reasons behind the resulting ridicule. Men get respect as a matter of course because they're men. Women have to demand it. And they should.

[MountainLaurel]

7. That is incredible.

:yourock:

[Triana]

8. Wish I'd written it!

But I didn't. The author is a professional ranter and her point is SO well articulated. I have to go back and read it sometimes just to remind myself that most times, our (womens') anger is justified. How you handle it is the key important thing. That's the hard part.

Some good resources on that are below - the second specifically for women, whose anger is considered most taboo and unacceptable by society - and most of all - men (just look at some of the responses in this forum to see evidence of that). I have that second book by Harriet Lerner on tape, bytheway and found it useful. I need to dig it out and listen again. Women are human, as much as we're often *not* considered human, and anger is a normal, human emotion.

Even though most often with women, anger is justified - but still considered 'abnormal' and unacceptable. And if they handle it badly, then they're labeled "hysterical", "too angry" or "angry bitches". Often, women will be labelled those things whether they're angry or not. *I* was. My abuser had me framed in one of those typical male frames for women. HIS anger was OK - that privilege was reserved only for HIM and HIS anger was always justified. Mine? NEVER. NO MATTER WHAT HE DID OR SAID TO ME - it was never justified. He saw me through that kind of filter. But I had to realize that HIS FILTER was abnormal and unjustified - not my anger.

Often, women are labelled those things even before a guy ever MET them. It's a frame - a filter through which men and society view women. An unfair one, at that.

When a man handles HIS anger badly, that's OK. Like too many other things, it's a double standard. Only men are allowed to be "angry". Ever notice that? It's generally true.

http://drirene.com/what_anger.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060726504/ref=dp_proddesc_1/002-1799696-7362423?ie=UTF8&n=283155

The key to handling anger seems to be doing it in a way that prevents or minimizes damage to relationships (if not to a male partner, at least to ourselves, children, siblings, parents and other friends and family members). And handling it in a way which retains or adds to your self-esteem. In a way that you can feel good about how you handled it afterwards - instead of guilty or regretful or sorry. Something that struck in the first link (Dr. Irene) is that when you are angry, often the best and hardest thing to do is NOTHING - until you calm down and have time to think about what the best thing to do or say is. THAT is hard.