|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As can be expected in a patriarchal society that is based on gender hierarchy, there is an anger gap between men and women. Now I know the next question some will have in mind is — do you now want women to be as angry or violent as men to balance out the equation?
That, in fact, is a very good question!
It reveals two things. First, we associate anger with violence, which is understandable given that we live in a patriarchal world that views anger as violence and aggression.
Secondly, you realise that there is a deep problem with male anger, and women’s inclusion will only make society worse off.
Now, the third question is: what are we doing about male anger/aggression? Are we as a society comfortable with it just because men are the overwhelming perpetrators?
That is a question for you to sit with. There’s a lot more we are heading to, so please sit with me.
The basis of today’s discussion is the deeply gendered anger gap, which I hope by now you are not still conflating with aggression or violence.
And if you did, I understand that, because that is in fact the patriarchal lens of viewing anger. Anger, according to the patriarchy, always leads to violence, murder, rape, femicide, Ozoro rape festivals and the like — but anger from the feminist perspective, and as history has taught, has more to do with the expression of emotions as well as instigating systemic change.
I’m taking the time to state this because people often assume that feminism is some sort of reverse sexism. If we criticise toxic masculinity that thrives on male aggression while encouraging female rage, then that would invariably mean that we are comfortable with violence so long as women are the perpetrators, right?
No!
You will only arrive at that conclusion if you’re trying to understand feminism from a patriarchal standpoint. Feminism, as well as the female rage movement, will not and has never encouraged gender-based violence (GBV) just because the perpetrator is a woman.
There has never been a time in history where women organise mass rape, rape festivals, tell men they can’t go out without female guardianship, or casually log into a Telegram group of 70,000 men from all around the world sharing tips on how to rape their mothers and girlfriends and record it — or perpetrate GBV on an organised, targeted and systemic scale.
This has never happened even under matriarchal societies, not even as a response to male aggression. However, this is a common fixture in the patriarchy. In fact, it was fairly recent that rape as a war crime became criminalised internationally.
Before then, it was seen as a “natural consequence” of war, as if it were something cosmically determined as opposed to a conscious decision to rape.
Now, this is not to say women haven’t been violent towards men, but I am talking about violence that is institutionalised, normalised and systemic.
So when feminism speaks of female rage, one simply cannot understand it from the viewpoint of patriarchal rage — and here is what I mean by female rage.
The Black and white Suffragettes were angry and took to the streets. What happened? Women obtained the right to vote.
The Gulabi Gang of India were angry that the police aided and abetted wife beaters. What did they do? They wore their pink saris, picked up brooms, visited the houses of abusive men, and beat them with brooms until authorities were forced to intervene.
The Icelandic women were angry. What did they do? They abandoned their homes — and today they have one of the best records on gender politics in the world, one of the lowest gender pay gaps in the world, and elected their first female prime minister five years after their revolution.
So if we say there is an anger gap, we are saying that anger is crucial to systemic change. The patriarchy knows that, which is why it has successfully dubbed female rage as unfeminine. What that means is that the patriarchy has clipped our wings.
The very drive meant to push us towards demanding better, towards walking away, towards seeking redress, towards picking a fight, towards radical revolution, was clipped.
And the effect of this is that there is a gender gap between men and women in literally all areas, such as:
- The gender pay gap
- The promotion gap
- The sleep gap
- The homosocial gap
- The employment gap
- The literacy gap
- The political gap
- The property gap
- The STEM gap
- The research gap
And so many other gaps.
And the effect of the patriarchy vilifying feminine rage is that it tells us to be quiet, silent, complacent about all these gaps — because reacting otherwise is unfeminine, unnatural.
Numerous studies have shown that while anger is a natural human emotion, our expression of it is deeply gendered.
Society has tried hard to explain away male anger and male violence as natural, making use of animals as an example, as if men are rabid beasts acting purely on primal instinct.
On one hand, men are called logical to justify the laughable male headship system; on the other hand, men are compared to animals to justify their irrational and erratic actions. One can either be rational or animalistic — there’s no two ways about it.
But apparently, the patriarchy allows for such paradoxical living that should make sense to no one literate enough to know their ABCs.
The anger gap reveals itself in many ways:
1. Normalisation of anger in men
Anger in men is normalised; in fact, it is seen as an expression of masculinity. So-called soft men have, since time past, been called sissies, pussies, girlish, feminine, gay, and the like. The language used to describe non-aggressive men is deeply feminised: simp, pussy, effeminate, etc.
On the other hand, anger in women is construed as deeply unfeminine and unsettling. Anger in women is described in masculine terms — manly, etc. — and what that tells us is that anger has no place in a woman’s bosom.
Anger, as we know, is often reactionary, and by vilifying our legitimate reaction to harm, society is telling us that our reaction to harm has no place in society. We are taught that it is unnatural and something to be ashamed of.
While anger is encouraged in men, it is shamed in women, which inevitably means that the expression of anger between men and women will be deeply gendered.
2. Gendered expression of anger
Studies have shown that women are more likely to apologise for being angry than men.
Caption: Audre Lorde
Women are more likely to use language that passes them off as less aggressive and less authoritative, even in professional settings.
A study comparing work emails sent by women and men found women were more likely to use words like “sorry,” “just,” “I’m no expert,” “it’s just my opinion…”
It is so ingrained in us that, unconsciously, we are tone-policing our words. It is almost as if having an opinion is in itself something to be apologetic about.
Men, on the other hand, are more likely to present even a personal opinion on a matter as though they were an authority in that area, even when they have significantly less expertise. Hence, our reaction is also deeply gendered.
3. Recipient of anger
Interestingly, not only is anger/aggression encouraged in men as a masculine trait, but women are overwhelmingly the target or object of that anger, which makes sense given that the patriarchy has always been fashioned around a predator–prey dynamic.
In an interesting twist, not only are women the overwhelming recipients of male anger, but women and children are also the overwhelming recipients of female anger! The reason is not far-fetched.
Patriarchy is a system built on gender hierarchy. And a system built on hierarchy means that anger gets directed at those below on the ladder. Imagine a scenario where a man is shouted at by his boss — who does he take his frustration out on?
His wife.
He was shouted at by his boss during work hours. He was able to control his emotions, but the moment he got home, he burst out and poured his anger onto her, because it was convenient to do so.
Now the question is: what made her the more convenient outlet?
His choosing his wife as a more convenient or “appropriate” frustration outlet is not random! Even in moments when we are not consciously thinking, our social biases hold great sway over us and greatly influence our decisions.
Now let’s move further. She, in turn, transfers that aggression onto her house help.
The house help, who cannot talk back to madam, waits for her to leave so she can transfer it to the little children under her care.
The children then transfer it — kicking their toys, kicking their dogs, or bullying weaker children in school.
Notice the pattern?
Firstly, they all transferred the anger to someone they considered lower on the ladder, and that choice of object was not random — it was based on patriarchal hierarchy.
What that tells us is that in a system such as patriarchy, which is built on hierarchy rather than mutuality, anger is directed downward, to those below on the ladder.
This invariably means that the person who instigated that anger gets to walk free.
If anger is not directed at the instigator but at someone down the ladder, it means that, despite the fact that misdirected anger can give us some psychological relief for pent-up frustration, nothing actually changes. The systems that were put in place remain, and that aggression is bound to happen again, because the perpetrator was never held accountable.
That anger trickles down to those below, but where it is properly directed at the aggressor, it forces accountability, uncomfortable yet necessary discussion, and systemic change.
4. Aggravation of anger
Another manifestation of gendered anger is in its psychological aggravation.
Given that we are socialised to view anger as unfeminine in women, our brains tend to aggravate it when it is perpetrated by a woman.
Mona Eltahawy, in her book 7 Necessary Sins for Women and Girls, recounts how a man grabbed her butt in a club. She turned around and slapped him, and everyone gasped. Note that no one batted an eye when he grabbed her in public. Suddenly, she became the aggressor in their eyes. Her reaction to harm was more damning than his harmful action.
We have heard phrases like “crazy ex,” “angry Black woman,” “bitter feminist,” and the like — but have you heard the same said about men, despite the fact that men perpetrate roughly 75% of all violent crimes?
The reason for this is not far-fetched. When anger is normalised in men, it is easy for us not even to notice it as a problem, even when we constantly live in fear of men’s violence — carrying pepper spray, sharing our location with friends, learning self-defence, avoiding dark paths at night “just in case,” even when there is no present threat.
Those precautionary steps are for women living in constant fear of male violence. Yet we gasp when a woman slaps back, because that feels like a worse harm than the action of the aggressor that triggered it.
Normalisation of male anger means a man can spend his whole life being angry and violent, and it will not be seen as “out of place,” but when the same is perpetrated by a woman, even in response to harm, it is immediately flagged as a problem.
Mona Eltahawy also recounts that the bartender frowned at her for slapping back. He asked her why she didn’t wait for her boyfriend to handle it, so he considered it “socially acceptable” for a man to retaliate on her behalf, but wrong for her to defend herself.
The crux of the aggravation of female anger is basically the fact that our perception of male and female rage is such that we tend to overestimate female rage and underestimate male aggression, which is exactly why it is pertinent for us to confront our ways of seeing.
We don’t only see through our eyes; we perceive through a social lens. We filter what we see through social bias, and that filtration process determines what information our brain feeds back to us.
It is the same way that women are accused of speaking more than men, whereas studies have shown that for women to speak at a 50/50 rate with men, 70% of the gathering must be made up of women!
Yes, there is even a speech gap.
A study showed that when women speak just 15% of the time, men are more likely to assume that women dominate the conversation, just 15%, while men spoke 85% of the time!
This tells us that social bias shapes and influences how we see things.
Social bias distorts perception of reality
The reality says men speak more; the reality says men get angrier more. But our perception of that reality says women are talkative; our perception of that reality says the ex who retaliates is a “crazy ex,” while the man who abused her and drove her to the edge is the victim.
5. Penalisation of anger
If anger is frowned upon when expressed by women, it necessarily follows that it is sanctioned.
I had a neighbour who was deeply troubled that her son was calm while her daughter was energetic. It was a thing of serious concern to her.
She started beating him for not fighting back. Interestingly, at the same time, she was beating her daughter for fighting back. She felt her daughter was too unwomanly. She was taming her daughter while trying to rewire her son to be wild, which brings us back to the predator–prey dynamic.
Tomorrow, when he hits his wife, and her daughter condones abuse, we will be told it is only natural for men and women to act that way, forgetting everything we did to shape our sons and daughters into acting that way.
It was bell hooks, the veteran feminist mind, who shared this about her dad’s reaction to her playing and winning against her brother at marbles:
“…Yet Dad, looking at our play from a patriarchal perspective, was disturbed by what he saw. His daughter, aggressive and competitive, was a better player than his son. His son was passive; the boy did not really seem to care who won and was willing to give over marbles on demand. Dad decided that this play had to end, that both my brother and I needed to learn a lesson about appropriate gender roles.
One evening, my brother was given permission by Dad to bring out the tin of marbles. I announced my desire to play and was told by my brother that ‘girls did not play with marbles,’ that it was a boy’s game.
This made no sense to my four- or five-year-old mind, and I insisted on my right to play by picking up marbles and shooting them. Dad intervened to tell me to stop. I did not listen.
His voice grew louder and louder. Then suddenly he snatched me up, broke a board from our screen door, and began to beat me with it, telling me, ‘You’re just a little girl. When I tell you to do something, I mean for you to do it.’ He beat me, and he beat me, wanting me to acknowledge that I understood what I had done.
His rage and his violence captured everyone’s attention. Our family sat spellbound, rapt before the pornography of patriarchal violence.”
From childhood, the male/female anger dichotomy is beaten into us, yet society wants us to believe it is naturally occurring, not a product of deliberate indoctrination.
The Take Home
By now, you would have noticed something in my argument. While I criticise male violence, I encourage female rage. Now, this might come across as inconsistent, but it isn’t — because that is indeed necessary to equalise and balance things out.
The patriarchy thrives on extremities: resounding dominance from men, and grovelling submission from women. There’s no middle course.
For instance, if Ms A has 8 oranges while Mr B has 2 oranges, the only way to get them to meet in the middle is for Ms A to give up 3 oranges to Mr B. Now, for Ms A, who is used to having 8 oranges, suddenly losing 3 to Mr B feels like oppression.
There’s a popular feminist quote that reads: “To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.”
Ms A feels it is oppressive to have 3 oranges taken from her, while conveniently forgetting that the only reason she has 8 was at the expense of Mr B, who was deprived of 3.
This also explains the alpha-male movement’s rage against feminism, because equality will always come at the price of the privileged letting go of some of their privilege so that the oppressed can stand on par.
I’m saying this because I’ve heard men say that while feminism urges women to be strong, it is also trying to “effeminise” men.
It’s simple: for a man who has been taught mindless dominance, he must embrace softness; and for a woman who has been taught grovelling submission, she must embrace rage — so that both can stand at par.
It was Kimberlé Crenshaw who said: “Treating different things the same can generate as much inequality as treating the same things differently.”
Please sit down and ponder this for a few minutes.
She is saying that you cannot achieve equality by addressing different things as though they are the same, the same way you cannot achieve equality by addressing the same things differently.
Men and women were not raised the same; our socialisation processes differ greatly — they are polar opposites — and so must our approach to tackling each.
Now, the only way to balance this out is for men to let go of some of that rage, and for women to find some of theirs. That way, both sides meet in the middle, shedding the extreme ends to which the patriarchy has pushed men and women — resounding dominance versus grovelling submission.
So thank you for staying to the very end with me. I’ll cherish your thoughts, likes, shares and comments.
Look out for my follow-up article on misdirected anger!
Recommended books I’ve read on this subject, which you should absolutely check out:
- Soraya Chemaly — Rage Becomes Her (on female rage)
- Mona Eltahawy — 7 Necessary Sins for Women and Girls (on the indoctrination women and girls should let go of)
- Dr Jessica Taylor — Sexy But Psycho (on how the patriarchy weaponises medical/psychiatric framing to silence women’s voices)
Editor’s Note: This Piece was first published on Sheresonance
