Recently a video was posted about how a woman felt disregarded by feminists, has called out feminists for the lack of response and support, and most pointedly....expressed anger repeatedly throughout.
Many anti-feminists have applauded this womans anger. Suggesting that if she is angry, she has a right to be angry.
I agree that she has a right to be angry. I personally have a thing for outspoken women, as it is, but I totally support women who speak out, call out, and express rage at injustice.
I'd like to open discussion on the criticism thrown toward feminists that we are angry, as if 1) anger is proof of the lack of rational argument for our critique of a current status quo, and 2) anger is what makes us less approachable. That if we are angry, our anger is working against us, or that we shouldn't be angry.
I have a few questions for fellow feminists on RF for educational purposes and for better understanding...
- How do you respond to the criticism of the stereotype, and especially when during debates our emotional states are brought up as marks against us?
- Where is the stereotype most employed during debates and discussions?
- Do you see the stereotype utilized more or less as each Wave passes?
I don't know all the nuances, but I am familiar with the stereotype of the "angry feminist".
From my view it's one of those things that has an element of truth to it but then gets twisted, exaggerated, and used to belittle. I think some feminist groups do have a somewhat angry and unapproachable vibe to them, but others do not. I think second wave feminism has probably the strongest reputation for the angry feminist stereotype, as that is where radical feminism was rooted, as well as some types of feminism that assert that femininity as a gender expression itself is artificial and to be avoided. Sometimes dogmatically. But they also did accomplish a lot for women.
Certain types of anger I think are justifiable. Many women have been abused, mistreated, or otherwise hurt by men, and they sometimes respond with anger that they carry with them through life, and sometimes not always directed at the right people. That's a touchy subject to get into.
But certainly I don't think anger itself is evidence of a lack of argument. When anger comes off as passionate and directed appropriately, it can be powerful. It can motivate people. I've always been a detached sort of feminist, certainly willing to debate people when situations arise, usually in a very casual manner, but I'm not really part of any groups or anything, and I bet that a lot of the more passionate and outspoken activists of feminism have their passion come in part from anger of experiences they have had.
Anger is an appropriate response to injustice.
When women of color bring up the rates of rape and sexual assault as affecting them in far greater numbers and percentages than white women, or when women of color bring up police brutality, the wage gap between them and white women, etc.
Many times white feminists do not acknowledge the disparity or become annoyed that Black Feminism or Womanism is even a "thing."
It's the same gripe that egalitarians have toward feminism..."Why do you have to have a female-specific qualifier when it comes to equality? Aren't we ALL wanting equal rights?"
White feminists tend to ask Black Feminism and Womanism..."Why do you have to have a color-specific qualifer when it comes to equality? Aren't we ALL feminists and wanting equal rights?"
So when the issue is pressed again and again, because women of color keep bringing up their stories of injustice, too often white feminists or cis feminists (when trans people ask for solidarity on their fights against injustice) will dismiss, deride, or - worse- threaten women in intersectional concerns.
I get very annoyed when more privileged groups respond that way towards more oppressed groups.
Like how feminism seeks mainly to advance the rights and freedoms of women with an ultimate goal of egalitarianism, some opponents respond with saying it's unnecessary because people should just seek egalitarianism without specifiers. Or if people try to set up black groups, like maybe a Black Engineers Society or something, some people inevitably respond with, "Can you imagine the negative reaction that would happen if a White Engineer Society were set up? How is this any different?"
It's different because some groups already have so much privilege, and the journey towards egalitarianism means especially focusing on certain vulnerable groups. Yet some people that are currently in majority and privileged positions get threatened when the rights of others are emphasized.
Studies show that if you send out identical resumes, one group with white names and one group with black names, the black name group gets far fewer responses. Or, if you send out identical applications to professors for graduate research positions, the ones with female names get judged as being less qualified than the identical ones with male names. If you give sample investment IPOs to MBA students, the ones with female CEOs will receive a lower valuation than identical ones with male CEOs. Black women face an intersection of that sexism and racism that still exist in educated circles. And out of all violence towards LGBT people, it's transgender women of color that face like an order of magnitude more per-capita violence than the rest of the LGBT spectrum.
Some people like to say that America is mostly passed racism or sexism in educated circles and that it just comes down to individual merit now, but the raw numbers show otherwise. There continues to be downward pressure against certain groups compared to others. And giving those groups a voice makes sense, and realizing that their concerns, their intersections, have unique problems and unique solutions that may differ than larger movements as a whole, like broad feminism or broad egalitarianism.
And sometimes groups that are otherwise privileged, have special valid areas of concern as well. The vast majority of workplace injuries and deaths happen to men, for example, due in part to the gender differences in job statistics. And men still face a social bias when it comes to showing emotion and are conditioned not to. Boys, especially at early ages, have disproportionate problems in school, so attention and resources could help improve that. And there's an argument, valid in my opinion, that men are disadvantaged when it comes to gaining custody of children. I would totally support groups that emphasize these types of things to try to bring more attention to them.
Basically I think the idea that just a broad view of egalitarianism covers everything, just doesn't work. Certain minority or intersection groups do deserve extra focus, or at least deserve an understanding that their problems are different and may require different solutions.
