“What I want to talk about is how emotional outbursts typically more associated with men (shouting, expressing anger openly) are given a pass in public discourse in a way that emotional outbursts typically more associated with women (crying, “getting upset”) are stigmatized. I wish to dispel the notion that women are “more emotional.” I don’t think we are. I think that the emotions women stereotypically express are what men call “emotions,” and the emotions that men typically express are somehow considered by men to be something else. This is incorrect. Anger? EMOTION. Hate? EMOTION. Resorting to violence? EMOTIONAL OUTBURST. An irrational need to be correct when all the evidence is against you? Pretty sure that’s an emotion. Resorting to shouting really loudly when you don’t like the other person’s point of view? That’s called “being too emotional to engage in a rational discussion.” Not only do I think men are at least as emotional as women, I think that these stereotypically male emotions are more damaging to rational dialogue than are stereotypically female emotions. A hurt, crying person can still listen, think, and speak. A shouting, angry person? That person is crapping all over meaningful discourse.”
Bullish Life: When Men Get Too Emotional To Have A Rational Argument (via introvertedactivist) (via vomohiper)
It’s really worth reading the whole article.
Not only are male outbursts given a pass, they are often placed at the fault of others.
If a white heterosexual male is angry in public, any “other” human will be automatically defaulted as the instigator in the eyes of everyone else. They will be more likely to be coded as undeserving or unworthy.
The safety of being an angry white man.
Also male anger is seen as justified. If women are angry, we’re hysterical, or over-reacting, or our concerns are dismissed until we can calm down. If men are angry, then BY GOD there must be something to get angry about!
I remember in the wake of the Penn State sexual assault scandal when I made the case that Penn State needed their entire football program suspended (the “death penalty” in the NCAA) with the argument that people do not report because they’re worried about hurting the football program, so therefore the consequences of not reporting have to be the total removal of that program. That way you’re actually saving the program by reporting, and endangering it by not.
I made this argument, and a guy I knew told me that I’m wrong because I’m being emotional and I just want vengeance and I’m not thinking rationally. And I kept stating that in fact I’m being super cynical by trying to prevent future cover-ups by threatening the only thing these people seem to care about: their football program. And he kept dismissing me over and over as being emotional and acting purely based on anger and wanting to lash out.
My male friend showed up and repeated the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I made, with the same passion I had (which for me was construed as irrational anger). And the dude agreed and said that made much more sense, and thanked him for giving an actual rational reason why this should be done rather than act on emotion like me.
As a good friend of mine often says: male privilege, it’s a hell of a drug.
Via Ami's Tumblr Place of Cat DOOOM