Passion and anger. Too often one can equate the other. Feeling passionate is awesome. It’s important; in fact, I would even argue that, for feminists, it is essential. Yet passion, I believe, not only has a proper time and place, but can also be used to either further, or damage, a cause.
“Feminists are ANGRY.” It’s a frustrating stereotype. Why are they angry? What are they angry about? “Men of course”. I get so tired of hearing this stereotype. I sometimes feel that when I say, “I’m a feminist”, people just hear, “I’m angry.” They expect me to rage, or frown, they act confused when I’m calm in discussions, or when I ask them what they think. I grow two heads when I ask them to explain to me their problems with feminism or feminists. And far too often I hear that feminists are too abrasive, too angry, and too unapproachable for them to relate to.
I oftentimes hear women in my classes say that it’s hard for them to identify as feminists because they are too tired to have to fight such stereotypes. Not many people want to be labeled as angry or abrasive, as confrontational or unapproachable. It makes me sad because what I think would solve a lot of this fear to identify as a feminist and would serve to break down this stereotype is to delineate between passion and anger, to come up more strategic ways to utilize both, because, while the “angry feminist” stereotype can be harmful, I also believe it can be beneficial as well.
Perhaps anger and passion become so conflated because they are so similar. According to Merriam-Webster online, passion is “intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction.” Anger is “a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism.”
They’re fairly close definitions; the real only difference seems to be that passion can apply to emotions outside of hostility and antagonism, yet the sole purpose of anger to towards antagonism. Unfortunately, passion is far too often interpreted AS anger.
For example, I’ve often been told that when I speak passionately about subjects, I can appear angry or upset. (I hear this a lot more when I talk about feminism, btw, which is interesting because people who know me say I don’t describe or discuss it any differently than my other passions, but anyways…) Unintentionally, I make others uncomfortable, because speaking with passion can become speaking with anger very quickly.
For me, the solution has been to think before I speak, which is so terribly so cliché but still such good advice. I think about my audience, I think about the topic, and I think about the image I wish to portray of feminism. I don’t wish to do anything that would exacerbate the negative stereotypes already associated with feminism. When I’m speaking with fellow feminists and we disagree, I try to listen before I jump down someone’s throat, to make myself willing to listen to and grant credibility to a view other than my own. Practicing this with friends I share a lot of common ground with has been useful, as later when I converse with someone who is on the opposite end of an opinion from me, I can logically think through what they have to say and acknowledge their legitimacy too. Too often when people disagree, rational conversation dissolves into anger and irrational blaming over who caused what.
However, all of this does not mean anger is wrong, or that passion is useless. I think it is right to become indignant over injustice, to be angry when people are targeted for abuse and injustice. But I think it’s important to be strategic about when to be angry and when to be calmer and appeal to a more approachable demeanor, because that invites and continues conversation. I think this video is a good example of a more strategic, passionate response…
In addition, I feel that anger or indignant passion, if not executed just perfectly, can too often come across as ignorant and belligerent. If I want to sincerely have conversations about feminism and to invite people to understand my opinions and beliefs, then I must create an atmosphere that is conducive to that. I understand that anger and passion have their place and I certainly do get angry sometimes, and I don’t think anyone should set aside their passion, but I do think we need to be more aware of how that may be perceived and how it either opens a dialogue or shuts one down. Thoughts?
ShoutOut! James Madison University 
Great post! I think this topic is extremely relevant in our society. So much of the critiques about Romney right now are because he takes an incredibly hard lined stance and alienates his voters. Well, I think it’s important to consider that you don’t have to be ultra-conservative/liberal to alienate a logical population.
LikeLike
Good post!
I do think the “angry feminist” stereotype is used to derail good feminist arguments. It’s as if being angry automatically means that one’s argument is invalid, as if anger = irrationality. But feminist anger isn’t crazy. It’s perfectly rational. When one starts to understand how women are oppressed, undermined on a daily basis for no reason other than that they are women; when one sees domestic violence figures, hear people being rape apologists, learns about the percentage of women in positions of power, reads about studies proving gender bias in hiring workers, surely anger is a natural response?
I agree that in a discussion, it is useful to remain calm and collected so as to better engage one’s audience. But I think that to dismiss a feminist’s points because she is angry at the way the world is is just another method of silencing dissent and reinforcing the status quo. After all, people seldom use a man’s anger as a way to discredit his arguments.
LikeLike
I agree that men seldom are discredited because of their anger and I also agree that it is oftentimes legitimate and correct to be angry. But while it might be a natural response, what I merely hope to point out is that, right or wrong, I do think that we have to consider the impact that stereotypes can still have on the way feminists are perceived. While I agree that anger can be useful, we have to be strategic about it I think. Not that we ignore the emotion, but that we try to remain more mindful of the context in which we have discussions and try to adjust accordingly.
LikeLike