A Woman's Wrath
“It is better to dwell in the wilderness than with a contentious and angry woman,” according to Proverbs 21:19. Not only is this excellent advice for all you men out there—hell hath no fury like a woman crossed—but it's an issue that some of our leading ladies have had to tiptoe around as they try to graciously lead their lives in the public eye.
Consider the cases of Michelle Obama, Marianne Gingrich, and Elizabeth Warren, outlined recently in this article from the Washington Post. Marianne Gingrich was supposed to ruin Newt's campaign, but was eventually dismissed as a "probably very bitter" ex-wife. Responding to Jodi Kantor’s book The Obamas, the first lady put the media in a tizzy when she said, “people have tried to paint [a picture] of me since the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman.” And Elizabeth Warren, according to the Post:
...didn’t skip a beat after her ire over corporate lobbying in Washington was called into question by host Jon Stewart. “For a second, it does seem like you’re a little mad at me,” interjected Stewart, leaning away in apparent discomfort with the zeal on display.
The point of the Post story is that there is a double standard in our society. Men can get angry with little to no consequences, but women cannot:
Studies suggest that, unlike men, women who express anger or lose their tempers in the workplace are seen as less competent and therefore less valued. Females learn to curb their hostilities from a young age, and when female aggression is deployed, it has to be tiptoed around, gussied up with a shiny coat of lip gloss, an updo and a wink or, as evidenced in many a junior high school hallway, communicated passively, along back channels and in whispers.
What is all the more infuriating about such prohibitions are the breathtaking hypocrisies they contain. Sometimes it seems that those most likely to mock anger as a means of dismissing and silencing legitimate female claims of dissatisfaction are those most likely to utilize the politics of resentment and victimization for personal or ideological gain.
I don't see this as a men versus women issue. Let's remember that there is a limit to how emotionally exuberant men can get, too, as Howard Dean showed us several election cycles ago. And let's not forget about Charlie Sheen's and Mel Gibson's falls from grace. The bottom line is that it is always distasteful to see our public figures get angry because it's a sign of their losing emotional control. In politics, as in Hollywood, appearances are everything, which is why they are controlled and micromanaged by a team of stylists, make up artists, and publicists.
I can't help but think of Kate Middleton here, Britain's leading lady. She has been hailed far and wide by the press for her poise, story after story pointing out how graceful she is: "Kate Middleton Gracefully Loses a Boat Race to Prince William." Would a woman like Elizabeth Warren have gotten mad in that situation?
What sets Kate apart is that she is in control of her image.
For if there is one thing Kate has shown in the past year, it is that she is not the kind of girl to make an unforced error like that. From the moment she clambered aboard her father-in-law’s car for a crowd-pleasing drive around Buckingham Palace after the wedding, she has proved to be a consummate master of the common touch. Her amazing performance for the record crowds outside Sandringham Church on Christmas Day have led to comparisons with Diana, but in fact those are wide off the mark.
As Kate enters her 31st year, it’s quite apparent that she isn’t Diana 2.0. Princess Di was naïve, where Kate is savvy. In a way that Diana never saw until it was far too late, the Duchess of Cambridge understands the perils of her position: the politics, the power plays, and how things could turn very nasty, very quickly were she to become identified with the idle rich at a time of austerity in the UK.
In addition to the issue of control, there's a second point to make: when some women lose emotional control, it's been historically seen as passionate, vulnerable, and even desirable (Cleopatra, Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe). Were these women powerful, the way that Michelle Obama and Kate Middleton are? Maybe not in the public/civic sense, but they privately wielded their own kind of power—an emotional power that may have touched more people than political power ever could. Where does that leave the Post article, which concludes that "Even today, an angry female arouses fear and is dismissed"? Yes, she arouses fear, but she is not dismissed quite so easily as that.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
So, Emily, how do you feel, what do you think, about Jan Brewer's recent faace off with Obama in Arizona? Was she out of line? Was she tiptoeing around? Did she come across as weaker or less competent? And what about Obama? Did he back down rather than get in a fight with a woman, as James says in #6, above? Or did he show distain for her weakness? Apply your point to this real world news story.
Jul '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
I don't know where these studies find these women. Every woman I ever worked for let me have it with both barrels at some point or another. Do these social science people just sit about the office thinking up studies that they can execute among themselves to give each other provocative results?
And dating. Oy! Glad that's over.
And who seriously thinks that Romney spends less than Bachmann on the coiffing and whatnot. (Which is not to suggest that Bachmann does a poor job, at all.)
Aaron: Funneling rage is the talent that most commends Newt to higher office. Of course, suggesting Rick Santorum should stand down because Newt is the stronger conservative caused milk through the nose syndrome this morning at Casa Sisyphus. If you find yourself drifting in Newt's direction, the cure is further exposure. Of course, Romney tried to peg an excitable label on Santorum by suggesting RomneyCare was nothing to get excited about. I'm beginning to think that "Stupid Party" is a euphemism.
Nov '11
Re: A Woman's Wrath
I find this to be an insightful comment that goes far to explain why, as a female employer, in general I would much rather deal with anger from a male than a female employee. Angry females are a lot more work.
Dec '11
Re: A Woman's Wrath
Sandy
I find this to be an insightful comment that goes far to explain why, as a female employer, in general I would much rather deal with anger from a male than a female employee. Angry females are a lot more work. · 44 minutes ago
Sandy,
I remember reading a study a while ago where women were the most hostile to women in authority. I havent typically had a problem with the ladies in authority. That said, I dont ever behave in a way to get under anybodies skin.
Dec '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
It depends what you mean by 'anger.' And whether you admit the possibility of righteous (good) anger, or if you view all anger as being dysfunctional and counterproductive.
In that vein, the perception that female anger is 'typically' deeply personal, whereas male anger is not, may have some validity.
But sometimes a woman's righteous anger is simply that. Not over the top neurosis. Not emotional nutjob stuff . Not mere cattiness.
Just a conviction that something is wrong, and that it should be fixed.
Or that something is right and that it should be done.
Yes, I've worked with a couple of women over thirty years who've had issues with their woman boss (me) that I couldn't explain and that they couldn't articulate without becoming unglued and abusive.
But I've watched far more managerial peers (men) avoid productive business relationships with the generally competent women who reported to them because it appeared to be their deeply held belief that these women couldn't be trusted to behave rationally or 'think like a man' (ie, like themselves), in a tense or difficult business situation.
I always thought this a great waste of human capital.
Oct '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
Raw Prawn: James Gawron nailed it. When a woman spits the dummy a man is a wuss if he just takes it and a monster if he responds in kind.
Have you noticed that sensory-neural hearing loss (noise induced) effects hearing in the higher frequencies present in women's voices? An example of God's mercy? · 2 hours ago
From a mans perspective, adopt selective hearing loss. Nothing new there.
Dec '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
She: It depends what you mean by 'anger.' And whether you admit the possibility of righteous (good) anger, or if you view all anger as being dysfunctional and counterproductive.
In that vein, the perception that female anger is 'typically' deeply personal, whereas male anger is not, may have some validity.
But sometimes a woman's righteous anger is simply that. Not over the top neurosis. Not emotional nutjob stuff . Not mere cattiness.
Just a conviction that something is wrong, and that it should be fixed.
Or that something is right and that it should be done.
Yes, I've worked with a couple of women over thirty years who've had issues with their woman boss (me) that I couldn't explain and that they couldn't articulate without becoming unglued and abusive.
..I've watched far more managerial peers (men) avoid productive business relationships with the generally competent women who reported to them because it appeared to be their deeply held belief that these women couldn't be trusted to behave rationally...
· 2 hours ago
Dear She,
For you I will expose more of my hide for public viewing. (cont.)
Dec '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
(cont. from #27)
My sister was the most brilliant of women, men, martians, venusians or anybody that was walking down the block. She had a 5.0 grade point avg. junior year and skipped her senior year of high school. Went through the University of Chicago like a knife through butter and then went on to the Yale Medical School. Something slowed her down a little at Yale.
She met Paul. He was 5 years older (he'd been in Nam for a while so they were in the same class). He was tall thin and very good looking and a type double A personality just like my sister.
To make a long story short. They fell in love and married on graduation day at Yale. They went into the National Health Service and were stationed in Montana for a while. Later they moved to Santa Rosa.
One Thanksgiving they were back in Pittsburgh. I had learned to more then respect my sister, she scared the Hell out of Me!!! Anyway I was curious. I asked her at the Thanksgiving Table whether the other Male Doctors treated her OK.(cont.)
Edited on Jan 31 at 7:30pmDec '10
Re: A Woman's Wrath
(cont. from #28)
She said that they were fine. All they cared about was doing their job and that you could do yours. It was the Nurses!!! They wouldn't follow her orders!! She had to have major fights with them to get them to do anything.
I said nothing to this. I was biting my lip trying not to burst out laughing. So all that nonsense about Men turned out to be just nonsense and Women were more prejudiced against each other then men were about Women.
To this day I have never brought up to her what she said at the Thanksgiving table. She, please don't tell her. My sister still scares the Hell out of Me!!!!!