Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sarah Rubin
Professor Dziwirek
Honors 211
8 March 2016
In the United States, our relationship with anger has the appearance of a strange
dance. While it is unseemly for most people to show anger in public, certain populations
are restricted in this behavior to a greater or lesser extent. A significant example of this is
how the expression of anger is gendered in American society. Men are allowed to
demonstrate anger publicly, and indeed are encouraged to do so. Women, on the other
hand, are expected to keep any feelings of anger under control and out of sight. Rules of
anger expression also align with divisions of power and privilege, such as class and social
standing. Those in positions of higher power are allowed to express anger more than those
in positions of lower power; however, there is also a pervasive belief that those at the
bottom of the social ladder are less able to control their emotions. This is just one of many
apparent contradictions that can be found in the rules of anger in our society. These
nuances are reflected in the wide variety of ways for talking about anger that are supplied
by our version of the English language. It is important to consider how every aspect of
emotional expression in our culture, including the laws of language, must be examined
through an intersectional lens with regards to class, gender, and other structures of power
and privilege.
Traditionally, the expression of anger and aggressive behavior has been seen as a
crucial facet of “manhood” in our society. To become a man, a boy should be willing and
Rubin 2
able to physically fight his peers. In movies and books one may actually see this transition
play out literally, with a father congratulating his son on a recent feat of physical
dominance. As Stephanie Shields explains, the expectation is that “[a] ‘real man’ responds
appropriately with anger when he is deprived of what he is entitled to” (57). Along this
timeline, young girls have typically experienced the opposite end of the spectrum. They are
taught to resolve conflicts, not start them, and are never supposed to settle a dispute with
fists. A girl may be encouraged to get her brother or a male friend to fight in her place, but it
is frowned upon if she tries to fight on her own. Similar rules apply to verbal aggression –
using vulgar language, such as swear words, is seen as “unladylike.” In these ways, anger is
strictly gendered.
Despite the seemingly black-and-white guidelines regarding who can and cannot
express anger publicly, there also exists the paradoxical belief that women are more
susceptible to fits of emotion (anger included). Shields describes how women have to work
very hard to walk the line between showing enough emotion and showing too much (48).
menstruating – even in politics (or, especially in politics) there are the oft-uttered refrains
of “she must be on her period,” and “oh, it’s just that time of the month” in response to
women who demonstrate emotion. On occasions where a man displays the same level and
type of emotion, people generally do not react negatively; indeed, they may praise him for
his “passion” and “energy.” When females run for elected office, become CEOs, or attempt
to break into any other traditionally male-dominated field, there is invariably someone
who will raise the question of whether or not a woman will be “too emotional” for the job.
It seems that women can’t win – they are trapped in a Catch-22 of being expected to reign
Rubin 3
in any and all emotional expression, while simultaneously laboring under the societal
assumption that they will inevitably fall prey to an underlying intense and uncontrollable
emotional nature.
In a similar vein, people of lower social classes and/or status are presumed to have
less control over their emotions, but are also subject to more scrutiny regarding public
displays of anger. In terms of social status, the social standards of emotion for minimum
wage workers provide a perfect illustration. The well-known phrase “the customer is
always right” takes on a new meaning when considered in this context. Aside from the
general standards of customer service, there is also a power dynamic inherent in the
interactions between customers and servers. At fast food (or even traditional) restaurants,
it is not uncommon to see customers acting incredibly rudely towards the cooks,
waiters/waitresses, and cashiers. However, the staff do not have the privilege of returning
the favor – indeed, one impolite remark is likely to result in that person losing their job.
between servers and those who are being served. The conflation of social status and
emotional privileges serves to further demonstrate how our country’s rules of anger
emotion as one that we struggle to control. Indeed, the American Psychological Association
describes anger as “an unpredictable and powerful emotion” that can “[get] out of control
and [turn] destructive.” The expressions and metaphors we commonly use to describe
feeling angry are indicative of this mindset. An angry person might be said to have
“exploded with anger” or “blown a gasket.” Both of these expressions depict a person who
Rubin 4
is reacting to something that is no longer within their control. We may also say that
someone is “boiling with anger.” This term evokes an image of hot, boiling water –
something that is dangerous and, again, difficult to control. This narrative of depicting
anger as uncontrollable and dangerous further complicates the already complex dialogue
surrounding anger in our culture, in which we both encourage and discourage its
expression. Like many elements of United States culture, these intricacies become slightly
less arbitrary in appearance when one considers how they relate to deeply engrained
structures of power and privilege. As long as classism and sexism remain rooted in the
Works Cited
"Controlling Anger Before it Controls You." American Psychological Association, 2016. Web.
7 Mar. 2016.
Shields, Stephanie. "Doing Emotion / Doing Gender." Speaking From the Heart (2002): 43-
68. Print.