If you’ve read any of my previous posts, you may have read "The Not So Dirty F Word," a blog I also posted as a YouTube video detailing the origins and meaning of feminism and its scathing reputation. One of the issues I commented on was the stereotypes often associated with calling oneself a feminist and I’d like to tackle the deconstruction of one of those all too common labels today: the angry feminist. I happen to feel this particular stereotype is both very misunderstood and simultaneously underappreciated, but before I break that theory down, please behold the seed of my budding philosophy: childhood experience.
I think for most kids, there’s a defining moment when they realize things aren’t fair; life isn’t fair. For some, it’s getting picked on at recess, for others it’s losing a parent at an early age, and for the vast majority, it’s working hard only to discover work ethic doesn’t always correspond with a rich and enjoyable life. Sometimes though, these injustices are the result of systematic inequality rather than fickle Lady Luck, who is ironically a stereotype herself. My earliest memory of such an injustice occurred when I was maybe six or seven years old. I was upset because my brother could be in Boy Scouts while I had to be in Girl Scouts. Yes, I do realize that sounds silly, but you have to understand I wasn’t upset that there was a group for boys and a group for girls. I was upset because the Boy Scouts got to do cool things and the Girl Scouts didn’t.
In Boy Scouts, my brother used to always go camping. He and my dad would come back with neat nature stories and photos atop mountains taken with a disposable camera. My brother learned how to tie special knots, make a fire, and pitch a tent. Basic Survival Skills 101. The way I saw it, the Boy Scouts got to get their hands dirty, play outside, and learn practical things. The Girl Scouts, however, glued colored beads to little planter pots, danced, and sang silly (and might I add misleading) songs about the value of friendship. Not that I’m against art and song, but why was the girls’ group focused primarily on things considered historically feminine and the boys’ group on things considered traditionally masculine? As a little girl who would grow to idolize adventurer Lara Croft, naturally, this made me angry. I was not old enough to understand the gender dynamic at play, but I did recognize I was not able to do what I wanted and that it had to do with being a girl.
As far as Scouts went, I did not have the same opportunities as my brother. Young womanhood was bristling with new experiences and Girl Scouts emphasized the unjust societal norms for women I would soon grow to despise. Which brings me to the root of my theory: people who are treated unfairly are eventually going to get pissed, and they’re not wrong. In fact, anger is a very natural response to injustice. When you’re mistreated, you feel a little fire in your chest. Thank your pituitary gland for the shot of adrenaline. There’s a strong motive behind this emotion though, and I think feminists often get categorized as inherently angry because when it comes to discussing and experiencing inequality, we are angry. It’s not so much that we are innately indignant and more like we are indignant about something. Normally, anger motivates one to take action and resolve issues. Then, the feeling subsides. But what happens when there isn’t an adequate solution for a point of contention?
Image via unbeatable.com
What I have witnessed is when the source of anger doesn’t have a real and lasting fix, the transition between feeling initially explosive and calming down can take some time. For example, a woman who has recently exited a relationship in which she was beaten and raped by her husband may feel the aftermath of his destructive behaviors for a long time. She may be thinking “I want to stand up for women’s rights” and also have a damn negative vibe towards men. In this case, said woman would most likely be angry for two different reasons: the historical abuse of women and the abuse she suffered personally at the hands of one particular man. Yet because the woman’s original disdain for the abuse of women was compounded by her own experience, the two sources of anger begin to overlap.
This adulteration is where the stereotype of the angry feminist is born. Real life women, like the woman in my example, confused and upset by their experiences, often express their anger at social injustice and the men who have wronged them in such a way that people have begun to think of feminism and misandry as synonymous. These women may make cynical comments about all men and blame them for the shortcomings of few men. The truth is these actions are misguided.
Maybe you’ve heard a female friend say, “Men are pigs,” or something of the like. This is not feminism. This is the contamination of a purposeful doctrine by an emotional state. Does this mean your friend really hates men though? Probably not. She is merely reflecting on the fact that men have historically been given license to treat women a certain way, behave aggressively, and engage in less than gentlemanly behaviors. Her words, however imprudent, have a direct correlation with an experience, whether such an experience has been identified or not. Women are not born angry at men. Feminists are not born angry at all. Experiences are what form and change us, and they can convolute our principles.
So if the angry feminist isn’t a man-hater, who is she? She is someone who has not yet transitioned from the rage-monster phase to the harnessing anger to incite positive change phase. In other words, she’s an equality activist that hasn’t fully leveled up. Learning to cope with anger, manage it, and use it effectively take time and practice, and often even personal meditation.
For these reasons, I believe the concept of the angry feminist is misunderstood. Angry feminists are just people who have been traumatized, abused, or treated harshly, and who are learning to cope with unfortunate circumstances and adapt to new skin. Being an advocate for oneself doesn’t come easily. One must grow to fit that role and even those with the best intentions aren’t without their flaws.
Photo via thoughtco.com
Moreover, as I mentioned before, anger can actually be a pretty useful tool. Take the Civil Rights Movement, for example. People of color rallied, honed their anger, and used its dynamism to tear down the platform of their oppressors. People like MLK, Rosa Parks, and Maya Angelou are now regarded as heroes for directing their anger into a civil sphere that fostered social and political growth. This is not unlike how feminist foremothers Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are beheld when considering the events that led to winning women’s suffrage in 1920.
It’s easy to look back and think, “Wow, I can’t believe things used to be that way. People of color had a right to be angry. Women had a right to be angry.” Yet, oddly enough, when both groups advocate for themselves in present day, they seem so often to be shot down – even silenced. I believe this dynamic speaks for itself. If you look at anger as a weapon for fighting back, it makes sense that angry activists of any kind would be cast in a negative light. Anger is a biological defense mechanism and if groups who historically tend to be maltreated are able to harness that power, they present a threat to their enemies.
I think that as long as both men and women don’t have equal rights, for as long as there’s a pay gap, for as long as women are more likely to win custody battles, for as long as people are expected to contort themselves into narrow definitions of masculine and feminine, feminists have a right to be angry. In fact, I think this angry phase may be key for inciting change and should be celebrated as a stimulus with the capacity to rouse and inspire. To hell with those who typecast feminists as man-hating and intrinsically angry. Human beings are susceptible to our own fallibility, but it doesn’t mean our anger is unfounded and it doesn’t have to mean muddying our true goals.
Oh, and if you were wondering what I meant earlier about misleading Girl Scout songs, let me put your mind at ease. The idea that old friends are “gold” and new friends are “silver” is stupid. Time and quality of friendship are not directly correlated. Duh.