Rubin 1

Sarah Rubin

Professor Dziwirek

Honors 211

8 March 2016

Anger: Not an Equal-Opportunity Emotion

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).

Another significant problem is the stigmatization surrounding women who are

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.

This one-sided dynamic is reflective of the power imbalance (temporary or otherwise)

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

expression closely follow the strata of societal power and privilege.

Generally speaking, the language we use to communicate anger illustrates this

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

United States, anger cannot be said to be an equal-opportunity emotion.

 Rubin 5

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.

Stearns, Deborah C. "Anger and Aggression." Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in

History and Society. Advameg, Inc., 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.