Post by High Priestess on Jun 11, 2016 16:19:36 GMT
New York Times article on anger:
www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/opinion/sunday/who-gets-to-be-angry.html?login=email&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0
An article by Roxane Gay ---- Roxane Gay is an associate professor at Purdue University, the author of “Bad Feminist” and the forthcoming “Hunger,” and a contributing opinion writer.
Some interesting comments:
John Bawden
One of the things I admire so much about President Obama is that he doesn't get angry. All the frustrations and disappointments that land on his desk and he has to discuss with the American people and the world. He stays calm and reasoned even in the most stressful situations. You have a right to your anger. But think what you could accomplish if you asked yourself: "What would President Obama do in this situation?"
(President OBama behind the scenes?)
Glenn Baldwinv
I am just astonished at the amount of anger I hear expressed, not just in this piece, but in my everyday life. Here in this nation, at this time, our access to food, access to medical care, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, individual rights, liberties, legal protections and prosperity would be virtually unimaginable to 99% of the people who have ever lived on this planet. Well into the 20th Century millions of people on the Indian subcontinent regularly perished of infectious disease, floods and starvation. in the 1920s and 30s in the USSR murdered 20 million people of it's own citizens. Plagues, piles of skulls, marauding armies of murderous horsemen, auto-de-fes, guillotines, genocide. Not one of those things is happening here. What on earth are we so angry about?
Another Mom of 2
I was like this for many years. I got angry about all sorts of things, including those you named. And now I don't. I chose not to, because I realized that the anger was hurtful not only to me but to people around me. It even hurts the causes about which I was angry.
This isn't about suppressing your anger, but about not getting angry to begin with. Embarrassingly, this began for me when I did a google search for "anger management ." I was getting angry a lot, was told that I was angry too much. I saw the look on my kids' faces when I would get angry, even if it wasn't at them. Anger poisons people around you. If it is legitimate, and if you channel it in a way to change bad things, then the cost is worth it. But when it is indulging yourself (for me, I think it was indulgent) by having a tantrum when people drive badly or say things you don't like, etc., you hurt other people for nothing - and hurt your own efficacy in the process.
I do understand that legitimate anger is often dismissed or ignored or mocked when coming from people without power (also a position I have occupied, though I have not been on the receiving end of racism, which I recognize is huge in this), but I find myself wanting to counsel you to try to find ways to cabin your anger, not by suppressing it, but by making sure you don't have it to begin with except where it is just and right to be angry. If you are angry about stupid small things, how can your anger about real things be distinguished?
JL
Who gets to be angry? As regards present day politics, the answer here seems to be that Sanders supporters are allowed and Trump supporters are not. As a liberal, I have sympathy for this preferential treatment of Sanders supporters; I agree that Sanders's anger could reasonably be characterized as "useful anger," while Trump's anger is more of the type "that can tear us down."
But I also feel deeply conflicted about accepting this dichotomy. The anger exhibited by Trump's supporters is very real. Is the best response to that anger to simply invalidate it? To tell Trump supporters that their anger is of "the useless kind" and that they should cut it out? It seems to me that such suggestions would do little more than increase their destructive anger.
Oakbranch
Like other commenters here, I've found that the best thing for me to do with my anger, is let it pass through me -- channel it somehow. As I see it, anger is not a problem - it's STUCK anger that is a problem. When there is anger "stuck" in our system, in our psyche, building up a huge chip on our shoulder, or into a volcano that will surely burst out at some point (probably in an inappropriate way and at an inappropriate person), this ends up being a problem for us.
It's fine to be angry, and I get angry about all kinds of things -- things in the news, events in my neighborhood -- but I feel the anger for about 2 minutes, then I let it go. I let it pass through, and I feel the next feeling. If I didn't feel anger in response to an incident that naturally would arouse anger in a feeling, sensitive human being, I would not be fully human. But if I didn't let the anger pass, I would not have a flowing psyche, organically free to engage in its processes, rather I would have a metal trap of a mind, an obsession, and a problem letting go.
Anger gets stuck in us when instead of living life in the present moment, experiencing each moment as it comes, we cling to a thought, an idea, a conversation, an incident,and replay it endlessly. Living in the present doesn't mean having no goals or not doing political work. It's quite possible to work on a project, channeling energy, while avoiding allowing one's mind to be a record player, endlessly playing the same song.
DeborahinLA
As a mediator, a mother, and a woman nearly of Hillary Clinton's vintage, I hear you, sister! The only thing I can add to the discussion is that there is a time and place for anger to be fully expressed and vented--for the reasons discussed here--but one of the times and places is NOT when you are trying to persuade someone else to change their position. So when we angry women (and let's face it, there's so MUCH to be angry about) want to effectuate change, we need to learn to channel the anger so that the goal is reached.
Wine Country Dude
My confessional: I get angry listening to others--principally women and blacks--try to parse, in utterly self-serving ways, just who is entitled to be angry. They do not know me; they are not qualified to do this parsing; and they have no special training to tell me who is entitled to be angry and particularly, that because of my gender and skin color I am not allowed to be angry.
Their position is the worst form of liberal conceit and hypocrisy; it is moral myopia at its worst. It should be roundly rejected.
Miriam Long Island 2 hours ago
My own experience is that exercise (of a type that one enjoys) is useful for burning off excess energy, which can fuel anger. My own experience regarding anger is very similar to the author, that is, that women are supposed to be "nice," and if they are not, then there is something wrong with them; unlike a man, who, when he is angry, is being strong and assertive. Whatever, I'm sure it has all been said in the comments before mine. BUT, my own experience is that yielding too often to anger can feed and grow the anger, leading to no good outcome. No one wants to be around a person who is angry more often than not. I recall being in the car with my father when I was a child, and he was a very (verbally) angry driver, and it was incredibly stressful to be around him then.
BTW, I am no interested in anyone's comment on my comment.
Earthling A Small Blue Planet, Milky Way Galaxy
In my real everyday life, I rarely encounter people indulging in anger or violence. My friends and family do not yell at each other or rage or threaten. We do not scream profanities at each other or call each other derogatory names. We tend toward calmness and cheerfulness.
This stands in contrast to what is on TV. I have been struck by how often black people on TV are depicted as angry and yelling. The black doctors on Grey's Anatomy are frequently depicted as spitting angry and loudly yelling --- this despite most of the doctors and surgeons I have known in real life being calm and deliberate people. On Scandal, the black characters are very often depicted as exceedingly angry and yelling. Yet the black people in my reality are able to discuss life and controversial issues without yelling, raising voices or threatening violence.
Why is this? Why do the entertainment media so often depict black people as being volatile and prone to angry outbursts? What sort of racism is behind this and how does this factor into white perceptions that black people are angry?
How much anger is normalized by the media depicting anger as the usual and natural state of humans?
Alex Clemson, SC
I do feel more threatened by black anger.
I think the reason is that white anger in the US is predictable to me. Among middle and upper class men, it's a lot of hot air, a posturing exercise that rarely leads to physical violence. Black men, in my experience, are more likely to become physical if the argument doesn't go their way. I'm not willing to take that risk, so I end up having to forsake my argument and deescalate. It's stressful to feel like you have to manage someone else's emotional volatility. The upshot is that I simply don't argue with black men, which may well have the effect of making them feel their opinion is irrelevant.
With black women, I perceive the stereotypical angry black woman response to be unproductive and excessively personal. It does not adequately distinguish between the argument and the person making it, quickly feeling like a personal attack. This confrontational approach has a strong offensive component and very little listening, as if resolving a dispute was about beating the other person. In my experience, again, this rarely has a positive outcome. A complicating factor is that, as a white man, I'm not permitted to make racial distinctions in an argument with a black woman, so rather than ignore what I perceive to be legitimate issues, this again becomes an exercise in deescalating. And again, the result is as with black men: I simply don't argue with black women.
To me, engaging black anger has no upside.
Christine McMorrow
I'm afraid I see this article as more a celebration of anger than chronicle. Particularly the author's lumping of political anger--something stoked by candidates, the media, and an over-consumption of political news--and the ordinary anger of driving.
For example, when she says about her "road rage": "I am not proud of this but it is cathartic to release my anger. There is no fallout beyond a rise in my
blood pressure."
I'm not sure the only fallout is increased BP. The problem with anger, like any strong emotion, is that stoking it, caressing it, reveling in it, and deriving pleasure from it, really just creates more anger. I think any medical professional would tell you about its unhealthy bodily effects beyond blood pressure: muscle tension, poor sleep, indigestion, headaches.
Is it healthy to walk around in a state of pent up, or released rage? Do we really need more anger by justifying it and encouraging it? Isn't collective anger, or rage, a really unhealthy thing for society?
I ask all this not because I don't get angry at injustice or political trends,- of course I do. But unless this anger gets channeled into something positive like working towards a cause or expressing my feelings in writing, I can walk around like a maniac, infecting my inability to interact positively in the company of friends and family.
Chronic anger, like chronic pain, destroys my quality of life and ability to help others. And that's just now how I want to live my life.
Ann
Speaking as a female, one of the first lessons one learns is not to express ones anger. Most will dislike you immediately should anger be revealed. As someone much more eloquent than myself recently wrote "The need to be likable is a criterion mostly applied to women and it is measured in terms of softness, vulnerability and an unwillingness to offend." We are expected to suppress our anger in the face of injustice and isn't injustice, real or perceived, the root of most anger? I wonder if all this suppressed anger accounts for the reality that depression is more common in women.
The Buddy
Legendary civil rights leader Malcolm X understood he could make complacent white folks very uncomfortable with strident red hot anger. Towards the end of his career, he developed to knack of toning it down a bit, while still being a considerable firebrand. I strongly believe today's thinkers and activists can learn a great deal from him.
S.L.
You are angry when your first name is misspelled, but it is your parent's fault. The most common spelling has a double n. You gesticulate when you drive, but that could get you killed if your middle finger is aimed at the wrong person. You may kill someone if you are so busy replaying a past bad driving incident when another one might appear in front of you, like a jay walking pedestrian. Try to keep it to one quick comment and then drop it.
You have a right to be angry as a woman and as a black woman. Neither of these things gives you the right to be out of control. It is not healthy for you and for those around you. You brush off the fact that anger raises your blood pressure, but as a women of color you know this is a big problem for you.
I too am angry at a lot of different things so I understand your constant annoyance at life. Allowing your anger free rein feeds the feelings of anger and doesn't improve your mood. Try to brush off the smaller things and learn that not everything is worth fighting over. When your anger is out of control you are a danger to yourself and others. Road rage is an especially dangerous form of anger. Learn a little self control before you find yourself dying on the sidewalk when you enrage the wrong person.
Elsie
Nothing, and I mean nothing, will ever change if women don't get angry. Period. If you like the status quo, keep sitting on your anger and worrying about what people will think. That's exactly what the status quo wants.
Any woman who has a brain is angry. If woman is not angry it's because she's an idiot or a puppet. Or both.
Lee Nelson
I completely appreciate the sources of Dr. Gay's anger. However, as a psychologist, I am aware that anger must be effectively channeled to be productive. Back in the 70's people were encouraged to "get their anger out," and therapists actually provided clients with dolls and other objects to pound on. We now know that "practicing anger" only begets more anger. Anger can be a powerful motivator; that is why it exists. Productivity is the outcome of civil discourse sometimes born of anger. I am angry for a lifetime over the insults I have incurred for being a woman. I have channeled my anger into research and writings on gender and communication. Freud called that process sublimation and considered it one of the highest forms of emotional development. Still working on it...not perfect yet!
www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/opinion/sunday/who-gets-to-be-angry.html?login=email&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0
An article by Roxane Gay ---- Roxane Gay is an associate professor at Purdue University, the author of “Bad Feminist” and the forthcoming “Hunger,” and a contributing opinion writer.
Some interesting comments:
John Bawden
One of the things I admire so much about President Obama is that he doesn't get angry. All the frustrations and disappointments that land on his desk and he has to discuss with the American people and the world. He stays calm and reasoned even in the most stressful situations. You have a right to your anger. But think what you could accomplish if you asked yourself: "What would President Obama do in this situation?"
(President OBama behind the scenes?)Glenn Baldwinv
I am just astonished at the amount of anger I hear expressed, not just in this piece, but in my everyday life. Here in this nation, at this time, our access to food, access to medical care, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, individual rights, liberties, legal protections and prosperity would be virtually unimaginable to 99% of the people who have ever lived on this planet. Well into the 20th Century millions of people on the Indian subcontinent regularly perished of infectious disease, floods and starvation. in the 1920s and 30s in the USSR murdered 20 million people of it's own citizens. Plagues, piles of skulls, marauding armies of murderous horsemen, auto-de-fes, guillotines, genocide. Not one of those things is happening here. What on earth are we so angry about?
Another Mom of 2
I was like this for many years. I got angry about all sorts of things, including those you named. And now I don't. I chose not to, because I realized that the anger was hurtful not only to me but to people around me. It even hurts the causes about which I was angry.
This isn't about suppressing your anger, but about not getting angry to begin with. Embarrassingly, this began for me when I did a google search for "anger management ." I was getting angry a lot, was told that I was angry too much. I saw the look on my kids' faces when I would get angry, even if it wasn't at them. Anger poisons people around you. If it is legitimate, and if you channel it in a way to change bad things, then the cost is worth it. But when it is indulging yourself (for me, I think it was indulgent) by having a tantrum when people drive badly or say things you don't like, etc., you hurt other people for nothing - and hurt your own efficacy in the process.
I do understand that legitimate anger is often dismissed or ignored or mocked when coming from people without power (also a position I have occupied, though I have not been on the receiving end of racism, which I recognize is huge in this), but I find myself wanting to counsel you to try to find ways to cabin your anger, not by suppressing it, but by making sure you don't have it to begin with except where it is just and right to be angry. If you are angry about stupid small things, how can your anger about real things be distinguished?
JL
Who gets to be angry? As regards present day politics, the answer here seems to be that Sanders supporters are allowed and Trump supporters are not. As a liberal, I have sympathy for this preferential treatment of Sanders supporters; I agree that Sanders's anger could reasonably be characterized as "useful anger," while Trump's anger is more of the type "that can tear us down."
But I also feel deeply conflicted about accepting this dichotomy. The anger exhibited by Trump's supporters is very real. Is the best response to that anger to simply invalidate it? To tell Trump supporters that their anger is of "the useless kind" and that they should cut it out? It seems to me that such suggestions would do little more than increase their destructive anger.
Oakbranch
Like other commenters here, I've found that the best thing for me to do with my anger, is let it pass through me -- channel it somehow. As I see it, anger is not a problem - it's STUCK anger that is a problem. When there is anger "stuck" in our system, in our psyche, building up a huge chip on our shoulder, or into a volcano that will surely burst out at some point (probably in an inappropriate way and at an inappropriate person), this ends up being a problem for us.
It's fine to be angry, and I get angry about all kinds of things -- things in the news, events in my neighborhood -- but I feel the anger for about 2 minutes, then I let it go. I let it pass through, and I feel the next feeling. If I didn't feel anger in response to an incident that naturally would arouse anger in a feeling, sensitive human being, I would not be fully human. But if I didn't let the anger pass, I would not have a flowing psyche, organically free to engage in its processes, rather I would have a metal trap of a mind, an obsession, and a problem letting go.
Anger gets stuck in us when instead of living life in the present moment, experiencing each moment as it comes, we cling to a thought, an idea, a conversation, an incident,and replay it endlessly. Living in the present doesn't mean having no goals or not doing political work. It's quite possible to work on a project, channeling energy, while avoiding allowing one's mind to be a record player, endlessly playing the same song.
DeborahinLA
As a mediator, a mother, and a woman nearly of Hillary Clinton's vintage, I hear you, sister! The only thing I can add to the discussion is that there is a time and place for anger to be fully expressed and vented--for the reasons discussed here--but one of the times and places is NOT when you are trying to persuade someone else to change their position. So when we angry women (and let's face it, there's so MUCH to be angry about) want to effectuate change, we need to learn to channel the anger so that the goal is reached.
Wine Country Dude
My confessional: I get angry listening to others--principally women and blacks--try to parse, in utterly self-serving ways, just who is entitled to be angry. They do not know me; they are not qualified to do this parsing; and they have no special training to tell me who is entitled to be angry and particularly, that because of my gender and skin color I am not allowed to be angry.
Their position is the worst form of liberal conceit and hypocrisy; it is moral myopia at its worst. It should be roundly rejected.
Miriam Long Island 2 hours ago
My own experience is that exercise (of a type that one enjoys) is useful for burning off excess energy, which can fuel anger. My own experience regarding anger is very similar to the author, that is, that women are supposed to be "nice," and if they are not, then there is something wrong with them; unlike a man, who, when he is angry, is being strong and assertive. Whatever, I'm sure it has all been said in the comments before mine. BUT, my own experience is that yielding too often to anger can feed and grow the anger, leading to no good outcome. No one wants to be around a person who is angry more often than not. I recall being in the car with my father when I was a child, and he was a very (verbally) angry driver, and it was incredibly stressful to be around him then.
BTW, I am no interested in anyone's comment on my comment.
Earthling A Small Blue Planet, Milky Way Galaxy
In my real everyday life, I rarely encounter people indulging in anger or violence. My friends and family do not yell at each other or rage or threaten. We do not scream profanities at each other or call each other derogatory names. We tend toward calmness and cheerfulness.
This stands in contrast to what is on TV. I have been struck by how often black people on TV are depicted as angry and yelling. The black doctors on Grey's Anatomy are frequently depicted as spitting angry and loudly yelling --- this despite most of the doctors and surgeons I have known in real life being calm and deliberate people. On Scandal, the black characters are very often depicted as exceedingly angry and yelling. Yet the black people in my reality are able to discuss life and controversial issues without yelling, raising voices or threatening violence.
Why is this? Why do the entertainment media so often depict black people as being volatile and prone to angry outbursts? What sort of racism is behind this and how does this factor into white perceptions that black people are angry?
How much anger is normalized by the media depicting anger as the usual and natural state of humans?
Alex Clemson, SC
I do feel more threatened by black anger.
I think the reason is that white anger in the US is predictable to me. Among middle and upper class men, it's a lot of hot air, a posturing exercise that rarely leads to physical violence. Black men, in my experience, are more likely to become physical if the argument doesn't go their way. I'm not willing to take that risk, so I end up having to forsake my argument and deescalate. It's stressful to feel like you have to manage someone else's emotional volatility. The upshot is that I simply don't argue with black men, which may well have the effect of making them feel their opinion is irrelevant.
With black women, I perceive the stereotypical angry black woman response to be unproductive and excessively personal. It does not adequately distinguish between the argument and the person making it, quickly feeling like a personal attack. This confrontational approach has a strong offensive component and very little listening, as if resolving a dispute was about beating the other person. In my experience, again, this rarely has a positive outcome. A complicating factor is that, as a white man, I'm not permitted to make racial distinctions in an argument with a black woman, so rather than ignore what I perceive to be legitimate issues, this again becomes an exercise in deescalating. And again, the result is as with black men: I simply don't argue with black women.
To me, engaging black anger has no upside.
Christine McMorrow
I'm afraid I see this article as more a celebration of anger than chronicle. Particularly the author's lumping of political anger--something stoked by candidates, the media, and an over-consumption of political news--and the ordinary anger of driving.
For example, when she says about her "road rage": "I am not proud of this but it is cathartic to release my anger. There is no fallout beyond a rise in my
blood pressure."
I'm not sure the only fallout is increased BP. The problem with anger, like any strong emotion, is that stoking it, caressing it, reveling in it, and deriving pleasure from it, really just creates more anger. I think any medical professional would tell you about its unhealthy bodily effects beyond blood pressure: muscle tension, poor sleep, indigestion, headaches.
Is it healthy to walk around in a state of pent up, or released rage? Do we really need more anger by justifying it and encouraging it? Isn't collective anger, or rage, a really unhealthy thing for society?
I ask all this not because I don't get angry at injustice or political trends,- of course I do. But unless this anger gets channeled into something positive like working towards a cause or expressing my feelings in writing, I can walk around like a maniac, infecting my inability to interact positively in the company of friends and family.
Chronic anger, like chronic pain, destroys my quality of life and ability to help others. And that's just now how I want to live my life.
Ann
Speaking as a female, one of the first lessons one learns is not to express ones anger. Most will dislike you immediately should anger be revealed. As someone much more eloquent than myself recently wrote "The need to be likable is a criterion mostly applied to women and it is measured in terms of softness, vulnerability and an unwillingness to offend." We are expected to suppress our anger in the face of injustice and isn't injustice, real or perceived, the root of most anger? I wonder if all this suppressed anger accounts for the reality that depression is more common in women.
The Buddy
Legendary civil rights leader Malcolm X understood he could make complacent white folks very uncomfortable with strident red hot anger. Towards the end of his career, he developed to knack of toning it down a bit, while still being a considerable firebrand. I strongly believe today's thinkers and activists can learn a great deal from him.
S.L.
You are angry when your first name is misspelled, but it is your parent's fault. The most common spelling has a double n. You gesticulate when you drive, but that could get you killed if your middle finger is aimed at the wrong person. You may kill someone if you are so busy replaying a past bad driving incident when another one might appear in front of you, like a jay walking pedestrian. Try to keep it to one quick comment and then drop it.
You have a right to be angry as a woman and as a black woman. Neither of these things gives you the right to be out of control. It is not healthy for you and for those around you. You brush off the fact that anger raises your blood pressure, but as a women of color you know this is a big problem for you.
I too am angry at a lot of different things so I understand your constant annoyance at life. Allowing your anger free rein feeds the feelings of anger and doesn't improve your mood. Try to brush off the smaller things and learn that not everything is worth fighting over. When your anger is out of control you are a danger to yourself and others. Road rage is an especially dangerous form of anger. Learn a little self control before you find yourself dying on the sidewalk when you enrage the wrong person.
Elsie
Nothing, and I mean nothing, will ever change if women don't get angry. Period. If you like the status quo, keep sitting on your anger and worrying about what people will think. That's exactly what the status quo wants.
Any woman who has a brain is angry. If woman is not angry it's because she's an idiot or a puppet. Or both.
Lee Nelson
I completely appreciate the sources of Dr. Gay's anger. However, as a psychologist, I am aware that anger must be effectively channeled to be productive. Back in the 70's people were encouraged to "get their anger out," and therapists actually provided clients with dolls and other objects to pound on. We now know that "practicing anger" only begets more anger. Anger can be a powerful motivator; that is why it exists. Productivity is the outcome of civil discourse sometimes born of anger. I am angry for a lifetime over the insults I have incurred for being a woman. I have channeled my anger into research and writings on gender and communication. Freud called that process sublimation and considered it one of the highest forms of emotional development. Still working on it...not perfect yet!