how seriously would you take this comment when coming from a man?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

"....you get too angry..."

can passion for a cause be misinterpreted to be anger?

can righteous anger be misconstrued?

is it just another way to dismiss a female arguement/debate as being invalid?

discuss.

[elleng]

1. Yes; Yes; could be. Depends on the circumstances.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. clarification, please... are you answering in order?

how seriously would you take this comment when coming from a man? yes

"....you get too angry..." yes

can passion for a cause be misinterpreted to be anger? could be

can righteous anger be misconstrued? depends on the circumstances

is it just another way to dismiss a female arguement/debate as being invalid? no answer

[elleng]

13. In order:

'How seriously' No answer

'Can passion for a cause be misinterpreted. . . ' Yes

'Can righteous anger be misconstrued?' Yes

'just another way to dismiss?' Could be.

'Discuss' Depends on the circumstances

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. ok. thanks

[PDJane]

2. Is it just another way to dismiss a female debate?

Oh, yeah. And yes, female passion is often misconstrued as anger.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. thank you for the comment.

peace.

[Warpy]

5. I've seen this comment from males

I wasn't the least bit angry at the time but the comment certainly made me so.

The man in question didn't like the result.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. thank you for the comment

peace.

[Starry Messenger]

6. "Tone argument"

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

"A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. thank you for the link and the quote.

peace.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Different rhetorical styles appeal to different people.

For example, many liberals love Keith Olbermann's style, but I don't care for it. I much prefer Stewart's or Maddow's style.

In my opinion, movements benefit from many different styles; such as righteous anger, jokes, invitational, dispassionate logic, poetic, etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. thank you for the comment.

peace.

[ZombieHorde]

21. You're welcome. Thanks for the thread. nt

[TheMastersNemesis]

9. Anger Is Justified

I would tell that idiot to F himself. It is ok to be angry about injustice and maltreatment. It is a way of putting off a person and keeping them from addressing a grievance. Were it me I would have shown him what anger was with my scorching verbal reply.

Women need to get mad and stay mad otherwise women will really lose. This incremental pushing women back has been going on and growing since Reagan. This blitz is the eleventh hour for women. If they gain power in November women will lose for generations. You have to go after the Catholic bishops with a vengeance. Screw those pedophile bastards.

MY personal view I do not care what you think of my justified anger because you are going to have to deal with it and you are not going to like what happens next.

I see that remark as a mysogynist insult to a woman. And I am a man.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. ok...question for clarification

the phrase alone.... needs no context for you? just the phrase by itself evoked that connotation from you, right?

[TheMastersNemesis]

17. Needs No Context

I was a theater major in college. We analyzed things from many points of view. The statement itself says volumes and I do not need context. The context idea is a straw dog argument. It is specious and irrelevant from my point of view.

Since I do not know the conversation that led up to that statement I assume it was about women's rights or something similar.

The statement as I look at it comes from the bias about women always having anger issues. It is tied to the "time of month" meme. The standard belief by men is that women are just angry creatures.

Even in the history of theater there are patterns in the treatment of female characters. As I remember my theater history I do not recall very many heroic female characters in Western theater. Women seemed to be enigmatic, angry, complicated, shrewish, victims, malleable, weak, mad, controlling etc.

Only in the modern era have women been more sympathetically treated in theater or the arts.

Going back to your question the context does not matter based on your post. It is a subtle put down.

My take on the war on womens' rights today is that it is now combat. It is not nuanced. It is direct and it is dangerous. For women it is a time to go into political combat and TAKE NO PRISONERS. The anti women forces must surrender that includes the churches who are fair game.

I am 68 year old and a veteran. I have watched this anti woman garbage all my life. It is time that it be stopped in NO UNCERTAIN terms.
If I had my way all these hateful mysogynistic bastards would be fleeing in panic and terror for their political lives.

I recommend you find a copy of the Greek play "Lysistrata" written by I believe Aristophanes. It was written during the golden age of Greek theater in the BC era as early as 300 BC. You will see how nothing has changed. Women had trouble with their men over 2300 years ago.

PS I was raised Catholic and I now realize that the Catholic Church and its clergy are some of the most anti women people on the planet save conservative moslems who may be worse .

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. thank you very much for a well reasoned and thoughtful reply and the history of

theatre was very interesting.

oddly enough the subject was not about women's rights except maybe in a very vague, convoluted context.

peace.

[TheMastersNemesis]

19. Addendum Clarification.

The history of female characters in theater before the modern era is very complicated one. Only in modern drama did women take on more significant and positive roles. By an large female characters have been negatively treated. What I failed to mention in my last post which was admittedly a bit scattered is that theater and the arts operates in the context of the time that the theater is created.

How women were treated in those earlier times is consistent with the theater of the day. Women had no rights throughout most of history. In the medieval period they were sometimes burned as witches. Women were just property. Even most royal women could not own property. Male heirs were supreme. In Elizabethan and Restoration and even Victorian England women could not own property. Women who were widowed were assigned an overseer of their husbands property and if they passed the property went to the property overseer and NOT her children. The only way a woman prospered was if she married a man of means. Women have been at the bottom of the totem pole for most of history. Women for the most part have never had the right to vote.

It took 5 decades after the Civil War in the US to get the right to vote. During WWI women protested outside the White house. They were jailed and mistreated. Some were force fed and tortured while on hunger strike. And the Women's Suffrage Amendment passed by ONLY one vote with a last minute change. Even after 5 decades suffrage was facing almost certain failure. And the GOP was against suffrage and too many male Democrats were as well.

I am trying to vastly summarize hundreds of years of history. I hope I am clear enough.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. yes, and you are explaining how theatre works within the confines of reflecting

historical accuracy and how we can not place modern mores on period pieces. I understand and I am hoping that everyone else is, too.

All very interesting. thanks, ever so much.

[TheMastersNemesis]

22. Mores In Context

If you have any questions on this subject you can contact TheMastersNemesis on the DU mailbox.

What is interesting about what is going on today is how much has changed for women and also how little has changed. The attitude of your co worker most likely reflects the same attitudes men have had throughout human history when it comes to how women are treated. Your friend fundamentally has the same attitude as a male might have had during the Dark Ages or at any time in history. Women were just lesser beings whose only purpose was to serve the interests of men.

Women have made great strides in the modern era in more developed countries and they have actually are very far behind in less developed countries. In very conservative Islamic countries and countries dominated by tribal societies women are barely visible in that political arena. They are only slaves basically and expendable on the one hand, yet they are also protected like male elks protecting their harems. Women are valued and devalued at the same time. Actually you can see elements of that even in the modern society.

In theater it is important to understand the make up of the society when the play was written. The Greek character Cassandra was a prophetress who foretold about bad future events. She was a scary and threatening enigma. Greek males of that era saw women as mysterious even threatening beings. Women's intuition was little understood and seen as almost godlike. Greek men probably did not understand how women could know certain things that seemed to come from thin air. There was no psychology then. Attitudes were colored by logic and speculation and myth. Back then women were portrayed as having this foreboding insight. s

When you get to Shakespeare women have all sorts of roles. One of the most notable quotes from Shakespeare is "There is nothing worse than a woman scorned." Women today need to make that quote come true in the context fighting for their rights in all aspects of the 21st century.

Finally based on your post I assume that you are still fairly young and work in a diverse work place. I have very little sense of where the men of your generation are. In many ways I see younger men as moving backward in time when it comes to their attitude toward women.

I apologize for being so scattered. We simply had to study all aspects of every society where a play was written before we could understand the characters in a play or the play itself. It is only now as I am older just turning 68 that I really understand how immense the challenge was cover all the material we had to cover. Things pop up now in this latest brouhaha over womens' rights.
As I said earlier from my perspective it is absolutely amazing how much has changed in relation to how women are being treated and how little things have changed even over 3000 years of knowable human history.



Good luck.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. That depends

can passion for a cause be misinterpreted to be anger?
Of course, it depends on the circumstances

can righteous anger be misconstrued?
Yes, it depends on the circumstances

is it just another way to dismiss a female argument/debate as being invalid?
May or may not be, depending on circumstances.

You are reducing human communication, something complex and nuanced, to a binary question without context. Not sure what kind of validation you are looking for, but whatever comes of this thread, it is not going to be particularly valid. Context is always critical

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. refer to comment #9 (and my reply #12) on this thread, please --

and thanks for the comment. peace.

and on edit: also refer to #15 now that there is one

[laconicsax]

23. I would take that comment as an invitation to respond with a kick to the groin.

Even looking at 1% of the sexist bullshit women have to put up with is enough to make someone angry. Fuck tone trolls.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. thank you for the comment.

peace.

[JoeyT]

24. Depends on the context.

But most likely he's just being an asshole and whining about tone instead of addressing your argument.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. thank you for the comment

peace.

[justiceischeap]

25. I think context really is important and here's why

Anger CAN BE a form of defensiveness depending on the situation and context. If someone asked me to get them a napkin from the kitchen, and I reply "F*ck you! Get it yourself," then they'd have every reason to say I get too angry.

That said, when it's used in a discussion, like on DU or when discussing a 'cause', then it's often a way to dismiss what someone is saying as invalid. It's a way to bow out of an argument or a way to put off a point of view without having to respond or because the person saying it doesn't have a valid response.

So, yes, context is key.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. it was the second. thanks

peace.

[CrispyQ]

27. "You'd be angry too if you were held to a completely different standard because of your gender."

I think the person commenting was being dismissive & the above would be my response. I wouldn't say it angrily, but I would certainly state it with emphasis.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. thank you for the comment

peace.

[Nikia]

31. The problem is that women are not supposed to get angry

If we get angry, than we are too angry. We might be called derogatory names or described as "irrational".
If we try not to appear angry, we might be described as "not assertive enough".
Men are allowed to angry although a minority male being angry might be seen as threatening.
I don't know how we get out of this bind.

[gkhouston]

32. Often, it is.

When a woman gets "too angry", it often means she's unwilling to accept the misogyny around her.

When a man gets "too angry", it often means the cops are on the way.