Calm down; you're out of control, ala.
Angry women don't need as much rouge.
your comment about mean vs. median is probably the explanation for the entire phenomenon.
we have had massive increases in earnings-inequality over the last six years.
if you drive down the earnings of the majority of men, while hugely inflating the earnings of a few hedge-fund boys, then you could get exactly the same overall disparity in gender earnings, and *still* have the median woman make more than the median man.
so you've got ten women who make a total of seventy dollars, seven dollars apiece.
and ten guys who make a total of 100 dollars.
but that's cause nine guys are making five apiece, and one guy is getting 55.
the median woman makes more than the median man, and women still only get 70 cents on the dollar.
good news, gals! the new gilded era is making the underclass more gender-neutral!
Yeah, it really fucking pisses me off too. Even though I knew it already.
The one bright spot is that now there's a study to point to whenever someone gets all concern trollish about my attitude. Finally proof that people overreact to bitchy women.
Let's promote B. just to show that we're better than those awful people. I propose that she be named Troll Major and given a stipend.
You know, this study doesn't surprise me, but I don't know quite what the take-away is from it. It's obviously some lingering sexist reaction that makes an angry man seem strong and an angry woman seem shrill. So that's bad.
On the other hand, trying to promote an angry woman as strong rather than shrill just seems to increase the amount of assholes in the office and I worry that men are always going to be better at the commanding asshole role. So I'd rather the men shut the fuck up.
I'd also rather men shut the frack up. I kinda think the main problem here is that angry men are overvalued, not that angry women are underappreciated. Wouldn't everyone mostly prefer working with people of either gender who can stay cool and be rational in all but extreme cases?
This stuff is so frustrating, because there are things that you really can't communicate without getting perceptibly angry (like, to pull an absolutely imaginary example, that if you're a partner in charge of a pro bono case I'm handling, you can get out of my way and let me make the decisions, or you can micromanage me, but insisting on micromanaging and then refusing to pay attention, to the point where I'm about to start missing deadlines because you won't let me do things without your approval but you won't make a decision about what to approve, is strongly disfavored.) And I am so inhibited about being anything but cool at work, that I end up not successfully communicating when I'm reasonably and correctly dissatisfied.
These are all things that I'm sure can be, and are, handled much better than I do, but this sort of study is an irritating confirmation that my inhibitions aren't just the result of my own personal insanity.
I crossed with 10 and 11, and while generally I'm pleasant to people, I don't really agree that anger is completely inappropriate in the workplace. Shouting obscenities? Sure. Throwing staplers? That should be right out. But there are circumstances where it's necessary to communicate the thought that "I consider your recent actions significantly (inappropriate/counterproductive/unprofessional)," in order to make things work, and if you're not Mr. Spock, the name of the emotion that goes with that thought is anger. If you're not allowed to communicate that thought, you're significantly hampered in getting stuff done.
B., the sexists and self-hating women here at Unfogged seem unwilling to grant you the stipend you deserve.
It's hard to say from the description of the study how the anger was expressed. And it did say that 'angry with a reason' was penalized less than 'angry without a reason'. So I'm wondering if the reaction is to a raised voice, or body language, or what. The study summary says 'described as angry...'
As I understand the description of the study, subjects were reacting to an interviewee identifying themselves as having been angry at some time in the past -- I wouldn't think that would involve any particular raised voice or angry body language, just a statement of how the interviewee had felt about a situation.
I thought that they were expressing anger during the interview.
She conducted three tests in which men and women recruited randomly watched videos of a job interview and were asked to rate the applicant's status and assign them a salary.
In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting.
Here's the quote:
In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting.
So, any factor about how the women on tape were somehow objectively shriller or more obnoxious in the expression of their anger should have dropped out -- they weren't filmed actually being angry, just admitting to having been angry in the past.
Crossed with 17. I suppose the sentence is grammatically ambiguous, but Ogged's interpretation seems unlikely to me -- when asked about how you felt about a past event, responding with "Jesus, I'm still spitting mad about what that fuckhead did," rather than "I was angry at the time," seems like a peculiar response whether for a man or a woman.
Well, you would say something like "It made me really angry," and presumably you wouldn't do it in a monotone. What was interesting to me, because it accords with my own hunch about this issue, is that the young women were penalized less than the older women. I've always figured that much of the reason women are penalized for acting "bitchy" or "angry" or "strong" is that they're really bad at it; it's something they feel like they need to do, rather than something that comes naturally, and that grates. (That they're bad at it is of course also the result of the differences in how men and women are socialized, but that's not quite the issue here.) So it makes sense that the young women are penalized less, if you believe that there's been progress in society being more accepting of women expressing a wider range of emotion: the young women seem more authentically angry, and don't suffer as much from the "that grates" penalty.
Right, so being told someone was angry leads people to conclude bad things about the woman and good things about the man. And this seems to map onto the rough idea we have that an emotional woman is a liability.. (but making a woman sad is bad, so it doesn't reflect on her.)
But the study doesn't show whether a woman actually expressing anger is perceived negatively. And I'm not sure that can just be inferred.
Personally, I find I have no idea whether I come across as angry because despite the fact that I know myself to have a short temper and prone to emotional outbursts, I have a reputation for being very even-keeled. So my own intuitions are useless.
20 seems to me, begging your pardon Mr. O, sort of unconsciously sexist. Women are "bad at" being angry--by whose standards?
Anyway. There are some things in the workplace that it's legit to be angry about; and workers are human beings after all, with real human emotions. Getting angry is normal and appropriate sometimes. Being *abusive* isn't, and I wonder if some of the discomfort with anger at work doesn't come from conflating the two. Certainly there are a lot of workplace issues that women have every right to be angry about.
My theory re. young women vs. older women is twofold: first, a big part of the "oh no, angry woman!" reaction is about mommy issues: angry mommy = threat to my very being. So an angry older woman with some actual authority is terribly threatening.
The second part is that the difference is less age than authority and power. If women having feelings at work = unprofessional, then you're not going to "blame" women whose workplace status is less professional in the same way you're going to blame women who are supposed to have authority. All you have to do is think about the ball-busting woman executive stereotype to realize that its the power itself that's threatening; add to that even an *acknowledgment* of anger, and people are going to freak.
20: You've translated 'trainee' and 'senior executive' into 'younger' and 'older'. The study may have had younger women portraying trainees, but doesn't say that it does (and if that's not what they were studying, I'd doubt that they'd deliberately introduce a confounding factor).
I'm with Bitch that it's about power. A powerless woman being angry is harmless petulance: unprofessional, maybe, but who cares. A powerful woman being angry is a genuine affront to how things are supposed to work -- she's not supposed to be in charge in the first place, and she's certainly not supposed to be enforcing her authority.
I've always figured that much of the reason women are penalized for acting "bitchy" or "angry" or "strong" is that they're really bad at it; it's something they feel like they need to do, rather than something that comes naturally, and that grates.
This would not accord with my experience -- negative reactions to women being angry seem to go with natural, authentically expressed anger. I'm not getting a sense at what a woman forcing anger when it doesn't 'come naturally' would look like. I don't think I've seen that happen.
I think that the anger of certain men is not taken seriously either. Authority seems to gravitate to certain types of men but not others, and very seldom to women, and the anger of authoritative people is justified, but not other people's anger.
This kind of thing is a big factor in the Presidential election already. Horrible old Fred Thompson has gravitas, as does the reptilian Giuliani.
Perhaps also "being angry" is taken as a sign of weakness. Strong men are seen to be "putting their foot down" or "being strict" rather than being angry. "Don't get mad, get even".
26: Yeah, that sort of goes with my crabbing about median versus mean salary differences. I'd say we're in a society where wealth and power accrue vastly disproportionately to men -- that doesn't mean that it goes evenly to all men, just that of those people who do get to be wealthy or powerful, they strongly tend to be men rather than women.
Right, which is why the anti-feminist argument that most men have it rough, too, is so fucking irritating. Since that's so, whyn't you guys join the fucking cause instead of trying to dismiss it?
28: It's mostly your fault, B. Most men would be feminists, were it not for you.
It's true. If only I weren't so angry.
I'm even informed by my SG readers that it's my fault fewer *women* are feminists, because feminists like me just make the whole movement look bad.
B, last time you were in Minneapolis were you messing with the I-35 bridge?
We are your friends and have blog immunity, so you can speak honestly to us.
Hey, y'all just come on down to Dallas. We gots lots of academic jobs for women, as long as you can fake being a fundamentalist Southern Baptist or Wesleyan.
All kidding aside, I do have acquaintance with female VP's and directors. Lots. Dallas is about money, and only about money. All you Naw Yawkers might like it here, if you can get over the culture and restaurant stuff.
I'm glad that we aren't arguing about whether sexism exists. Progress is possible.
My brother informs me that the I-35 bridge was the one John Berryman jumped off of.
Just a wild hair: I've wondered whether the prevalence of depression, especially among women, has something to do with the fact that women aren't allowed to be angry. Some of the depressed guys I've known also seemed to think of anger as a character defect.
I have always dealt with the many negative things in my life by a combination of paranoia, anger, and ethanol self-medication, and up until a few months ago I've fought off depression.
I noticed this when I was a college student, too. My alma mater flunked out a very high proportion of its students, including me, and I felt that the students who left angry did better than the ones who left defeated. One of the guidance counselors there felt the same.
You motherfuckers are off having lives instead of blogging, aren't you? Damn you to hell.
Ogged, Fargo is the big city. I'm off in the boonies. Only a couple of weeks ago I overheard the conversation of some people whose dream was to see to the bright lights of Fargo.
Also, I advocate the life-free life, but I can't do it alone.
My main way of avoiding depression is through workahol. Emerson repeatedly informs me that this will turn me into Nietzsche (in the bad way). Suppressing anger isn't that much of an issue for me, though.
Nietzsche, Aquinas, Max Weber,William James, Darwin. All were depressive workaholics, and the first two ended up insane. A word to the wise.
Max Weber? Yes. A pretty boring guy, but he retired with a disability just like Nietzsche. He was born rich, so no biggy.
Interestingly, my main way of avoiding work is through depressahol. And unfogged.
I'm an advocate of the Unfogged-free lifestyle, but I'm going to need your help.
"Impacted meditation". The facts are uncertain, but apparently for a period of some months he was unable to write or talk.
All the google hits for that phrase are your comments in various places, you crank.
oh jesus.
andy sullivan left the keys to his blog with steve bainbridge.
and bainbridge has put up an incredibly stupid poll, where you get to vote yes or no
to "i like apple pie and minimal standards of practical rationality",
and if you vote 'yes' you are a conservative.
Ogged, someone has to get the truth out. My source was an ex-seminarian who was afraid to speak out.
The Knights of Malta did recruit in Iran. We know nothing about Ogged's real background.
Terrorism or Big Government Gone Wrong?. Read the comments!
Maybe you heard a sensationalized version of this, from his wikipedia page:
Aquinas had a mystical experience while celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273. At this point, he set aside his Summa. When asked why he had stopped writing, Aquinas replied, "I cannot go on . . . All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me."
Well, obviously a cover story was devised.
The Knights of Malta have agents everywhere.
No one was properly insane before the modern period. I read that in Foucault or something.
Yeah, they got a way with a lot of fun shit in the old days.
I can see Ogged being played by Peter Lorre in the movie version of the Aquinas coverup.
Peter Lorre died forty years ago, old timer.
It's a dman shame. Perhaps the guy who played "Serge" in Beverly Hills cop could fill in. (That would be Bronson Pinchot).
Sure, and I'll bet that at least one of the original Oompa Loompas is still spry enough to play you.
Berryman jumped off the Washington Avenue Bridge.
Maupassant expected twigs to grow into little Maupassants, and collected his urine in little bottles because he thought it was full of jewels.
Yeah, my brother thought the Washington Ave. bridge was the same as the I-35 bridge. He was there! He just has a bad memory.
45: All the google hits for that phrase are your comments in various places, you crank.
Good thing I checked. Ogged omits "Garote's Dream Asylum"
You motherfuckers are off having lives again. You will pay for this.
How will they pay for having lives? Will you revenge yourself on them by living well?
bainbridge is one of those people like sebaceous wholecloth
from obwi, who spends his working hours struggling with the
legal system to get an even break for mammoth corporations,
and then in his spare time he blogs about how great mammoth
corporations are, and how unfair liberals are to pick on them.
you know, lb, i realize you have to do what you have to do,
but at least you don't do it in your off hours, out of deep belief.
If you do plan to revenge yourself on them by living well, I suggest you make gorgonzola macaroni and cheese to eat.
You get a batch of macaroni cooked, but not all the way to al dente. Then you grate parmesan, mozzarella, and gorgonzola into your drained macaroni. Then stick it in the oven for about twenty minutes on 425.
It is an extremely potent revenge.
My son grew up on Kraft mac and cheese and then as he matured, continually improved the quality of the ingredients.
But no, I take revenge on people by making their lives a living hell. Preferably by steering them to completely inappropriate relationships.
That is an evil revenge indeed, particularly for a man of your convictions.
The death of the thousand cuts is merciful in comparison.
Gorgonzola is one of my favorites. The best, freshest gorgonzola I've ever had had a slight tang of urine, like a cowbarn.
It does!
I like the horrible smelling cheeses.
You two should hang out. Oh, wait -- Emerson doesn't like other people.
Never have had the famous Limburger, but I like Muenster.
We could have a smelly cheese meetup and I could hold my principles in abeyance for a few hours.
It would be difficult, since I live down in the sunny Southlands.
We could always have virtual wine and cheese tastings. Any Port in a storm!
B, last time you were in Minneapolis were you messing with the I-35 bridge?
Last time I was in Minneapolis was January, and I wasn't going outside, much less messing about with exposed things like bridges.
I'm looking forward to hearing John's assessment of my relationship with the boyfriend.