Thoughts on appropriating anger?

[Anakin McFly]

e.g. men being extremely loud and angry about misogyny, white people being extremely loud and angry about racism, etc.

It's always made me deeply uncomfortable, though a lot of it is my own discomfort with anger and conflict of any sort. At other times it makes me guilty, if it's people being angry on behalf of minority groups I'm part of and they're not - especially if I don't think it's something that warrants that degree of rage, and I'd rather they keep quiet instead of provoke the inevitable backlash against actual people of the oppressed group. But apparently that's tone policing, and I feel guilty that maybe this *is* a big deal and that the fact I'm not more angry is because of all my internalised biases. But then again, the whole concept of tone policing is that you shouldn't tell oppressed people to stop being angry before you listen to them, given that the fact that they're angry at injustice is the whole point; whereas these are the allies who are being angry... are we allowed to tone police them?

A while ago I read a good article that said that allies shouldn't react in anger, because unlike the people actually affected, they more often have the luxury of being in a state to engage in educating others and doing all that stuff that marginalised people are often too tired or angry or triggered to do or don't have the privileges to effectively accomplish. And I really like that approach, which is something I'd never even thought about until then. It would be so awesome if instead of just joining in the mindsplitting anger at every injustice, allies instead helped out by responding to injustice through other means, like calmly explaining why something is offensive, so the oppressed group doesn't have to do so for the 1000th time, or using their positions of privilege to pass useful laws, and so on. It's always great to have the support of someone feeling angry at an injustice done to you, but there should be a limit to that anger; after a certain point, it gets disturbing, like appropriating somebody else's very personal pain by suggesting that you feel it as strongly. It defeats the purpose of allyship.

every now and then I encounter a cis person going "THIS IS SO TRANSPHOBIC AND TOTALLY AN OUTRAGE , I AM SO MAD AT HUMANS RIGHT NOW, WHY AREN'T YOU MORE ANGRY, I CANNOT TAKE THIS ANY MORE AND I NEED TO GO OFFLINE BEFORE I BUST A VEIN" and I'm like "...I just want to play Civilization V. :("

[CashRules]

I just want to play Civilization V.

Civ 5 is to the Civ franchise what Keanu Reeves is to the acting profession. Civ stopped with 4.

[Boomer]

I actually enjoy civ 5. And some Keanu movies.

[CashRules]

You people are weird.

[Boomer]

To be fair it's the first and only civ game I've played.

[Islandmur]

Rightly or wrongly people get angry.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yes you should or could tone police the allies.

I've never felt right about angering about issues that aren't mine. I do feel uncomfortable when people are being racist and in some cases I've managed to have the courage to correct them, but is not an issue I like to walk through since I haven't made that walk. It would be like commenting on a book I haven't read. And in maaaaaaaaany cases, privilege blinds you and you end up talking nonsense. So it's better to take a response as a viewer rather than a protagonist, since that's what you are when you have privilege.

Anyway, what do I know? I am an over privileged fucker.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Rightly or wrongly people get angry.

Exactly. If telling someone what they are allowed be angry about is called 'tone policing', then 'tone policing' is a euphemism for being a dick. Some people will react angrily when they see injustice, while some are able to take a more measured tone, the point being that they're individuals.

[aels]

For me, it's a case of show, don't tell, in that (because I am a cynic) I sometimes (or maybe even often) find that there is a performative element to these things. I've seen men get REALLY SUPER ANGRY about misogyny because they feel like it earns them extra feminism points and a display of volume is seen as a substitute for anything more substantial. In the worst case scenarios, people's performed anger can mask a lot of subtle bigotry - the kind of person who gets loudly angry at, say, Ferguson, and then engages in racist micro-aggressions routinely, and responds to being called out on these micro-aggressions with 'BUT I GOT REALLY ANGRY ABOUT FERGUSON, I AM GOOD ALLY YES'. I say this as a straight person who yelled at the TV yesterday because Alabama's Chief Justice is a doodoo-head.

A while ago I read a good article that said that allies shouldn't react in anger, because unlike the people actually affected, they more often have the luxury of being in a state to engage in educating others and doing all that stuff that marginalised people are often too tired or angry or triggered to do or don't have the privileges to effectively accomplish. And I really like that approach, which is something I'd never even thought about until then. It would be so awesome if instead of just joining in the mindsplitting anger at every injustice, allies instead helped out by responding to injustice through other means, like calmly explaining why something is offensive, so the oppressed group doesn't have to do so for the 1000th time, or using their positions of privilege to pass useful laws, and so on.

I feel like it's also important to note that in addition to allies having the luxury of not being actually hurt by the injustice and therefore being able to deal with it dispassionately, they also have the luxury of being able to be angry. A man who is angry about misogyny gets a lot more of a pass than a woman who is angry about misogyny - because she becomes a shrieking harpy who is probably on her period and too emotional to argue rationally. A white person who is angry about racism gets much more of a pass than a black person who is angry about racism - because they are an angry black person with an agenda who cannot overcome their inherent aggression.

So I'm not saying that allies shouldn't get mad or that they can help being mad - injustice should be infuriating to people who are not going to Hell for being shitty people - but there are things to be aware of. I think a good ally should always be studying their own behaviour and considering how their privilege affects their life and how they can best use it to serve the cause (like, if you're a dude and you know you'll be taken more seriously as a pro-feminist voice than a woman, recognise that truth and use it to make dudespaces more woman-friendly).

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, I think I partly agree with all these viewpoints so far. There are a lot of privileged people who act very angry at instances of oppression and injustice that don't directly affect them, and I suppose sometimes it might be difficult to tease out when they're actually being sincere and when they're instead acting 'performatively'. There might be a large host of reasons why someone might do that, none of them exclusive - getting in with the right people, signaling your virtue to others, letting you feel better about yourself, giving you an opportunity to look better than others, etc. And sometimes the performers' actions belie their words.

But... I don't know. It seems clear to me that there are people out there who are able to get angry - even very very angry - at injustices that don't affect them, and mean it completely seriously. I mean, I get angry at racism and sexism which don't directly affect me, even though I'm a straight white dude. I don't feel like I get angry to get in with the right people or feel better about myself. It's pretty much because I can't stand oppression and injustice in any of its forms and I want to see every single instance of such eliminated, along any axes you care to name. I know for a fact I'm alone. So... I think it's a good thing for people to get angry at things that are angering to anyone with a conscience, as long as they don't drown out the voices of the people directly affected, or use their anger as an excuse to be shit in the future, or whatever else people do.

A while ago I read a good article that said that allies shouldn't react in anger, because unlike the people actually affected, they more often have the luxury of being in a state to engage in educating others and doing all that stuff that marginalised people are often too tired or angry or triggered to do or don't have the privileges to effectively accomplish. And I really like that approach, which is something I'd never even thought about until then. It would be so awesome if instead of just joining in the mindsplitting anger at every injustice, allies instead helped out by responding to injustice through other means, like calmly explaining why something is offensive, so the oppressed group doesn't have to do so for the 1000th time, or using their positions of privilege to pass useful laws, and so on. It's always great to have the support of someone feeling angry at an injustice done to you, but there should be a limit to that anger; after a certain point, it gets disturbing, like appropriating somebody else's very personal pain by suggesting that you feel it as strongly. It defeats the purpose of allyship.

That's a good point.

I feel like it's also important to note that in addition to allies having the luxury of not being actually hurt by the injustice and therefore being able to deal with it dispassionately, they also have the luxury of being able to be angry. A man who is angry about misogyny gets a lot more of a pass than a woman who is angry about misogyny - because she becomes a shrieking harpy who is probably on her period and too emotional to argue rationally. A white person who is angry about racism gets much more of a pass than a black person who is angry about racism - because they are an angry black person with an agenda who cannot overcome their inherent aggression.

I guess our experiences are very different, because everything I've experienced suggests the opposite seems closer to the truth. A man who is angry about misogyny, from what I've seen, typically gets castigated as a "white knight", someone who is only pretending to be angry to get in women's pants, or a "self-hater" or a "mangina" or "pussy-whipped" or a SJW or so on and so on. I don't know, it just seems to be that male feminists are virtually never taken seriously at all, whereas female feminists at least are generally assumed to be speaking partly from personal experience and furthermore have their livelihoods directly affected, so they're generally taken seriously by people who aren't full-blown misogynists. This is just a pattern I've seen, I could be sensing things wrong. (Just to take one recent example, Patricia Arquette's statement at the Oscars was well-received. Would it have been as well-received if it was from a man? I don't think so, there would have been a general air of "who the fuck are you to talk about this" going on, which is probably a good thing.)

The pattern seems stronger with racism. A white person angry at racism is called a "race-baiter" and a "race traitor" and a "self-hating liberal" and whatnot and so on and so on, whereas black people are called all these things, but they're assumed to be speaking from personal experience and they have a personal stake in the matter and so on, so their complaints are generally taken a tiny bit more seriously. Is Tim Wise taken seriously? Not really. Again this doesn't stem from any personal experience of my own, just patterns I've seen from how certain activists are portrayed in the media and levels of popularity and so forth. I'm not completely sure about it.

[Monk]

People are called SJWs regardless of whether they're angry or calm. I don't think it's at all inappropriate for the privileged to express anger or point out bigotry, as more often than not they're more likely to be taken seriously on the matter by others of the same race and gender. As aels pointed out, minorities and women are often portrayed as whiners or trying to tricking white men into giving them "more rights" or whatever. When a white guy discusses these things, other white guys will listen to him because he doesn't directly benefit from the type of change he's advocating for (in addition to the fact that they are more likely to listen to him anyway because he's a white guy)

[Derived Absurdity]

Again, our experiences differ.

White guys don't seem willing to listen anyone pointing out systemic racism or other institutional injustices, as that will cause them to introspect or become conscious of their own privilege and how they contribute to an oppressive system, and we know that just makes people so darn uncomfortable. So they'll laugh it off or trivialize it or shoot the messenger, or trigger any other defense mechanism that'll help them justify or rationalize the status quo and their position in it. This universal to any group of white people (or anyone else with a privileged position and who doesn't want to acknowledge it) not already committed to the social justice "cause" (which is the vast majority of them). So if a white guy starts discussing social justice with other white guys, 99 times out a 100 they'll simply tune him out. Whereas if a black person brings it up... well maybe the percentage goes down to, like, 90 out of 100 or something. It just seems to me instinctual by most people to know that black people and other oppressed group have a clearer authority on the oppression they face, so they'll be taken a bit more seriously. Again, I'm not claiming they'll be taken seriously in the majority of cases, because they're obviously not, just slightly more often than privileged groups.

[Islandmur]

Plenty of whites on here seem willing to listen.

[Derived Absurdity]

And?

[Dr_Liszt]

I feel weird about the word "ally" when technically they allies are still opressing.
Is not like people are giving up their privileges and joining the other side like in Dances with Wolves, or the Last Samurai or Avatar or any other of the 10000 white savior movies. They are still in a way opressing them and no way in hell they are going to want to swtich places.

I know very well as much as I talk about racism, I really wouldn't want to give up my privileges or my position to someone less advantaged for social justice. So it's kind of weird. But is true people will listen to a white person better than any minority, so it's always good to deliver that message without silencing those of the minorities.

[Anakin McFly]

@Mur & Ptolemy - I probably needed to clarify: I'm not saying that people shouldn't get angry about things. It's rather the type and degree of anger; e.g. if a white person's display of anger implies they are extremely personally hurt by anti-black racism in a way that they aren't, because they're white. It borders on privilege-denial in a way. It's the difference between "This angers me because it is unjust to others" and "this angers me because as a white person I psychologically suffer as much as a black person when exposed to racist things". The first is good, the second is creepy.

e.g. what prompted this OP was seeing someone's very angry post about the use of a word with possible racist origins (I had to google it) by a character in a story set in the early 20th century. At first I thought it was an unreasonable criticism because of the context, but then I thought that maybe this person had a history of being abused by that slur and as such was particularly sensitive to it regardless of context, and that made me empathize with them. And then... they mentioned that they were white. Which completely threw me because I had not been expecting that.

I actually find that privileged groups are more willing to listen to other privileged people, though I think it depends a lot on context. e.g. white-knighting accusations on one hand, dismissing angry women as emotionally immature on the other, or going "of course you support X cause if you're a member of X", while if someone isn't, people start thinking they have to be doing it for a reason other than self-interest.

(I've been typing all this on a phone and it's hard to scroll. It's possible I've contradicted myself.)

[Islandmur]

I got you the first time Anakin.

What i am saying is that people will get angry, it doesn't have to be directly connected to them.
I've never been abused as a child, never had a swat, yet I barge into people's houses (and i don't mean figuratively) when I hear a child being struck (it's a common practice here) furious.

I get furious about things that I haven't experienced all the time, all i need for that is to see it's an injustice.

My reasons for being angry are just not the same as those going through the actual situation. But it's valid none the less.

I find it somewhat arrogant that people think they can decide that others don't have the right to get angry about x y or z on basis that they are not the intended target.

I've been sitting here reading about how whites shouldn't get involved when blacks are talking about racism, they should just sit back and listen, how x should to this if they aren't the oppressed or minority and I've keep wondering how these problems will ever be solved if one part of the people involved are pushed aside and excluded from talking about it?

And that's where anger is useless because if either side wants to understand what the actual problem is and to resolve it (both sides) they have to get past the anger past the guilt and resentment and be able to talk TO each other.
There is a time to vent your anger your frustrations and your impotence against what you are going trough, but that time is not when you are wanting a resolution.

Right now there is too much anger still in the oppress and too much denial and resentment and guilt from the oppressor for anything to be resolved.

There is no way to solve racism without whites (or majorities) there is no way to resolve sexism without men, there is no way to resolve homophobia without heterosexuals. Because THEY are the problem, therefor they can't be Excluded from the process.

[Anakin McFly]

I fully agree with you, and it's also why I don't think privileged groups should stay uninvolved and just shut up and listen. They should be angry about injustice and be moved to do something about it.

I want to retcon my OP - it's not specifically about being loud and angry in general, but more the type of anger expressed, especially when it ends up talking over the oppressed group, or becoming the most visible form of anger. i.e. when a white person's anger at racism becomes more visible or considered more valid than a black person's anger at racism, especially if their anger then ends up causing repercussions for black people rather than for themselves.

Like during Ferguson, it seemed like the majority of really angry rants I read on my Facebook feed etc were written by white people, whereas most of the black people I knew were relatively silent, more saddened than anything. Whereas critics were all "look at all these angry black people", and it triggered so much explicit racism, when a lot of those people in question were actually white, but their particular expression of anger gave the impression that they were part of the oppressed group. So their behaviour ended up taken as representative of that group even while they themselves were able to escape the consequences (i.e. increased racism) of said behaviour - you end up with oppressed groups punished for the behaviour of the privileged, which is the main thing that bothers me.

People regardless of race should be angry about racism, but when a particular expression of anger (not all kinds of anger) from a privileged group ends up further hurting the oppressed group without consequence to themselves, it starts to defeat the purpose.

Perhaps it's not really about anger, though. I have a straight friend who is Very Enthusiastic about LGBT rights, which is great and I honestly appreciate his support, but it's to the extent that everyone assumes he's gay until they ask - because he's somehow one of the most flamboyant and liberal and visible people in that circle and ends up inadvertently seen and judged as a representative of gay people when he's not one. Also, James Franco with his "I wish I were gay" schtick and making out with guys in public for the attention despite being admittedly straight. People see him and go "look at this homosexual debauchery," which is bad enough when it's actual gay people, but at least that's about people being proud of themselves and it's something they've fought for, rather than some straight guy who just enjoys feeding into all the worst gay stereotypes because he thinks it's fun.

[Cinemachinery]

I feel weird about the word "ally" when technically they allies are still opressing.

I more feel weird about it because it presumes a motivation other than "disapproves of an injustice or imbalance".

Anyone who is of a race or culture which places itself first in a country or area will always, willingly or not, be oppressing to some degree, and I have no idea when, in the centuries to come, we'll ever reach a place where a group/race/etc. which achieves power won't place itself, to one degree or other, first.

I think people in general should get angry about it, really, when it reaches degrees like what was exposed at Ferguson and the like.

[Anakin McFly]

Anyone who is of a race or culture which places itself first in a country or area will always, willingly or not, be oppressing to some degree

Oh, always. The activists over here talk about 'Chinese privilege' and how it's very similar to white privilege in the West. And it's unsettling to know how I've personally benefited from it, like the fact that I went to one of the top schools in the country, one whose entry requirements include that students learnt and can speak Chinese. (which they claim isn't racist because anyone can learn a language, but come on now. All my schoolmates were ethnically Chinese except for a handful of mixed-race kids.)

But yeah, I'm all for anger at injustice. It's the specific types and expressions of anger that I'm more uncertain about. Many times, the oppressed people are unable to effectively engage and push for change because they're too personally affected and emotionally compromised by the oppression, and that's where allies are best suited to step in; and the problem is if allies are similarly affected to the degree that they can't do anything either, because then there's no one left.

[Cassius Clay]

Gold star to anyone who can spot the comment with oppressive apologetics cloaked in progressive intentions.

[Anakin McFly]

All of them? I don't even know any more, man.

[Cassius Clay]

Minus one gold star for Anakin!!

[Derived Absurdity]

Not mine, I made two comments. And they were both the same.

(I think it's cinemachinery, if we're actually guessing)

[Anakin McFly]

But saying "all of them" would have included the right answer.

Both sides have issues though. On one hand there's the oppressive ideology that we shouldn't be too angry about oppression if it upsets the privileged group, but on the other hand there's the oppressive ideology that privileged people get to be the most visible (audible?) voices in fighting oppression on behalf of actually oppressed people, even when the method of doing so ends up speaking over and further harming those they aim to help.

[Cassius Clay]

The idea that oppression is merely one group in power looking out for themselves, and is therefore some kind of inevitability, is a half-truth and a powerful and useful lie/myth. For example, white supremacy/anti-blackness is intentional ...not merely some kind of majority rule. I can't count how many times I've heard racists justify racism as some kind of natural majority rule. Rather than a parasitic relationship between white supremacist culture and blacks...where whites benefit directly from the subjugation of blacks. Not merely whites doing their own thing and excluding blacks. If that was the case, separation would have been enough. Even after slavery, blacks in America were often willing to do their own thing...build their own flourishing neighbors/towns and economy...but these towns were targeted and destroyed by jealous white racists that believed that blacks were supposed to be less than. Look up Tulsa/black wall street. The idea that racism is some inevitable "accident" of a group in power naturally putting themselves first is a bullshit liberal myth. And it feeds into the racist fear some whites have that blacks would start "oppressing" them if they gain power. This mentality betrays a deep ignorance about the nature and history of white supremacy.

Rather than merely thinking white supremacy was created simply because they were a group putting themselves first, consider what the atmosphere(hint: it was an intentionally created atmosphere by certain powers with certain interests) and value was that created these groupings in the first place. Then you'll see why oppression isn't necessarily some natural, uncontrollable inevitability of some group looking out for numero uno.

[Anakin McFly]

I'm not sure the two can be separated; at least, I can't think of any instance of majority rule where there was no intentional subjugation of another class of people.

And it feeds into the racist fear some whites have that blacks would start "oppressing" them if they gain power.

It explains that, though.

[Cassius Clay]

My point is that group self-interest and exclusivity is what a lot of people think racism/white supremacy is (and that framework is often used to justify, obscure, and derail conversations about white supremacy). That's only half of what it is.

[Cassius Clay]

White supremacy involves intentional/active aggression and exploitation...it actually takes effort. Not merely a passive self-interest of a group in power. Read the DOJ's investigation and report of the situation in Ferguson. The police have apparently been preying on black people...targeting and ticketing poor blacks to fill quotas and make money for their departments. Then when they can't pay they issue arrest warrants. They've been acting like fucking mobsters...predators.

The predatory aspect of white supremacy and other types of oppression is often erased by racists.