shieldfoss:

shieldfoss:

socialjusticemunchkin:

Wait, there are other reasons to be angry? I thought these were basically the only reasons to actually ever get angry and not just irritated…

(of course, the trivial partial explanation is that men do often feel powerless thus angry but don’t recognize it and assign it on something else instead, because the culturally dominant narrative of masculinity is a prison and acknowledging that one feels powerless is approximately one of the biggest no-nos for it)

Other people intentionally trying to provoke you into anger can be quite angering. Not their actions, but their decision to take those actions.

game theory game theory g a m e   t h e o r y

The paper:

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=utk_nurspubs

Immediate impression: The screenshot quote from the article is full of it.

The paper isn’t trying to show that women’s anger is different from the anger of men, it is trying to show that, unlikel cultural myths of irrationality, women’s anger is equally as rational as the anger of men.

Secondary impressions:

Synopsis:

  • Tired: “Like most humans, women (who are human) get angry about injustice” man what else is new.
  • Wired: “Women get angrier about injustice than men do” Wait what? I am learning new things in this sentence. Unfortunately this sentence is not supported by the paper.

Thesis:

All non-STEM subjects should be banned until they promise to reach STEM rigor.

Supporting Evidence:

I don’t blame the author of the paper, I’m sure she’s writing to the standard expected of her, but by God the paper is poorly arranged from a usability standpoint. A good paper starts with a synopsis that, once read, makes the rest of the paper irrelevant unless you’re looking into the methodology of the researchers or feel a need for an extra-detailed view.

Here’s the synopsis from the paper:

Themes of powerlessness, power, and paradox predominate in this
reflection on more than 15 years of research on women’s anger.
Studies conducted in the United States, France, and Turkey are
highlighted. These studies have negated several myths while illuminating
the general rationality of women’s anger: It is squarely
grounded in interpersonal interactions in which people deny women
power or resources, treat them unjustly, or behave irresponsibly toward
them. The offenders are not strangers; rather they are their
closest intimates. But few women learned healthy anger expression
while growing up. Anger is a confusing and distressing emotion for
women, intermingled with hurt and pain. Its complexity requires
greater attention by researchers, with regard to health-promoting
interventions and to cultural differences, because anger in nonWestern
cultures has seldom been explored. 

Having read that synopsis, have you learned anything? I haven’t.

If I’d been asked questions without reading the synopsis, those are all the answers I would have given .

Most damning: Almost (but not entirely) the entire paper could be re-written with the word “human” substituted for “woman.” The paper is, ostensibly, about Women’s Anger but women are, typically, human. Compare a paper about “women’s hands” that spent time talking about the fact that there are five fingers on women’s hands. Hardly revelatory.

Conclusion:

Is “Women’s anger” a worthwhile research subject? Probably. Did this paper teach me anything yes, but not nearly as much as it could by actually doing some comparisons. The thesis is rejected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s