We women are often told that we should not get so upset. Has that ever helped? Never. But why has anger been a male privilege since early history to this day? We are fed up!
Medusa has been the sexualized symbol of female anger and a timeless myth since antiquity . Why? Because being angry is almost reserved for men today. But what does a supposed fury from Greek mythology have in common with today's women? And why should we withhold rage at all? Or should we not in the end anyway?
Medusa has been used for centuries to criticize powerful women. The snake hair became a symbol with which society tries to demonize female authority and anger. We know the myth of the snake-headed ladynot exactly, right? According to Ovid's metamorphoses, the god of the sea, Poseidon, was in Medusa and, of course, lost the divine freedom to sleep with her. (Whether she volunteered, that's undeclared.) The goddess Athena heard what happened, turning her into the monster we still know today: her sight with snake hair, angry eyes, and dangerous fangs no man could stand - he stiffened to stone when Medusa's eyes met him. Of course, the beginning of the story has often been omitted in the course of the story.
What remained of Medusa? A myth that leaves an incredible amount of room for interpretation: it is also a symbol of female anger and the sexualized remnant of a woman who has the scary potential to deprive the opposite sex. But: What does this legend actually do? How can that still be relevant today? Well, all cultures are based on myths like this . They shape our image of culture and society, as well as our thinking and behavior. It is quite obvious that anger is still not an emotion that can easily show woman when you go on in human history. This fact runs like a red thread from antiquity to modern times.
Unfortunately, Medusa was not the last woman to be demonized because of her anger. (Even if she was not even deliberately angry, after all, she was under a curse.) If you take a closer look at the current world events, then you notice quickly: Men tend to be rather grumpy, no matter what position they are. Women, on the other hand, should not afford to lose their composure, especially in public or at work. (Although, by the way, they have many more reasons to do just that.)
Hillary Clinton , for example, was dubbed a "nasty woman" by Donald Trump in the US election campaign and was able to hear accusations such as "too emotional for the presidential job." But has it prevented a Donald Trump from becoming president, even though he has been angry at almost every speech in the election campaign? Serena Williams shatters her tennis racket and takes on the referee - and is then labeled as hysterical and totally unprofessional. What would have been the reactions if it had not been for Serena Williams on the field, but Roger Federer? But not only women who are in the public eye have to struggle with such reactions.
Monika, who has been working for years in the IT industry, knows the consequences of unconcealed anger. The account manager would not call herself a grumpy person, but quite a woman who does not like anything. She knows how to deal with angry women: "I have worked for a long time for a group, where in response very often sexist statements have come. Anger is simply not recognized in women. "Monika and her direct nature are not unique, because: Of course, there are many women who show their Grant quite well. But the reactions are mostly the same. Rarely is a woman attributed the same right to rage as a man.
It also makes us feel unprofessional. A 2008 study by Yale and Northwestern University found that emotional women in the job were considered less professional, regardless of their position. In men, however, an occasional outburst is okay. A recent study , published in the 2015 law and human behavior journal, shows that anger makes women look incompetent, hysterical and irrational. However, men seem to be more competent in this respect, and thus may have greater influence on important decisions than women.
This can not be answered in a very general way, but most subjective valuations are most likely to be the case because almost every individual is shaped by subconscious sexist patterns of thought . Because of our stereotypical idea of role models, we believe that anger is triggered by women inside and outside by women. Say: women are always responsible for their anger, but in men we think that the charge is provoked by their environment. The fact that our society lapses into such guiding principles quickly becomes logical when one takes a look back at history : it was written not only mainly by men, but was also more and more respected by them than women.
The great rulers, the decision-makers and leaders of our world were and are (almost) always male (unfortunately). They have learned to assert themselves - even with anger. Women came with such strategies rather less far, they were often doomed to them. To name a few historical examples: Jeanne d'Arc, Olympe de Gouges, Maria Stuart or Mata Hari - all resistant and (presumably) angry women who were executed. And because they have had little success with the "male" strategy, women have developed other methods to get involved.
We have learned to be meticulously polite so that no credibility is lost. We have internalized that we value our professional and friendly manner in order to advance our concerns. Or are there angry women gangs chasing company chairmen and politicians on the street to demand equal pay for equal work? No, we ask for it. We understand our rights comprehensively. Let's stick to the example of the gender pay gap : for decades, women have been trying to combat the income gap between the sexes. Where "politely demand"probably the more appropriate word choice would be. In 2018, however, it was still 20 percent in Austria, women on average earn less than men - 20 percent too much. Is good Please say the most effective way to move forward?
No, we do not have to. Because we are already damn mad. Since the beginning of time, we have learned not to let our anger overcook. After all, women who allow this have no chance of making any headway, no matter how good their reasoning is. Simply being angry does not give angry women social recognition. We do not want angry women's mobs to hit the streets with pitchforks. But we also do not want to sit still and continue to accept any injustice with such a smile. Because neither so nor can a change be achieved.
What we want is that if a tennis player out of anger ruins her bat, the media outcry will go away. That top-level politicians are not dismissed as too emotional when they speak in Parliament about a topic that burns on their tongues. And that no woman needs to listen anymore, how her anger is reduced to sexual dissatisfaction when she just has a bad day.
We now know that just as men should not cry, women should not be angry. (We may, of course, but in some brains there is still the assumption that it should be so.) So it was drunk most of us - sometimes even today. How so? Because gender stereotypes and structural sexism are still stuck in our society like the burdock on woolen sweaters. Women who open their mouths are sometimes considered "hysterical". Conclusions like these have to be tackled. Not by being blindly guided by our anger, but perhaps by nurturing our well-groomed manner. Yes, that's exhausting, but Grant is important, Because then, when we are dissatisfied and grumpy and make that clear - then anger is like a spark that can make a difference. Maybe even the breaking of common gender standards.