Why anger works for Rudd but not for women

I can’t remember the last time I admitted I was angry. It’s a hard thing to own up to. On a scale of one to certain social death, I’d put in in the same category as suspicious rashes or a crush on Tony Abbott. In other words, things you’d pay a professional to talk to about.

Over the years, I’ve resorted to expressing my annoyance through rounds of passive-aggressive Charades. Like the board game version, the cues are non-verbal:  an unanswered text here, a pitchy ‘oh’ there or if pushed to breaking point, I might lock eyes with the offending party and exhale really, really loudly to convey the rage within.

When a woman shows anger, it’s often interpreted as a character trait rather than a valid and temporary emotional response. 

The aim, I guess, is for others to infer my anger. And if it means 99 per cent of the time I am offered a Vicks instead of an apology, I was willing to take it. Because in today’s workplace, is there a faster way to career suicide than being labelled the angry (read: irrational) woman?

The subject of female anger has recently returned to the spotlight after Michelle Obama publicly challenged a journalist’s depiction of her as ‘some angry black woman’ in the book, The Obamas. And while political commentators may debate on the tactfulness of the first lady’s response, one thing was clear – the easiest way to shake a woman’s credibility is to label her as ‘angry’.

But since when has ‘angry’ become such a powerful insult against female leaders? And why don’t men face the same judgmental attitude when they lose their temper?

Consider Kevin Rudd. When a red-faced, swear-happy montage of the former (future?) Prime Minister was leaked on Youtube last week; journalists were quick to point out that it was practically a “gift” from the Leadership Ballot gods, since the footage had the effect of “humanising him”.

A quick scan of today’s opinion pages confirms the same thing.  “I for one am quite pleased to see those very human emotions, whatever the accompanying language”, writes John Moir from Mollymook. Others go further, employing uplifting biblical references (“He that is without a sin among you..”) and even the odd hint at sainthood (“Kevin Rudd has shown he suffers from the same human frailties as mere mortals”).

It begs the question: what causes the disparate interpretation of male and female anger in today’s society? One of the problems, explains social psychologist Dina McMillan, is that female anger isn’t seen as ‘causative’. “Usually when a man gets angry, people might say he’s angry because something wasn’t done correctly,” says McMillan. “But when a woman shows anger, it’s often interpreted as a character trait rather than a valid and temporary emotional response.”

Recent research also shows people are much more likely to confer higher social status to men who express anger. In a 2008 US study, angry men were found to be paid more, while angry women were seen as less competent and have the lowest pay within the group.  “Most people aren’t going to define a man by his angry outburst, whereas if a woman gets angry, she is thereafter seen as an overly emotional wreck,” says McMillan.

As Jezebel’s Erin Gloria Ryan puts it:

“Lady anger is bad. An angry woman is a crazy woman. Negative feelings from women who are being treated unfairly is irrational…In fact, women's anger  is often mocked in an attempt to dismiss the legitimacy of their feelings.”

In the book Just Anger: Representing Women’s Anger in Early Modern England, author Gwynne Kennedy argues there has long been a ‘gendering of emotions’ in both literature and history. Traditionally, women are believed to “get angry more often and more easily” because of their “physiological, intellectual, and moral inferiority to men”.

What’s more, “because women’s anger is evidence of their weaker nature, every expression of anger reconfirms that view,” writes Kennedy. So here’s the rub: the angrier a lady gets, the more she’ll appear a fool so the only way to stay ‘strong’ is to – yes – keep quiet in the face of injustice. 

And this attitude extends beyond the workplace. In popular culture, male anger has, in some cases, paradoxically evolved into personal brands. We readily accept male anger as a product of misguided passion: a hot-headed chef is a ‘passionate’ chef, and who ‘gets’ the public like a furious shock jock? Not to mention Chris Brown, who, despite throwing a chair at a window because he didn’t much care for an interview question, took home a Grammy for the Best R&B album this year.

Perhaps it’s time we take a look at the gender bias when it comes to expressing anger. And if there’s anything to learn from Rudd – sometimes a few angry words is just what you need to break the awkward silence.