Why shouldn't men be angry?

rocelot7 · 2014-05-02T04:56:45+00:00

Should men be angry? Yes. Should we lead with our anger? No. I don't want this to be like feminism, I feel most others don't as well. Feminism started with the best of intentions; question assumed gender roles in a changing society. But we've seen what happens when the angry radicals lead and become the center piece of a movement.

2014-05-02T07:38:18+00:00

Speaking as an individual, I find that my anger is best expressed privately in the presence of someone who can listen to me talk about it until I find my own calm. After that, it becomes a strong will to resolve whatever the cause was. This allows me to be firm and not tangled up in the issue that left me angry.

VortexCortex · 2014-05-02T10:22:58+00:00

Women's anger is accepted because they're not seen as dangerous, and thus their anger is frequently dismissed or excused while their message has a higher chance of getting through.
Men's anger is seen as far more threatening, thus it's sometimes easier to get initial attention but more difficult get a message across instead of having folks focus on the anger or perceived threat. The lower-level lizard brained fight-or-flight instinct of humans will typically fire when confronted with threatening anger. It takes skill and caution to direct your anger so that the audience will want to fight with you against the thing you're angry about rather than fight against you or flee the situation and dismiss the conversation all together. It also helps knowing what gets other people angry.

This is a touchy subject because as with any emotion, it's manipulative on a sub-rational level. However, if you pay attention to all successful political rhetoric, you'll notice it leverages both appeals to reason and emotion. Anger can be a very dangerous emotion, and mob mentality can get out of hand quick, so it's important to immediately focus that energy into an action. The energy of your anger should follow the same sort of rising action climax and resolution as graph as a story line, with several smaller spikes of outrage leading up to the climax, and a couple of plateaus leveling off in conclusion. That's just a general activity curve for nearly anything to do with cognition. The most important thing is to clearly differentiate hate from anger, and don't foster or condone hate.

I get angry all the time to great effect, and not just for MRA stuff. My angry accusatory confrontational style of advocating for manned space exploration is quite successful (it's irresponsible to let bureaucracy threaten humanity with 100% assured extinction instead of working to spread life to the stars and ensure our creative spark never winks out). The thing is to be angry about something that other people will also be angry about, and explain why you're angry. I bookend the anger by leading into the outrage with facts, logic and calmer narrative and also try closing with rationality and clear plans of action.

Outside my MRA activities, my anger is usually directed at my audience for their inaction. I treat it as a generalization of a father's reprimand. I show my disappointment and give reason for anger, why the audience should be angry too, and how little effort and zero cost it would actually take to deal with the issues I'm pissed off about (charitable donations are tax-deductible, so rather than pay the tax man why not give that money to a worthy cause, you'll be paying it anyway). Some folks think getting angry about space funding is silly, but I'm literally trying to save the fucking planet, and in some ways this trumps even my MRA concerns.

I get the same dismissive response to anger or passion over men's issues, and unfortunately it's typically harder for me to get people to care about men than to care about space funding. I employ the same techniques and try to relate the outrage to what sons, brothers or husbands, are facing and demonstrate the needlessness of suffering, sexism, and marginalization men face due primarily to lack of concern. This is a very incendiary issue because you will frequently be pointing out the faults of your audience -- If they think you're angry at them directly, so give them a bullshit scapegoat: "I don't blame you for not being informed by those who don't care about men, but now that you do know about the problem, what are you going to do about it?" Then immediately give them something to do.

Be aware that if you are angry you will be quote-mined and your sound-bites may make you look quite foolish. I mitigate this when speaking angrily in public by not getting distracted and speaking on the topic in clear and unambiguous terms. It's hard to twist a sound-bite if all they can sample is about suicide, homelessness, etc. Try to ignore folks who heckle you if you're angry about something, channel that irritation into the thing you're angry about, continue on even louder than before (repeating from before the interruption if necessary), and don't address the heckler directly -- In this way you avoid folks portraying you as being angry at some "innocent" commenter in the crowd (esp. if it's a woman or younger person), and you don't give attention to the heckler, you keep it on your issue. This is not dismissive, you can always address the heckler or question afterwards in the question period... When you're not angry, and you can kill them with kindness.

Men Can Be Angry. People will listen when men are angry. In fact, the cops and armed forces will appear if enough angry men get together. The problem is, not enough men are speaking out, yet, and sometimes the men's anger works against the reception of the message.

MRSPArchiver · 2014-05-02T04:25:47+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

ARedthorn · 2014-05-02T08:23:14+00:00

Anger should never be demonized. It is, in truth, a neutral emotion. Anger can be unhealthy if not channelled properly- whether that means misused or not used at all- but can be very powerfully beneficial if directed and controlled well.

Remember, it was anger that ended slavery. Anger that ended the holocaust. Anger that began the civil rights movements we're now talking about. Anger that brought down the iron curtain and wall. Anger can be good- especially as a motivation for changing a bad situation.

But we- especially we men- need to know when it's appropriate, and learn to direct it to beneficial effect.

Because righteous anger can be very addictive too... And when you stop controlling it, start seeking it... Well then. That's when the real danger happens. Every villain in history thought he was a hero or a victim (except maybe Genghis Khan or Caligula), and acted out of what they felt was righteous anger. We all feel better having an enemy to blame for all our problems... And since WW2, our nation has never for a minute been without one... Without righteous anger and a cause. It can be poisonous- it has poisoned the cause of feminism, or at least many feminists.

As in all things, control and wisdom are mandatory.

Lobstermansunion · 2014-05-02T14:10:19+00:00

Men should be angry. People don't want us to be angry on our own behalf, because male activity is the most powerful force in the world and the status quo wants that activity to benefit women, and very elite men.

The challenge is channeling male anger into a force for good.

TheWheatOne · 2014-05-02T07:20:47+00:00

For a larger issue, it is inherently emotional, and while that is good for personal subjective stories and tales, to show the trauma inflicted, for objective debates it only derails the conversation by encouraging opinions and statements without support.

Even if anger is used effectively in the long-term, it would only lead to extreme positions in campaigns. Look at Rape Culture and Patriarchy's roots. They are incredible examples of just how powerful anger can be in stirring up the public, but also show where they lead. I'd quit the MRA's ideals completely if it every went down that same road.

Anger only leads to echoes in a closed room, like this subreddit, that would make everyone be angry at everything around us in our daily lives. Its how the ban bossy campaign also got started, thinking every single word or thought is an attack against them and using anger to get their way and lead their logic. Horrible, just horrible.

Just look at how much this subreddit is attracted to feminism. Its like an abusive person it keeps going back to hate and obsess on, like justin bieber and twilight haters. The anger is all so consuming that they ironically voice it louder than the fans of them. And while free speech and reactions to fail logic are good in some amount, the sheer volume is overwhelming the rest of the issues this sub should focus on instead of a person or group that obviously doesn't value men in any financial or social charitable sense.

Its mostly wasted energy on people that have no value to us. If anything its all worm bait, and so many people here get caught and have horrible long conversations that get all negatively emotional to a close-minded person. Its a fail on its own.

Its anger that lead to that, and it will continue to derail the goals until the pressure is gone from our own minds, and we are responsible for that. Life will always put pressure, not just with feminism, but that horrible boss or co-worker, our restrictive parents, the biased government, political parties, peer pressure, sex and whatever else in society throws. It won't stop, so we have to control ourselves. Many people go through all this crap and still live good happy lives because they can focus their commitments and goals without letting their negative emotions drag them in the long-term. It frees them to make rational choices that gives them the best chances with what they've got, even if it isn't much at all.

dixiedownunder · 2014-05-02T14:34:30+00:00

I have lost a lot of friends for speaking directly to people. Not often. It only takes once.Most people don't like confrontation.

Turbosuperfastlaser1 · 2014-05-02T16:07:47+00:00

We should learn to keep it suppressed better in order to keep the upper hand in heated arguments. Here's why...

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=16157&cn=474

blkarcher77 · 2014-05-02T19:01:09+00:00

The media already tries their hardest to suppress the actual issues we have by making them sound silly and making us look like douchebags who want women in the kitchen. Showing anger is adding fuel to the fire, and will give them the opportunity to write shit like "MRA's get violent" even if all we do is yell

guywithaccount · 2014-05-03T00:47:31+00:00

So why can't we be angry? Not violent or hateful, just angry.

Because "they" want us contrite and sedate.

HolySchmoly · 2014-05-02T10:54:45+00:00

Why yes. I am a little angry.

2014-05-02T05:46:24+00:00

Because anger leads to the dark side, Luke.

veyron1001 · 2014-05-02T17:58:27+00:00

Because when men are mad, we are taken seriously. When women are mad, only their supporters take them seriously. It will be spun as men as beasts and women are fighting for a cause.

Title	Why shouldn't men be angry?
Author	izomo
Upvotes	15
Comments	18
Date	May 2, 2014 4:25 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/24inf2/why_shouldnt_men_be_angry/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-shouldnt-men-be-angry.1001103 https://theredarchive.com/post/1001103

Comments