Why are you so angry? Or Why Vulcans are Fucking Hypocrites.
Published by Antigone May 7th, 2008 in Punkass! One of the many slanders that feminists get thrown in our faces is that we’re “too angry”. Heck, it is even possible to get that argument from supposedly liberal sources. The theory, I suppose, is that if we smiled and said “pretty please” and expended tons of energy and work on perfectly reasoned argument while all the while dealing with the sexist idgits metaphorically and literally beating on us, we will eventually get those rights that those in power are willing to give us, (and expect a cookie when they give it).
Many feminists have covered the “angry” issue online before. They have mentioned that feminists are not particularly angry in the first place. They have also mentioned that anger is a legitimate response to having people victimize you. It has also been pointed out that if you have any sort of conscious, the treatment of women around the world should make you furious and sad. It has also pointed out that a civil rights movement goes pretty much no where without passion and anger feeds passion quite nicely.
But I would like to take a slightly different tack, and call it the “Vulcan Theory”. For those few of you who are not Star Trek nerds (or, at least are not willing to admit to it in a public forum), the Vulcans are a race of humanoids from the planet Vulcan. Vulcans used to be extremely violent, warlike, and emotional; to the point that they were tearing up their own civilization. Surak, during the Time of Awakening, came up with an alternate theory: one based on logic, reason, and peace. Now, Vulcans will tell you (imperiously, I might add) that they no longer have any emotions. A more honest Vulcan might tell you that they suppress all of their emotions, which is subtly different. But the honest truth, as any Betazoid will tell you, is that Vulcans are just as emotional, if not more so, than any other race in the galaxy.
Some Vulcans like to ignore humans, and malign them because they are so “emotional”. In Deep Space Nine, Solok is a complete jerk to Sisko, and most non-Vulcan species (Take Me Out to the Holosuite). Tuvok, in Voyager, routinely tells Captain Janeway that her behavior is “illogical” and never lends any credence to emotional concerns that she presents.
What does this have to do with feminism and anger? Well, generally the people telling us feminists that we are just “too angry” are the ones who are quick with a temper themselves. They put feminists up to standards that they themselves cannot meet (i.e. goal-post moving hypocrites). Just like Vulcans say that humans are too emotional, when they themselves are filled with emotion, people who say that feminists are too angry tend to be angry people themselves.
Also, Vulcans swung to full logic because they could not control their own emotions any other way. Vulcans (as a group) were completely incapable of finding a middle road: one where you enjoy your emotions and self, without going into a barbaric rage to rival a Klingon. In the same way, I don’t think that many people realize that feminists can be angry without being violent. Feminism, to my knowledge, is the only 100% nonviolent movement. (This is probably because it’s pretty difficult to find an “enemy” to bomb). It has been pretty aptly demonstrated that we can have anger, without it meaning that we lose all reason and control (although acting otherwise feeds nicely into the “hysterical woman” framework).
In sum, I am basically saying that people who call feminists “angry” are people who are dealing with their own projection and fear issues, and I just wanted a legitimate reason to call Vulcans hypocrites on a public blog.
Vulcans were probably angry because IIRC they don’t have an ocean, and hence no beach lounging…
Feminism, to my knowledge, is the only 100% nonviolent movement. (This is probably because it’s pretty difficult to find an “enemy” to bomb).
I srsly wish that was true, but it’s not.
(Another source: When a gang of six people wearing balaclavas and wielding crowbars attacked the Market Tavern pub which caters to lesbian S&M, claiming it was “racist, anti-semitic and woman-hating”, the publican asked “Who are the fascists, I’m beginning to wonder?” Good question.)
I guess all the rest of us can do is back away slowly from these people. But yeah, they called themselves feminists.
Oh my dear, it’s not just no beach lounging. No ocean means not beach parties either. No wonder the poor dears were upset.
That…seriously makes no sense. I suppose to call them as feminist as Camille Paglia is starting to slip into the “No True Scotsman” defense, but…the fuck?
I’ll also sorta point out that . . . pacifism is a pretty non-violent movement, hehe. As a consensualist, we’re also non-violent by design. We believe coercion doesn’t work. There are others. Feminism’s lack of violence is to be lauded, but it is not unique.
About the violent feminists bit:
I don’t think that a few violent representatives of any movement constitute the actions of that movement. Crazy nutjobs are everywhere, in every movement. So, my problems with, say, Christianity isn’t that there are occasional nutjobs who do horrible things in the name of their religion - it’s that large elements of the religion are quite comfortable with all manner of violence and I feel the “moderate” faction of Christianity does little to prevent their more violent co-religionists from killing in the name of Christ.
There’s a big difference between the no true Scotsman fallacy and a logical fallacy that presents the most extreme members of a large and diverse movement as typical of that movement. I know there’s a fancy name for this kind of fallacy but I can’t bring it to mind.
Thoughts as I read:
1. Re feminism being a nonviolent movement–in the main, yes, but a vivid historical example of an exception to that general rule are the early 20th century British suffragettes.
2. Trekkie!! But ya know, I really got a much different impression of Vulcans throughout my Trek-viewing years. Maybe it’s because I started off with the original series as a small child…there were at *least* three episodes with Spock lettin’ his hair down in the original series, and he was always being mocked for his emotional reserve. In the second original series movie, Kirk paid the obvious absolute highest compliment to Spock at Spock’s funeral, saying that his soul was the most “human.” Vulcans never seemed to be claiming that they *had* no emotion or even *suppressed* all emotion–only a few did the later, via the rites of Kolinahr. I always thought the awesomeness of human “emotion” and “intuition” was always being shoved in Vulcans’ faces and saw a multitude of episodes where the “human” style of emotion saved the day!! and cold, Vulcan “logic” just wasn’t good enough–note that in The Next Generation, they don’t have a Vulcan; they have an android, who fulfills the exact same Pinocchio-slash-walking-computer role that Vulcans do. Vulcan assertions that their way is the best is always treated with indulgent contempt by every human around, far as I’ve always been able to tell…
3. In terms of feminist “anger,” I’ve always considered it a belittling tactic. Black activists are always called “angry” too. Not “productively” angry, of course–that’s reserved for white guys. Feminists are *hysterically* angry and blacks are *mindlessly* angry, fill in the blank with the appropriate stereotype…of course there’s nothing wrong with being angry at injustice; in fact, we are supposed to be. The point of emphasizing feminist anger is to underline that it is not a just anger, but a child’s anger, angry because it can’t have what it percieves it wants right at that moment, but as we all know, children lack the emotional maturity to tell the difference between important and non-important issues and the ability to tell what is *really* good for it–parents must ignore or indulgently chastise a child for its tantrums, for its own good really. That would be one reason that I’ve always found a wicked wit to be the very best way to express my feminist anger. Hard to condescend to someone who’s already made you look like a fool in a way that amply demostrates she can also think about five times as fast as you, ain’t it? heh.
Of course, when feminists started self-defense classes, that was immediately taken as evidence that feminists were violent. Because self-defense=violent incitement, if the person engaging in it is considered second class.
Uh… Valerie Solanis?
Okay fine, crazy people probably can’t be used as representatives of movements they claim to be a part of.
Fine, I’ll ammend it to 90% non-violent
Wait! Comment come back!
Anyway: I’ll amend it to 90% non-violent movement.
Lisa KS: I never could stand the original series. Honestly, Kirk annoyed more than any other starship captain. And the point wasn’t that the humans ignored the Vulcans expression of superiority: it was the point that the Vulcans expressed it. Feminists can generally ignore dismissals that we are simply “too angry” but they still express it.
Amanda: Self-defense isn’t a sign of violence. Honestly, more than anything it’s a confidence builder.
My point was, humans not only ignore the Vulcan expression of superiority; humans frequently express their *own* superiority, so I honestly can’t tell the difference…
I had an epiphany recently while arguing with pro-lifers online. My arguing style is a bit on the sarcastic, jokey side. Many opponents were put off by this, and one person has accused me of being “too mean”.
I wondered, if I had played it straight, would I have earned their respect? No. I would have been dubbed “humorless”.
Oftentimes, when anti-feminists accuse you of being “mean”, that translates into “A joking feminist! But feminists have no sense of humor! I’m trying to project this perfectly good image of a feminist boogeyman and she’s ruining it! THIS IS SO UNFAIR!!!” Then their reptilian hindbrain resorts to stereotype B to cope.
Of course, this hypothesis hinges on whether I’m actually funny or not.