so i'm like, shaking right now

[jlh]

I think it's just not really possible for me to have these conversations anyplace. Everyone is angry, and they want to vent. And that's great that you feel like shouting in your journal makes you feel better. I support your doing that.

The thing is, what I can't do is continue to read it every day. Because what you vent out doesn't just dissipate into the atmosphere. I have to digest the anger that you don't want to digest. Venting doesn't make me feel better; it makes me feel worse. And I can't be angry in the way that you want me to be angry. It's not how I work.

Turning my anger into positive action makes me feel better. But I can do as many positive things as I possibly can, and you will still be yelling, and I will still have to take in your anger and see how I can change my actions because of it, and I just don't know how it can ever be enough.

Just, the more I look around the more it seems that if I'm not angry, and I don't want to be angry, I really can't be a feminist.

Comments

[bookshop]

a former activist once told me she quit being an activist because it takes a lot of energy to stay that angry all the time. and she's right. there's absolutely no reason that you have to engage with everyone who tries to get you to emotionally invest in their cause.

but, i mean. that doesn't mean you can't work to depersonalize the experience of watching other people rant. It doesn't have to mean that just because they're yelling, you have to ingest it and allow it to attempt to work on you. You should be the only person who gets to decide what you allow to change you/your behavior/opinions, and what doesn't.

Dictating that doesn't make you a bad feminist. In fact I'd say it probably makes you a better one.

[jlh]

But that doesn't actually make any sense. How can anything change if I'm the only person who gets to decide what I allow to change my behavior? How can I be said to be taking these people seriously and their problems seriously and not be operating from a position of privilege if I don't digest all that anger and allow it to work on me? Why should I be the only person who judges when my judgment is inherently flawed, as is everyone's?

[sistermagpie]

But really, that's the way everyone eventually does it, isn't it? You're seeing it as not listening to their anger, but just because you're not angry doesn't mean you're not saying anything worthwhile. Refusing to listen to someone else because you want to yell is also being the one who judges when your own judgment is inherently flawed.

I mean, on one hand anger can be really valid and important. Otoh, there's also sometimes a fallacy where people think that their level of anger must translate into an equal level of being right. Not everyone who has strong emotions examines them honestly to make sure they know what they're really angry about either.

Not that I'm saying that if you're angry you can't be right, obviously. Just that it's not always proof of that. I remember seeing a show once on anger management that pointed out how that whole idea has completely wrong ideas about anger. For instance, they would tell people to beat up a pillow--a physical way of venting--because that was supposed to be a way to get it out and make you less angry. But the opposite is true, as it often is with venting.

[laughingmedusa]

I really like Aristotle's point that the Great Souled man is angry at the right time in the right place, and in the right way. Sometimes people have good cause to be angry and it does spur change. Other times people are just being reactionary and need to chill. It's figuring out which is which that is very tricky and I'm sure we all fail a lot at that. :/

[jlh]

Yeah. I guess, I would like to fail less! And I would like a nonangry way of speaking to also be respected, but I don't think it is. I think it's seen as repressed and full of internalized misogyny.

[laughingmedusa]

I don't see it that way. I totally respect that you're way is different. And I don't think I'm angry all the time really. Gosh, I hope not anyway. :D

[jlh]

Venting makes me crazier, it's true. It never makes me feel better.

I definitely also tend to defer to the person who cares more? Like, I figure if they care so much and I don't care as much I might as well let them have their way. But some people care about EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME and then you end up getting run over all the time.

So I guess it really turns my head when people are SHOUTING.

[slytherincess]

I just don't think that being the yelling type of feminist is the only kind out there. Or somehow the most real kind. Surely, there must be somewhere else to read? What about your new comm Medusa Laughing? (BTW, I meant to comment - I would like to be a member if that's okay).

[laughingmedusa]

Apply to join and I'll approve you. :)

[slytherincess]

I think I requested membership appropriately. Let me know if I didn't do it right. <3

[laughingmedusa]

I sent you an invite. :D

[jlh]

A friend gave me some other places and some ways to think about it. I'm trying to work on the LJ/DW side now. I've mostly conquered the blog/tumblr problem I was having before, though.

I think the yelling type of feminists thing that the non yelling types are too cowed by internalized misogyny to make trouble. But I make more effective trouble when I'm not yelling.

[alwayswondered]

You ARE a feminist. Turning your anger into positive action is every bit as legitimate a response as raging and yelling. It might be less visible than raging and yelling, depending on what that action is, but in no way does looking at a bad situation and making something good out of it disqualify you from being a feminist.

Making your own decisions about your mental and emotional health is part of being an independent person AND a feminist, and you know what works for you and what doesn't, so keep on doing your thing. Disengage politely from conversations that are no longer helpful for you—there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It might be frustrating for you to have previously enjoyable conversations turn difficult and non-constructive for you, but everyone has the right to walk away from spaces in which they're no longer comfortable. People will find others to have angry conversations with, and those conversations will probably go a lot better and be more satisfying for all involved when all parties are really into them.* There's a place for that, but there's a place for you too, and others like you.

* ETA: I don't mean that you're holding back the conversation by trying to participate. Just that you won't be holding it back in any way by disengaging. I'm not sure that came across.

[jlh]

I don't know, maybe everyone just wants to be Sady Doyle? It's hard for me to work out. I feel badly because you know, I should be able to TAKE it, right? The whole "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, but really if you can't take the heat you're pretty lame and maybe not an adult" thing, the "I don't have to be nice because I'm honest" the "well behaved women don't change the world" thing. I just can't sustain all that rage. It's draining.

So yeah, maybe I should just get away from it entirely. I just feel like kind of a wuss for saying that! But yeah, hopefully there are also other ways to do this that aren't about being Tiger Beatdown or Jezebel or telling all of your own personal narratives over and over.

[alwayswondered]

I think there's probably an element of that. The Sady Doyle-style posts are the ones that tend to get linked around and "Yes, THIS"d and a lot of people admire Sady Doyle for being able to pull off eloquent rage (which, to be fair, is difficult). But it takes another kind of guts to go against the dominant paradigm. Feeling like you're being judged for the way you choose to be feminist is a kind of heat, and you don't have to take anything from anyone (a man or another woman) if you don't want to.

I don't think you're a wuss at all. I have a lot of respect for your way of doing things. I tend to just hide; it's easy for me because I've never been high-profile on LJ or DW so no one's looking at me and waiting to see what I do. But it works for me, and I enact my feminism offline in the ways that work for me there (however small).

[jlh]

Recently there was a thing written on tumblr about the whole "first world problems" thing and someone was like, you know, that phrase can be kinda rude. And a pal of mine said that the phrase is one of the problems of that snarky Gawker Media way of talking online coming into social justice spaces. The whole point of Gawker is that it's very rarely sincere; SJ is always sincere. So what is self-effacing or teasing in a Gawker-esque space is more insulting in a SJ space.

I think that's the problem with Tiger Beatdown. There's a huge popularity to that Gawker-esque way of speaking, especially among gen-Y types. It feels fresh and young, and you're right that it gets a lot of positive feedback in the most valuable internet currency of links being forwarded around and piles of you-go-girl comments and that's fantastic. But as often happens, one popular person spawns a lot of imitators trying to get the attention, and then you have this solid WAY of being a feminist in online spaces. I find the attention currency to be pretty damaging, myself, but bloggers have to pay the rent, and outrage leads to clickthroughs and forwards.

God, it's like, I want to be young and fun too! I want to be a cool kid! I just went through that again recently on tumblr, and it's always this tension between "I can only be myself" and watching who looks to be in the slipstream of whatever is going on.

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your engaging with this. It's so, so easy online, with the haves and have nots, to feel frustrated and futile, like you're shouting into the wind. It's always nice to know when one is not.

[elements]

Anger is exhausting, and we need our energy to create a world we like living in. If anger doesn't give you energy (and IMHO even when it does it's often short term), then it's not worth it.

I have a pet theory about the difference between "anger" and "rage" with the "rage" being the "rage, rage against the dying of the light" context, of strong emotional engagement without fury, I guess - it's more nuanced in my head. I can work with rage, and rage can fuel things for me, but anger just makes me fester.

[jlh]

I agree, and I realized what I'm actually talking about is outrage, that thing where people talk as though everyone around them is obligated to be as angry as they are if they're a thinking, feeling person. I'm often not, and then I feel guilty about that. I think the people who are outraged are talking about it online precisely to find other people who are outraged with them and feel better about it and that's cool, but there are other ways to approach it.

Above Stella and I talk about the Sady Doyle thing and I think that's very telling, that so much of what she does is the smart, funny take down of someone or something, and that's become the internet way of feminism in so many circles. A friend of mine who does read feminist blogs said that we were reading different things and gave me her list to check out, but basically she said that she avoids all personal stories because she doesn't think they lead anyplace and are mostly full of dramaz. It was interesting to hear her say that because it's like the opposite of what Sady or Jezebel (which my friend reads through a pretty heavy filter) are doing most of the time. Heck, what I feel like a certain portion of online feminism is doing most of the time. "This is my story, don't tell me to shut up." And it's like, I'm not? I'm just feeling like we need space for more than one narrative. (The fact that Sady and Jezebel are so aligned with the Gawker nation is, I think, not the awesomest thing.)

But yeah, as I get older I get much more careful about where I put my energy, or I won't have it when I need it.