neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (02/10/84)
************************************************************************** > O.K. sometimes anger is justified. After all it is a "natural" > reaction to show when injustice is seen. So what are you going > to do with your anger? Any decision you might make based on your > anger is likely to be unfair or revengeful. > If I were you, I wouldn't speak so freely on behalf of "most > humans". Indeed, getting angry may be easy for a lot of people. > Not getting angry is much harder (specially if one has a "good" reason for it) and a person who can do that is > much more interesting to me. Anger is blinding and very possibly > destructive (not necessarily physical destruction). > Don't get me wrong. I am no Gandhi and I don't love any death > camp prison guards. Dammit (excuse me but I am angry), getting angry is sometimes the most appropriate thing you can do. Granted, decisions based on anger may well be poor decisions in several ways, "unfair" and "revengeful" are probably the BEST that can be said. Decisions based on anger may also be good decisions--check them out with your "rational self" (i.e., don't implement the decision until you have thought about it after you get past the "heat of the moment"--is that what you REALLY want to do?). Not getting angry when anger is appropriate is much more destructive both physically and mentally. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (02/10/84)
O.K. sometimes anger is justified. After all it is a "natural"
reaction to show when injustice is seen. So what are you going
to do with your anger? Any decision you might make based on your
anger is likely to be unfair or revengeful.
If I were you, I wouldn't speak so freely on behalf of "most
humans". Indeed, getting angry may be easy for a lot of people.
Not getting angry is much harder (specially if one has a "good" reason for it) and a person who can do that is
much more interesting to me. Anger is blinding and very possibly
destructive (not necessarily physical destruction).
Don't get me wrong. I am no Gandhi and I don't love any death
camp prison guards.
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/12/84)
------------------------- Amen, Neal. Suppressing emotions can be incredibly self-destructive. The idea is to express them in ways that are productive, or channel them into harmless areas (e.g. physical activity can help to `work out' anger). -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (02/22/84)
It is unfortunate to see one's words interpreted in a way which wasn't
originally intended especially if those words were chosen very carefully.
But one should accept that risk. The only other alternative is not to
communicate.
I never meant to imply any suppression of emotions (including anger).
That is definitely unhealthy. It is the form of that expression which is
very important. I don't believe that anger is constructive though (unless
you consider becoming a better requetteball player constructive). Yes, I
can visualize a court or a pseudo-court situation in which a victim of a
crime is "expected" to show anger or the crime will be considered to not
have been very painful to the victim. That will not justify the "encouraged"
anger though.
Perhaps what is meant by constructive anger is using it as a source of
energy to fight back the criminal or criminals. What will happen to that
source of energy when the heat of anger dissipates? There must be willingness
and care for the cause which should also last beyond anger.
If I were to react to crimes with anger, I really would have to be angry
all my life because I am either subjected to or can see people around me
being subjected to more subtle, ongoing, long term crimes. And aren't those
more severe than very short (few minutes or few hours) ones? The latter is
*over* after some time. I prefer not to be angry all or most of my life. It
is not me.
Sorry if this is not very relevant to net.women anymore but the discussion
started here.
eokane@charm.UUCP (mh1081) (03/16/84)
Jekyll and Hyde
Anger,now aroused
wells up and smothers reason.
Violence threatens.
Can this be me?
I shudder at the thought
to know this ugly man
and call him brother.kew@bigburd.UUCP (Karen Wieckert) (07/14/85)
I would like to add a few comments to the recent posting by Will Martin, the responses to the posting, and the issues that have been raised. As an aside - Will, in your most recent posting, I wish you had furnished us with your wife's name. I found it hard to read "the wife" over and over again. Admittedly these are just words, but they are uncomfortable for me to say the least. I read a great deal of anger in the postings by Cheryl and Julia which responded to the original article. I can truly understand that anger. I cannot speak for the two posters, but I can give some of my own anger. Part of it may be anger and resentment aimed at housewives and women who CAN choose to stay out of or leave the workforce because of their attachments to men. Some of these women, and their men, argue that their positions are "natural", "normal", "right", etc. The home and the workforce have developed with these roles in place, thus making it extremely difficult to counter these well established roles and their many ramifications. Public policy at all levels also supports these roles. Women who choose to battle it out in the workforce must continually fight the institutionalization of these roles. Confronted with the bald statement that Will's wife has profited from the status quo does not acknowledge the many hardships faced by women who work by choice. It also is far from the norm, as was pointed out by Ariel in her posting, since many women don't work by choice but instead by necessity . Will's posting mainly conveyed his socio-economic status and how individual women seemingly profit from an attachment to men in these positions. On the other hand, to argue that all women should battle it out in the workforce because it is "natural" and "normal" to me is equally shallow. Neither the "home" nor the "workplace" as they are embodied today can be described as natural, or god-forbid, as normal. Arguing that all women want to or should be players in the marketplace of today on its terms (virtually devoid of compassion and value for life), degrades the value of women as nurturers and caretakers and doesn't allow the development of nurturance and caring in men. For me, feminism is not asserting that women are the same as men, and thus working towards making women just like the men of today. Instead, it is a political force which aims towards breaking down artificial dichotomies that have developed for whatever reasons; differences based on subjective/objective, private/public, home/work, etc. Political because while exposing the inherent power relationships embodied in these dichotomies, change may come to the major institutions in society today and all members of our society, including men. And maybe through this change, the world will be better and maybe even around a little longer. ka:ren
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/16/85)
Point taken about my not mentioning my wife's name, at least as soon as this got going as a lengthy discussion: she is "Beverly Gail Martin". I have about 4 typed pages from her I am transcribing to post shortly, presenting her point of view. Will