From the Crunk Feminist Collective comes some good reflections on gender, race, and the culture of tennis.
So, here’s the deal: in her recent U.S. Open match, Serena Williams was angry at a call. Yep, athletes get angry all the time, and their behavior isn’t necessarily mature or justifiable. I don’t actually have much interest in parsing out the good and the bad of Serena Williams’ response. The question I am interested in is how is the anger of a black woman “read” differently than the anger of a white man?
The article from the Crunk Feminist Collective answers the question this way:
Moreover, the USTA loves angry heckling players—as long as they are white men. Early in the tournament, there was a video and interview tribute to Jimmy Connors, a player legendary for his angry outbursts on the court. In the tribute they devoted extended time to showing one of the more famous of these outbursts, in a celebratory manner. White anger is entertaining; Black anger must be contained.
The video being referenced is definitely worth watching. What kind of freedom do white men have to express their anger, that women, particularly black women, do not have because of racist and sexist stereotypes?
One of my areas of research is the study of affect—I am interested in the display or covering over of emotion. Who gets to show what kind of emotion in the public sphere? Because of existing stereotypes about the “angry black woman” or the “emotional woman,” angry is read very differently based on the gender and race of the one who is angry. Do most of us realize that this way of managing who can and cannot show anger is racism and sexism at play?
When a white male player gets angry and throws his racket down, how do you “read” him? Is this behavior entertaining and/or read as a display of power? And, perhaps most importantly, do you immediately associate his behavior with his race and his gender, the way Serena Williams is liable to get represented as the “angry black woman”?
I have often noted how much more room white men have for being angry, without gendered and racist stereotypes raining down to curtail their expression. I am a white woman, so I don’t receive the “angry black woman” stereotype, but I am more than aware that if I show my anger or other affect in a heated debate I am setting myself up to be seen as an “emotional” woman? And we all know that in western culture, “emotional” is a bad thing—in our philosophical discourse, it’s the opposite of reason, the opposite of the “mind,” the opposite of “male,” the opposite of civilized “whiteness.” And yet, I would suggest that for some reason white male anger is usually not **read as “emotional” at all, but rather read as a display of power and authority within the codes of white-patriarchy.
It’s amazing, isn’t it, how our very display of emotions—and how that display is read and interpreted—is so historically constructed? The things we might take as so “natural,” like a human being showing what they feel, is actually quite regulated and controlled by larger structures of power and privilege, whether or not we are consciously aware of such regulation.
**(Note: When I say white male anger is not read as “emotional,” I speak here of hegemonic reading practices, or those interpretive practices exerted by a dominant group. Clearly, based on subject position and cultural context, individual people read differently.)
The Mercedes character on “Glee” was talking about this in the episode we watched tonight. “I’m not angry–it’s called being sassy,” she said to the white man she was talking to, with some evident irritation.
Are you saying Connors was applauded back then, and not criticized, fined several times, disqualified, given a suspension making him miss the French Open? Or are you saying male players today are encouraged to behave that way? Or that in no way we will ever see a tribute to Serena showing some of her angry moments? Or that you are conveniently comparing apples and oranges to fit your theories?
Hey Stefaan,
Good questions. I think the heart of what I am saying is that when white men are angry, their angry doesn’t then become stereotyped as intrinsically connected to their race and gender. There doesn’t exist an “angry white male” stereotype as their does for black women. When one has to live navigating racial and gendered stereotypes about anger, that’s racism and sexism at play. Whether or not Conner was fined or not is less the issue: it’s how stereotypes are created and read that I am interested in. Of course, measuring that is tricky…because it is hard to find the empirical evidence for how viewers “read” anger, since it is often an internal type of reading. It’s often in the quietness of our internal perceptions. It can be quite subtle, until we know how to see it.
Are you kidding me? I have read and watched a ton of coverage on the Serena incident and no national or local news correspondent has implied, even subtly, that Serena is an angry black woman. Sure there are a bunch of lame-ass dudes sitting around some bar talking smack about Serena and women, etc. etc. But generally speaking, give the rest of society a break. You are the one bringing this issue up. It is YOUR schema, YOUR lens that settles on these aspects of Serena’s identity (black, female), not the general public’s. Why do we have to make this very human and mundane incident (an athlete getting pissed because they think the ref made the wrong call and then acting immaturely in response) into an issue of race and gender? How is that bettering any cause? How is that educating anybody?
Kimberly,
thanks for answering. I can be ‘a bit’ presumptuous when perceiving cognitive bias or faulty reasoning (maybe you noticed) and I rarely address the central theme of the topic, seeing people’s ideas as being formed mainly by cognitive biases, and having little faith in their willingness or capacity to question their own convictions. But I don’t usually get such a considerate, nonjudgemental answer to my insolent comments, so I owe you a more reasoned reply. May take some time though.
Keep building, Bridge Builder
Hi Margaret: You are helping me to see that I should have clarified some of my points. Thanks. Racism and sexism are subtle, sometimes (until we learn to see them). They live in our un-investigated unconscious attitudes and perceptions. That’s great that news shows have been politically correct enough not to vocalize the racist stereotype of the “angry black woman.”
That doesn’t mean that this stereotype is somehow no longer effecting women’s daily lives. Or that the “lame-ass dudes sitting around some bar talking smack about Serena and women, etc. etc” might have more in common with the larger racist and sexist society than we may want to think.
You are right that my lens informs my way of seeing. And my lens is not complete or some kind of final authority, of course. My lens, though, is informed by a lot of years of seriously studying these issues, as well as a lot of reflection on my own racism and internalized sexism—which I think almost everyone has in different ways, if we are part of a larger cultural context with histories of race and gender hierarchies.