nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Did it make you angry?"

Brregzit

How do you feel when a feminist asks you this question? For some reason I feel they are trying to bait me. As in if you answered yes, the next question could be "does that happen often with you?"

I remember Ciara Kelly of Newstalk recently asking this question to a man on the radio. He was talking about his hurt after his girlfriend took his child from him and left the country without him ever seeing him again. She asked 'did it make you angry?'. He actually said 'yes' and she left him aloe after that. But never the less, I'd be weary of it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

It's a leading question. Lazy, sure. It could be phrased as "How did that make you feel?". But often by making the question more leading, you can get the person to offer more information.

"How did it make you feel?"

"Hmm. Uh....well....I guess.... I was very angry to begin with"

versus

"Did it make you feel angry?"

"Well, yes of course. To begin with at least."

The conversation flows better, people respond faster and better to closed questions than open-ended ones. That doesn't mean there's malice in the question.

there is a big difference between a leading question and an open question though. By making the person respond as to whether they are angry, you already frame the conversation in that direction. An open question is one that just allows the person responding respond freely without direction. It's more than just semantics, it's controlling the conversation.

I would class asking a man if he was angry is akin to asking a woman if she was hysterical, it's just a lazy cliche that men have a narrow range of emotions.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

The conversation flows better, people respond faster and better to closed questions than open-ended ones. That doesn't mean there's malice in the question.

+1 S. I dunno how it would set someone off TBH. They'd want to be hair triggered by nature. Certainly if I were in full flow of angry the questioner would hardly need confirmation of it. If I weren't I might think, that's an odd question, but I'd answer honestly with a no.

seamus

It's a leading question. Lazy, sure. It could be phrased as "How did that make you feel?". But often by making the question more leading, you can get the person to offer more information.

"How did it make you feel?"

"Hmm. Uh....well....I guess.... I was very angry to begin with"

versus

"Did it make you feel angry?"

"Well, yes of course. To begin with at least."

The conversation flows better, people respond faster and better to closed questions than open-ended ones. That doesn't mean there's malice in the question.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

Why is that better than "yes, it made me angry"? Why would you fault that?
As above, still doesn't answer the question of why "sad" is superior to "angry"?

I'm not debating that, you are. Not concerned with any particular emotion, but rather wording of the question itself: "Did it make you..."

Brregzit

seamus wrote: »

Why is that better than "yes, it made me angry"? Why would you fault that?
As above, still doesn't answer the question of why "sad" is superior to "angry"?

Oh that's all well and good assuming the person isn't trying to bait you.

Brregzit

Deleted User wrote: »

Who said it was offensive? There is no outrage, merely the question itself and underlying motive brought into focus. I concede on radio it might appear considerate, but in other contexts it could (in my opinion) be construed as manipulative.

Well said. That's what I was trying to get at with this thread.

Brregzit

seamus wrote: »

More cryptic statements.

There are clearly a few people on this thread for whom it seems outrageously offensive that a man being interviewed about a negative experience in their life, would be asked how it made them feel. More specifically, you're outraged that he would be asked "did it make you angry".

I'm confused as to why this is so offensive.

Because there can't possibly be anything interesting to the answer. I guess that's why! Unless of course he got so angry that he considered getting an AK47 and going into a cinema. Not that would be interesting.

Other then that, it's just a case of "obviously I got angry".

seamus

Brregzit wrote: »

How might you handle this question? if I may ask.

I remember thinking that I could have answered "it made me sad", because it would be hard to fault that.

Why is that better than "yes, it made me angry"? Why would you fault that?

Deleted User wrote: »

Who said it was offensive? There is no outrage, merely the question itself and underlying motive brought into focus. I concede on radio it might appear considerate, but in other contexts it could (in my opinion) be construed as manipulative.

As above, still doesn't answer the question of why "sad" is superior to "angry"?

Brregzit

Dimitri Early Bullfighting wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Why focus on the negative emotion of anger? Why not ask if it made him sad, lonely, depressed, relieved even.

Who wouldn't be angry if their OH took their child, never to be seen again.

Exactly!

[Deleted User]

Brregzit wrote: »

How might you handle this question? if I may ask.

I remember thinking that I could have answered "it made me sad", because it would be hard to fault that.

On the radio you couldn't deflect, or offer the shortest possible answer. You are willingly sharing your story in a public forum - it would only trigger a barrage of other questions. In the work canteen or pub, there is no such difficulty cutting the conversation short if these sort of questions arise. "It's a matter for my conscience, thank you", etc.

Brregzit

seamus wrote: »

What are you talking about?

It's a question. The person is being interviewed about themselves and their personal experiences. In order to make them more sympathetic to the listener, the interviewer will seek to establish what their emotional state was at the time.

This allows the person listening to connect more deeply with the interviewee.

Probably, but I would instinctively be on guard around someone like herself.

I remember making that mistake with a ban guarda many years back. My sister smashed the windscreen of my car. I then smashed her's and she called the guards. I didn't know what to do so I called the guards too hoping to be first. When the guards arrived the sister was in tears acting as if she couldn't breathe. When they questioned us separately I ended up saying that I got angry when she smashed my windscreen. The ban guarda replied "is that something happen often with you?"

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

More cryptic statements.

There are clearly a few people on this thread for whom it seems outrageously offensive that a man being interviewed about a negative experience in their life, would be asked how it made them feel. More specifically, you're outraged that he would be asked "did it make you angry".

I'm confused as to why this is so offensive.

Who said it was offensive? There is no outrage, merely the question itself and underlying motive brought into focus. I concede on radio it might appear considerate, but in other contexts it could (in my opinion) be construed as manipulative.

Brregzit

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me clarify, before you extrapolate incorrectly again. 'Psychology 101' referring to obvious transparency. My point being that the interviewer is employing a tactic of control, steering the conversation to their advantage. I have encountered this, and don't allow questions to develop that lead one down a cul de sac.

How might you handle this question? if I may ask.

I remember thinking that I could have answered "it made me sad", because it would be hard to fault that.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Those of a lesser footing than yourself?

More cryptic statements.

There are clearly a few people on this thread for whom it seems outrageously offensive that a man being interviewed about a negative experience in their life, would be asked how it made them feel. More specifically, you're outraged that he would be asked "did it make you angry".

I'm confused as to why this is so offensive.

Sonics2k

Brregzit wrote: »

It is a classic domineering trick though. Maybe it's not from psychology 101!

I really think you're reading too much into this.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

There must be some weird dog whistle I'm missing here. Something about the word "angry" that's making you people get all worked up.

Why is asking whether he was sad, lonely or depressed, better than asking if he was angry?

Those of a lesser footing than yourself?

seamus

Dimitri Early Bullfighting wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Why focus on the negative emotion of anger? Why not ask if it made him sad, lonely, depressed, relieved even.

Who wouldn't be angry if their OH took their child, never to be seen again.

There must be some weird dog whistle I'm missing here. Something about the word "angry" that's making you people get all worked up.

Why is asking whether he was sad, lonely or depressed, better than asking if he was angry?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

What are you talking about?

It's a question. The person is being interviewed about themselves and their personal experiences. In order to make them more sympathetic to the listener, the interviewer will seek to establish what their emotional state was at the time.

This allows the person listening to connect more deeply with the interviewee.

What are you talking about?

Why focus on the negative emotion of anger? Why not ask if it made him sad, lonely, depressed, relieved even.

Who wouldn't be angry if their OH took their child, never to be seen again.

seamus

Brregzit wrote: »

And you'd be even more angry if you were baited with such a question.

What are you talking about?

It's a question. The person is being interviewed about themselves and their personal experiences. In order to make them more sympathetic to the listener, the interviewer will seek to establish what their emotional state was at the time.

This allows the person listening to connect more deeply with the interviewee.

[Deleted User]

breadmond wrote: »

What planet do you live on where you think that psychology undergrads spend their time learning to one-up each other in conversation?

Let me clarify, before you extrapolate incorrectly again. 'Psychology 101' referring to obvious transparency. My point being that the interviewer is employing a tactic of control, steering the conversation to their advantage. I have encountered this, and don't allow questions to develop that lead one down a cul de sac.

Brregzit

breadmond wrote: »

What planet do you live on where you think that psychology undergrads spend their time learning to one-up each other in conversation?

It is a classic domineering trick though. Maybe it's not from psychology 101!

breadmond

Deleted User wrote: »

Whether a feminist or not, it's a classic domineering trick out of psychology 101.

What planet do you live on where you think that psychology undergrads spend their time learning to one-up each other in conversation?

Brregzit

Sonics2k wrote: »

I literally don't see the problem with that question?

It's safe to say he'd be angry. I'd be angry. Hell, I was angry when my ex left and took the kids across the country.

And you'd be even more angry if you were baited with such a question.

Sonics2k

I literally don't see the problem with that question?

It's safe to say he'd be angry. I'd be angry. Hell, I was angry when my ex left and took the kids across the country.

kippy

Effects wrote: »

I don't go around telling people that I'm a feminist. It doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.

I never intended to imply anything of the sort so apologies there.
I've just never met anyone who has appeared to me to be a feminist (or said they were a feminist) and I've never been asked the question that the OP has been asked and would find it difficult to imagine a scenario where that question was asked of my by someone I knew.

Effects

kippy wrote: »

I can't say I know anyone that has told me that they are feminist.

I don't go around telling people that I'm a feminist. It doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.

One eyed Jack

Brregzit wrote: »

How do you feel when a feminist asks you this question? For some reason I feel they are trying to bait me. As in if you answered yes, the next question could be "does that happen often with you?"

I remember Ciara Kelly of Newstalk recently asking this question to a man on the radio. He was talking about his hurt after his girlfriend took his child from him and left the country without him ever seeing him again. She asked 'did it make you angry?'. He actually said 'yes' and she left him aloe after that. But never the less, I'd be weary of it.

Given the context for which you ask the question, it doesn’t suggest that Ms. Kelly actually was baiting the father she was interviewing.

I’ve had people who I know are feminists, and people who I know are not feminists ask me that question, and I’ve interpreted it in some cases as patronising, and in other cases as genuine interest in my welfare. I’ve never perceived the asking of the question was based on whether or not they were a feminist.

Joe Duffy for example asks interviewees all the time, “how bad does it make you feeeeeel?”, and Joe Duffy isn’t the first person would come to mind when I think of people who are feminists -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9oiO6RVKrU

kippy

Effects wrote: »

How can you not know any feminists?

I can't say I know anyone that has told me that they are feminist.
Its not something that's ever been brought up in conversation to be honest.
I'd say that would be the experience of the majority of the male population.

Wibbs

I would say there are broadly two kinds and I've met both: One - and the majority - who reckon rightfully that equality is a good thing and that's about as much as they think about the philosophy and politics of it, and the other kind where they fully embrace and are well up on the philosophy and politics of current feminism. They're the "over the top" type. The women are always agentless victims and it's always men's/the patriarchy's fault types.

Effects

So you don't think feminists are feminists? Just the over the tops feminists are feminists. Is that the gist of what you are saying?