Brett Kavanaugh's use of the word 'emotional' exposes a gross double standard

Emotional. This is the word Brett Kavanaugh employed in an op-ed to describe his behaviour during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In an op-ed entitled "I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge" published in the Wall Street Journal, Kavanaugh characterised his conduct in the hearing as "emotional," perhaps, "too emotional at times." He prefaced this statement by saying that his testimony was a reflection of his "deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation" of sexual assault was handled. Here, he is attempting to justify his behaviour and convince the American public that he is fit to serve. That he is, as the headline says, an "impartial judge."

But it is Kavanaugh's use of this particular word that is most telling. It is a word with a legacy of gendered baggage. A word we typically associate with women's rage. A word that is often used pejoratively to denigrate and undermine women who display rage. Kavanaugh's decision to use this word highlights the gross double standard at play in our cultural acceptance of men's rage and our dismissal of women's anger.

Activists shout slogans during a protest against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh October 4, 2018. Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Of course, it should be permissible for women to admit when they are emotional — just as much as anyone of any gender should be allowed to express their emotions. But, we live in a patriarchy and that means some people are allowed to be emotional and others are not.

One of the many take-aways from the hearing was that there is a vast chasm of difference in standards of what's acceptable in men and women's behaviour. "What a study in contrasts," wrote the New York Times editorial board. "Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough." Kavanaugh was "openly contemptuous of several senators" and "evasive" while Dr Ford was "credible and unshakable."

The very fact that Kavanaugh has chosen to employ this highly gendered term as a euphemism for his own patent volatility underscores the cultural "contrasts" in behavioural standards in society. "It's okay — even expected — for men to express anger," wrote Dr Kerri Johnson — professor of communication studies and psychology at UCLA — in a study on perceptions of gender and emotion. "But when women have a negative emotion, they're expected to express their displeasure with sadness." What Kavanaugh is saying here is this: I am allowed to be "emotional" (read: angry) because my family and I were wronged by these allegations. My anger, because it is male, is permissible.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford speaks before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Credit: Getty Images

Imagine for a moment that Dr Ford had conducted herself in the same way Kavanaugh. Imagine if she penned an op-ed afterwards describing her behaviour as "emotional." It's difficult to picture such a scenario. Not only because Dr Ford's conduct was so diametrically opposed Kavanaugh's, but because a woman would never willingly label her own behaviour as "emotional". It would be tantamount to hitting self-destruct.

"When a women shows anger in institutional, political, and professional settings, she automatically violates gender norms," says Soraya Chemaly, author of Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women's Anger. "When a man becomes angry in an argument or debate, people are more likely to abandon their own positions and defer to his. But when a women acts the same way, she’s likely to elicit the opposite response."

So, what does the word "emotional" mean when we apply it to women? Per Matthew Zawadzki — a professor at UC Merced specialising in perceptions of emotions — the term "emotional" is used to "label women whom you don’t want to have a voice in a situation."

"When a couple is having an argument, even if a woman has a well-thought-out reason for being upset, a guy might say, 'You’re just being emotional,'" Zawadzki told Refinery29. "It's a way to discredit her instead of having to listen; the words 'you’re acting crazy' really mean 'I don’t have to pay attention to you.'"

This word, when used to talk about women's rage, is redolent of our cultural disapproval of angry women. The emotional woman is a trope that many women do their utmost to avoid lest they be accused of acting in a way that might be deemed unprofessional, improper, and unjustified. "You're too emotional" is a sentence that many women will have heard in response to their expression of anger. It's a sentence we're all too familiar with and one that's used to undermine and silence.

Just as Kavanaugh has chosen to use the words "forceful and passionate" as ways of characterising his behaviour (and as palatable euphemisms for his anger) he is using the word "emotional" to try to humanise himself and regain control over people's perceptions of him. But, in doing so, he serves to remind women everywhere that he can do something they cannot. When a woman is "emotional" she is discredited, but when the same is said of a man, he's justified.

Brett Kavanaugh is an emotional man. And society has afforded him that privilege.