You act super pissed off, all the time, and have male reproductive organs. If you're a chick, not so much, which is the whole point of a new Yale research paper by Victoria Brescoll.
The paper, "When Can Angry Women Get Ahead?" details a series of experiments where participants were asked to watch job interviews and assign the interview candidates a status and salary. Really pissed off guys were perceived to be top brass material (or eligible for it), while angry women were seen to be aiming for the bottom rungs of the corporate ladder. More results, from Reuters:
In a second experiment, the script was similar except that the job applicant also described his or her current occupation as a trainee or a senior executive.
"Participants rated the angry female CEO as significantly less competent than all of the other targets, including even the angry female trainee," Brescoll wrote. She said they viewed angry females as significantly more "out of control."
That impacted salaries. Unemotional women were assigned on average $55,384 compared to $32,902 for the angry ones. Male executive candidates were assigned more than trainees, regardless of anger, with an average $73,643.
The paper refers to the Republican talking point of describing Hillary Clinton as an "angry woman" (and "too angry" to serve in the White House) and wonders whether this strategy would be employed with a male candidate. Sure enough, the study seems to demonstrate that the perception is that angry dudes want results, while angry women just want some Midol and for the next few days to end as peacefully as possible.
Angry men get ahead; angry women penalized: study [Reuters]