And, an important point, her anger would most likely fuel your own anger toward her. As you don't understand why she's so mad, you yourself come to feel that YOU are being treated unfairly.
You can then work to figure out exactly why she feels she's been treated unfairly (if you're really really perceptive) or, more likely, you can simply sit her down (maybe later after she's put down all the pots) and attempt to get to the bottom of the situation.
All we know is that we're angry about what she did, and we're gonna let her know about it. But if you're able to get to the root of why you're angry, what exactly is making you feel like you're being treated unfairly, you can very often RATIONALLY AND CALMLY deal with the situation... rather than making things worse by yelling and screaming.
For example, if you feel that your lady has somehow treated you unfairly, you can calmly explain the cause of your anger to her. Explain exactly what it is that makes you feel you've been treated unfairly. She, at this point, will most likely apologize, claiming that was not her intent.
Of course, when you do everything right with a woman, you expect to be treated very well by her in return. You expect her to like you, to be attracted to you, to want to be around you. And when that doesn't happen, you get angry... because you feel you're being treated unfairly.
The women who stay in these relationships tend to have very low self-esteem. And thus, they don't see the abusive behavior as being unfair treatment. They, for some reason, feel as though they deserve the mental and/or physical abuse. And without that critical perception of unfairness, and without the anger that results, they don't have the necessary motivation to make a change.
Have you ever wondered why some women stay in relationships with abusive men... while other women leave, file charges, or cut peckers off and toss them out car windows? It has a lot to do with anger and the woman's perception that she is either being treated fairly or unfairly.
One of the keys to getting a woman out of an abusive relationship is to make her angry, to make her feel as though she's being treated unfairly, and that she deserves better. Once she gets ANGRY, she will then be primed to take the appropriate steps to change her situation.
In many of its forms, feminism seems to involve at least two groups ofclaims, one normative and the other descriptive. The normative claimsconcern how women ought (or ought not) to be viewed and treated anddraw on a background conception of justice or broad moral position;the descriptive claims concern how women are, as a matter of fact,viewed and treated, alleging that they are not being treated inaccordance with the standards of justice or morality invoked in thenormative claims. Together the normative and descriptive claimsprovide reasons for working to change the way things are; hence,feminism is not just an intellectual but also a political movement.
However, you're not just going to talk about "feelings" and other girly stuff like that; you're going to educate her as to the psychological constructs which underlie the emotion of anger. You're going to explain the "perception of being treated unfairly" and how this produces anger. And you're going to assure her that treating her unfairly, and thus making her angry, was never your intent.
Some might prefer to define feminism in terms of a normative claimalone: feminists are those who believe that women are entitled toequal rights, or equal respect, or…(fill in the blank withone's preferred account of injustice), and one is not required tobelieve that women are currently being treated unjustly. However, ifwe were to adopt this terminological convention, it would be harder toidentify some of the interesting sources of disagreement both with andwithin feminism, and the term ‘feminism’ would lose muchof its potential to unite those whose concerns and commitments extendbeyond their moral beliefs to their social interpretations andpolitical affiliations. Feminists are not simply those who arecommitted in principle to justice for women; feminists take themselvesto have reasons to bring about social change on women's behalf.
The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man′s life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other′s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.17.
We have so far been using the term ‘oppression’ loosely tocover whatever form of wrong or injustice is at issue. Continuing withthis intentional openness in the exact nature of the wrong, thequestion still remains what it means to say that women are subjectedto injustice because they are women. To address this question, it mayhelp to consider a familiar ambiguity in the notion“because”: are we concerned here with causal explanationsor justifications? On one hand, the claim that someone is oppressedbecause she is a woman suggests that the best (causal) explanation ofthe subordination in question will make reference to her sex: e.g.,Paula is subject to sexist oppression on the job because the bestexplanation of why she makes $1.00 less an hour for doing comparablework as Paul makes reference to her sex (possibly in addition to herrace or other social classifications). On the other hand, the claimthat someone is oppressed because she is a woman suggests that therationale or basis for the oppressive structures requires that one besensitive to someone's sex in determining how they should be viewedand treated, i.e., that the justification for someone's being subjectto the structures in question depends on a representation of them assexed male or female. E.g., Paula is subject to sexist oppression onthe job because the pay scale for her job classification is justifiedwithin a framework that distinguishes and devalues women's workcompared with men's.