Macalester Bell offers a feminist account of the value of appropriate anger that does not rely on anger being used as a tool for combating injustice. Bell characterizes this value as loving the good and hating evil. I argue that Bell’s account of anger’s value does not clearly distinguish between the experience and expression of anger, leading to her account not equivocally showing that non-expressed anger is valuable. Moreover, I argue that when agents are not in a position to express their anger, their anger is still valuable as it is a form of internally resisting injustice. Through the use of prominent discussions in emotion theory, I show that anger can and should be distinguished between experience and expression. I claim that if an agent’s anger is fitting, it has experiential value as it signals to the intrinsic value of self-respect. I call this view the Experiential Account.