21 December, 2007

The Macho Paradox

I am enjoying reading bits of The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women And How All Men Can Help and discussing the ideas presented with Cody. As a man, he is (naturally) defensive at first, but I find it entertaining - as well as good practice for me - to work the defensiveness out of him until he acknowledges the truths of the issue.
Do you suppose men are so defensive when the subject of violence against women is brought up simply because they are men? I don't quite understand it. Perhaps a reversed example would be useful!
Posted by chelsea at 8:56 PM

1 comments:

Anna said...

Glad to hear you're enjoying the book! I looked for it at B&N the other day, but couldn't find it (not that I was looking very hard). Something I've been thinking a lot about lately (and it relates to this book) is the issue of domestic violence. The media (and your average person) thinks of/represents DV as something perpetrated on women by men. All the education and services seem targeted towards female victims. I support this, of course, but it worries me that we're not providing the same respect and care to male victims of DV (and yes, they most certainly exist). This extends to a larger issue in our culture with the way we celebrate women who commit violence. With the glut of testosterone-driven action films, I have no problem with fierce women kicking butt of their own. But. This celebration of women 'kicking butt' seems to carry over to women who physically assault intimate partners or family. The movies are full of women throwing vases at a philandering boyfriend, or beating a man's chest with fists (however ineffectual it may be). The message is that women are incapable of inflicting any real physical harm, and that's simply untrue. Once you take those scenes off a movie screen and into real life, it stops being 'cute' and becomes a problem. I don't condone women hitting men, just as I don't condone men hitting women. We need to stop celebrating women batterers for 'taking charge'.

There's something very complex going on here. My suspicion is that this attitude towards female violence stems from patriarchy. Take your average movie scene like I described above. The message is that women are incapable of hurting men (as I said before). The message is that women are weak, that men are in charge. Now reverse that scene. Imagine a man throwing a vase at a woman after he finds out she's cheating on him. Uncomfortable, right? This double standard is so tricky, and it's one I want to explore more. What I'm wondering (and perhaps Katz explores this in his book) is if women aren't buying into the macho paradox, emulating men (or cultural preconceptions of how men are supposed to act) in order to get power. I think women who are aggressors in DV need to own up to it and be punished as severely as men are, and I think we need to provide a hell of a lot more support to male victims of DV. Perhaps that ties into the whole 'macho' thing, that men have a hard time admitting to being abused by a woman, but I think as a society we need to respect that women are capable of being batterers, and that it doesn't mean a man is weak.

As a woman and a feminist, what I want more than anything is equality. I liked that little snippet I read out of the book about the issue of chivalry. I'll freely admit to liking it when a guy holds open a door for me, or motions for me to get on the bus ahead of him. I worry, though, about the stereotypes they perpetuate. A man shouldn't do those things because I'm a woman, but rather because he's showing courtesy to a fellow human being. Logic dictates that I should hold doors open and wait to board the bus last for men, and I do those things. And yet, if he's similarly intent to let me go first, I inevitably acquiesce. One of us has to, after all. I don't know; it's an interesting thing. What do you think?

24 December, 2007

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)