HERE’S AN INTERESTING PIECE IN THE L.A. TIMES.
I’m not sure what’s more interesting about it–its content or the fact that it appeared in the L.A. Times at all.
The author takes to task California Senator Dianne Feinstein and others like her who display what he dubs "machisma."
Of course, you’re familiar with machismo–insensitive masculinity that frequently leads to blunt, silent behavior.
The author of the piece seems to conceptualize machisma as an insensitive femininity that frequently leads to blunt, talkative behavior. In particular, it leads to demands that others talk about their feelings.
EXCERPTS:
Feinstein asked Roberts how he would handle right-to-die cases. She told him to answer "as a son, a husband and a father." She wanted a personal, emotional response, not the cool logic of a jurist. Contrary to instructions, he answered dispassionately and not as a son, husband or father. She was displeased.
Her question was offensive on a human level, for reasons having nothing to do with the judicial context. She demonstrated a disturbing and widespread phenomenon: A powerful person insists that someone’s private feelings must be spread out for public viewing, like rugs in a Mideast bazaar. Roberts’ feelings as a father, son and husband are none of the country’s business.
"Macha" characters delight in emotional disembowelment; in ordering their victims to let it all hang out. But lots of people have no desire for heart-to-hearts with strangers in public, much less on national TV. Macha is just as toxic as macho, or more so, because it’s harder to laugh off. "How do you feel?" has become a standard media question, a substitute for eliciting actual information. Oprah and her imitators use it; news reporters covering hurricanes use it. Macha helps demolish the emotional walls that protect people, just as hurricanes demolish their physical walls.
In the long-ago age before macha, you called a person Miss Hepburn, say, until explicitly invited to use her first name — which helped English recapture the ancient distinction between "thou" (once the friendly, easygoing form of address among friends) and "you" (for addressing strangers or superiors). Lacking this distinction, English is all sweatsuits and no tuxedos.
When two people were not on a first-name basis, that fact indicated what kind of behavior was suitable and what wasn’t. No child presumed to call an adult by his or her first name; no doctor did so with a patient. Friendships moved forward in small, graceful steps instead of lunges. Keeping a respectful distance and recognizing authority made the world not cold and forbidding but comfortable, reassuring.
In school, my boys have often been harassed by macha teachers demanding that they tell the class their feelings. One teacher had the nerve to tell one of my sons that his book report must "critique without judging" — and she marked him down for trying to analyze what was good and bad in the story instead of saying which passages got him all choked up. (How many teenage boys do you know who like getting all choked up — or talking about it?)
Granted, the demand strikes different people in different ways. Some students welcome it. My boys don’t. Lots of people don’t. For a person in authority to insist that lower-downs reveal their emotions is an abuse of power, a form of emotional groping that can leave the targets feeling violated and mad as hell.
That’s the truth!
The author is on to a real social phenomenon here. I don’t agree with everything he says (notably, I don’t agree AT ALL with his assertion that Sen. Feinstein is "a sensible person who usually says sensible things"–but then this is the L.A. Times).
It is ironic that Sen. Feinstein’s probings of Judge Roberts’ emotional life constitutes a violation of what most of us would regard as private matters that we have a (moral) right to keep private.
Isn’t Sen. Feintein supposed to be kinda big on a right to privacy?
This seems tangentially related to William A. Henry’s In Defense of Elitism. Our country’s desire for absolute egalitarianism is really a demand to remove all traces of elitism. Of course, human nature being what it is, you can never remove the pecking order in social structures. Sen. Feinstein’s behavior reminds me of Soviet style egalitarianism. Yes, we’re all comrades (i.e equals), friend, but some comrades are more equal than others (with thanks to Orwell’s Animal Farm.
What’s really been removed are the niceties which were built in to protect inferiors.
Peace be with you,
Bob
Could not Sen. Feintein’s question been a request for a candid and straightforward answer? Not invasive but inquiring? Isn’t that a big part of hearings?
Another example of the ever-expanding worship of the pagan goddess Therapeutica. Bleeech!
Of course we all understand these days that when the word “Privacy” is bandied about in the United States Senate or on the campaign trail — it is merely a euphemism for “abortion” — and has nothing to do with one’s personal life or feelings (except insofar as the Supreme Court has until now seen a pregnancy as a medical issue for one person and not for two — one of them being pre-born). Ms. Feinstein’s questions indicate that abortion advocates do not concern themselves with any right-to-privacy that does not involve abortion. But, isn’t it interesting how none of them are willing to come out and use the word abortion.
The Soul selects her own Society —
Then — shuts the Door —
To her divine Majority —
Present no more —
Unmoved — she notes the Chariots — pausing —
At her low Gate —
Unmoved — an Emperor be kneeling
Upon her Mat —
I’ve known her — from an ample nation —
Choose One —
Then — close the Valves of her attention —
Like Stone —
It was the press coverage of the Columbine shootings that first made me feel like I was an intruder on the private grief and horror of the real victims’ families.
The networks have no business broadcasting, and we (who have no real investment in the tragedy) have no business viewing the spontaneous and unguarded outpourings of emotion to which victims ought to be entitled.
Good grief! Ordinary human decency and compassion would allow anyone a few moments (or hours) to pull themselves together.
I’m glad Roberts did not feel obliged to indulge this grotesque modern obsession.
Amen, Scott W! A few years ago, I worked under 2 female superiors who pushed me to express how I feel at work about a situation – it seemed they wanted to put everyone on the couch & shove Rorschachs in their faces to fix the situation. I work in healthcare so there are a lot of women & many buy into this notion whereas most men do not. (I’m not sure why.) One clinic I worked in was a sea of feelings because they’d all been indoctrinated into this philosophy of *sharing*. I refused to join into the miasma. Consequently, I wasn’t liked very much by management. Made practical, daily working quite difficult with anyone in the clinic. When that supervisorial left (was removed, actually), a far more practical woman, who didn’t buy into the histrionics, replaced her & the clinic was all the better for it. Most rebelled for about 6 months, until they realized that the clinic environment was far calmer & more pleasant . . . not to mention fair!
“Could not Sen. Feintein’s question been a request for a candid and straightforward answer? Not invasive but inquiring? Isn’t that a big part of hearings?”
I don’t think so. The hearings were to determine if Roberts is able to do the job he’s been nominated for. I’d think intelligent questions re: his views on the Constitution & jurisprudence would be far more appropriate than the emotive hypotheticals that were batted around during the hearings. Do judges, especially SCOTUS judges, typically deal in hypotheticals? I don’t believe they do.
I just do not understand the drive behind our culture’s need to know how another “feels” about a given situation. Obviously, victims of Katrina & Rita are emotionally devastated, but do we need to shove a camera in their faces & live it with them? I’d rather pray for them than waste my time watching that. I blame Reality TV(TM) for this, in part. Our culture has lost quite a lot of its decorum & such shows as The Real World, Oprah, etc have played a huge part in that. Glad I don’t watch them!
I say leave the therapy and “how do you feel?” questions, which I might add is a gross skewed stereo-type of what counselors actually do in therapy sessions, to the qualified therapisits, counselors and psychologists of this country not to mention the family and personal friends of the questioned individuals, not to Joe Schmo on CNN.
I always assumed “machisma” was not femininity at all, but rather near-complete masculisation of women – which is pretty much what has happened in Europe, Canada and Blue America since the Sixties.
Like it or not, masculinisation of women is not forced upon a society by a small elite, but dictated by economics. In these cases, because their only natural resource – soils and oceans of geologically remarkable fertility – is uneconomic to use, these nations perceive themselves as grossly overpopulated. So much so that economically many European nations would still be economically overpopulated wiht a hundredth the population they have currently. And masculinisation of women is a natural way to achieve this becaus eit eliminates the instinct to reproduce whihc is economically too difficult.