Archive for the ‘Male Violence’ Category

If We Can’t Hug You, Nobody Can!

June 26, 2007

In her nationally syndicated column yesterday, Judith Martin, a.k.a. Miss Manners, was presented with this whine and offered this sorry advice*:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I manage a busy office in a large organization that prides itself on its political correctness, among other things.

About two-thirds of our staff are women, who regularly greet each other with hugs, pecks on the cheek or quick shoulder rubs. The camaraderie and team spirit are wonderful to see, but they unfortunately do not extend to the male members of the staff. Our training about sexual harassment has left male staffers wary of touching anyone, male or female.

This leads to awkward scenes, when, for example, a mixed group arrives for a meeting, the women are all greeted with hugs, and the men get a cursory “Hi, John.”

I fear that we are actually creating a workplace that is hostile to men with this behavior, and a few of our male staff have confided feeling this way to me. I have contemplated a “no hugs” rule for everyone, but it seems rather cold and may exceed my authority as the manager of just one part of a large organization. Any suggestions?

GENTLE READER: That you realize that there is something between hugs and cold. In the context of the workplace, that means requiring professional behavior.

However much female members of your staff love one another (and have you considered how this would affect colleagues they didn’t?), an office is no place for such physical demonstrations, whether or not they meet the definition of sexual harassment. There would be no question of that if you hired a married couple, but Miss Manners imagines that you still wouldn’t want to have them canoodling on the job.

Here is the translation:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I manage a busy office in a large organization that is, unfortunately, in the grip of female and “minority” zealots who, to my inconvenience, wish to be treated like human beings and have therefore instituted a plethora of useless and confusing “PC” rules.

About two-thirds of our staff are women, who regularly greet each other with warm affection including hugs, pecks on the cheek or quick shoulder rubs. I get a buzz from this female-female touching, as would any red-blooded male, but these bitches won’t let us men fondle them in the same way. The bitches, in fact, have, with their tremendous institutional power, forbidden us men from doing anything besides grunt sullenly at each other.

Our little feelings and our sense of entitlement take a blow when, for example, a mixed group arrives for a meeting, the women all greet each other with hugs, and the men don’t get immediate rapt attention from the women. The bitches are actually focusing exclusively on each other for the length of a peck on the cheek!

The bitches have clearly made this workplace hostile to men, who, after all, only want what is due us (because we were born with penises). Despite the fact that we have only ourselves to blame for not being able to handle women (due to our past history of sexual harassment) or to slap other men jovially on the back (because we decided long ago that this “working class” rough-housing did not conjure a professional image), I want to know how we can punish the bitches for ever instituting sexual harassment laws, for actually liking each other, for bringing a part of their female culture into our male workplace, and, especially, for not thinking constantly about how all of this affects us. Us! Us us us! Oh, and I’d like to do it in such a way that my intentions are disguised.

GENTLE READER: Obviously your assumptions and infantile needs should remain unquestioned. Given all the problems that exist in today’s workplaces – downsizing, outsourcing, corporate raiding by CEOs, actual sexual harassment and the like – your letter best captures the number one problem in today’s workplace: that men might feel left out of something kind and warm between women. Here is how you can accomplish your laudable goal:

1. Lie about your intention: state that your only goal is to reduce unprofessional behavior, not to punish women.

2. Pretend that any decent person could see that hugs are the exact same thing as raw sex (touching between women is, after all, always pornographic) and are therefore unprofessional.

3. Act as if this is for the bitches’ own good (to protect the numerous losers whom no one likes). Certainly the women will feel much better once you humiliate them for their previous displays of warmth!

By all means, and by any means, banish all signs of sisterly affection and female bonding from your male club. It is quite bad enough that the women outnumber you. One can hardly have them actually humanizing the place.

* Newspapers can decide how they edit these columns, so you might have read a slightly different version in your own paper.

Advertisements

Crazy Dread

June 17, 2007

by Border Heeler

Last week I read about the new movie, Crazy Love, and was immediately filled with dread. It is a documentary about married 32-year-old male lawyer Burton Pugach who, beginning in the late 1950’s, woos a younger woman, Linda Riss. Upon finding out he is married with a daughter, Linda leaves him and becomes engaged to “nice guy” Larry. Pugach, filled with jealous rage, stalks Linda and then hires a man to throw lye in her face, disfiguring and blinding her. Pugach goes to jail for this, but remains obsessed with her. Upon his release, and after much harassment, he publicly asks her to marry him. (This all has, by this point, become a tabloid obsession as well.) She accepts. They marry and are married to this day.

The reason for the movie? To explore Pugach’s “obsession” and Riss’ capitulations.

I have dreaded the reviews perhaps as much as the movie. Thus, I have worried, will begin one enormous Blame the Victim extravaganza. How much, I worry, will the reviewer focus on, reinforce most readers’ obsessive focus on: why did she stay with him?

Abused women, in this culture, are aliens or bugs to be examined from every angle. Why does she stay? Why didn’t she fight back? Why did she go back to him? Just what does make her tick?

When obviously the real questions should be: what makes a man feel entitled to abuse? What supports the abuse institutionally? What allows him to tick?

(See Feminist Philosophers for a bit more on this.)

Turns out I am not alone in dreading this film and the discussion of it, including dread from a perspective I hadn’t thought of, but should have. An interesting short commentary comes from a blind male blogger, Professor Stephen Kuusisto, who is anguished about the fact that Linda Riss considered herself “damaged goods” after Burton Pugach throws lye in her face and blinds her. So “damaged” by being blinded that she goes back to him.

Indeed. Instead of wondering “why she stayed with him,” why are most people not wondering why her “good guy” fiancé, Larry, did NOT stay with her? Why is she so alone after such an attack? What is the meaning of damaged goods here and why is she discardable?

Certainly, the “damaged goods” thing, for a woman, is as much about “ruined” appearance as well as about being blinded. Apparently, Linda talks a lot in the film about how beautiful her eyes were before the attack. It is an unforgivable sin for a woman to be ugly. Period.

So, I have read reviews online and, yes, pretty much all of them ask the question about “why she stayed with him” and fewer ask why he (Burton) did what he did. This latter is the real question and yet is less often pursued, as male violence is just seen as a fact of nature. Still, some reviews are more nuanced and sympathetic than others on the “why did she” question and focus more on Burton as evil – an evil individual, though, not a manifestation of an evil patriarchal regime, a very distancing maneuver. “He is not like me.”

And then came along the only review I had yet read that is written by a woman, Christy Lemire. I read it last night in my local paper, but it is a national (Associated Press) review.

And it is … horrific. (Mr. Kuusisto is also sickened by it.) An excerpt:

“Crazy Love” is a documentary about a man who was so obsessively possessive of his ex-girlfriend that he lied to her about divorcing his wife, paid guys to beat her up so she’d feel frightened enough to run back to him, and, most shockingly of all, hired a thug to throw lye in her face, leaving her blind and disfigured at 22.

And it’s funny!

That’s one of the most astounding elements of “Crazy Love” — the way in which director Dan Klores takes a horrific tale, which provided juicy fodder for the New York tabloids nearly 50 years ago, and consistently finds its innate humor.

It helps a great deal that Burton Pugach and Linda Riss, now 80 and 70 years old respectively, are a longtime husband and wife who revel in the attention their unbelievable relationship has drawn. Yes, they got married after everything that transpired between them. That’s only part of the exquisite weirdness.

These two are great storytellers with a great story to tell — he with his goatee and gut, she with her frosted gold wig that matches her lipstick that matches her fingernails, an ultra-slim cigarette perpetually protruding between them. Linda also wears a pair of oversized, butterfly-shaped shades to hide her eyes, but her eyebrows jump behind them as she recounts the extraordinary events that have occurred over the past half century. She’s as enthralled in her soap opera of a life as we are. ….

Woo-hoo, what a laugh riot!

So why, I ask myself, is the only review I read by a woman beyond-the-pale bad? It is, interestingly, also the least emotional review I have read. There is no anguish, no search for meaning, none of the disgust or horror that the other reviewers conveyed. Lemire talks about the “humor” but shows us none of it. It is an extremely distant commentary. I believe that this can only be the expression of a huge sense of denial: that as a woman, Lemire needs to treat this incident as freakish and remote, not as merely a slightly exaggerated example of what women face all the time. The absolute need for emotional distance is the only way I can make sense of “funny” in this context.

“Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away…” Well, no, actually: right now, right here.

And I am worrying, in looking at this, that I am being guilty of the same thing I initially dreaded: asking, “Why is Christy Lemire being so forgiving, laughing this off? Why is this woman not verbally fighting the problematic aspects of this movie?”

Well, because she, like all of us women, is damaged and in need of feeling safe, whether a direct victim or not. Should she be taken to task for a revolting, ultimately antifeminist review? Yes. Is she comprehensible in her detachment? Yes to that, too.

And the film itself: if not made from an explicitly feminist perspective, how can it be anything other than a pornographic or freak-show-esque gawking at a woman’s disabling abuse? There is no reason to suppose, from what I have read, that this filmmaker takes a feminist approach. So, still I dread the film.

And so, I will ask the right question: what allows and supports this film that this man made? Perhaps it will turn out to be better than the reviews indicate. But with this belittling title, I rather dread it won’t. Oh, those crazy mixed up kids! Huh?

Interestingly, though many reviewers have asked the inevitable “why did Linda go back to him?” questions, most were rather sympathetic about it. The seeming extremeness of her situation moves then to sympathy: “Well, she was blinded and ugly, really what else could she do?” My only hope, here, is that most people will take a little bit of this, though patronizing, and do the opposite of what Christy Lemire has done: look at Linda and Burton and recognize the everydayness of women being brutalized like this by men, but extend their sympathy for Linda to all the victims they now blame.