Carmen for the #MeToo Era

Sunday's Golden Globes awards ceremony was all about fighting against men's abuse of women. And it's not only America endeavoring to raise awareness about the widespread social problem. The Opera of Florence, Italy, on Sunday premiered a new production of Carmen in which the eponymous heroine does not get killed. Instead, she kills Don Don José with a gun that she wrests from him. Producers say they wanted to draw attention to modern-day mistreatment of women.

Some of my European friends were put off by the Golden Globes speeches and said they were all about hating men. One said when Oprah delivered her much celebrated oration, she looked like she wanted to grab a man from the audience and devour him. Privately, many people had a problem with the Hollywood event, but now we hear publicly from Catherine Deneuve  and a hundred other women that preventing men from going after women is an attack on men's freedom of expression.

Deneuve and others, mostly women in the entertainment business, said in a letter published by Le Monde Tuesday that “Rape is a crime, but persistent or clumsy flirting is not a crime, nor is gallantry a chauvinist aggression." They described #MeToo feminism as “a hatred of men and of sexuality,” and said that some men have already suffered professionally "while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual." Of course, there was an immediate backlash. 

Oprah Winfrey At the Golden Globe Award Ceremony

As someone who grew up in Europe but has lived long in the United States, I can understand both sides. Used to the ubiquitous, but harmless flirting with men in Europe, I found the social atmosphere in the United States to be so sterile at first that I often wondered how Americans married and produced children. In Europe and even in Africa I would receive compliments, flowers, chocolates and admiring looks from men. But in Washington, any compliments for my hair, clothing or figure come from women. I have never been sexually harassed at work. I even found myself envious once at dinner when two women, unattractive in my opinion, discussed unwanted attention from their male colleagues in the past. Not being able to contain myself, I finally exclaimed: "Wow, this has never happened to me - I must be very undesirable!"

After a while, I learned to appreciate the independence coming from not having to thank for gifts that did nothing but boost my false sense of "femininity." But over time, little things have built up into a bigger picture that could not be ignored: men would not offer me a seat on the train when I was pregnant, but women would. At work, it was men who kept me down and women who gave me a boost up. I have been insulted, attacked and belittled by men in the United States more than I ever have been in any other country. In the street, a driver once shouted after me "you f...ing c..." because I crossed a road when my light was green, but he moved forward and almost hit me.

Back in Europe when a woman approached a group of men, their eyes sparked and some sort of bantering ensued. They seemed to genuinely enjoy female company. In the States, I find the male conversation is more likely to come to a dead stop when a woman comes along, with men raising their eyes as if asking: "OK, how can we help you?" (so you can go away and we can continue). I often used to think American men really hate women. They certainly seem uncomfortable around them unless they smile very broadly, which I never do. Then I thought, OK they are just confused, and shy people often seem unfriendly.  

But reading the accounts of women who dealt with Weinstein and other men in power, I cannot but wonder what if not hatred could make a man treat a woman in such offensive manner as has been described.  It is one thing to try to seduce a woman with nice words, flowers and champaign, it's another to show her your ugly body and ask for services you would normally ask from a paid prostitute. The ugliness is not only in the sexual context. Just look at all the things Trump has said about Hillary.  I cannot imagine a politician anywhere in the world using such vulgar language about a woman. When a Polish representative in the EU said that women were inferior to men, he was quickly removed. 

People respond to hateful acts with hatred.  By her own account, Oprah was sexually abused as a child by a series of relatives.  If during her Golden Globe speech she looked like she wanted to devour a man, she had an excellent reason. Though I don't think she hates men in general.

Women worldwide have been treated hatefully by men. Deneuve and many others may not have experienced the worst of it. They have learned how to deal with unwanted attention from men and even use it to their advantage.  They have learned how to avoid getting into a situation where they could be raped (no one-to-one meetings in a hotel room).  They have got used to flirting, and many enjoy being pursued by men regardless of whether they find them attractive or not. In this push-and-pull game, both men and women have to be skilled in reading the signals telling them when to stop and when to go on. For those who despise such games, the alternative is a series of awkward or businesslike questions like: "May I kiss you? Are you ready to have sex?"  To which my answer (and I suspect Deneuve's too) would always be "not if you have to ask."

Unfortunately, Weinstein and the likes do not engage in harmless flirting games nor do they ask awkward questions. Neither do men who rape children in their family, or bosses who harass their female employees. They treat women like disposable objects, existing to serve, and with a big smile.  If they resist, they get beaten or maligned, or get their heads chopped off.  So movements like #MeToo and themed events like this year's Golden Globe ceremony, exaggerated as they may be, are useful and necessary tools in drawing attention to a social ill and the need to fight it.

New production of Carmen at the Teatro del Maggio Musicale Fiorentino  

Turning Carmen into a killer and Don José into an abusive man distracts from that purpose. Carmen is a troubled and complex person, who uses men for her purposes such as they may be at a given time.  Maybe she was an orphan, maybe she was raped as a child, maybe she was too much on the move to form a lasting attachment - whatever the reason, Carmen is not capable of genuine affection. She is a femme fatal, but also fatalistic.  In the "Card Trio" in Act 3, she foretells her death.  In the final act she embraces it.  When warned, she does not try to avoid a confrontation with Don José. She dares him to kill her or let her go. And when he refuses both, she riles him further by pulling his ring off her finger and throwing it at him.  Carmen is far from being an abused woman as portrayed at the Teatro del Maggio Musicale Fiorentino and is much closer to what a hateful man on Facebook called a "bitch."  

An abusive man getting killed by the victim of his violence is an excellent topic for a new opera. So were Nixon in China and Dead Man Walking in their time.  The Opera of Florence would have done better to commission an entirely new work from a contemporary composer than intervene in a time-honored classic.
*******
And in case you missed it, here is a NYT article with another European view:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/opinion/catherine-deneuve-french-feminists.html

Why Women Laugh

Whether in a restaurant, Metro, or in the street, at a party or work place, you can't avoid it - the increasingly loud and ever more unpleasant female laughter. Are women having more fun than ever before or are they sending a message? What is the purpose of laughter that is clearly forced and not a genuine reaction to something funny?

A few years ago, a young woman in our office announced she was leaving.  Everyone wished her well in her next endeavor and expressed regret that she would no longer be with us. But privately, a few people murmured "thank god we won't have to listen to that dreadful laughter any more."  The person in question always had a smile pasted on her face, and exuded exuberance and energy.  You'd never see her frown, sulk or pout.  You'd never see her angry or sad.  But behind that smile, she could be as tough as nails.  It seemed to me that she made her smile deliberately phony to mock everyone above and below her status, as if saying: "You want smiling staff?  Here I am."  Often, she would burst into startlingly loud fits of laughter that echoed across the office expanse and had everyone raise their head. The outbursts never sounded spontaneous.  The booming ha-ha, ha-ha, haaaa staccato was almost disturbing.

New arrivals in recent years included more laughing women.  Giggling, cackling, chortling, tittering, chuckling, snickering, howling, snorting, screeching and roaring with all types of laughter has become so commonplace in our office that it almost goes unnoticed.  But some of the outbursts cannot be ignored, for they are too explosive, sometimes intimidating, and most often simply irritating.   Regardless of the variation, nuance or volume, there are two things these laughs have in common - they are forced and they all come from just a handful of women.

I don't know how many times my train of thought has been interrupted while struggling to summarize a complex issue in a few short paragraphs by ho-ho-ho's that sound more like machine-gun fire than laughter.  Or by girlish giggling behind my back.  Or some female acting as if she is choking with hilarity and gasping for air, sort of agh-agh-agh-agh, instead of ha-ha-ha-ha, or squealing "oh my God, it's soooo funny!" So putting my report on hold, I wonder for the umpteenth time: why is it that some women feel the need to fake "uncontrollable" guffaws, or bouts of prolonged laughter - squeezing out every last bit of it like a patient coughing to expel every last bit of phlegm.  Are they aware how terrible they sound?  Probably not because no one tells them. Criticizing someone for laughing is akin to child molesting in a society that considers laughter, even fake laughter, wonderful, healthy and necessary for survival.

The first explanation that came to mind when I could no longer ignore the phenomenon, was that fake laughter serves as tension relief,  like yawning does sometimes.  I once had a woman sitting next to me at work, who was constantly yawning - open-mouthed and loudly. Having grown up in a culture where yawning in public is considered a social faux pas, I asked her to stop it because it was rude and inconsiderate (yawning can be infectious).  She said she could not help it - that she was tired or sleepy or whatever. I said, "No, you are doing it because you are tense. Just relax and stop yawning." The next day she told me, "You know, you were right. I realize that I yawn when I am nervous and under pressure."

Laughter could be providing the same kind of relief.  But in some cases that explanation did not fit.  Like, why do I never hear men at work bursting into seemingly uncontrollable laughter even though they have a lot of fun? They joke, smile and laugh - but apparently quite genuinely and without a need to impose their hilarity on others.

What do psychologists have to say about this social phenomenon? Apparently quite a lot. It is generally assumed that laughter is healthy because it promotes the release of good chemicals in your body.  If you don't laugh enough, you are advised to take laughter yoga lessons. Because according to some studies, fake laughter is as good as any. 

Charles Schaefer, psychology professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Teaneck, New Jersey, was quoted in an article as saying that “Forced laughter is a powerful, readily available and cost-free way for many adults to regularly boost their mood and psychological well-being.” He said that phony laughter works as well as real laughter because your body doesn’t know it’s fake, even though your brain might.  “Once the brain signals the body to laugh, the body doesn’t care why. It’s going to release endorphins, it’s going to relieve stress as a natural physiological response to the physical act of laughing,” said Schaefer.

As soon as I read that part, I forced myself to laugh for a full minute and waited for the benefits.  Following the article was this question from a reader named Chuck.
    
"What about the downside of forced laughter, including the assumption of insincerity by those listening to someone doing it?

To me, hearing forced laughter at the end of almost every sentence, none of which are actually worthy of a laugh, is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. It makes those forcing the laughter seem more than a bit ignorant, and at the very least, very insecure.

Is encouraging forced laughter worthwhile if that's the perception, or do those of us who feel negatively about it have more serious problems of our own?"

God bless you, Chuck!  You took the question from mouth. How can something phony be good for you? And, BTW, I did not feel any endorphins kick in after my forced-laugh session. Should I enroll in laughter yoga?  

Next I found a more recent article by Victoria Woollaston in the British Daily Mail with the following bullet points:

1. You really can't fake a laugh: Our brains are hardwired to tell the difference between genuine and fake chuckling
2. Study found our brains respond differently to genuine and fake laughter 
3. Fake laughter activates a part of the brain linked with deciphering emotions, while genuine laughter lights up areas linked with positive feelings

Woollaston says: " Next time your boss tells a bad joke and you feel compelled to laugh, beware - they can tell you're faking it (but they don't care, I might add).  Researchers from London have discovered our brains carry out different process when we hear genuine laughter compared to fake chuckles.

When laughter is forced, for example, it activates a part of the brain linked with deciphering emotions.  This means we know it's not a genuine laugh, and we automatically try to work out why they're faking it, what the laugh means and what they're thinking."  (Thanks Vicky, that's what I do.)

Finally, I came across a most edifying article by Robert Provine, psychology professor and author of the book Laughter: A Scientific Investigation.  He says a study he has conducted found that "In cross-gender conversations, females laughed 126% more than their male counterparts."  His study also showed that men tell more jokes and do more clowning to elicit laughter.

Furthermore, says Provine, "In many societies worldwide -- ranging from the Tamil of Southern India to the Tzeltal of Mexico -- laughter is self-effacing behavior, and the women in my study may have used it as an unconscious vocal display of compliance or solidarity with a more socially dominant group member. "

Provine also says that the gender patterns of laughter are fluid and they shift with social circumstance,  "For example," he says, "the workplace giggles of a young female executive will probably diminish as she ascends the corporate ladder."

"Consider your own workplace.  Have you ever encountered a strong leader with a giggle? Someone who laughs a lot, and unconditionally, may be a good team player, but they'll seldom be a president," says Provine.

Something to keep in mind before signing up for that laughter yoga class.

Further reading:
http://www.laughteryoga.org/english
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/08/content_728096.htm
http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Laughing-After-Every-Comment
http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/why-women-laugh-more-than-men-2-24635/