Machismo

Machismo is the term for the set of attitudes and behaviors that unjustly demean the dignity of women in comparison with men. (We speak here of pernicious and rejectable machismo, not of joking, indifferent, or cocky machismo, which has no great importance.)

In this matter, justice plays an important role: if a behavior is just, there is no machismo. There are circumstances where women are more qualified and it would be machismo to push them aside. On the other hand, there are other cases where men are more capable; it is just to recognize this, and there is no machismo but realism.

Limiting or obstructing women's access to university, culture, or management positions; trying to make women think, dress, or behave like men; treating women as a sexual object for men's use and pleasure... These behaviors are unjust toward the dignity of women and must be rejected.

In this confrontation between men and women, mistakes can be made by excess or by deficiency. To avoid these errors it is useful to keep in mind the following aspects:

• It is not good to frame the issue as a struggle. Rather, it is a matter of achieving understanding and collaboration: solidarity. The aim is for both to improve, to rejoice in the other's dignity.
• Feminism or machismo is not the absolute and principal value. It must take into account other aspects, such as justice, charity, freedom of association...
• The ideal is not absolute equality: it is not a matter of women being men, but of man and woman enjoying the same dignity as persons.
• Man and woman are different, and those differences must be respected. It is a matter of promoting equality where they are equal, and differentiation where they are different.

- Equal rights to apply for a job or governmental position. - Differentiation:     . Absences for pregnancy must be well regulated.     . There are positions that women perform better (homemakers, nurses,...). These tasks must not be disdained, just as tasks more proper to men (dock loader...) are not rejectable. - Clarification: within the freedom to hire, a company may hire a predominance of men without being chauvinistic: there would be machismo if women did not have access to other companies with equally qualified work positions. Nor is there machismo if a man is hired for his better professional preparation.

(a fundamental aspect in these matters). - Equal rights to access culture (schooling, university...). - Differentiation: freedom to follow cultural tendencies different from men's, such as their attention to fashion. Those inclinations must not be disdained. (Nor is a man's interest in rugby rejectable.) - Clarification: schools and universities for men are not chauvinistic in themselves, but fall within the freedom of association. They would be chauvinistic if there were disdain, or if women did not have access to similar institutions where they could access culture.

- Equal rights to have their body — and their soul — respected. - Differentiation: the manner of exercising and protecting that respect is different. For example, women should take more care with modesty in dress. - Clarifications:     . Pornography is clearly chauvinistic since it demeans the dignity of the person by making them a sexual object.     . Attacks against motherhood (contraceptive methods, abortion...) are harmful to women since they deprive them of a very great gift. They will be chauvinistic if through them the man despises women by using them as he pleases.

- Equality: One with one and one with one. Mutual love must be exclusive. The harem or lovers demean the dignity of the spouse. - Differentiation: The manner of loving is different. For example, in general a rose is more a show of love toward a woman. - Clarifications:     . Polygamy is clearly chauvinistic.     . Divorce is harmful to the family, but will only be chauvinistic in cases similar to polygamy by stages. In practice, divorce laws are chauvinistic, since reality has shown that women usually come out more harmed.

- Equal rights to practice sport. - Differentiation:     . It is correct that there be different categories for men and women. This may seem like a chauvinistic separation, but it is not machismo but just realism: they have different athletic capacity.     . Changing rooms must be separate. - Clarification: Sports associations for men are not chauvinistic in themselves, since there is freedom to associate with whom one wishes. They would only be chauvinistic if women could not have access to similar ones, or if that selection were joined to disdain.

- Equality: All persons are called to the greatest holiness, to union with Christ, to heaven. - Differentiation: The manner of achieving holiness is different. For example, women have more facility for some virtues, while they must make more effort in others. - Clarification: Religious institutes for men are not chauvinistic, since they neither disdain women, nor exclude other paths to holiness for them. (There is also the divine freedom to choose foundations.)

- A debated topic since in the Catholic religion only men can be priests. There is no disdain but there is a clear exclusion that at first sight seems unjust: machismo. The truth, however, is otherwise; there is no machismo but realism: women cannot be priests due to lack of capacity; therefore it is just that they not be.

Women can be mothers of priests as Mary was mother of Christ, but Christ was a man and a man must be the one who takes his place on earth. Evidently, divine freedom intervenes here in organizing things this way, and we do not doubt the wisdom and justice of God.

The Catholic religion is the institution that has most defended women throughout history, and it is the only one that elevates the dignity of a woman to the incredible category of Mother of God. One might say now that Catholicism is markedly feminist. It is fortunate that priests can only be men, and thus the situation is somewhat balanced. The Lord has arranged things very well.

5. I don't see it clearly, a friend tells me, and continues: women can be ambassadors representing a country. Why can they not be capable of representing Christ?— It is not the same type of representation. Let us see what happens at Mass. The priest says "this is my body" and at that moment the bread does not become the body of the priest but of Christ. In those instants the priest has lent his voice and his person to Christ so that He may say "this is my body". It is already difficult for faith to accept that presence of Christ in the priest. It would be more difficult if it were a woman. The Lord has arranged things very well.

that the Lord freely gives to whom He wishes. Any vocation is a great honor — and a responsibility — for the person chosen, but not a contempt for the others. The Creator is not obligated to grant that gift to all, and He is not unjust when He gives it to some and not to others. He is free.