Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Norah Vincent’s, Self-Made Man: A Discussion of Chapters 4-6

These three chapters dealt with Norah Vincent’s insights into Ned’s experiences with dating, life in a monastic setting and working in corporate America. I was particularly intrigued with “Chapter 5: Life”, in which Ned lived with a Catholic monastic order. At first Vincent believed that she would gain new insight into masculinity because sex, specifically sexual encounters with women, where taken out of the picture in a monastic setting. However, many similar insights into masculine identity were discovered, even without the added element of heterosexual sex. In fact, hyper-masculinity plagued many of the monks because they had to suppress any interactions with their fellow brothers that may be classified as homosexual tendencies, which ultimately could progress into sinful sexual acts with fellow brothers. This chapter blew me away because I have never thought of monks being trapped within the construction of hyper-masculinity. I think this is because, like Vincent, I connect hyper-masculinity so strongly to heterosexual interaction with women, that I feel an absence of this relationship with women would ultimately free monks from this demeaning masculinity that forces men to objectify and victimize women.

This chapter drew many similar conclusions to “Chapter 2: Friendship”, in which Ned interacts solely in a male dominant environment. Sexual orientation and homophobia became very important components of Vincent’s observed masculine identity in the monks. There were clear physical and emotional boundaries that were not to be crossed, for fear that another brother may perceive one as gay and thus a threat to one’s vow of chastity. I was fascinated that when Father Fat learned that Ned was a woman, he openly embraced her, just as Jim had done in the chapter on friendship. As soon as Ned was reclassified as a woman, both men were able to let down their emotional and physical guards.

Again, Vincent ends this chapter with certain observational claims about the group of men she spent time with. She states, “I found you can take the man out of his element but you can not very often take the element out of the man” (181). She emphasizes that men removed from the element of heterosexual interaction with women still act within the boundaries of this element. I wonder if this statement is another essentialist claim Vincent is making about masculine identity or is this simply a constructed element in which men have been conditioned into and can never to escape?

In “Chapter 4: Love”, Ned experiences dating and realizes how challenging dating is for men. Vincent believed that Ned would be good at dating because he was indeed a woman, thus aware of what women want. However, this was not the reality. One main theme of this chapter was rejection and how men respond to rejection usually through resentment towards women, thus, pulling the emotional and physical needs of women and men further apart. Vincent concludes that “women have a lot of power, not only to arouse, but to give worth, self-worth, meaning, initiation, sustenance, everything” (127). This comment of women’s power over the heterosexual male is imperative to understanding the insecurities that lie beneath the hyper-masculine exterior of many heterosexual men.

Another important observation was female and male expectations, and there disconnect and mixed signals of female expectations that men have to deal with in a dating environment. She observes, “while a man is expected to be modern, that is, to support feminism in all its particulars, to and treat women as equals in every respect, he is on the other hand often still expected to be traditional at the same time, to treat a lady like a lady…” (112). This double standard is something I have personally struggled with in my relationships and think that a lack of communication between men and women in a date setting is problematic for both sexes.

In “Chapter 6: Work”, I was most intrigued with Vincent’s observations of Ivan, a corporate, chauvinistic, egotistical man that was successful in this “Red-bull” business world. Weaknesses were unacceptable in this group of men, masked through the competitive attitude and strive for success from the work world to the bedroom. Everything revolved around sex, even a successful product sale was “another form of scoring or ranking or winning, and the office reflected this attitude in every respect” (197). The stereotypical sports atmosphere of competitiveness and a drive to score in all aspects of life is observed in this chapter. The weakest link is fired, or forced to the bottom of this hierarchal latter of success, and this is not only a point system based on business sales. This point system depends on every part of the males’ masculine experience, the more beautiful women you fuck, the more points of respect you earn, just as the more sales you make.

I was very upset with this chapter because of all the affluent power these men have and how they reinforce a masculinity that oppresses women. I think I would have screamed at Ivan if I had to listen to all his boasting about fucking women and how intelligent he is. And the most frustrating thing is, how are women suppose to break into cooperate American culture, do they have to “suck it up” and put up with the offensive guy comments and harassment about their sex? If the boss uses this "JUICE" language to pump up his “team”, can a woman ever infiltrate this environment; will she ever be a fully included member? If cooperate strength is defined by these sexist actions, will a woman in cooperate America always be the “weakest link” if she refuses to put-up with this behavior? I am also aware that men are victimized by this cooperate culture because they must participate in this sexist behavior in order to climb the latter of success. It is truly a sad reality, and it reiterates one of the main themes of the book, both men and women suffer from the “masculine” identity.

3 comments:

Kira Price said...

Although Vincent has many interesting observations, she is still playing by the heteronormative rules of our binary gendered society-- especially through the language she chooses to use. I know she made a little disclaimer at the beginning- but she is still more often than not reinforcing gender stereotypes that in some ways I though this book would not indulge. I am intrigued by Vincent's chapter on dating-- the complexity yet simplicity of emotion, time spent together, the 'protocol'. It's all fascinating to me. But the way Vincent discusses the "power" women have over the heterosexual male is frustrating. Although it is a reflection of her own experience, her assertions leave no room for questioning, and perhaps the acknowledgment of many other points of view. I also struggle with her tendency to follow double standards. When you brought up the quote “while a man is expected to be modern, that is, to support feminism in all its particulars, to and treat women as equals in every respect, he is on the other hand often still expected to be traditional at the same time, to treat a lady like a lady”. I have a hard time figuring out how our expectations for a relationship are formed. Are they really what we personally want and need, or is it shaped more by what our society has imprinted on us. As we talked about before in many of our Butler discussions, we are all performing gender, and through these performances we are using the cultural scripts that we are socialized with. Can we really separate how we feel from our own natural organic internal reactions? In many ways I think that if we have been socialized to feel a certain way about something then, well, we will inevitably feel that way. Can you really control your emotions (which I believe are affected by your expectations)?

the amateur feminist said...

First of all I just want to comment on what Kira wrote. I was also confused and bothered by that quote on women's expectations of the "modern" and "traditional" man. So many times, my boyfriend and my guy friends have questioned me along the line of "why do girls still need guys to open the door for them when they want to be independent and treated as equal". I have never really been able to give them a good answer because I myself expect the men in my life to be both.

Anyways, about your post..I was also very fascinated by chapter five because it brought back memories of my encounters with monks in Thailand. It's a long story but to make it short, I met a very handsome monk during a meditation weekend and found him to be extremely flirtatious and...sexual in this comments and body language. I guess I didn't really know how to handle the situation because he's supposed to be a monk. So..yeah this chapter brought back those memories.

hannah said...

I also liked the chapter on monasticism and found it interesting that Vincent came to many of the same conclusions about masculine bonding as she had through the bowling league experience. However, I liked the way she came to them much better: this time, instead of being (despite the disguise) an outsider trying to blend in and then conclude about a community, Ned actually fully experienced the socialization of the community. Ned's experience of "having the pink taken out of him," of homophobic masculine socialization codes, of the power hypermasculine rules can have to shame people, seemed like a more authentic experience. Like Vincent, I felt it gave me more insight into what it's like to grow up as a boy and what the origins of these hypermasculine rules are. Vincent does revert to essentializing about gender, but I think Ned's experience speaks more about social constructions and the drives and fears behind them.