Submitted by Anne on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:08pm

---

“...The most visionary task of all remains that of re-conceptualizing masculinity so that alternative, transformative models are there in the culture, in our daily lives, to help boys and men who are working to construct a self, to build new identities.”  (p. 63-4, bell hooks, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics)

“Women see men as guarding the fort, so they don’t see how the culture of the fort shapes men.  Men don’t see how they are influenced by the culture either; in fact, they prefer not to.  If they did, they would have to let go of the illusion of control.”  (p. 14, Susan Faludi, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man)

I took interest, at first, in the chapter on work because I’ve always wondered what the differences are between how women and men are interviewed.  I’ve been interviewed by both women and men, and I’ve always come away wondering how the situation would have been different if I had been a man.  As I read through this chapter, it felt like Ned was writing it more so than Norah, in tone and word choice for example.  By this point in Vincent’s journey, she had been living a double life for quite some time and I’ll assume that the identity of Ned became all the more salient as time wore on.  “Nobody ever thought this Ned was gay” (p. 187, emphasis in original).  Vincent was able to play a “more macho” man (for lack of better terms), perhaps due to her previous training and the tricks and tips she’d picked up, but it was also more expected of Ned, in the working environment, to be an alpha male.

On pages 187-188, when talking about differences in how women ask for things while men demand things, Vincent says, “It was like partaking in a common understanding that that’s just how guys are.  That’s how they talk.  They’re direct, terse.  No need to explain.  We understand.”  I immediately thought of the adage, “Boys will be boys”.  Vincent didn’t continue to offer an explanation, so I took this as a justification.  Men don’t say “may I...?” but instead say, “Gimme...” because hey!  They’re men and men are men!

I’m wondering how Vincent handled her conversations with Ivan-the-sexist.  I’ve heard some strange shit come out of the mouths of guys (and gals), but they said it in front of me knowing I was a woman; although still sexist/hateful, it was noticeably toned down and they didn’t expect me to pitch in my own crass remarks.  As Ned, how much placating did Vincent have to do?  Did she play along, giving stories of Ned’s sexual conquests?

Going into this chapter, I had assumed Vincent would have been in an actual office setting, not a door-to-door salesman gig.  How did Vincent fill out the applications?  Did she offer her own social security number?  I would have liked a little more technical detail.

I like the Kosinski quote on page 228, how it isn’t so much about what we present, but how the audience willingly assumes one way or another.  We represent ourselves in manners to convince the audience to accept our acting as true, but it seems the audience members are going to believe what they want to believe, even when the truth is, literally in Vincent's case, staring them in the eyes.

The chapter on the self provided a lot of insight into men’s groups.  I am so glad Vincent took the space to analyze, albeit from her own perspective, of course, the bunkness of the rituals - as if walking through a tarp would really help the men to be reborn, for example.  Obviously these men felt the need for this intimacy and interaction, and that is the point.  We must create our own communities if the one(s) we are born into is harmful.

I wonder what reaction men have to reading this section.  Can they make connections in their own lives and experiences?  Have they, too, been forbidden from expressing their emotions to such a degree that it bottles up inside of them, boiling?  Do they ever find release?  Do men ever secretly question our culture and society?  Question the ways in which they were socialized to be “men”?  Do they question being a “man” at all?  Do they think it is fair, this dichotomy of warrior/minstrel that has been forced upon them?  Will they now be able to pinpoint the sexism directed at them?  Will they act to combat it?

Overall, this was a good, enlightening (in a “bring it to the masses" sort of way) book.  Men are beginning to face the reality of our society and culture, of the sexism inherent in the system.  I think this book helps us to see that the oppressor can also be oppressed.

The oppressed suffer from the duality which has established itself in their innermost being.  They discover that without freedom they cannot exist authentically.  Yet, although they desire authentic existence, they fear it.  They are at one and the same time themselves and the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalized.  The conflict lies in the choice between being wholly themselves or being divided; between ejecting the oppressor within or not ejecting them; between human solidarity or alienation; between following prescriptions or having choices; between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being silent, castrated in their power to create and re-create, in their power to transform the world.  This is the tragic dilemma of the oppressed.... (p. 48, Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

Anne's blog | login to post comments | printer friendly version | 428 reads