Girls II Men
January 26, 2006 12:26 PM Subscribe
Norah "Ned" Vincent, releases "Self-Made Man", (NYT) in which she goes in disguise as a man and realizes what most of us already knew without playing drag queen for 18 months. Interestingly, "she also found women to be distrustful, ever ready to criticize men for being emotionally distant yet clearly preferring men who met stereotypical images of strength and virility." (Booklist via Amazon) It's making all the literary rounds (ABC News, Salon, The Independent). Previously, Vincent on Oprah's bookclub, Vincent on blogging.
Huh - pretty interesting. I'd have to see some video or hear her Ned voice, though - the photo of her in drag is pretty unconvincing; her eyes seem to give it away. But then again I'm looking for it, and I don't know how here presence as Ned felt face to face.
posted by Peter H at 12:39 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by Peter H at 12:39 PM on January 26, 2006
Was she on last night? I watched part of it this morning but didn't get to the interview.
posted by geoff. at 12:40 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 12:40 PM on January 26, 2006
There's a video of her on CNN (I can't figure out how to link to it), and she looks pretty convincing -- at least to the point where I wouldn't question her out of fear of being wrong. I don't think it shows her talking as a man, but she spent several months at Julliard taking voice lessons.
posted by geoff. at 12:42 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by geoff. at 12:42 PM on January 26, 2006
The Times had two reviews of this yesterday - one from a female perspective, one from a male perspective.
posted by djgh at 12:44 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by djgh at 12:44 PM on January 26, 2006
What's up with the 'guy' pick in the NYT? "Hey, pose like a big schmuck, okay?" She's one step away from putting her hand down her waistband.
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2006
s/pick/pic/g
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 12:50 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 12:50 PM on January 26, 2006
I'm going to try passing as a Christian for a while and see if that gets me a book deal.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:52 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:52 PM on January 26, 2006
I think Eddie Murphy did something similar, only better.
posted by ooga_booga at 1:00 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by ooga_booga at 1:00 PM on January 26, 2006
From The Times review Male Perspective, via djgh:
Like any trading-places conceit — from White Chicks to Tootsie — Self-Made Man works best when the reader believes that the transformation is plausible. But is it? During the chapter on love, Vincent purports to show us what it is like for a man to search for a sexual partner, when what she is really doing is showing us what it is like for a lesbian dressed as a man to meet woman via internet dating services
This is the exact impression I came away with after seeing her on Colbert. He asked her to do her man voice and she tiptoed around it, ultimately settling on one or two lines of comically gruff male statements followed by a similarly modeled handshake. Gimmick, indeed.
posted by prostyle at 1:07 PM on January 26, 2006
Like any trading-places conceit — from White Chicks to Tootsie — Self-Made Man works best when the reader believes that the transformation is plausible. But is it? During the chapter on love, Vincent purports to show us what it is like for a man to search for a sexual partner, when what she is really doing is showing us what it is like for a lesbian dressed as a man to meet woman via internet dating services
This is the exact impression I came away with after seeing her on Colbert. He asked her to do her man voice and she tiptoed around it, ultimately settling on one or two lines of comically gruff male statements followed by a similarly modeled handshake. Gimmick, indeed.
posted by prostyle at 1:07 PM on January 26, 2006
without playing drag queen
~er, drag king, even.
I saw a piece on her on last week's 20/20, and I was surprised her book was drawing so much attention - didn't this experiment get done to death in the 1990's?
posted by Radio7 at 1:07 PM on January 26, 2006
~er, drag king, even.
I saw a piece on her on last week's 20/20, and I was surprised her book was drawing so much attention - didn't this experiment get done to death in the 1990's?
posted by Radio7 at 1:07 PM on January 26, 2006
A lot of reviewers seem to be unaware that Vincent was previously best known as a conservative columnist, then appear surprised that, as the NYT puts it, "'Self-Made Man' turns out not to be what it threatens to be, a men-are-scum diatribe destined for best-seller status in the more militant alternative bookstores that inof Berkeley and Ann Arbor," as if she'd set out to write a feminist screed and then suddenly became aware of how bad men have it. Not that her political views invalidate the book or anything, but not mentioning them at all is somewhat misleading.
posted by transona5 at 1:10 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by transona5 at 1:10 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm going to try passing as a Christian for a while and see if that gets me a book deal.
Pat Robertson and Ian Paisley have been getting away with that for decades, and they're about as convincing in their impersonations as Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot.
posted by Grangousier at 1:12 PM on January 26, 2006 [3 favorites]
Pat Robertson and Ian Paisley have been getting away with that for decades, and they're about as convincing in their impersonations as Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot.
posted by Grangousier at 1:12 PM on January 26, 2006 [3 favorites]
what transona said.
i gotta hand it to vincent, she's somehow managed to whitewash her conservative credentials such that none of the write-ups of her dopey little book mention that she's a neocon bush apologist.
which doesn't go directly to the book's subject matter, but is contextually important, nonetheless, in determining the book's agenda and where the author is coming from.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:23 PM on January 26, 2006
i gotta hand it to vincent, she's somehow managed to whitewash her conservative credentials such that none of the write-ups of her dopey little book mention that she's a neocon bush apologist.
which doesn't go directly to the book's subject matter, but is contextually important, nonetheless, in determining the book's agenda and where the author is coming from.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:23 PM on January 26, 2006
They have "talk like a man" classes at Julliard?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:26 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 1:26 PM on January 26, 2006
Excellent hour long chat with Ms. Roberts via WBUR's (Boston) On Point -- good stuff.
posted by undule at 1:30 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by undule at 1:30 PM on January 26, 2006
she's somehow managed to whitewash her conservative credentials
Or the reporters were lazy and just assumed that all lesbians are militant man-hating leftists.
posted by gyc at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2006
Or the reporters were lazy and just assumed that all lesbians are militant man-hating leftists.
posted by gyc at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2006
i gotta hand it to vincent, she's somehow managed to whitewash her conservative credentials such that none of the write-ups of her dopey little book mention that she's a neocon bush apologist.
This is true? Interesting that she said on Colbert that she wouldn't want to go out for a beer with Bush. Not that "I agree with your policies" = "Let's knock back a few, bro! Sweet!" or anything.
posted by brundlefly at 1:51 PM on January 26, 2006
This is true? Interesting that she said on Colbert that she wouldn't want to go out for a beer with Bush. Not that "I agree with your policies" = "Let's knock back a few, bro! Sweet!" or anything.
posted by brundlefly at 1:51 PM on January 26, 2006
Her political beliefs aside, the power thrill of dressing in drag rings true with me. Over the summer there were a few times I wanted to grocery-shop late at night in a dodgy neighborhood, so I did it in semi-drag. And truly, it is awesome to walk down the streets without having someone stare at your chest, flick their eyes up and down your body, or size you up. It's not like every time a guy looks at me I freak out or cry rape. But before then I never realized how different it was, what a relief to not have them things happen.
It was like spending your entire life with a ten-pound weight around your neck. It's not heavy any more because you're used to it, it's been your life, but when it's off you notice.
posted by Anonymous at 1:54 PM on January 26, 2006 [2 favorites]
It was like spending your entire life with a ten-pound weight around your neck. It's not heavy any more because you're used to it, it's been your life, but when it's off you notice.
posted by Anonymous at 1:54 PM on January 26, 2006 [2 favorites]
Maybe she wouldn't want to have a beer with Bush because he doesn't drink beer, and thus wouldn't be much fun at a bar. Just a guess.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:59 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 1:59 PM on January 26, 2006
I've been thinking about picking up this book. I heard her on On Point last night, and she talked quite a bit about the difference in speaking mannerisms and language choice, which sounded like an interesting (if somewhat anecdotal) case study for writing from the perspective of the other gender.
Regarding Hat Maui's comment on her conservative credentials, I'd be interested to see a few links on this aspect of her background. From what I gather, she's a lesbian in New York City, which doesn't exactly mesh with the rest of conservative party base...
posted by slogger at 2:21 PM on January 26, 2006
Regarding Hat Maui's comment on her conservative credentials, I'd be interested to see a few links on this aspect of her background. From what I gather, she's a lesbian in New York City, which doesn't exactly mesh with the rest of conservative party base...
posted by slogger at 2:21 PM on January 26, 2006
But before then I never realized how different it was, what a relief to not have them things happen.
This reminds me of some of what I have read concerning women who dress modestly for religious reasons - the sense of freedom from being viewed as a sexual object, all the time, everywhere, which modern Western culture tends to encourage.
posted by beth at 2:23 PM on January 26, 2006
This reminds me of some of what I have read concerning women who dress modestly for religious reasons - the sense of freedom from being viewed as a sexual object, all the time, everywhere, which modern Western culture tends to encourage.
posted by beth at 2:23 PM on January 26, 2006
norah vincent in her own words, from the jewish world review:
"Stop coddling the Palestinians -- they're bloodthirsty bigots who would have exterminated the Jews if they were in charge"
scroll down for more of her "insights" -- several other linked pieces below this one.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:34 PM on January 26, 2006
"Stop coddling the Palestinians -- they're bloodthirsty bigots who would have exterminated the Jews if they were in charge"
scroll down for more of her "insights" -- several other linked pieces below this one.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:34 PM on January 26, 2006
Did I write "them things"? Jesus.
skallas, some people view men's movements as a conservative backlash to feminism. Painting men as victims is another way to label feminists as man-hating "pushy cows".
Of course, it's hardly as cut-and-dried as that. Men are still far from the underclass, but it would be ignorance to claim they aren't under gender-role pressures similar to those women face. Can't say this from personal experience, but I wonder if there's men out there who feel lost in the vast expanse between the macho-hunter-killer-rapist-GRAARGH-caveman and the ultra-touchy-feely-90's-guy stereotypes, trying to find their own identity in a culture that simultaneously celebrates and denigrates whichever side they fall on.
posted by Anonymous at 2:37 PM on January 26, 2006
skallas, some people view men's movements as a conservative backlash to feminism. Painting men as victims is another way to label feminists as man-hating "pushy cows".
Of course, it's hardly as cut-and-dried as that. Men are still far from the underclass, but it would be ignorance to claim they aren't under gender-role pressures similar to those women face. Can't say this from personal experience, but I wonder if there's men out there who feel lost in the vast expanse between the macho-hunter-killer-rapist-GRAARGH-caveman and the ultra-touchy-feely-90's-guy stereotypes, trying to find their own identity in a culture that simultaneously celebrates and denigrates whichever side they fall on.
posted by Anonymous at 2:37 PM on January 26, 2006
I remember Norah Vincent as one of those addle-brained conservative types that Salon brought on a few a years ago, along with David freakin' Horowitz, to almost universal outrage from their readers. I don't know why clearly left-leaning/liberal outfits feel they have to have "balance" and bring on the opposition side- the opposition is not extending the same courtesy.
Vincent at the time struck me as more knee-jerk "gimmick" writer than anything: the lesbian who was a conservative- oh how startling!!! Like we were supposed to applaud the novelty, and not see through to the crummy columnist underneath.
posted by hincandenza at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2006
Vincent at the time struck me as more knee-jerk "gimmick" writer than anything: the lesbian who was a conservative- oh how startling!!! Like we were supposed to applaud the novelty, and not see through to the crummy columnist underneath.
posted by hincandenza at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2006
hincandenza, exactly.
she's a hack in provocateur's clothing.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:52 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
she's a hack in provocateur's clothing.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:52 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
Why did it take so long to get to the Jesus and Bush hating...
Now you kids get out of my garden!
posted by grumpyoldman at 2:54 PM on January 26, 2006
Now you kids get out of my garden!
posted by grumpyoldman at 2:54 PM on January 26, 2006
Her political beliefs aside, the power thrill of dressing in drag rings true with me. Over the summer there were a few times I wanted to grocery-shop late at night in a dodgy neighborhood, so I did it in semi-drag. And truly, it is awesome to walk down the streets without having someone stare at your chest, flick their eyes up and down your body, or size you up.
I'm female, and I have to say - I never experience that. I have never felt like men were checking me out as I walked down the street. Perhaps they glanced at me, thinking "Ah, a person, I should try not to bump into them."
I don't think I'm hideous (at least, my housemate assures me I'm not), rather average looking, sometimes even wear a pretty dress. I do have to wonder whether this constant "checking out" is more in women's heads than men's eyes. I remember hearing about a study where people had a fake disfiguring scar put on their face, then secretly taken off, and then sent out to walk around in public. They claimed that people were staring at them.
posted by jb at 3:32 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm female, and I have to say - I never experience that. I have never felt like men were checking me out as I walked down the street. Perhaps they glanced at me, thinking "Ah, a person, I should try not to bump into them."
I don't think I'm hideous (at least, my housemate assures me I'm not), rather average looking, sometimes even wear a pretty dress. I do have to wonder whether this constant "checking out" is more in women's heads than men's eyes. I remember hearing about a study where people had a fake disfiguring scar put on their face, then secretly taken off, and then sent out to walk around in public. They claimed that people were staring at them.
posted by jb at 3:32 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
from the article:
“she is, I dare say, too respectful of the "men's movement"”
And perhaps this makes her a conservative?
“But before then I never realized how different it was, what a relief to not have them things happen” - schroedinger
Try looking like the terminator. Lots of guys like to explain why they’re better than you are in a variety of ways, how much money they make, they bench “X” amount or they are masters of Chung Moo Kwan - blah blah blah.
Not that women have it any easier, but being challenged every 5 minutes is not my idea of relief.
Next time you dress in drag, put on a Blackhawks jersey, head down to St.Louis and tell everyone the Blues suck.
Better still, tell a female friend you’re not interested in her and try to remain friends. Men aren’t the only ones who’s egos screw things up.
Really I think it’s just a different 10 lb weight is all.
I won’t argue the gimmick point of the book though. Seems like it to me.
The interesting thing would be to put a big guy into a women’s world.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:50 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
“she is, I dare say, too respectful of the "men's movement"”
And perhaps this makes her a conservative?
“But before then I never realized how different it was, what a relief to not have them things happen” - schroedinger
Try looking like the terminator. Lots of guys like to explain why they’re better than you are in a variety of ways, how much money they make, they bench “X” amount or they are masters of Chung Moo Kwan - blah blah blah.
Not that women have it any easier, but being challenged every 5 minutes is not my idea of relief.
Next time you dress in drag, put on a Blackhawks jersey, head down to St.Louis and tell everyone the Blues suck.
Better still, tell a female friend you’re not interested in her and try to remain friends. Men aren’t the only ones who’s egos screw things up.
Really I think it’s just a different 10 lb weight is all.
I won’t argue the gimmick point of the book though. Seems like it to me.
The interesting thing would be to put a big guy into a women’s world.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:50 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
she's a hack in provocateur's clothing
That's a bit redundant, don't cha think? A wolf in wolf's clothing, as it were.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:53 PM on January 26, 2006
That's a bit redundant, don't cha think? A wolf in wolf's clothing, as it were.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:53 PM on January 26, 2006
"Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male; the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object of vision: a sight." - John Berger, Ways of Seeing
jp, I have to say that I perpetually experience being looked at and sexualized by men. There are time when I, like schroedinger, throw on an oversized hoodie and baggy jeans in an attempt to escape the male gaze - sometimes with results, sometimes not.
I'd like to read more on the men's movements; gender pressures definitely exist in all directions, and it'd be interesting to see the ways men have found to respond to it. Links, anyone?
And lastly, yeah - didn't we already play this game in different variations all through the nineties??
posted by youarenothere at 4:13 PM on January 26, 2006
jp, I have to say that I perpetually experience being looked at and sexualized by men. There are time when I, like schroedinger, throw on an oversized hoodie and baggy jeans in an attempt to escape the male gaze - sometimes with results, sometimes not.
I'd like to read more on the men's movements; gender pressures definitely exist in all directions, and it'd be interesting to see the ways men have found to respond to it. Links, anyone?
And lastly, yeah - didn't we already play this game in different variations all through the nineties??
posted by youarenothere at 4:13 PM on January 26, 2006
...wanted to add that there are times when I throw on a low-cut tank top, short skirt, and heels and fully embrace being sexualized by men too. :)
posted by youarenothere at 4:15 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by youarenothere at 4:15 PM on January 26, 2006
jb, I think it depends mostly on where you live. When I lived where your profile says you are now, I got nothin'. Then I came to New York for college, and now I wonder what the matter is if I don't get a come-on or two every day. I don't know if it's a different atmosphere or just due to demographics.
Sometimes, like when I have stuff that needs getting done, it can be pretty irritating, but the rest of the time it's fun. I just wish I had a signal I could turn on and off (the hoodie/jeans combo somehow doesn't work).
posted by booksandlibretti at 4:29 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
Sometimes, like when I have stuff that needs getting done, it can be pretty irritating, but the rest of the time it's fun. I just wish I had a signal I could turn on and off (the hoodie/jeans combo somehow doesn't work).
posted by booksandlibretti at 4:29 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
she's a hack in provocateur's clothing
That's a bit redundant, don't cha think? A wolf in wolf's clothing, as it were.
posted by JekPorkins
uh, well, no, the two words mean totally different things.
hack: (n) a mediocre and disdained writer
provocateur: is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another.
(used in the sense that her premise is by going "undercover," she's going to get to the bottom of this war of the sexes; of course, knowing her conservative bona fides, it seems her "report" is much more of an apologia for traditional male roles/habits -- those good ol' fellas on the bowling team aren't such sexist homophobes, after all. how quaint.)
posted by Hat Maui at 5:56 PM on January 26, 2006
That's a bit redundant, don't cha think? A wolf in wolf's clothing, as it were.
posted by JekPorkins
uh, well, no, the two words mean totally different things.
hack: (n) a mediocre and disdained writer
provocateur: is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another.
(used in the sense that her premise is by going "undercover," she's going to get to the bottom of this war of the sexes; of course, knowing her conservative bona fides, it seems her "report" is much more of an apologia for traditional male roles/habits -- those good ol' fellas on the bowling team aren't such sexist homophobes, after all. how quaint.)
posted by Hat Maui at 5:56 PM on January 26, 2006
My point was that IMHO to act as a provocateur makes one a hack -- I think your definitions bear this out quite nicely.
And I do think it's interesting that you equate conservatism with the male side of the war of the sexes. I wonder why that is.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:08 PM on January 26, 2006
And I do think it's interesting that you equate conservatism with the male side of the war of the sexes. I wonder why that is.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:08 PM on January 26, 2006
I think your definitions bear this out quite nicely.
i don't see how that's possible. you cannot use "hack" interchangeably with "provocateur." they simply are not related, conceptually.
i'll refer you to hincandenza's comment that triggered mine: the lesbian who was a conservative- oh how startling!!! Like we were supposed to applaud the novelty, and not see through to the crummy columnist underneath
the gist of my assertion is along these lines.
And I do think it's interesting that you equate conservatism with the male side of the war of the sexes. I wonder why that is
i did no such thing. i merely pointed out that her soft-pedaling of male sexism in her book (particularly as characterized by andrew o'hehir in salon) seems to be interesting -- what's this? a lesbian (man-hater) that's sympathetic to men? -- until you realize that her "experiment" merely serves to confirm garden-variety conservative dogma of the "war on boys" ilk.
so her ideology makes her results, in my view, suspect.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:27 PM on January 26, 2006
i don't see how that's possible. you cannot use "hack" interchangeably with "provocateur." they simply are not related, conceptually.
i'll refer you to hincandenza's comment that triggered mine: the lesbian who was a conservative- oh how startling!!! Like we were supposed to applaud the novelty, and not see through to the crummy columnist underneath
the gist of my assertion is along these lines.
And I do think it's interesting that you equate conservatism with the male side of the war of the sexes. I wonder why that is
i did no such thing. i merely pointed out that her soft-pedaling of male sexism in her book (particularly as characterized by andrew o'hehir in salon) seems to be interesting -- what's this? a lesbian (man-hater) that's sympathetic to men? -- until you realize that her "experiment" merely serves to confirm garden-variety conservative dogma of the "war on boys" ilk.
so her ideology makes her results, in my view, suspect.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:27 PM on January 26, 2006
i don't see how that's possible. you cannot use "hack" interchangeably with "provocateur." they simply are not related, conceptually.
No, they're not interchangeable. But that's not what I said: All provocateurs are hacks, by your definitions, but not all hacks are provocateurs. Do you not see what I meant?
If a provocateur is "assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument," her success in such a venture, if it is done through writing, will surely make her "a mediocre and disdained writer." Got it?
garden-variety conservative dogma of the "war on boys" ilk
See, that's the interesting generalization I was referring to. You're still making the assumption.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:35 PM on January 26, 2006
No, they're not interchangeable. But that's not what I said: All provocateurs are hacks, by your definitions, but not all hacks are provocateurs. Do you not see what I meant?
If a provocateur is "assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument," her success in such a venture, if it is done through writing, will surely make her "a mediocre and disdained writer." Got it?
garden-variety conservative dogma of the "war on boys" ilk
See, that's the interesting generalization I was referring to. You're still making the assumption.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:35 PM on January 26, 2006
i think we're talking in circles at this point.
er, rather, typing in circles.
but no, i'm not making the case that all provocateurs are hacks. one could be a provocateur and a good writer at the same time. david brock comes to mind, when he created "troopergate" out of whole cloth, although he was drinking the kool-aid when he was writing for the american spectator.
You're still making the assumption.
at this point, i don't know what assumption you think i'm making, but let me just put it this way: if the same exact book had been written by, oh, i don't know, andrea dworkin, and she said that "hey, men aren't really all that sexist -- they're pretty cool, after all! and boy, do i love the camaraderie! it's like a secret club!", well, then, i might be more inclined to take a closer look. but given vincent's politics, it's as if the book were written by lynne cheney or somebody -- what do you think she's gonna say? vincent is tricking people by being honest about her lesbianism (which she knows will lead to certain assumptions, in her case incorrect ones) but dishonest about her conservatism by omitting mention of it.
she wants us to take "norah vincent" as a lesbian who poses as a man, instead of "norah vincent" the conservative columnist who poses as a man.
let's make this a little easier on you: imagine the same book, only ann coulter is the author. should we disregard her politics?
posted by Hat Maui at 6:55 PM on January 26, 2006
er, rather, typing in circles.
but no, i'm not making the case that all provocateurs are hacks. one could be a provocateur and a good writer at the same time. david brock comes to mind, when he created "troopergate" out of whole cloth, although he was drinking the kool-aid when he was writing for the american spectator.
You're still making the assumption.
at this point, i don't know what assumption you think i'm making, but let me just put it this way: if the same exact book had been written by, oh, i don't know, andrea dworkin, and she said that "hey, men aren't really all that sexist -- they're pretty cool, after all! and boy, do i love the camaraderie! it's like a secret club!", well, then, i might be more inclined to take a closer look. but given vincent's politics, it's as if the book were written by lynne cheney or somebody -- what do you think she's gonna say? vincent is tricking people by being honest about her lesbianism (which she knows will lead to certain assumptions, in her case incorrect ones) but dishonest about her conservatism by omitting mention of it.
she wants us to take "norah vincent" as a lesbian who poses as a man, instead of "norah vincent" the conservative columnist who poses as a man.
let's make this a little easier on you: imagine the same book, only ann coulter is the author. should we disregard her politics?
posted by Hat Maui at 6:55 PM on January 26, 2006
but no, i'm not making the case that all provocateurs are hacks.
Right. But I am making that point, and in my opinion, being a provocateur is bad writing. But that's just my opinion.
she wants us to take "norah vincent" as a lesbian who poses as a man, instead of "norah vincent" the conservative columnist who poses as a man.
There's the assumption again: That "lesbian" is diametrically opposed to "conservative columnist."
posted by JekPorkins at 6:58 PM on January 26, 2006
Right. But I am making that point, and in my opinion, being a provocateur is bad writing. But that's just my opinion.
she wants us to take "norah vincent" as a lesbian who poses as a man, instead of "norah vincent" the conservative columnist who poses as a man.
There's the assumption again: That "lesbian" is diametrically opposed to "conservative columnist."
posted by JekPorkins at 6:58 PM on January 26, 2006
at the risk of divulging more than may have been asked:
personally, i find it fairly perplexing to be a male given the quirks of 90's-00's gender roles. as a kid, i was a little more sensitive than perhaps most boys and certainly wasn't admired for my aversion to sports and preference for quiet contemplation. by my teenage years, i'd learned to act like a 'more typical' guy and could easily fake interest in all sorts of manly things like pro football & monster truck pulls, fist-fighting & fucking. but beneath it all, the activities i preferred were solitary, the girls i liked were responsive emotionally as opposed to physically, and i'd still prefer to watch a tear-jerking drama to a rowdy action flic to this day.
at this stage in my life, i rarely need to act like a man's man, anymore. my confidence in who i am allows me to outwardly display the 'softer' elements of my personality without fear of reproval. occasionally, i'll feign interest in a televised sporting event while bellied up to a bar in order to make small talk, but i'd compare that to pretending to care enough about the weather to bring it up with an aquaintance. it's a small compromise of conversation and nothing more.
what turns everything upside-down is the reaction i get from most women (most, but by no means all). there seems to be a glaring inconsistency between the things a woman will claim to want in a man (sensitivity, a sense of humor, a compassionate perspective, thoughtless kindness) and the kind of man she actually rewards with her affection. i'm torn between a desire to be myself (a type of person that lies closer to the described ideal) vs. the kind of man who ends up with the girl (a man, who, despite all this talk of the metro-sexual & new age masculinity tends to lean much closer toward the traditional alpha male stereotype). i'm a learning animal, after all. i can only tolerate so much failure before i start acting on my observations of what actually works. obviously, all acts come to an end and if who you aren't won the girl, who you are won't be able to keep her... but then who we are isn't immutable. we change ourselves constantly in tiny increments according to our environment and perceived notions of right/wrong, good/bad. my struggle is between these ideals: be who i think i should be or be who will get me what i want.
obviously, people have been successful in finding a mate while remaining themselves- i'm not arguing that it isn't possible. but just as a girl might dress herself a little differently for a night on the town, i wonder if i should play the part of the 'insensitive male' when making my first impression. perhaps there's a degree of comfort women find when they can place themselves in a position of emotional superiority, when they can rightly claim the title 'fairer sex.' i've been conditioned as long as i can remember to believe that 'girls mature faster than boys' and that they're more in touch with their feelings and more perceptive of others. perhaps when a guy gives these notions cause for consideration and/or dismissal, he becomes a threat. this might be akin to men who find it difficult to date women who are taller, more athletic, smarter, etc.- women who are viable competitors in areas that are 'supposed' to be male domains.
what makes it especially tricky to be myself these days, though, is that some people don't believe the sensitive me is the real me. they believe that deep down i'm a typical mysogenist and that i'm only playing at being nice to get the girl. it's as though because i'm not acting at it, my presentation isn't as convincing as the 'player' who's perfected such tactics. if that weren't enough, he ends up spoiling the well for those of us who really are gentler souls. it seems like so many women i've met can relate a story about the 'supposed' nice guy who ended up being a royal asshole.
the thing that blows my mind, though, is how who you are completely changes the rules regarding how you may appropriately approach a girl. i've been told (sometimes in the same breath) that a man who is confident & willing to chat up a girl without inhibition is sexy. or overbearing, pushy, and arrogant. that a date won't be granted unless asked repeatedly- after all, how can you know if he's really interested unless he keeps trying after getting shot down? though, some guys just can't take a hint that no means no. or that 'i'm tired of playing games' and 'i just want a good guy.' except that coming right out and admitting attraction in my experience assures that nothing will ever come of it (you're coming on too strong!) and most good guys seem to remind girls of their brothers...
i don't know. i do know women mystify & intrigue me and i've made it my life's mission to settle down with one who's just as curious about & attracted to men (moreover, me specifically).[/ramblin' man]
posted by narwhal at 7:35 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
personally, i find it fairly perplexing to be a male given the quirks of 90's-00's gender roles. as a kid, i was a little more sensitive than perhaps most boys and certainly wasn't admired for my aversion to sports and preference for quiet contemplation. by my teenage years, i'd learned to act like a 'more typical' guy and could easily fake interest in all sorts of manly things like pro football & monster truck pulls, fist-fighting & fucking. but beneath it all, the activities i preferred were solitary, the girls i liked were responsive emotionally as opposed to physically, and i'd still prefer to watch a tear-jerking drama to a rowdy action flic to this day.
at this stage in my life, i rarely need to act like a man's man, anymore. my confidence in who i am allows me to outwardly display the 'softer' elements of my personality without fear of reproval. occasionally, i'll feign interest in a televised sporting event while bellied up to a bar in order to make small talk, but i'd compare that to pretending to care enough about the weather to bring it up with an aquaintance. it's a small compromise of conversation and nothing more.
what turns everything upside-down is the reaction i get from most women (most, but by no means all). there seems to be a glaring inconsistency between the things a woman will claim to want in a man (sensitivity, a sense of humor, a compassionate perspective, thoughtless kindness) and the kind of man she actually rewards with her affection. i'm torn between a desire to be myself (a type of person that lies closer to the described ideal) vs. the kind of man who ends up with the girl (a man, who, despite all this talk of the metro-sexual & new age masculinity tends to lean much closer toward the traditional alpha male stereotype). i'm a learning animal, after all. i can only tolerate so much failure before i start acting on my observations of what actually works. obviously, all acts come to an end and if who you aren't won the girl, who you are won't be able to keep her... but then who we are isn't immutable. we change ourselves constantly in tiny increments according to our environment and perceived notions of right/wrong, good/bad. my struggle is between these ideals: be who i think i should be or be who will get me what i want.
obviously, people have been successful in finding a mate while remaining themselves- i'm not arguing that it isn't possible. but just as a girl might dress herself a little differently for a night on the town, i wonder if i should play the part of the 'insensitive male' when making my first impression. perhaps there's a degree of comfort women find when they can place themselves in a position of emotional superiority, when they can rightly claim the title 'fairer sex.' i've been conditioned as long as i can remember to believe that 'girls mature faster than boys' and that they're more in touch with their feelings and more perceptive of others. perhaps when a guy gives these notions cause for consideration and/or dismissal, he becomes a threat. this might be akin to men who find it difficult to date women who are taller, more athletic, smarter, etc.- women who are viable competitors in areas that are 'supposed' to be male domains.
what makes it especially tricky to be myself these days, though, is that some people don't believe the sensitive me is the real me. they believe that deep down i'm a typical mysogenist and that i'm only playing at being nice to get the girl. it's as though because i'm not acting at it, my presentation isn't as convincing as the 'player' who's perfected such tactics. if that weren't enough, he ends up spoiling the well for those of us who really are gentler souls. it seems like so many women i've met can relate a story about the 'supposed' nice guy who ended up being a royal asshole.
the thing that blows my mind, though, is how who you are completely changes the rules regarding how you may appropriately approach a girl. i've been told (sometimes in the same breath) that a man who is confident & willing to chat up a girl without inhibition is sexy. or overbearing, pushy, and arrogant. that a date won't be granted unless asked repeatedly- after all, how can you know if he's really interested unless he keeps trying after getting shot down? though, some guys just can't take a hint that no means no. or that 'i'm tired of playing games' and 'i just want a good guy.' except that coming right out and admitting attraction in my experience assures that nothing will ever come of it (you're coming on too strong!) and most good guys seem to remind girls of their brothers...
i don't know. i do know women mystify & intrigue me and i've made it my life's mission to settle down with one who's just as curious about & attracted to men (moreover, me specifically).[/ramblin' man]
posted by narwhal at 7:35 PM on January 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
(ooga_booga: thanks for the eddie murphy clip, I was trying to find that recently!)
posted by madamjujujive at 8:13 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by madamjujujive at 8:13 PM on January 26, 2006
Don't believe that white boys have it hard yet?
posted by youarenothere at 11:48 PM on January 26, 2006
posted by youarenothere at 11:48 PM on January 26, 2006
I hear ya, narwhal. It is frustrating. I've kind of realized it's just like that phenomenal skit on SNL, when Tom Brady (quarterback of the New England Patriots) was on. It was a fake "Office sexual harassment training film", and it pretty much summed up how women act, versus how they say they act. They want the player, women apparently like to be lied to.
posted by hincandenza at 1:11 AM on January 27, 2006
posted by hincandenza at 1:11 AM on January 27, 2006
you gotta be kidding me with that link, youarenothere. "naturally rebellious natures?" sounds like homeboy is a rebel without a brain.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:22 AM on January 27, 2006
posted by Hat Maui at 1:22 AM on January 27, 2006
it's just like that phenomenal skit on SNL, when Tom Brady
Ah, You Tube, what SNL clip don't you have?
Sort of just a skit of a Chris Rock joke though.
posted by dgaicun at 1:52 AM on January 27, 2006
Ah, You Tube, what SNL clip don't you have?
Sort of just a skit of a Chris Rock joke though.
posted by dgaicun at 1:52 AM on January 27, 2006
Hat Maui, I know! That kid is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe someone didn't just sit him down and say, "Shhh, honey. Don't talk."
posted by youarenothere at 7:40 AM on January 27, 2006
posted by youarenothere at 7:40 AM on January 27, 2006
“and the kind of man she actually rewards with her affection.” - narwhal
I think some women want the asshole to be tender when they are with them. Sort of an intimacy thing. Bit of a power thing as well. They like the player because the player can get any woman he wants - but he wants her. Exclusively.
I suppose it’s the same qualities one wants in a dog. Loyal to them. But willing to protect the house against strangers. Good with kids. Etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:06 AM on January 27, 2006
I think some women want the asshole to be tender when they are with them. Sort of an intimacy thing. Bit of a power thing as well. They like the player because the player can get any woman he wants - but he wants her. Exclusively.
I suppose it’s the same qualities one wants in a dog. Loyal to them. But willing to protect the house against strangers. Good with kids. Etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:06 AM on January 27, 2006
he's a rebel... a rebel without a cause! Who will be the women who will tame him? Find out! On! Our! Next! Episode!
something like that smedleyman?
posted by concreteforest at 7:55 PM on January 29, 2006
something like that smedleyman?
posted by concreteforest at 7:55 PM on January 29, 2006
« Older Networks part 2 | We Negotiate With Terrorists Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:38 PM on January 26, 2006