Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Not Your Average Joe

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2006.


Author Norah Vincent dressed up as a man to find out how men really behave in all-male environments. Surprise, surprise: They're nice guys.
10299992
selfmademan

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jan Frel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Norah Vincent's Self-Made Man is the third book in a stretch of "immersion journalism" stories -- tales of identity deception -- I've read in recent months. I had just put down Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, in January when I found Howard Griffin's Black Like Me behind the Sky Mall magazine on an airplane ride.

Ehrenreich turned herself into a lower-class wage slave and took a bunch of bad jobs across the country. Griffin, a white author, took some skin medication that turned him black and passed himself off as a Negro in 1960s New Orleans. Both of those books left me muttering variants on that great maxim of Martin Luther King Jr.'s. With Ehrenreich I thought, "It's class," and with Griffin, "It's definitely not race."

After reading Self-Made Man, I found myself saying, "It's not gender, it's Vincent's class."

In her normal life, Vincent, a newspaper columnist for the L.A. Times, lives in Greenwich Village, New York, with her wife. She's done fabulously well on the money wheel, and Self-Made Man will surely net her a nice sum, judging by its trajectory on the New York Times bestseller list.

Vincent explains that as a young girl, she was a tomboy and a late bloomer, mocked for having "no ass and no tits" by her brother's friends while her female classmates were bulging with curves. It was around this time that the idea for her alter ego "Ned" was born. The purpose of her book, Vincent writes early on, is to share "a woman's-eye view of one guy's approximated life." Also, she hints in another explanatory passage, she wanted to use part of her book to "infiltrate exclusive all-male environments and, if possible, learn their secrets."

So Vincent does a little weightlifting to pad her unusually tall 5'9'' frame and glues fine particles of her hair to her face to create the stubble effect. Add in a few lessons with a voice training coach from Juilliard, and presto: Norah Vincent is Ned.

Ned isn't really "manly" -- he's a metrosexual, a bicoastal twerp you might find blathering in the opinion pages of a major newspaper: David Brooks or Michael Kinsley trying to pour concrete. That's the kind of man Vincent became, not your average Joe.

Ned's life in Manville starts in a blue-collar bowling league with a bunch of construction worker types. Vincent lets us know at the beginning of that chapter that she's aware the obstacles of class difference are going to impede on her epiphanies about what makes men men. Her "proudly self-confessed trailer-trash" friend warns her, "Just remember that the difference between your people and my people is that my people bowl without irony."

Vincent translates that for us in case we didn't get the point: "Hide your bourgeois flag, or you'll get the smugness beaten out of you long before they find out you're a woman." We're on notice that she's on notice.

Yet not three pages later, Vincent is sneering at the playground of the lower class, savaging the bowling alley as only a bourgeois could: "There were the smells; cigarette smoke, varnish, machine oil, leaky toilets, old candy wrappers and accumulated public muck."

That's before she meets the guys who have agreed to let her join their league. When she does meet them, out again comes the smugness. Here's part of her account of meeting Jim, one of the most sympathetic and interesting guys in Vincent's book: "His face was permanently flushed and pocked with open pores; a cigarette-, alcohol- and occupation-induced complexion …" His job, his Marlboro, his bottle of beer -- that's Jim's "masculinity," and his face is stained with it.


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
this is incredibly ridiculous
Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant on Mar 17, 2006 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lemme see, immasculated capitalist costume that makes me look anything but like a man. check.

stereotypical low-rent haunts for the dispossessed. check.

time-tested marketing strategy of pretending to be something you're not. check.

okay. so i've got a book about my hopelessly skewed version of manhood from a NY lesbian's perspective engaging people who i can't help but look down on for the very reasons that i'm engaging them.

and let's look a little further:

"I had expected these guys to be filled with virulent hatred for anyone who wasn't like them."

oh yeah eh? why's that? why not title this book "assumptions i made in ignorance about people who aren't like me in appearance, gender and occupation, but apparently are in almost every other way".

and why not. i mean, every brow-beaten underling in the class system needs an inordinately privileged writer to rip-off their best stories and tell them much worse than a man could tell his own.

hey, everyone has one novel in them, right? so the people on the NYT best seller list have finally realized they need other peoples to keep coming back year after year.

not just gussied up versions anymore either. not just some fiction from real life realism kind of stuff they did back in the 20th century. pfft. this is straight from the hose everyday BS with no point really except here i am writing about my artifical experiences with people i'm not being honest with.

well just maybe, human beings, even men, even poor men, are smart enough to know a hose-job when they see one and keep all the good stuff to themselves.

&c.

only Jim had enough perspective to admit the folly of his masculinity, and to fully appreciate the absurdity of brutish necessity in the male-on-male world."

or read another way: if you've been hit before and deserved it, you know that it's kind of hard to feel the pain because you're laughing so hard.

see, the problem here is that a woman is likely to see folly because she is conforming these people to an image on which she must make judgments. she is not trying to flesh them out as whole people, simply assess them as men without any real tools with which to do so (pun sort of half-heartedly intended). big fat bias.

for instance, if Jim hadn't joined the Army at 17, he would have done so at 18, or 19, or 20. &c.

so why did you publish this drivel? at first i was glad it was so pathetic. men ARE simple. but to say oh, because i'm so full of contrite mystery these men have no mystery, they are nice people who probably like some dumb or mindless things and have sex-drives and wives.

but they're not.

so do you feel you have to dress as a pip-squeak and a twerp (compliments to the Jan Frel for accuracy) to get some average bowling leaguers to hang-out with an accomplished big city lesbian? i think the better question to ask the author is this: would you ever have gone as yourself?

and finally, journalism, even shoddy, hard-cover journalism, NYT best-seller journalism, is about experience, not pageantry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» rank yuppie crap Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: rank yuppie crap Posted by: appelpie
» RE: rank yuppie crap Posted by: kingfelix
why rank class, race, sexuality, body size or whatever else?
Posted by: philame on Mar 17, 2006 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Glad to see boys/men that are gender aware eventhough you privilege class but nobody's perfect.

good review of the book but as i read it, this was the question in my mind: why rank indicators of difference like race, class, sexual orientation, gender, body size you name it in terms of what is most important or causes most pain and what doesn't? It is very inividual.

The focus needs to be on rooting out oppression no matter what the cause of discrimination is. We need solidarity now more than ever and the way to do it is to respect everyone's needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not same
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 17, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the sexes are so sameish why is it that most of the killings are done by men whether in warfare or as civilians?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Vive le difference Posted by: jwg
» RE: not same Posted by: Phenix
» OUCH! rsaxto Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: not same Posted by: codingguy
» RE: not same Posted by: s_mead
Perhaps...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Mar 17, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she just chose the wrong group of guys to hang out with... heh heh...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perhaps... Posted by: 9wicket
Thanks.
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 17, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read several reviews of this book from the queer and trans perspective. This was a refreshingly different take.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

relative masculinities
Posted by: caedmon on Mar 17, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the author fit in better, more comfortably as an "out" (in two ways!) lesbian and a woman (forgive the redundancy), rather than as the effete nebbish, Ned.

In structuralist terms, as a (as I presume, based on entirely too little data) butch top, she is far more masculine, hence closer to her informants' self image than the fake male, "his" loafers permanently lightened by class privilege. For a woman to aspire to the valued term in the masculine:feminine binary is comprehensible, even laudable, but for a (seeming) man already empowered "naturally" by his sex to flaunt such coded behavior as care for his appearance, uncertainty around the guys, etc. is to--effectively--descend to the non-neutral, the denigrated: scandal!

As such I doubt very much that Ned was really all that privy to the fully relaxed and unselfconscious exchanges in this crowd. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle surely applies: solid social science this was not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: relative masculinities Posted by: Daniel Shays
hey
Posted by: hellofriends on Mar 17, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i've seen much more disrespect and human unkindness in this article than this article presents about the book.

"greenwich village yoga parlour?"

what was that about stereotypes and superiority?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hey Posted by: lamar
» RE: hey Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: hey Posted by: hellofriends
Great Review
Posted by: Longhorn on Mar 17, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks. Nice to see the "c-word" in public again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd say class differences trump gender differences
Posted by: sln70 on Mar 17, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Class association informs a person more completely than gender association, IMHO. I'm a woman, I've even gotten a degree in Women's Studies (i know, i know) and I'm well aware of the myriad ways in which women are at a disadvantage in a patriarchy. Even given this, I would argue that socio-economic classes are by far the more divisive. On some days I honestly feel that I have more in common with women in Uganda than men in Canada but when I really think about it, what I'm actually feeling is the divide between the rule-makers in my own society and people of the 'underclass' all over the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If beauty is a class Posted by: jwg
Why the Democrats Never Win
Posted by: pjwhite on Mar 17, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article sickened me in a way few have before. Stories like this just go to show that the Democrats are heading for perpetual minority status. Many working-class Dems have no interest in living like a bourgeois snob as the author comes across in this book. This is what drives so many working-class people who hate Republican ideals to vote Republican - maybe the Democrats are the ones who are out of touch with America, after all. I guarantee the author would have gotten to see average Americans much more clearly if she would have directly stated she wanted to explore American society, rather than hiding behind makeup and phony genders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the Democrats Never Win Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Why the Democrats Never Win Posted by: Daniel Shays
Frel good, vincent boring
Posted by: codingguy on Mar 17, 2006 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a particular American obsession with class that is just so tedious, and vincent's adventure falls right into it. I'm VERY middle class, brought up that way, etc. etc. but i always loved bowling, and taverns (well brasseries where i come from in Quebec) were always cool, though I never liked the taste of beer.

When I lived in the states, i found the "what neighborhood do you live in, what uni did you go to" mentality difficult to take or laughable, depending on my mood, and vincent perpetuates it "without irony," as she puts it.

It should take a person about 5 minutes to adjust to their surroundings and the different life experiences of the people they are with, but apparently the divide between vincent's world and the world she visited is so great she had to write a book about it.

There are exceptions of course: extreme trailer lifestyle would take more than a 5 minute adjustment for an educated middle class individual, for example, but in most cases, these are just superficial differences masking our common humanity. If you have a chance, watch the Canadian comedy TV show "Trailer Park Boys,"; their lifestyle is extreme, but you'll laugh your head off, because in the end, they aren't much different from you and i.

as for "wondering what would happen if Jim or ther others had gone to university," perhaps vincent should wonder instead that if they had, who would fix her car or repair her appliances, surely a more complicated -- not to mention useful -- job than agonizing about supposed class/gender differences.

In the end, i can't help feeling that underlying this type of work (which i saw variants of ad nauseam in my university life) is an insecurity and the resulting desire to feel superior to someone else, even though we're all from the same gene pool.

end of sermon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Frel good, vincent boring Posted by: bingethinker
» RE: Frel good, vincent boring Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» RE: Frel good, vincent boring Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: Frel good, vincent boring Posted by: codingguy
not surprisingly...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 17, 2006 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book is disgusting, sexist, classist tripe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

under the surface
Posted by: Seabrook on Mar 17, 2006 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
will somebody stand up for the dyke already?

ok, so shes classist ~ but that is no excuse for the sexist, homophobic, and transphobic innuendos that are passing themselves off as anti-classist critique on this message board.

for what its worth, here is what i see in a lot of the above comments (with some notable exceptions :-):
1. the too easy equation between masculinity, male identity, working class status, rural residence, and down-to-earthyness; and the analogous equation of its opposing terms, that is: femininity, female identity, middle class status, urban residence, snobbiness, and a life that is not "real." in the real world, of course, none of these equations are unproblematic...
2. the transphobic imperative that no-one "pretend to be a gender that they are not."
3. the assertion of a form of masculine/male privilege to be the sole interpreters of the actions of fellow men (this is especially blatant in frel's review).

just the two cents of a mixed up middle class transwoman ~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: under the surface Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: under the surface Posted by: Seabrook
» RE: under the surface Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: under the surface Posted by: Seabrook
» RE: under the surface Posted by: Seabrook
» RE: under the surface Posted by: Seabrook
» RE: under the surface Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Are you fucking kidding me? Posted by: bettsoff
» transphobic? classist? Posted by: codingguy
» RE: transphobic? classist? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: under the surface Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant
» RE: under the surface Posted by: Seabrook
Interesting review. Thank you.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 17, 2006 7:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll never know how well it represents the book, because I gave up on Vincent back when I used to read the NY Times; that is, before they set themselves apart from the hoi polloi by charging for their primo columnists. Life, it seems goes on. And so does Vincent, and on, and on.

Should I be surprised that Vincent did not learn anything about the men she hung out with? I had to learn that I was either attracted to lesbians or couldn't tell the difference, before I realized why there were no sparks flying. And then again maybe it's just that bored people find life boring. How uppa-klass!

My personal history is that once I discovered women, I had no interest in hanging out with the old gang. Then in middle-age my wife and I split, and while discovering how immature or desperate the women I dated were, I widened my circle of male friends. You can't go home again? Maybe not, but you can pay a visit from time to time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Appropriation
Posted by: supercrisp on Mar 18, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect that our Working Class Heroes twigged to Vincent’s disguise immediately?

I am from a very poor Southern family. I grew up and out of the “working class” environment, but I still spend a good bit of time in it, working manual labor from time to time for money or spending time at a garage or motorcycle shop to get repairs done. In my experience, there is more racism, homophobia among the “working class” than this review and Vincent’s book seem to suggest.

Having said that, I am now finishing a PhD at the University of Iowa on poetry and gender. The class insensitivity here staggers me. Ivy Leaguers and prep-schoolers frequently assume that they understand everything about blue collar people or farm people. Or that there’s no real difference. Or perhaps they know there is in theory, but can’t practice it.

A friend who was in the Clinton White House tells me that sort of thinking is common, was endemic to the Clinton admim., that the majority don’t even deserve the right to vote.

But to me the problem of Vincent’s work is the appropriation. I am at the epicenter of callow writing USA. The Iowa Writer’s Workshop, the International Writing Program, and the Nonfiction Writing Program (all three pretty famous) are full of young people, early 20s, desperate for story ideas. Being young, most of these people have underdeveloped capacities for compassion and awareness of difference; they are not yet as sensitive as such work demands. Their inexperience makes for little more than the appropriation and deracination of the few moments of honesty they are able to see through their class blinkers. (It is not uncommon for great swaths of their stories, supposedly fiction or non-, to be made up based on stereotypes garnered from television or other prose.)

I saw the same thing in Nickel and Dimed, and I’m not surprised to hear it sqeaking in the corners of Vincent’s book AND in the review of it.

A writer stands to gain a lot from writing, but it is more difficult and often less interesting (and very uncomfortable) to confront one’s complicity in class division (etc) emerging from the need to make narrative hay, to have a good story.

But look at her/his suite: were we expecting Studs Terkel?

(Before anyone starts bagging on me for not giving this woman her due, some of my best friends are... &c)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how ignorant can you get?
Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant on Mar 19, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ever hear of the Amazons? violence is not an inherently male trait. for instance, female lions do much more hunting than the males. hearing anyone on this site say that i'm tempted to just write it off as typical, but then, here's the obvious: by drawing lines arbitrarily and posturing for superiority, you are being sexist. the sexes are same-ish because we both possess the same capacity for understanding. failure to do so should not be revelled in or even pointed to as evidence. look at Tomb Raider, Aeon Flux, Underworld. the indoctrination of females toward violence is starting to pick up steam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how ignorant can you get? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: how ignorant can you get? Posted by: Seabrook
» are you kidding? Posted by: codingguy