1.)Based on her observations, what does Vincent emphasize about the monastery? What doesn't she emphasize?
This is an important question to ask because Vincent not only conveys her message and discoveries by what she says, but also by what she leaves out. She seems to deemphasize the obvious religious aspects of the visit. She doesn't question the monks on their faith or vows, but instead expresses strong curiosity about their personal and sex lives. Critics question her motives because she seems to delve off into her own interests and agenda. Instead of inquiring how faith influences their decisions, she asks how faith influence their decisions about sexuality. So why is sexuality primary on her radar? It's safe to guess that she was driven by a quest to reveal the hidden truths behind religious communities, a drive to push the journalism boundaries and dig deeply into the psyches of the monks. Sexuality was probably her main concern because the book is centralized around ideas of gender and sexual identity.
2.)Why do you think Vincent chose to visit monks, in particular?
Vincent chose these men because despite leading monastic and chaste lifestyles, they were "pretty typical guys" (p.132). She states that the monastery was the least intimidating venue in which she could "observe men living together in close quarters without women" (p. 132). For more practical reasons, the monastery was safer than a jail, easier than the military and was exempt from physical examinations and background checks. She made a conscious effort to visit the extreme opposite of the spectrum from the sex clubs, visiting someplace where sexual desires are suppressed and ignored.
3.) After leaving the abbey Vincent states, "you can take the man out of his element, but you cannot very often take the element out of the man"(page 181). What does she mean by this? Can this idea also be applied to women?
Vincent enters the monastery and views the monk's world as an outsider. She probably arrived thinking that the men were strangely devout--maybe even robotic. "I expected to find a breed concerned primarily with spiritual matters, a place where on'es style or quantity of manhood was irrelevant...where locker room fears of homosexuality would be so far beneath the radar as to be inconceivable" (pg. 181). But when he arrived, she finds the men to be surprisingly normal. Page 132 states, "They may have been monks living under vows of chastity, but they were pretty typical guys."
Later in her stay she unravels that aside from having serious troubles expressing emotion, these men are--for lack of a better term--sexually frustrated. The monks didn't openly speak of sexuality and suppressed any unchaste desires. She also notices that the monks weren't willing to give or receive physical contact and bonding and fearful of being perceived as homosexual ("I found a community steeped in commonplace masculine angst" pg. 181).
For the most part, the idea that human beings inherently act according to their biological and genetic makeup regardless of setting is true for most all genders. However, women tend to be more emotional and show feelings better, so they would probably be more adaptive to their surroundings in that sense and less likely to suffer in a silence of hurt and dysfunction like the monks.
4.) Why does society perpetuate the idea that "real men don't cry"?
In our society "being a man" and showing emotions are two mutually exclusive notions. Sure, men can tear up, but if he burst into tears after a rough day at work, he would most likely be perceived as weak, strange, or homosexual. There is significant evidence that men have more difficulty expressing emotion than women, and much of this is due to biological differences. However, statistics show that men are less encouraged to express feelings and are exposed to far less emotional encounters starting at a young age compared to women. Ultimately this idea traces back to the unavoidable gender roles perpetuated by society (that men are expected to be strong, tough, protective, hyper-masculine-even stoic). Part of the reasoning behind this is because we live in a society which very much likes things neat and organized. Unfortunately, many people believe that when genders start switching roles or blurring lines, it's too confusing and consequently fears the traditional rules of society to crumble.
This is an important question to ask because Vincent not only conveys her message and discoveries by what she says, but also by what she leaves out. She seems to deemphasize the obvious religious aspects of the visit. She doesn't question the monks on their faith or vows, but instead expresses strong curiosity about their personal and sex lives. Critics question her motives because she seems to delve off into her own interests and agenda. Instead of inquiring how faith influences their decisions, she asks how faith influence their decisions about sexuality. So why is sexuality primary on her radar? It's safe to guess that she was driven by a quest to reveal the hidden truths behind religious communities, a drive to push the journalism boundaries and dig deeply into the psyches of the monks. Sexuality was probably her main concern because the book is centralized around ideas of gender and sexual identity.
2.)Why do you think Vincent chose to visit monks, in particular?
Vincent chose these men because despite leading monastic and chaste lifestyles, they were "pretty typical guys" (p.132). She states that the monastery was the least intimidating venue in which she could "observe men living together in close quarters without women" (p. 132). For more practical reasons, the monastery was safer than a jail, easier than the military and was exempt from physical examinations and background checks. She made a conscious effort to visit the extreme opposite of the spectrum from the sex clubs, visiting someplace where sexual desires are suppressed and ignored.
3.) After leaving the abbey Vincent states, "you can take the man out of his element, but you cannot very often take the element out of the man"(page 181). What does she mean by this? Can this idea also be applied to women?
Vincent enters the monastery and views the monk's world as an outsider. She probably arrived thinking that the men were strangely devout--maybe even robotic. "I expected to find a breed concerned primarily with spiritual matters, a place where on'es style or quantity of manhood was irrelevant...where locker room fears of homosexuality would be so far beneath the radar as to be inconceivable" (pg. 181). But when he arrived, she finds the men to be surprisingly normal. Page 132 states, "They may have been monks living under vows of chastity, but they were pretty typical guys."
Later in her stay she unravels that aside from having serious troubles expressing emotion, these men are--for lack of a better term--sexually frustrated. The monks didn't openly speak of sexuality and suppressed any unchaste desires. She also notices that the monks weren't willing to give or receive physical contact and bonding and fearful of being perceived as homosexual ("I found a community steeped in commonplace masculine angst" pg. 181).
For the most part, the idea that human beings inherently act according to their biological and genetic makeup regardless of setting is true for most all genders. However, women tend to be more emotional and show feelings better, so they would probably be more adaptive to their surroundings in that sense and less likely to suffer in a silence of hurt and dysfunction like the monks.
4.) Why does society perpetuate the idea that "real men don't cry"?
In our society "being a man" and showing emotions are two mutually exclusive notions. Sure, men can tear up, but if he burst into tears after a rough day at work, he would most likely be perceived as weak, strange, or homosexual. There is significant evidence that men have more difficulty expressing emotion than women, and much of this is due to biological differences. However, statistics show that men are less encouraged to express feelings and are exposed to far less emotional encounters starting at a young age compared to women. Ultimately this idea traces back to the unavoidable gender roles perpetuated by society (that men are expected to be strong, tough, protective, hyper-masculine-even stoic). Part of the reasoning behind this is because we live in a society which very much likes things neat and organized. Unfortunately, many people believe that when genders start switching roles or blurring lines, it's too confusing and consequently fears the traditional rules of society to crumble.
No comments:
Post a Comment